Paul Krugman blinded by his own hatred

Like thousands of others, I was irate after reading New York Times columnist Paul Krugman’s words this weekend in “Conscience of a Liberal.”

First, I cannot say that I have ever ideologically agreed with Krugman. Being angered by his words is nothing new for me. Honestly, I find him to be vile.

But on 9/11, like many throughout the nation have rightly pointed out, he stooped to a new low.

In 181 words, Krugman took a day of commemoration, prayer and even bipartisanship and spit on it.

He wrote: 

What happened after 9/11 — and I think even people on the right know this, whether they admit it or not — was deeply shameful. The 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. . . . The memory of 9/11 has been irrevocably poisoned; it has become an occasion for shame. And in its heart, the nation knows it.

At first, I admittedly wondered what Krugman knew about the memorial services that I did not.

From the coverage I had seen, I remembered only Bush and President Obama walking together, politics aside for the day. Politicians, survivors, victims’ families and first responders were united once again, commemorating in a somber manner a day that changed our country.

In what way were they cashing in?

Then it hit me. My line of thought has joined others, I’m sure, who have finally seen Krugman for what he really is—an opportunist.

Who is once again cashing in from his inflammatory words but Krugman himself?

Interesting isn’t it that he waited until the tenth anniversary to write such a short, but incendiary diatribe—on an anniversary when so much national and international interest was once again on that day.

From the national soapbox he has so readily been provided, Krugman throughout the years has made no attempt to veil his contempt, some might say hatred, for political views or rhetoric that may differ from his own.

Krugman ended his 9/11 piece by saying he would not allow any comments “for obvious reasons.”

That may be because his inner voice knows that unlike his words claiming “the memory of 9/11 has been irrevocably poisoned; it has become an occasion for shame,” it is he who is ashamed. It is he who lays his head down at night and wonders, “What have I done?”

As Samuel Johnson, a British author once wrote, “Some people wave their dogmatic thinking until their own reason is entangled.”