Krugman’s Shame

Pages: 1 2

On Sunday, most Americans took the time to reflect on the tenth anniversary of the terrorist attacks that shook the nation to the core. Most Americans honored the victims of that awful day, expressed their gratitude to the young men and women on the front lines of the fight and prayed for peace. Most Americans did those things — but not all, because the tenth anniversary of 9/11 has a much different meaning for those on the Left.

Economist Paul Krugman, whose New York Times blog proclaims that he in some way exemplifies “The Conscience of a Liberal,” used the anniversary to express all of the sneering contempt that the Left has for the war against terrorism. The post title, “The Years of Shame,” provides the premise for Krugman’s disdainful chastisement, but would better encapsulate the deranged left-wing theatre of the absurd played out during the post-9/11 decade. The conspiracy theories, the cries of “no blood for oil,” anti-Bush hate parades and admiration for “freedom fighters” (terrorists), all aspects of the legacy of 9/11 that the Left absolves itself from and is gradually erasing from the historical record.

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. The memory of 9/11 has been irrevocably poisoned; it has become an occasion for shame.

Could we have at least added Michael Moore to the list? Ironically, the atrocity was a unifying event, albeit ever so briefly. For a few weeks after 9/11, Americans were about as unified as they have been at any time since Pearl Harbor. People of all sorts gathered together under the silent skies that followed that terrible day, reflecting on the nature of good and evil and pledging that this horrific crime would not go unpunished. For a moment, political divisions were unimportant, as American pride and determination flared brightly in the nation’s soul.

It wasn’t destined to last. The tragedy of 9/11 did indeed become a wedge issue, but to blame that on the Right, or on heroes like Giuliani and Bush — and exclusively, for that matter — is an absurdly ignorant portrayal of events. The war against terrorists and their supporters had barely begun before the Left’s poisonous propaganda machine kicked into gear.

That the Left was ever interested in unity after 9/11 is likewise ludicrous — and to hear complaints from a man who refers to Republicans as “vile” and burned effigies of the Bush administration at his 2008 election night party, is nothing short of surreal. (Indeed, the very petty partisan discord sown by Krugman on such an emotionally painful occasion should disabuse us of the notion that he has any use for “unity.”) Depending on the day during the previous administration, Bush was either a dupe being manipulated by (fill in the villain of the day) or an evil mastermind. We need no further proof that the Left’s outrage was manufactured than the deafening silence that fell over much of that side of the political spectrum after Barack Obama took office. Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan continue. Gitmo is still open. And it even turns out that civilian trials for terrorists really are a bad idea. There is no shame in the way that America has taken the war to the enemy, but there is plenty of shame in the way those efforts were so vigorously undermined.

Pages: 1 2

  • 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 today 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.

    • BAAK

      "…..terrorism is a manifestation of Western civilization only." What are you talking about?

      • ObamaYoMoma

        "…..terrorism is a manifestation of Western civilization only." What are you talking about?

        I'm talking about real reality as opposed to political correct reality. Terrorism and jihad, which is holy fighting in the cause of Allah, are mutually exclusive and two entirely different things altogether. Meanwhile, our federal government under the GWB administration not only miserably failed to understand this very important distinction, but it also stupidly declared War on Terrorism. Indeed, today10 years after the 9/11 jihad attacks our federal government is still conflating jihad with terrorism. In fact, the current Obama administration is so blinded by political correctness that its official position is that jihad is an internal holy struggle.

        In any event, if we hope to defeat our enemies and to protect and preserve our freedom at the same time, then it is imperative that we correctly understand everything we can about our enemy. Thus, how is conflating jihad with terrorism understanding everything we can about our enemy? It's not. Instead, it's playing right into our enemy's hands.

        Indeed, terrorism, in stark contrast to jihad, is always perpetrated by political extremists only and always involves violence against civilian non-combatants for any number of political causes.

        Whereas jihad, on the other hand, is holy fighting in the cause of Allah and is never not in the cause of Allah, again in stark contrast with terrorism, which can be for any number of political causes.

        In stark contrast to terrorism, which is always perpetrated only by political extremists, Jihad, on the other hand, is always fought only by MAINSTREAM ORTHODOX MUSLIMS as opposed to political extremists as in the case of terrorism. Indeed, ALL MAINSTREAM ORTHODOX MUSLIMS, per the sixth and most important pillar of Islam, are jihadists. A few of them are violent jihadists, while most of them are non-violent jihadists, and the few that aren't jihadists are not Muslims at all but blasphemous apostates that per the dictates of Islam must be executed .

        Hence, not only are violent jihadists like OBL and AQ our enemies, but since ALL MUSLIMS are jihadists ALL MUSLIMS are also our enemies as well. Indeed, what does this say about the political correct myth whereby Islam is a so-called Religion of Peace™ being hijacked by a tiny minority of extremists that under girds all US policy with respect to the ill defined War on Terrorism and also with respect to domestic policy? It says it is sheer lunacy.

        Jihad can be both violent and non-violent, again in stark contrast to terrorism, which is always only violent and which is why it is called terrorism;

        Finally, jihad is always fought against non-Muslim unbelievers, both civilian non-combatants and military combatants as in Afghanistan and Iraq, again in stark contrast to terrorism, which doesn't make any distinction whatsoever between Muslim and non-Muslim non-combatants.

        In fact, because terrorism can be for in any number of political causes, terrorism is usually very brief in duration as in the Anders Brievik terrorist attack in Norway or the McVeigh terrorist attack in Oklahoma City, while jihad, which is holy fighting in the cause of Allah against non-Muslim unbelievers, on the other hand, has been happening perpetually for almost the past 1400 years non-stop.

        Furthermore, because violent jihad is always conflated with terrorism, the non-violent varieties of jihad, which relative to the violent varieties of jihad takes place astronomically far more prevalently, unfortunately also takes place totally unacknowledged and completely unopposed today. As again in stark contrast to terrorism, jihad can also be non-violent as jihad and terrorism are mutually exclusive and two entirely different things altogether.

        For instance, mass Muslim immigration to the West and other non-Muslim countries for that matter is one of those varieties of non-violent jihad taking place today completely unacknowledged and unopposed. As Muslims never ever migrate to the West or anywhere else for that matter to assimilate and integrate, but instead to eventually subjugate and dominate in order to make Islam supreme via demographic conquest.

        Indeed, because Sharia forbids Muslims from living in the Dar al Harb (the realm of unbelief) unless it is for jihad in the cause of Allah, all Muslim immigrants therefore are in fact jihadists. Furthermore, the sixth and most important pillar of Islam also makes it an obligatory duty in Islam for EVERY MUSLIM to fight jihad in the cause of Allah. Sorry, no exceptions or exemptions for so-called “moderate Muslims.”

        Imagine had we understood jihad correctly in 2001, would we have reacted to the 9/11 jihad attacks by needlessly doubling the size, scope, and power of the federal government and federal spending like we did, or would we have instead outlawed Islam and banned and reversed mass Muslim immigration ASAP? Would we have pursued two silly and incredibly counterproductive fantasy based nation-building missions designed to democratize the Islamic world and to win the hearts and minds of Muslims that have inevitably turned into the two biggest strategic blunders in the history of the USA?

    • johnnywoods

      I hate to burst your bubble my friend but GW Bush was never a conservative and never really claimed to be. At best he was a right-leaning moderate.

      • ObamaYoMoma

        He ran as a compassionate conservative who claimed to be against nation-building missions under any and all circumstances. Nevertheless, hindsight is 20/20 and it couldn't be more obvious today that GWB was really a stealth leftist who didn't have a conservative bone in his exceedingly liberal body. Yet, today he is crucified by the left and the lamestream media as being the personification of right wing politics, which also simultaneously smears all right wingers who opposed his stupidity as being equally incompetent as he was as well. Hence, all right wingers to separate themselves from GWB should very publicly denounce GWB for the unhinged left winger he really was. In fact, the reason Obama is president today is exactly because of this false perception that the right wing in America is as equally unhinged and misguided as GWB was.

        • johnnywoods

          The "tip off" for me with "W" was when he claimed he was a "compassionate conservative". What the heck is a "compassionate conservative" anyway as conservatism is compassionate by nature. I never bought the b.s. that he was a true conservative.

  • davarino

    Not only does Krugman not know ecomomics, he doesnt understand this issue as well. He is a leftist where the mind has been duped to think that good is bad, and bad is good, cops bad, criminal good, cuba good, America bad, you get the picture. Anyway he is a troll and hardly worth recognizing if it werent for the media giving him a voice.

  • Cuban Refugee

    "The Years of Shame" could be referring to Paul Krugman's myopic, tainted writing as a shill for Marxist and internationalist regimes of which The New York Times is an arm. Long before Donald Rumsfeld cancelled his subscription to the Old Gray Lady, I scuttled mine as a repudiation of her bias. The level of indoctrination of the masses by this red rag has become insulting in its condescension, and the paper's declining readership tells a better story than Krugman ever could.

  • DogWithoutSlippers

    Krugman writings are insulting and he should be hit with "pi."

  • BS77

    Krugman is a mean little man lost in leftist propaganda and lies….He lives in a world of mental garbage.

  • mrbean

    He and his hard core liberal unemployables are striking out like wounded animals because their black icon in the white house along with half the democrats in Congress are on their way out in 2012. You think he is nasty? Wait until the liberal press jumps on Sarah Palin as though it is true about the Chimpout bouncy bally cakewalker Glen Rice who lied about shagging her.

  • Ghostwriter

    Me,I was at the library on Sunday,so I can't comment.