I was tempted to post on this yesterday, but I decided against contaminating our coverage of such a sacred day. The New York Times' Paul Krugman, whose descent from respected Nobel Prize winning economist to reactionary left-wing hack has long since been completed, authors a blog called "The Conscience of a Liberal." What did his liberal conscience move him to publish at 8:41 am Sunday morning -- five minutes before the chilling, ten-year echo of first impact? A rant entitled, "The Years of Shame:"
What happened after 9/11 — and I think even people on the right know this, whether they admit it or not — was deeply shameful. Te [sic] atrocity should have been a unifying event, but instead it became a wedge issue. Fake heroes like Bernie Kerik, Rudy Giuliani, and, yes, George W. Bush raced to cash in on the horror. And then the attack was used to justify an unrelated war the neocons wanted to fight, for all the wrong reasons.
A lot of other people behaved badly. How many of our professional pundits — people who should have understood very well what was happening — took the easy way out, turning a blind eye to the corruption and lending their support to the hijacking of the atrocity? The memory of 9/11 has been irrevocably poisoned; it has become an occasion for shame. And in its heart, the nation knows it.
No, Paul, the nation does not "know" any such thing. You may think we do, but, as ever, your mypoic wisdom cannot will an alternate reality into existence. Do us all a favor and refrain from imputing your unquenchable political hatred -- which is what this is -- onto a nation that, at least for the moment, isn't interested in your malignant divisiveness. Most Americans who aren't incurably bitter New York Times columnists spent yesterday's solemn anniversary reflecting on the horrifying attacks our country sustained, mourning the loss of nearly 3,000 of our fellow countrymen, saluting those who risk everything to protect us, redoubling our national resolve in the face of continued threats, and marveling at the goodness of America.
Krugman's perverted "conscience" inspired him to launch jermiads against political leaders he's always detested and to pronounce a hallowed day of rememberance forever "poisoned" and "an occasion for shame." That's simulatenously maddening and saddening. Since Krugman insists on presuming to speak for what secretly resides in all of our hearts, I'll submit that in reality, he knows deep down how viscerally ordinary Americans would react to his asenine post. Thus, he concluded his commentary with this post-script:
I’m not going to allow comments on this post, for obvious reasons.
Enlighten us, Paul: What would those "obvious reasons" be? That even many New York Times readers would be aghast by your pernicious politicization, and would say so, perhaps? Well, I suppose Krugman would have at least have one unflagging supporter.