What Leftists Will Never Understand


Pages: 1 2

Americans across the country solemnly and fittingly commemorated the worst attack on our country in any of our lifetimes.  We held moments of silence; we once again stared in horror at the pictures of the Twin Towers coming down; we remembered the sacrifices of those we lost on that terrible day, and the sacrifices of those who have laid down their lives to prevent another day like that from occurring again.

And yet there is a strange disconnect between how we felt on 9-11 and how we feel today.  On 9-11, as we watched our fellow Americans leaping from hundreds of stories to their deaths, as we watched symbols of our might in flaming ruins, we felt conflicting emotions: frustration, unbearable grief.  We also felt connected with one another on a visceral level. The overwhelming feeling of unity we felt came from a deep and abiding conviction that our republic was worth defending.

I’m not sure some liberals ever understood that.  That is why Paul Krugman, fort instance, devoted his 10th anniversary column to demeaning the leadership of President George W. Bush and New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani in the aftermath of the attacks:

“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.”

This is absurd.  But it is not an uncommon view from the left.   In the aftermath of an attack on America, the liberals’ ideal of unity emphasized self doubt over strength and vengeance. Paul Krugman, in Michael Moore fashion, thinks that the aftermath of 9-11 was “shameful” because Americans took out the bad guys but left the real bad guys – our president and vice president – in power.  What is truly shameful about his piece is that Krugman is serious.

Pages: 1 2

  • Steve Adams

    And the extreme right will always have trouble admitting that there exists a world outside their little box and they need to pay more attention to it -before- the towers start falling.

    • Asher

      The Republican Debate proved that the Brains, Ideas, and Honor is on the Right. The Leftists and Marxists have created stagnation, and destruction among a people that will rise from the ashes, as we did on 911. The Left has proved they are not capable of improving economies, or helping businesses to thrive and create more jobs.

    • StephenD

      Define "Extreme Right"
      By this do you mean a people that LOVES Personal Freedom and Individual Responsibility? Do you mean folks that open their society to EVERYONE from Hindu to Jew, from Buddhist and Christian to Muslim? Do you mean men and women that are recorded to be the MOST GENEROUS and charitable people, bar none?
      These are the people you think should be made to "pay more attention?" I'll tell you what, shoulder to shoulder I'd march against hell with folks like this. You want to label them in a derogatory manner with nothing to back up your words. The barbarians that support such atrocities as 9/11 or the FOGEL FAMILY MASSACRE are the ones that need to pay more attention. My hope is the balance of civilized society sees the truth in all of this.

    • Nina

      What a poisonous snake you are.

  • Mike

    George "W" Bush and Dick "Deficits Don't Matter" Cheney took our country which was totally united after the terrorist attack of 9/11/2001 and turned the United States into the most discordant nation I have see in my lifetime and I'm in my sixties. They did this with the Iraq War and the way in which they made their case for the Iraq War.

    • Tom

      <big><blue> Obviously, you have forgotten Lydon "Cowboy" Johnson and his rabid tactics in getting the Vietnam War started. Talk about a discordant nation!!! The only discord in this nation now is the destruction of the country (our own as well as others) by the Osama Regime and its cronies.

    • Asher

      Bush and Cheney refused to allow Maniacs to get by with their cowardly Acts. They were leaders with courage, and 80% of the Country thinks so.

    • Mike Elmore

      I have to agree with Mike. We can argue all day long about Bush doubling the national debt, destroying the housing market, going to war in Iraq. The biggest thing he did and still is being done in the Republican party in their complete lack of understanding the religion of peace. Islam is the existential threat that we should be worried about, until you get politicians to understand this, all is hopeless. Right now were are just playing into the hands of the left and the Islamist..elmore

    • Rifleman

      I guess someone forgot to tell the ward churchills that we were "totally united."

      • trickyblain

        To be generous, there was, maybe, .00009 percent of the population that shared Churchill's view.

        On the other hand, I saw your replies from the other day. Can't say I disagree with a word about regulatory idiocy. But I do think there needs to be measures takne to encourage job growth here — and wages are an important factor.

  • http://www.resonoelusono.com/NaturalBornCitizen.htm Alexander Gofen

    It is terribly depressing to realize how "diverse" are opinions in citizens of one and the same nation in respect to the attack worse than the Pearl Harbor in 1941. I disagree with both P. Krugman and B. Shapiro as to what ought to be done after the 9/11.

    The first thing to do ought to be nuking Mecca and Medina on 9/12/2001. And that alone could end the war no less reasonably than nuking Japan in 1945. That alone could give peace a chance for the next hundred years. That alone could prevent what happened next in London, Madrid, Moscow, Beslan, and Bali.

    Unlike Roosevelt, "el presidente" Bush had not even named the enemy. In his views it was just a few militant Kamikazes who attacked us, not the Imperial Japan. "Japan" worships the "religion of peace" you know. Militant Kamikazes hijacked the religion of peace. "Militants are the problem, moderates are the solution"…

  • crackerjack

    There can be no greater assault on the freedom and liberty of young countrymen and women than the President ordering them of to kill and die in a war based on lies.

    • tyke

      It was based on lies because they were too pussy to say openly that Islam is at war with the west and that 9/11 was a declaration of that war. This was done as not to upset 'social cohesion' and is still done to this day. The fact is, Islam wants to destroy the democratic west, and currently that is happening from within through demographic conquest and cultural relativism. Can you imagine Russia or China putting up with it? Russia completely flattened Grozny after the Chechens attacked them, and yet they are friends with Iran, strange, no? China doesn't even allow muslims to practice their religion there. All the hate is directed toward the west as they sense a weakness which they can exploit.

      • ziontruth

        Very well said.

      • trickyblain

        So we invade and dispose of a secular — albeit despotic — regime and lock in a gov't that adheres to Islamic law?

    • Rifleman

      Then I guess it's a good thing that didn't happen.

    • tanstaafl

      Is President Obama thinking of going to war with "flyover" country?

  • Asher

    Let us not forget what brave Americans did on 911. They went above and beyond the Call of duty, and gave lives to save lives, especially those on United Flight 93. There is no honor in Terrorism or Jihad against innocent people…Another reminder that Islam is not a religion of peace, fairness, or compassion….They are brutal Dictators who will stop at nothing to Dominate, Divide, and Destroy free societies who live in Hope, Peace, Prosperity, and Innovation…What has Islam ever contributed to society? They persecute, attack, and try to Destroy Israel who has been so productive on medicines, technologies, and of course they produced the Messiah and the Apostles for which we all owe a debt of gratitude. We Salute All Honorable People!

  • voted against carter

    ' TAQIYYA '
    Do your own research about it if you don't know what this means.

    islam IS EVIL. PERIOD.

    islam strives for world domination.

    The quran commands muslims to exercise jihad.

    The quern commands muslims to establish shariah law.

    The quern commands muslims to impose islam on the entire world.

    islam is NOT a religion, it IS a totalitarian ideology.

    islam IS and has remained a death cult from its beginnings.

    islam wants to dominate all aspects of life, from the cradle to the grave.

    shariah law is a law that controls every detail of life in a islamic society.

    From civic- and family law to criminal law.

    It determines how one should eat, dress and even use the toilet.

    Oppression of women is good, drinking alcohol is bad.

    The core of the quran is the call to jihad.

    Jihad means a lot of things and is arabic for battle.

    islam means submission, there cannot be any mistake about its goal.

    islam and freedom, islam and democracy are not compatible.

    They are opposite values.

    mohamed's "wife" was six years old.

    That makes mohamed a PEDOPHILE!!!

    And you want to base a "Religion" on this a z z -holes rantings?

    Are you INSANE?

    I STAND with Israel

    • bbclayton

      I totally agree with you…. Too bad there are a lot of people who are so politically correct, they can't see the truth. Education does not mean a person has wisdom. And there are so many so called "educated" liberals out there. I STAND WITH ISRAEL ALSO….. MAY G-D BLESS THEM….

  • tagalog

    For a very short time after the September 11, 2001, attacks, there was a sense of unity. However, that soon dissipated into the usual carping diversity as soon as the Bush Administration came up with a plan to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan. The war would inevitably result in failure because both the British Empire and the Soviet Union had come to grief there. Then the proposed was to be fought during Ramadan, and that was not sufficiently respectful of Islam. Then the harsh Afghan winter would make it impossible for our forces to win. No doubt I've forgotten many of the other reasons that caused divisions between Americans during that era. But in the end, it was the usual vituperation and attacks on Americans who wanted to bring the fight to our enemies by the Left that reopened the wound America has been suffering from since Vietnam days.

    • tagalog

      Oh yeah, then, when we invaded Iraq, there was the sandstorm that halted our armored forces for a day; that was proof of the stupidity of our military and civilian leaders. Then when our armor fought at -what was the name of that town where the Taliban ambushed our troops, Nasrallah, Nasiriyah, something like that, on the road to Baghdad? – that was an atrocity. Then the Left got all nervous and jerky when we got to Baghdad, and got all worried about the Museum and it getting robbed by Iraqis – another atrocity. Well, at least we can be thankful that the Left isn't nervous any more.

      • john

        Just one question…have you forgotten to take your medication today?

        • tagalog

          What medication are you talking about?

          Presumably I've written something that you find so out-of-it that you question (at least rhetorically) my sanity. Could you please explain what that might be?

      • trickyblain

        "Oh yeah, then, when we invaded Iraq"

        Ding…Ding…Ding…Ding…Ding…!!!!

        And the unitiy and international goodwill went "poof."

      • Jim_C

        Iraq. Yes, you got it, now. In the United States, as the enormity of the attacks sunk in, we all wanted to strike back at whomever was responsible. However, none of us thought "Let's invade Iraq." None of us, that is, except Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld. In the days immediately following, during which they proposed this to President Bush. Think on that.

        And while you do, think on Dick Cheney's closed-door meetings in March 2001 before 9/11, dividing up Iraq oil fields. All of this is public record.

        And then, think of your fellows calling the people against the Iraq War "traitors." Not the handful of lefty dopes against Afghanistan. Most of us are all for that.

        Think of those things.

        Rumsfeld–arguably the most colossal screw-up at his position in US history. Cheney–a man for whom the word "plunder" was invented.

        I give President Bush enormous credit for realizing this in his second term. In fact I'm convinced that with hindsight, Mr. Bush would never have gone into Iraq and fired these disgraces to our nation a lot sooner. He says otherwise because he has to.

        • tagalog

          Well, considering that at the time the U.N. believed that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction (namely, poison gas and was believed to be working on a nuclear bomb), that he was firing on U.N. aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones that the U.N. had imposed, that he was oppressing both the Marsh Arabs in the south and the Kurds in the north, and was making noises and occasionally providing material support to terrorists who had plans to attack the U.S.A., it's not too terribly surprising that the U.S. would put together a coalition (that still exists 8 years later) to invade Iraq, and that whatever international support we might have lost wasn't that solid to begin with. Domestic unity had been lost long before. It should also not be forgotten that al-Qaeda chose Iraq to fight the coalition, giving some credibility to the ongoing fighting there. So I'm not really too sure how you get your sense of certitude, unless you're mistaking hindsight for perception.

          When you talk about "plunder" and Dick Cheney, you've lost me. I'm not aware of his receiving the benefit of any plunder. Rumsfeld had good ideas about economy of force, only he had them in the wrong war.

          So when I think of those things, I don't come up with the same conclusion you do, and I think it's a historical set of events about which reasonable people can disagree.

          • Jim_C

            Admittedly some hindsight is a component, but then history is there to be judged even in hindsight. When you look at what was "believed" you find a lot of ginned-up intel meant to aggrandize; everyone wanted to appear "tough." And certainly it was a bipartisan boondoggle; I'm not arguing that.

            At the end of the day, we all know invading Iraq was our reaction to 9/11–not some separate, pressing need we had. The fact that it was devised by Cheney and Rumsfeld, fluffed by their minions, accepted by democrats trying to look tough and swallowed by a dimwit media (which hasn't regained credibility since then).

            I think Cheney's dividing up of Iraq oil fields smacks of plunder; and subesequent awarding of no-bid contracts to his former company, while not unusual for a Washington pol, leave a similar bad taste.

            Yes, the irony of Rumsfeld is that he would have been an excellent peacetime Sec. of Defense, I completely agree. By my God did that man make an arrogant botch of his job–except the press conferences–he was great in those.

          • Jim_C

            By the way (in case you're still reading) I have a dumb little theory: even if Gore had won that election, there would have been a similar overreaction to 9/11 involving a scheme to depose Saddam and install a democracy in his place.

            Clinton was making much anti-Saddam noise (he dearly would have loved in his perverse way to have been a wartime president–good for the legacy, dontcha know). The fact that his British counterpart, Tony Blair, went all-in, as well, corroborates this theory. But I believe Gore's constituency would have turned on him sooner, and scuttled his actual resolve.

        • polipath

          What I'm thinking about is what did Sandy Berger steal from the National Archives and immediately destroy during the 9/11 Hearings. Speaking of hearing I havn't heard a thing since. Ya think it wasa brazen Dem coverup with full Media complicity. Jim? Buehler? Anyone?

          • Jim_C

            I think we can assume it was evidence that the Clinton admin. botched something regarding detection of terrorism.

          • polipath

            Of course it was. The question is, why wasn't there an in-depth investigation into the matter? Why wasn't he brought to trial and asked under oath what he stole and destroyed ? The whole affair was dropped like a hot rock. Berger got what amounted to punishment for jaywalking. The GOP let him walk and now just suck their thumbs as the D's and the Mass Media Ministryof Democrat Propaganda blame Bush for 9/11.

    • tagalog

      Also, there was the rather nasty finger-pointing at President Bush for being a coward in several ways in his conduct after learning of the attacks: continuing to read to the children at that school, staying aloft in Air Force One instead of landing somewhere and doing something (never defined), etc., etc., all directed by the pacifists at the President in order to characterize him as some sort of coward concerned with saving his own skin. Too bad some of those pacifists weren't on the front lawn of the Pentagon as Defense Secretary Rumsfeld employed himself helping wounded people to safety. I'm sure the injured would have welcomed help from the pacifists on 9/11. No doubt there were some pacifists on United Flight 93 who resisted the terrorists.

      • trickyblain

        I thought him a coward only when he told our enemies to "bring it on" when asked about attacks on our troops. As if he was risking himself in any way.

        • tagalog

          So what is your take on the Churchillian speech when he said that if the Germans invaded Britain, "we will fight them on the beaches, we will fight them in the fields…" etc.? Cowardly because it certainly wasn't going to be Churchill manning the machine-gun nests?

          How about when LBJ said he would keep troops in Vietnam because "Ah'm not goan ta be the fust President ta lose a war"?

          How about when Gen. McAuliffe told the German emissary seeking the surrender of Bastogne the famous "Nuts!" when it was obvious that McAuliffe was going to be in a warm post and not firing his M-1 at the Tiger tanks coming from all sides in the snow and frost?

          • trickyblain

            Fair points — definately not a fan of LBJ's self-serving statement, but the others served the purpose of rallying the troops.

            By contrast, Bush was being defensive.

      • Jim_C

        …And that would have been the only competent and moral thing Rumsfeld accomplished during his tenure.

        • tagalog

          Rumsfeld may not have been a good Secretary of Defense, but I don't know of any evidence that calls his morality into question in any way.

  • BS77

    I was in New York on Sept 11, 2011….it was an honor to be there. Thousands died, but thousands , perhaps as many as 20 000 were SAVED by the heroes of FDNY, who got the people out before the towers collapsed. It is awesome to see the Phoenix of new buildings rising from the ashes of destruction. God Bless America. Paul Krugman is a mean little man, lost in his leftist garbage pile.

  • http://www.contextflexed.com Flipside

    It is fascinating, yet repellent to see these Jewish depictions of Obama as Der Ewige Jude. Racist cartoons by Jews are underrated as propaganda.

    • Ghostwriter

      It's interesting that you mention "The Eternal Jew." That was an anti-semitic film that was done during the Third Reich. Probably one of your favorite movies,Flipside.

      • http://www.contextflexed.com Flipside

        Of course I mentioned it. The cartoon up there looks like it. Just like the Twin Towers spotlights look like a work by Albert Speer. Hey, it's fine by me if Zionists want to recycle Nazism. But there's no gag order against labeling it.

        • CateLaurel

          Boy, are you miserable; good luck with that.

          • http://www.contextflexed.com Flipside

            I disagree. I think I am an eternal optimist. What other reason could I be here other than to cheer people up?

          • Ghostwriter

            Other than spreading Jew hatred,Flipside?

          • http://www.contextflexed.com Flipside

            Is there anywhere left in the world to spread Jew hatred to? Haven't Jews lived everywhere? Your accusation is obtuse. How can I "spread Jew hatred" to a place where Jews deliberately congregate to act overtly odiously? How narcissistic is it to expect that Jews be universally adored anyway? I don't have that expectation about myself or my race or my ethnicity. I am not shocked when people express hatred about a group I allegedly belong to. Why are you? Why is it normative that nobody dislike anything about Jews or Judaism. Is it impossible for Jews or Judaism to suck?

          • Nina

            Who is this creature ?

  • tagalog

    What's racist about the cartoon? Would you explain that, please?

    • http://www.contextflexed.com Flipside

      You really expect an exegesis on that piece of crap? OK, well you have therein Obama with exaggerated Devil ears, wagging his clerical intellectual finger while Rome burns, with his lips and teeth sticking out, with the allegation that he is both in Islamic Jihad and a Holocaust denier, calling him B.O. and claiming he has his hand behind his back. You probably want to play it off and not stand by the statements made there. It is however, Zionist racist propaganda on par with demonic cartoons of Jews made by the Nazis. It is every bit as racist and unacceptable.

      • ziontruth

        "…Obama with exaggerated Devil ears…"

        Caricatures and cartoons always exaggerate the features of their objects. Did you likewise protest at all those cartoons that made Bush look like a chimp?

        "…with the allegation that he is both in Islamic Jihad…"

        Nonsense. Bush was just as bad when he said, "Islam is a religion of piece." Anyone who tries to brush Islam's role under the carpet is guilty of this, be he the most flaming patriot or the lowliest traitor.

        "…Zionist racist propaganda…"

        The R-word, how original. Nothing like the Race Card to distract from debating the real issues. Just like those "Tea Partiers are racist!" screeds that absolve the writer from discussing the very real economic policy defects the Tea Party was set up to remedy.

        • ziontruth

          Oops! "Piece" should be "peace." Freudian field day.

          • http://www.contextflexed.com Flipside

            I’m not talking about Bush. I am talking about Benjamin Shapiro’s little racist cartoon.

          • ziontruth

            Evasion = concession of defeat.

          • http://www.contextflexed.com Flipside

            We don't get to talk about George Bush just because we were talking about Obama. If we are talking about apple pie, you don't get to talk about orange pie, or apple crisp. The subject of this discussion is Benjamin Shapiro's racist cartoon header. If you can't address it then fine.

          • ziontruth

            "We don't get to talk about George Bush just because we were talking about Obama."

            We do get to talk about George Bush to see if your standard for "racism" is the same when it's not Obama. If this cartoon of Obama is "racist," then so were all those cartoons that exaggerated Bush's facial features so much as to make him look like a chimp. If those cartoons of Bush were the inevitable product of cartooning (as I said: Caricatures and cartoons always exaggerate the features of their objects), then this cartoon of Obama cannot be tied to racism in any way, and your use of the R-word is a cowardly leftist attempt to shut down an argument through what is really nothing but an ad hominem accusation.

            Either you adopt a single standard or I keep calling you on your illegitimate use of the R-word. Got that?

      • tagalog

        How are any of the things you cite racist?

        • http://www.contextflexed.com Flipside

          He is depicted as a nerdy Negro devil-Muslim terrorist.

          • tagalog

            You mean portraying a "Negro" (or African-American if you will) as a "Negro" is racist?

            Or do you mean portraying him as a "devil-Muslim" is racist?

            Or is it portraying him as a terrorist that's racist?

            Or could the "nerdy" thing be racist?

            I don't doubt President Obama's being ridiculed, but I don't think he's being ridiculed on a racist basis.

  • CateLaurel

    "It was also about Americans recognizing for the first time in a generation that the American way of life is not everyone’s way of life and that there are people out there who seek to destroy our freedom and liberty each and every day." This line reminded me of the idiom "Misery loves company". The people who seek to destroy western culture and way of life are miserable. They CAN'T STAND seeing anyone enjoying themselves or being happy. As ayatollah khomeini said: “There is no fun in Islam. There can be no fun and joy in whatever is serious.” They want to bring us down to their level; to make us miserable. We must NEVER let that happen!

  • Lightning Jack

    As current would events and history undeniably to prove, no one can live in peaceful coexistence with Islam. For that matter, Islam cannot peacefully coexist within itself much less interface with Western Civilization, or non-Islamic cultures, which it considers inferior.

    No matter what America does, or Western Civilization for that matter, it will never win the hearts and minds of Muslims. They, as a demographic group do not assimilate and demand exclusive treatment from their host nations in regards to the practice of their theocratic beliefs and culture.

    The Archbishop emeritus of Smirne, Giuseppe Germano Bernardini recounts a conversation he had with a Muslim leader: "Thanks to your democratic laws, we will invade you. Thanks to our religious laws, we will dominate you." If you wish to see the evidence of this statement, consider the problems Europe is now experiencing with its Muslim immigrant populations.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    What I find shameful about the aftermath of 9/11 is that the GWB administration, which was supposed to be a conservative administration, by the way, exploited the 9/11 jihad attacks under the guise of protecting the American people to double the size, scope, and power of the federal government like Dhimmicrats on steroids and to usurp our heretofore constitutionally protected rights and freedoms, despite the fact that growing the size, scope, and power of the government is never the solution for anything much less protecting the American people.

    Imagine if you will had the GWB administration not been so incredibly blinded by political correctness and had outlawed Islam and banned and reversed Muslim immigration instead. Not only would we not have wasted trillions of dollars for nothing, but our federal deficits and national debt would be mere fractions of what they are today, and the American people as a direct result would be far safer from jihad attacks, since zero Muslim stealth jihadists living in America as a fifth column would mean zero jihad attacks. It's kind of hard to have jihad attacks with no jihadists.

    I also find it shameful that GWB declared War on Terrorism, when terrorism is a manifestation of Western civilization only, while jihad, on the other hand, which is holy fighting in the cause of Allah, is a manifestation of Islamic civilization only. Thus, we are losing the so-called War on Terrorism because we simply don't understand the true nature of the enemy we are fighting, since everything our federal government has done and still does today is based off of the absurd political correct myth that Islam is a so-called Religion of Peace™ being hijacked by a tiny minority of extremists.

    Indeed, both nation-building missions in Afghanistan and Iraq have not only been incredibly fantasy-based, but they also couldn't have been any more counterproductive and misguided. In fact, all we have to show for our efforts is trillions of dollars in national debt, thousands of American troops needlessly killed and maimed, and the creation of two Sharia states that will inevitably rejoin the global jihad and become our eternal enemies.

    All this and the GWB administration was supposed to be Republican and conservative. If this is what the Republican Party has morphed into today, then I don't want to have anything to do with it.

  • Jim

    The best revenge: Become a Muslim . Cut the heads off of Krugeman and company 's heads for being athiests or what ever. Then claim it's all their fault because of what ever.