The NYT Strikes Another Blow For Collectivism

[daveman]

<snip>

i'm sorry, was there a pertinent, coherent thought in that (likely copied & pasted) drivel?

If you have to ask, you're never going to get it.

Of course, if he'd said, "America sucks! We deserved to be attacked!" you'd have understood that, wouldn't you?

 

[daveman]

("Pinch" and Bill, your unceasing efforts laid the groundwork for this, and your undying efforts assured there would be no vengeance for it, either. America cried out for vengeance the mornings after, you worked tirelessly to give us mumblypeg instead.)

don't you understand that our desire for vengeance and an inflated sense of nationalism lead to exactly the types of things we should be ashamed of?

9/11 was used to drag us into iraq. why? there was no connection there. we would have and did do just about anything under the banner of 9/11. that some of those things were good doesn't diminish the lapse in judgement and character displayed through the bad.

And of what response to 9/11 would you have approved?

 

[bitterlyclingin]

(Hotair has a good rebutal to Krugman)

"The reason I call Krugman despicable and partisan is because he has the audacity to call the nation's only leaders "fake heroes". How dare you, Krugman, you piece of you-know-what? Kerik, Giuliani, and especially Bush were real leaders on 9/11 and afterward. They acted like adults and made tough on-the-spot decisions. Krugman wouldn't know what a real hero is because his heroes include Barack Hussein Obama, himself a despicable, partisan, hypocritical, and morally bankrupt excuse for a human being. Krugman's hero is, as Rush Limbaugh calls him, a "man-child," an immature petulant little brat who even nearly three years into his presidency blames everyone else for his own failures.

Why hypocritical? Krugman accuses professional pundits "who should have understood what was happening" of taking the easy way out, turning a blind eye to the alleged corruption of the "neocons"? The only pundits I followed were those who understood that the world has good and evil and that it was not only morally correct but life-saving to take a side, who understood that for at least a decade prior to 9/11 a vicious sect of Muslim radicals who had been metastasizing into a worldwide cult of murderous terrorists. Manhattan and Washington D.C. were simply their latest target; they had already successfully bombed several U.S. embassies and military entities. And when that happened Bill Clinton -- another one of Krugman's "heroes" -- took the easy way out and turned a blind eye!

On the contrary, it was Krugman himself as well as his colleagues at the Bush Sucks Times and other liberal media outlets who used their word processors and microphones to commit what I would call treasonous acts against this nation. It is Krugman and company who gave aid and comfort to our nation's enemies with their Bush- and America-bashing rhetoric. It is Krugman and company who turned a non-story like Abu Ghraib not only into a weapon to bash Bush with, but as a motivation for radical Muslims around the world to hate America even more! It is Krugman and company that made up libelous accusations against our military, who made up stories about Qurans being flushed down toilets at Club G'tmo, who made it a point to lie about Bush's own military record when a certain Communism-loving traitor named John Kerry -- yet another one of Krugman's "heroes" -- ran against him in 2004. It is Krugman and company who have created the disgusting myth that America suffers from an epidemic of "Islamophobia," when the truth is that even after 9/11 Muslims have had it pretty damn good here. It is Krugman and company who have emboldened radical Muslims in this country by threatening Americans with litigation if they report the "wrong people" (read: non-white) doing something suspicious on a plane

Finally, the hypocrical and morally bankrupt Krugman writes that the memory of 9/11 has been "poisoned" and has become "an occasion for shame." I actually agree with that, but not for the same reasons. It is leftists like Krugman who have poisoned and shamed the memory of 9/11. They barely refuse to even mention that it was radical Muslims who committed 9/11, or the London train bombing, or Mumbai, or Bali, or Fort Hood, etc., etc. They don't even want you to know that since 9/11 Muslims have murdered over 17,000 human beings in the name of their religion. The words "Muslim" and "Islam" have been all but whitewashed from the mere 1o-year-old history of 9/11, when it should be the central focus. It is leftists like Krugman who have poisoned 9/11 by turning it into a day of self-reflection (What did we do to provoke them?), a day of community service, of celebrating diversity and discussing bullying and other forms of multiculti liberal crapola. Radical Muslims have had no problem calling us out as the enemy. It's in their books and TV shows (even for children), newspapers, mosques, and manifestos, and yet the only time head-up-their-ass loony leftists like Krugman do not bring up the M- or I-word is when it's an opportunity to write about how Americans are somehow terrorizing them. Sorry, Krugman, you little know-nothing twerp, it is people like you who have taken the easy way out and turned the other way to the reality called Islamic jihad. It is people like you who have poisoned the day and shamed the memory of those who lost their lives. And it is leftists (not Krugman himself but they know who they are) who poisoned 9/11 by calling it an "inside job" created by Bush and Cheney and their cabal of "neocons" and "oil buddies".

Do NOT think that just because 9/11 is already 10 years past that you can rewrite history so easy"

Vocal Minority: Profiles in Liberal Ignorance, Hate, and Intolerance: Paul Krugman

 

[bitterlyclingin]

Lastly, they "simply can't let sleeping dogs lie"

Peace, unfortunately, won't come before an Iwo Jima style housecleaning

American flag burned outside US embassy on 9/11 - YouTube

 

[Trajan]

at the bottom of his 'message' he adds;

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


yea you bet, what a DB.....he could have waited a day or 2 or posted this earlier in the week if he had too, but, hey, when you're an over the edge into the abyss liberal as he is, tact apparently is not a commodity in abundance.

if you're going to reflect on 9/11, you might as well reflect on the whole - even, perhaps especially, on the parts that require uncomfortable self-inspection

and those are?

 

[ogibillm]

at the bottom of his 'message' he adds;

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


yea you bet, what a DB.....he could have waited a day or 2 or posted this earlier in the week if he had too, but, hey, when you're an over the edge into the abyss liberal as he is, tact apparently is not a commodity in abundance.

if you're going to reflect on 9/11, you might as well reflect on the whole - even, perhaps especially, on the parts that require uncomfortable self-inspection

and those are?

we allowed the tragedy of the day to color our reason. things that normally would have gotten hard scrutiny, like the case for our invasion of iraq, were hardly investigated at all because of our desire not to feel impotent.

we allowed laws like the patriot act to be passed without proper debate - in part because nobody wanted to be seen as the congressman that didn't want to prevent another 9/11.

and we allowed a president to use the tragedy for his own political ends - to do things like the color coded terror alert level.

basically, we allowed ourselves to make poor and rash decisions because we were scared of a repeat - and we allowed ourselves to be manipulated by those in power who knew how to play on that fear. and we need to examine why we as a nation let that happen.

 

[Trajan]

if you're going to reflect on 9/11, you might as well reflect on the whole - even, perhaps especially, on the parts that require uncomfortable self-inspection

and those are?

we allowed the tragedy of the day to color our reason. things that normally would have gotten hard scrutiny, like the case for our invasion of iraq, were hardly investigated at all because of our desire not to feel impotent.

we allowed laws like the patriot act to be passed without proper debate - in part because nobody wanted to be seen as the congressman that didn't want to prevent another 9/11.

and we allowed a president to use the tragedy for his own political ends - to do things like the color coded terror alert level.

basically, we allowed ourselves to make poor and rash decisions because we were scared of a repeat - and we allowed ourselves to be manipulated by those in power who knew how to play on that fear. and we need to examine why we as a nation let that happen.

in principal I agree, however, you lost me here;

and we allowed a president to use the tragedy for his own political ends - to do things like the color coded terror alert level.

the alert has a sensible purpose I think. what other examples have you?

 

[uscitizen]

You do realize that is just a blog don't ya?

 

[ogibillm]

the alert has a sensible purpose I think. what other examples have you?

in theory. but in the 2004 election it appeared to me (and others) to be a propaganda piece for bush.

that aside he also loved loved loved to bring up 9/11 in speeches. to tie it to things that werent necessarily related. it helped him politically to do so, and we need to think about why that was

 

[bitterlyclingin]

(What not to say on 9/11: A compilation.)

"I sometimes get the impression that Paul Krugman expresses a partisan preference for the Democratic Party. The subtly and nuance flies right over my head some days; but I could just swear he’s not a fan of the whole Tea Party Movement or The GOP. Other days, I read Paul Krugabe and could just swear. His venomous, hatred-filled screed in honor of 9-11 was one of those instances.

9-11 hate-screeds are a guilty pleasure of the ideologically bizarre on both the far right and the moon-bat left. These nut-jobs hate to admit it, but they feel a certain schadenfreude over 9-11. The didactic, insane ideologue will occasionally let the mask slip and gloat a wee-bit over the US getting creamed by 19 Islamic terrorists.

In order to offer something Paul Krugman frequently neglects, I decided to put Krugman’s pathetic rant in perspective and rank it in comparison to other people’s ideological 9-11 hate screeds. Borrowing from David Letterman, I give you a Top Ten List of Things Not To Say in Honor of 9-11.

10) Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee demands the truth about Al-CIAda. Chafee, former Dallas Cowboys player Mark Stepnoski, and Rap-Artists Arrested Development all signed onto a petition in support of the NYC 9/11 Ballot Initiative demanding an independent investigation of the 9-11 attacks. They even went so far as to suggest that George W. Bush’s absence from DC that fateful morning made it a LIHOP.

9) Congressman Ron Paul offers us the following “insights” below.


“If you don’t do something, if you don’t give up your liberties and if you don’t invade this country, we’re all going to be blown up.” You know, so they have to terrorize us and build great fear that something terrible is going to happen to our country unless we sacrifice our liberties and go to war.”

(HT: Patriotsquestion911.com)

8. This disgusting T-shirt slogan. “9-11 was a faith-based initiative.”

7) Richard Trumka “commemorates” 9-11 in his unique and special fashion.


Wealthy CEOs, anti-government extremist front groups and frothing talk show hosts—from the Rush Limbaughs and Glenn Becks to the Koch brothers, Karl Rove’s American Crossroads group, Americans for Prosperity, the Club for Growth, FreedomWorks and the American Legislative Exchange Council—also pushed open the door to hate.

6) Paul Krugabe’s Opus Magnum. Erick Erickson mines Krugabe’s intellectual sewage so that you don’t have to. The money quotes follow below:


“Fake heroes like Bernie Kerik, Rudy Giuliani, and, yes, George W. Bush raced to cash in on the horror.” He also believes, “The memory of 9/11 has been irrevocably poisoned; it has become an occasion for shame. And in its heart, the nation knows it.”"

The Top 10 Things Not To Say on 9-11: Paul Krugabe in Perspective | RedState

 

[blastoff]

You can be ashamed if you want. Don't presume to tell me I should be as well.

BC titled this thread correctly. Krugman, the Times, and now you are telling everyone how we should feel.

fine. if you're okay with allowing politicians to blatantly use a tragedy for their own ends that's okay with me. if you're fine with the american people, the press, and our elected officials not doing their duty and allowing us to go to war because we were caught up in hysteria that's fine.

and if you aren't ashamed of those things, if you are fine with them, what would you be ashamed of?

is there anything that we as a country could do that would embarass you?

Other than electing Obama?