On Sunday, New York Times writer Paul Krugman offered his 9/11 thoughts on the ten year anniversary of the terrorist attacks on America. He did so in a brief column, almost in the form of a diary entry. In it, Krugman decided to take a strong stand and call out (by name) the villains of that terrible day. Interestingly, Osama Bin Laden, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and Al Qaeda didn’t make the list. Who did make the list? George W. Bush, Rudy Giuliani, and Bernard Kerik.
No, I’m not kidding.
His reasoning? He claims that the three became “fake heroes” by racing to “cash in” on the horrors of that day. He doesn’t expand on that assertion any further, other than taking shots at his colleagues in the news media for letting the three get away with it, and at “neocons” for taking us to war.
He ended his column by announcing that he wasn’t going to let online readers comment on his thoughts for “obvious reasons”.
What a deranged individual.
Now when it comes to Paul Krugman, I suppose I shouldn’t waste my time. The notorious left-winger is infamous for routinely making absolutely ridiculous comments that are no more grounded in reality than unicorns and vampires. However, his 9/11 thoughts do offer some constructive insight into the mind of a 21st century liberal elitist.
Even on this historic anniversary, left-wingers like Krugman can’t bring themselves to condemn Islamic extremists. They’re far more comfortable using the memory of thousands of American deaths to take pot-shots at high-profile political opponents who had the gall to show actual leadership on 9/11, and in the days following the attacks.
Krugman despises these three men not because of how they handled the crisis, but because of two reasons: 1) Most Americans were inspired by their leadership that day. 2) They’re Republicans.
In Krugman’s mind, it was their relevance that somehow made them opportunists. With that logic, at least we don’t have to worry about this “fake economist” ever becoming an opportunist. Right?