Paul Krugman pusses out on 9/11 post, bans comments

by

1 comment

Paul Krugman is no Natalie Maines.

As you may remember, the Dixie Chicks singer voiced her displeasure with George W. Bush and was roundly criticized because of it.

But even though the country music world seemingly united against her and her band — the Chicks were banned from radio and Natalie and the girls suffered the slings and arrows of an angry partisan populace — Maines and her cohorts still got up on stage, night after night, after the offending comments were made.

Paul Krugman has done the opposite. He's done gone and hid under the bed.

In what has become a controversial New York Times blog post, condemning the hijacking of 9/11 by the neocons, George Bush, Rudy Giuliani, and the rest of the GOP, Krugman has decided that he won't "allow comments on [his] post, for obvious reasons."

And what obvious reasons are that?

That he said something that no one else had dared to say before? (Much of this has been said time and time again.)

That after the disaster that was the Iraq invasion and the ongoing slog that is the current Afghanistan occupation, it is still too, um, dangerous to note that the intentions of our leaders were less than sincere? (Once again, there's nothing new here)

That he feared an angry backlash from the comment board masses from the Free Republic? (I think we're getting closer.)

Or is it simply that Paul Krugman is a pussy? (Congratulations, Mr. Haire, you've just won a new car.)

Here's his post in its entirety. Read it and judge for yourself.

Is it just me, or are the 9/11 commemorations oddly subdued?

Actually, I don’t think it’s me, and it’s not really that odd.

What happened after 9/11 — and I think even people on the right know this, whether they admit it or not — was deeply shameful. The 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.

I’m not going to allow comments on this post, for obvious reasons.

Personally, I agree with Krugman that the neocons used 9/11 to advance their cause and that political reporters and pundits ignored the so-called hijacking of the most tragic day in modern American history for political gain, but I take issue with the claim that 9/11 has been forever tainted by the actions of Machiavellian men with dreams of global supremacy.

And it is by no means an occasion for shame. It is a moment for reflection and honoring those who lost their lives on Sept. 11, 2001. The actions of a few assholes can never change that.

Comment all you want.

Comments

Showing 1-1 of 1

 

Add a comment