The lack of a conscience of a liberal

Paul Krugman has given liberals--with or without a conscience--an evil name with his perverted take on September 11. The man with a liberal conscience (his self description) who, with no proof whatsoever, instantly blamed the Republicans and the Tea Party for the shooting of Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-AZ) and the murder of six others is at it again.

In his September 11, 2011 blog post in the New York Times he labeled the 10 years since that awful day as "The Years of Shame." And why?

"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 twisted analysis of Krugman's mind doesn't even deserve a rebuttal.

As Krugman puts it, "I'm not going to allow comments on this post, for obvious reasons."

Obviously.


He didn't allow them for his false accusations on the shootings in Arizona either "because the crazies are coming out in force."


Paul Krugman has given liberals--with or without a conscience--an evil name with his perverted take on September 11. The man with a liberal conscience (his self description) who, with no proof whatsoever, instantly blamed the Republicans and the Tea Party for the shooting of Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-AZ) and the murder of six others is at it again.

In his September 11, 2011 blog post in the New York Times he labeled the 10 years since that awful day as "The Years of Shame." And why?

"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 twisted analysis of Krugman's mind doesn't even deserve a rebuttal.

As Krugman puts it, "I'm not going to allow comments on this post, for obvious reasons."

Obviously.


He didn't allow them for his false accusations on the shootings in Arizona either "because the crazies are coming out in force."


RECENT VIDEOS