I read Paul Krugman’s column once in awhile, and I always come away feeling abused. Yesterday when I read his column, my first thought was that “if I had a subscription, I’d cancel it”. Apparently I wasn’t the only one.
This could be the start of something big:
Click image for the story
I see this as a candidate for going viral on FB and Twitter.
Here’s the Krugman article: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/11/the-years-of-shame/
Krugman wrote under the banner, “The Conscience of a LIberal.” How many liberal apologies have you seen for banning DDT in malaria-ridden countries? How many liberal apologies for substitution of inferior fireproofing materials for asbestos in the WTC? How many liberal apologies for people starving to death as a result of diverting food to motor fuels? “Liberal conscience” is an oxymoron.
(Apologies to any genuine liberals that come here often. Krugman style “liberals” are anything but.)
Rod McLaughlin Sept 12,2011. I remember that day, I was at Uni, and my lecturer suspended lessons. ‘It would not be Saddam Hussein, he wouldn’t be that stupid it’s Osama bin Laden, the World will never be the same again”. Well there are contrived conspiracy theories, a lot of photo shopped stuff too. Like it was not an American airlines plane that hit the towers. A missile hit the Pentagon, etc. Flight 93 was shot down by the American air force. The twin towers had already been loaded with explosives too. (By whom do they suggest).
The thing is that NORAD was stood down. If they hadn’t been they could have shot those planes down when they were not over populated areas. A lack of military intelligence and different departments not communicating? Much like the Pearl Harbor attack? They were warned by British Intelligence the Japanese fleet was heading their way. However, the various intelligence services just didn’t communicate until it was too late. Churchill was pleased meaning America would then join the Allies in their fight against the Axis coalition.
One excuse by Rumsfeld was the fighter planes were too far away to do anything? Actually you know these planes fly very fast if required? There was a Mossad report that Saddam was involved, or conspiracy between Saddam and Osama. But Osama didn’t like Saddam! That’s what we heard heard anyway. Certainly Mossad also said, his WMD had been moved to Syria.
Nevertheless, 9/11 will always remain in our hearts as one of the saddest and tragic days in World History. It certainly shook America but also Australia and UK too. Lest Not Forget.
“By the same token, so is our ability to choose whom we want to read or listen to. Choosing to subscribe (or not) is a personal choice.” – Anthony
Which is why I chose not to click the link. I’ll not be contributing to his web hits or the papers advertising revenue.
I actually agree with Krugman. In the days after 9/11 most of the world was sympathetic towards the USA. People came together from all walks of life to help the familes of the victims and to mourn their loss. Now, 9/11 is remembered mostly as the catalyst for an illegal and expensive war which accomplished nothing, the illegal torturing of detainess which accomplished nothing and the longest war in American history which, when said and done, will have accomplished nothing.
Well at least now Obama is doing so much better job, moving out ‘stable’ and ‘unstable’ ME dictators faster and cheaper thus allowing the muslim brotherhood to take over in Egypt right away, next up Libya.
This didn’t happen in Iraq after Saddam fell.
I would consider it an honor to have a subscription cancelled by that war criminal Donald Rumsfeld.
JC says:
September 12, 2011 at 11:07 am
“In conjunction with its tercentenary celebrations in 1968, Sveriges Riksbank (the central bank of Sweden) instituted a new award, “The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel” on the basis of an economic commitment by the bank in perpetuity. The award is given by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences according to the same principles as for the Nobel Prizes that have been awarded since 1901.”
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/articles/lindbeck/index.html
“…according to the same principles as for the Nobel Prizes that have been awarded since 1901.” is a strong indicator that the Nobel Prize Organization does not see the prize as being different from the other prizes it awards. They state at their website that it is the same as the other prizes. “A rose by any other name still smells as sweet.”
Beyond you being offended by some people not calling “The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel” by its proper name, are there any differences that make you disagree with the Nobel Prize Organization?
Rod McLaughlin says:
September 12, 2011 at 8:14 pm
Rumsfield, Bush and Cheney all claimed Iraq was involved in the September 11th massacre.
Where did you get that idea? Iraq was a separate issue from the 9/11 attacks. There were many UN resolutions attempting to give Saddam an opportunity to live up to world demands. Saddam refused. Finally, bombs dropped on Baghdad March 20, 2003.
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/scriraq.html
However, because of subsequent actions by Al Qaeda, Iraq later became a battleground against the same people we were fighting in Afghanistan and elsewhere. E.g. Zarqawi.
Is this the you we all took exception to?:
.
I’m with Peter:
Viewing from outside the United States a site dedicated to truth-in-science promoting the table thumping views of a prominent advocate of the Iraq invasion is most extraordinary. And a little frightening.
So these guy are real heroes? Seriously? Do we defend the use of the attack to justify the invasion of Iraq and so much death and misery — to what purpose? Peace? Revenge? What? To generate more hatred to justify more war?
Many of us outsiders continue to question Rumsfeld’s justification of an invasion, which, at the time, and despite massive propaganda, did not have majority support in most (any?) European countries, nor in Australia and not NZ.
Fine to have your memorial. Fine to have it on this site. No one is challenging that. But please, Anthony — this has happened before on this blog, where the temptation to cross the overlapped with US Republicanism was too great. My vote is to stick to the science and the politics of the science, but leave alone the US politics of war — if only to show respect for those lovers of truth and science who might, nevertheless, view it from another side.
Just to set the record straight: Rumsfeld cancelled his personal subscription to the NYT years ago. He still has an office, which up until the Krugman column had an institutional subscription. That is now cancelled, and deservedly so. I, for one, am glad Rumsfeld still had a subscription he could cancel, thus making a point about Krugman and his column.
A clock can be right at least twice a day. But it takes the dint of Nobel genius to bend that number to zero.
That should be “A BROKEN clock”
I dunno what the fuss is about. To me it seemed like Krugman stated the obvious. But I’m not an American, so I have no dog in this race.
From berniel on September 13, 2011 at 2:03 am:
Of course all those protesters shouting “No blood for oil!” who push for renewable energy as both needed to fight (C)AGW and eliminate the need for foreign oil (perhaps any fossil oil), thus eliminating what they perceive as the reason for the fighting in Iraq (and usually Afghanistan as well), and now to also prevent the future prophesied “climate wars”, likewise have a problem separating “climate science” from politics.
It is all mixed together, has been for awhile, and not by we skeptics. Your complaints are equivalent to asking for the raisins to be picked out of all the oatmeal raisin cookies on this site, since this site should only sell plain oatmeal cookies.
===
Peter said on September 12, 2011 at 11:52 am:
I tend to think this site actually focuses on realism, separating reality from fantasy, no matter how dressed up is the fantasy. Once acceptance of reality takes place in a human mind, it grows to take on many forms and changes many personal viewpoints. One’s perception of science including certain branches of it, their own finances (especially how money is extracted from their wallet), their politics…
Conservative political views, actually what is more properly considered as “non-‘progressive'”, match well with the skeptical views of the climate, namely “It ain’t broke so don’t fix it!” So don’t be surprised when you see both traveling together.
I saw this yesterday, and what I found a bit interesting is that they disabled comments on this particular piece.
It’s only a matter of time ’til the gray lady ceases to be relevant if they insist on fronting for the extreme leftist/marxist dogma.
Krugman is a sad relic, as is the NYT
>> berniel says:
September 13, 2011 at 2:03 am
Is this the you we all took exception to?:
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. <<
Yes. As I said before, Krugman took the anniversary of the 9/11 attack, and ignored the heroes and victims of 9/11 to use it as a background for a partisan diatribe. Whether or not you agree with his partisan poilitics, his use of the day to push a political agenda was beyond offensive.
The claim that the 9/11 attack was 'used to justify and unrelated war' [Iraq] was also a flat out lie, but that's nothing new for Krugman's columns. Several have pointed it out only because others have asked what was wrong with Krugman's statement, or claimed that they agreed with it.
>> Przemysław Pawełczyk says:
September 12, 2011 at 6:32 pm
Mr Smart Aleck,
Mr Krugman didn’t say Iraq had “something” to do with 9/11. You have problems with understanding what you read.
BTW. In 2 minutes I’ve found two hyperlinks: <<
1. I didn't say that Krugman said that. Krugman said that "then the attack was used to justify an unrelated war". Iraq was 'the unrelated war'. The 9/11 attack was not used to justify the Iraq war.
2. Your second link quoting Bush shows that he found Iraq's post 9/11 support for the attack offensive, but it was not a claim by Bush that that justified the Iraq war. If the Bush speech in Cincinnati is the big evidence of claiming Bush 'used the attack to justify [Iraq]' then you have nothing. Your first hyperlink is just a comment on the speech by a political opponent of Bush.
3. Nice personal attack. The left seems to have that skill in common with the alarmists.
This little piece perfectly illustrates the LIberal’s idea of Freedom of Speech. I get to say exactly what I want, and you are not allowed to react (by him not allowing comments). The Freedom for me but not for thee.
Krugman is either a stupid man or simply a man who enjoys being a gadfly rather than an intelligent commentator.
Frankly, the people I know who espouse Krugman as their intellectual shinging light tend to be unemployed, unmarried, over educated, drains on society. That tells you all you need to know about Comrade Krugmanski.
Pokerguy, give me an example of some of your rights that were trampled.
Iraq may have been unnecessary in direct relationship to 9/11, but it was a festering wound that needed cleaned up and was a center of instablilty in the region and Hussein certainly would have used US preoccupation in Afghanistan to his advantage, as he already was by paying ransoms to Palistinian suicide bombers, firing on coalition aircraft, and making belligernt overtones towards Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Unfortunatly the invasion was tied to WMDs rather than a whole littanly of other reasons for going in.
And now, tell me how Obama has rectified the errors of Bush-Cheney? Or has he doubled down?
pokerguy says:
September 12, 2011 at 4:29 pm
Bush-Cheney over-reacted and got us into two unfunded wars (one of which was totally unnecessary) which have driven our country to near bankruptcy. They lied, tortured, and trampled on our civil rights. 10 years later, we are a diminished country. Many of you righties are too busy blaming “obama-care” to take a good long look in the mirror.
The U.S. doesn’t rely on foreign opinion to dictate its foreign policy. Usually if we can get the buy in of the Brits, that’s good enough, since they are the only military that is even useful on the battlefield. If we went with the majority of the UN we’d simply be nuking Israel all day, everyday, since that is the only evil country on Allaha’s Green Earth. Syria has killed more protesters in 2011 than Israel has in its entire history (and most of those were accidental). Where’s the UN?
The U.S. took up the mantle of civilization to fight the forces of chaos. Al Queda wanted nothing more than to make a ruin of civilized, modern life by tossing chaos and fear into the everyday mix.
—-
Many of us outsiders continue to question Rumsfeld’s justification of an invasion, which, at the time, and despite massive propaganda, did not have majority support in most (any?) European countries, nor in Australia and not NZ.
And yes, I’m having problems spelling today! What’s it to you? 🙂
Hoser says:
September 13, 2011 at 12:35 am
Rod McLaughlin says:
September 12, 2011 at 8:14 pm
Rumsfield, Bush and Cheney all claimed Iraq was involved in the September 11th massacre.
Where did you get that idea?
here maybe?
“CBS News has learned that barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq — even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks.
That’s according to notes taken by aides who were with Rumsfeld in the National Military Command Center on Sept. 11 – notes that show exactly where the road toward war with Iraq began”
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/september11/main520830.shtml
The Left also likes to omit the fact that Tenet was a Clinton appointee. It’s not like he was some Cheney protege looking to make good with the boss.
I am fed up with how authoritarians of the left have commandeered the term, ‘Liberal’. Ironic that Krugman, in his article,’Liberal with a Conscience’ says he won’t allow any responses to his diatribe. Now isn’t that just typical of the left wing media and the gatekeepers of AGW science?.
Or here perhaps?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50679-2004Jun17.html
” Officials with the Sept. 11 commission yesterday tried to soften the impact of the staff’s finding, …
The panel’s executive director, Philip D. Zelikow, said the finding referred to a lack of evidence of “operational” ties between Iraq and al Qaeda.”
Vice President Cheney, in an interview yesterday with CNBC’s “Capital Report,” said “the press has been irresponsible” in reporting on the commission’s findings, sometimes for “malicious” reasons. Referring to a New York Times front-page headline, “Panel Finds No Qaeda-Iraq Tie,”
Damned irresponsible press, actually reporting on what the official sept 11 commission said. How dare they!