Is it just me, or are the 9/11 commemorations oddly subdued?
Actually, I don’t think it’s me, and it’s not really that odd.
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 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.
I’m not going to allow comments on this post, for obvious reasons.
I think Krugman is underestimating the ability of the nation to separate the atrocity from the politics that followed. Unfortunately, Krugman himself is no longer able to separate his own disgust for anything done by someone who labels themself conservative from objective analysis of a situation. I'm assuming fron the tone of this post that Krugman feels that a liberal president would have somehow avoided a war?
Regardless, I have no problem with Krugman using his forum to question the response, or to question the motives behind the responses. I do, however, have a problem with Krugman hiding behind an off switch when he expresses an opinion that he know will evoke an emotional response. Does he have the right to do so? Sure. Is it cowardly? I'll leave that for others to decide.
I will allow comments on this post. For obvious reasons.
