Obvious reasons? What? That Krugman's a big pussy? Or, because he failed to call out the neo-cons on the other side of the aisle that voted to authorize the war, and the Patriot Act, and who continue the wars to this day? Which is to say... he's a big pussy.
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.
Yes, call out the neo-cons, but call them all out. I know, this is Krugman, and the best anyone could expect from such a partisan. The Times should really re-name his column 'The Half-Functioning Conscience Of A Partisan Liberal'... although I understand that 'partisan' is redundant of 'half-functioning'.