The Years of Shame

[Denny Crane]

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/11/the-years-of-shame/?smid=tw-NytimesKrugman&seid=auto

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.

 

[Denny Crane]

Mr Krugman,

You didn't let people comment because you're a hate spewing liberal and you don't want to get called on it.

Not only are your economic policies dangerous, your politics are shameful.

 

[huevonkiller]

I don't like to call them Liberal, Denny.

 

[Denny Crane]

I don't like to call them Liberal, Denny.

I think someone who calls himself a "liberal" should be held to a high standard.

His words are those of a bitter loser.

 

[huevonkiller]

Fair enough.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

That's about as bad of a piece of commentary as I have ever seen in my life.

 

[Denny Crane]

It was a unifying event, sorta.

Shortly after 9/11, there was a concert to benefit the victims. Richard Gere got on stage and started to rant as lefties do. He got booed off the stage. The rest of the lefties got the hint and bided their time before resuming their rhetoric, which mirrors Krugman's.

After a year-plus of public debate, Bush pulled the trigger on Iraq. Congress voted by a huge majority to give him the authority. Public opinion polls showed the people vastly supported the move.

The lefties changed their strategy to on of a "death by 1000 cuts.". They publicly rooted for us to fail, and almost got their wish.

 

[jlprk]

I think everyone's tired of commemorating this great conservative event every year. Put it to bed.

Let there be no 11th anniversary hoopla. No FBI-engineered fake terrorism threat from some gullible American Muslim teenager, timed each year for Sept. 11, with no threat the rest of the year. Just stop and let a war-weary nation rest.

On the 20th anniversary of Pearl Harbor, I read the paper as usual, lying barefoot on the floor in a suburb of Honolulu. The Star-Bulletin article was undistinguished. It was a paragraph or two, and not on the front page.

That's how to do it.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

I think everyone's tired of commemorating this great conservative event every year. Put it to bed.

Let there be no 11th anniversary hoopla. No FBI-engineered fake terrorism threat from some gullible American Muslim teenager, timed each year for Sept. 11, with no threat the rest of the year. Just stop and let a war-weary nation rest.

On the 20th anniversary of Pearl Harbor, I read the paper as usual, lying barefoot on the floor in a suburb of Honolulu. The Star-Bulletin article was undistinguished. It was a paragraph or two, and not on the front page.

That's how to do it.

I think a 10-year event was fitting. But I also agree it's now time to lay it to rest.

 

[mook]

 

[mook]

It was a unifying event, sorta.

Shortly after 9/11, there was a concert to benefit the victims. Richard Gere got on stage and started to rant as lefties do. He got booed off the stage. The rest of the lefties got the hint and bided their time before resuming their rhetoric, which mirrors Krugman's.

After a year-plus of public debate, Bush pulled the trigger on Iraq. Congress voted by a huge majority to give him the authority. Public opinion polls showed the people vastly supported the move.

The lefties changed their strategy to on of a "death by 1000 cuts.". They publicly rooted for us to fail, and almost got their wish.

So in hindsight, do you think it was worth borrowing nearly a trillion dollars from China and investing 9 years of our troops' lives in? If we could go down the exact same path with Iran or Syria for the next decade, would you be all for it?

 

[The Sebastian Express]

Mmm, broad generalizations.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Fuck commemoration of a day that fundamentally changed the worldview of billions of people around the world...I'm already burned out from Labor Day weekend and planning for Columbus Day and Halloween.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

I wonder where that stuff was made?

 

[mook]

I wonder where that stuff was made?

I wonder why the stuff was made. Can you imagine your grandparents buying that kind of schlock 10 years after Pearl Harbor? 10 years after closing Auschwitz? 10 years after MLK or JFK were shot?

It's beyond tacky. It's....jesus, I can't even begin....

 

[SlyPokerDog]

I like the America shirt with the upside down Nike swoosh, lol!

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

I wonder why the stuff was made. Can you imagine your grandparents buying that kind of schlock 10 years after Pearl Harbor? 10 years after closing Auschwitz? 10 years after MLK or JFK were shot?

It's beyond tacky. It's....jesus, I can't even begin....

Yeah, I see your point. It is pretty tacky. Making a quick buck on the tragedy of others.

 

[Denny Crane]

So in hindsight, do you think it was worth borrowing nearly a trillion dollars from China and investing 9 years of our troops' lives in? If we could go down the exact same path with Iran or Syria for the next decade, would you be all for it?

We borrowed $0 from China.

I voted for Badnarik in 2004, who'd have brought the troops home then. I bet your guy wouldn't have.

The time for war with Iran was in the 1970s, when they took our embassy and 400+ hostages.

I want no part of any wars in the middle east.

That said, if we do go, I don't see the point in the "death by 1000 cuts" whining about it. I'd rather suggest we bring the troops home, but as long as we don't, we should try to win.

 

[PapaG]

I wonder why the stuff was made. Can you imagine your grandparents buying that kind of schlock 10 years after Pearl Harbor? 10 years after closing Auschwitz? 10 years after MLK or JFK were shot?

It's beyond tacky. It's....jesus, I can't even begin....

Because the economy is terrible, and apparently some people will exploit anything to try and keep a roof over their heads? It's one little rack in some store somewhere. Who cares?

Krugman's written diarrhea is much more offensive to me than a few misguided people who may want to buy some 9/11 goods. Krugman obviously agrees, since he disabled comments on his partisan rant.

 

[jlprk]

Paul Krugman, who is very smart on international economics, says in that article that instead of celebrating the day of Sept. 11, there should be sorrow as to how we were all exploited. He is exactly right.

We borrowed $0 from China.

How did you reason that one out? Then how is it that China can call in our chips any time it wants to fold its cards and go home? They're just toying with us.

 

[barfo]

Mr Krugman,

You didn't let people comment because you're a hate spewing liberal and you don't want to get called on it.

Not only are your economic policies dangerous, your politics are shameful.

I'm curious what you and PapaG and anyone else who was offended by this post actually object to. As far as I can tell Krugman makes three distinct specific claims:

1) Fake heroes like Bernie Kerik, Rudy Giuliani, and, yes, George W. Bush raced to cash in on the horror.
2) And then the attack was used to justify an unrelated war the neocons wanted to fight, for all the wrong reasons.
3) [...] 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 [....]

I doubt anyone gives a shit what the professional pundits did or didn't do, so we can probably rule out #3. So is it #1, or #2 that offends thee?

I don't have an opinion about #1 (I didn't even remember who Bernie Kerik was, although Google seems to say he's in jail now), and #2 seems to me to be factually true, although I can imagine that you'll disagree.

But what arouses your hostility?

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Paul Krugman, who is very smart on international economics, says in that article that instead of celebrating the day of Sept. 11, there should be sorrow as to how we were all exploited. He is exactly right.



How did you reason that one out? Then how is it that China can call in our chips any time it wants to fold its cards and go home? They're just toying with us.

I don't think the idea is to celebrate the day, but to remember it and pay respect to the firemen and police who responded to the attack. To remember the innocent people who went about their normal routine that day and lost their lives.

Kerik, Rudy, and W did their jobs and did those jobs well.

The wars cost $100B a year on or off the budget. The government was running a surplus and increased its revenues to $2.5T from $2T. If government grew by $600B a year in addition to the wars, we'd have a balanced budget. So how is it that we're borrowing from China to pay for just the wars? We're borrowing from China for EVERYTHING else, for the MASSIVE increase in the size, scope, and spending needs of the government.

 

[BrianFromWA]

which unjustified war voted on by the Congress and enjoying large popular support at the time is he (are you) referring to? Iraqi Freedom or Enduring Freedom? Or the "Global War on Terror?"

I mean, listen to the President:

Iraq admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.... Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits.... It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons.... Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal..

By "President", I mean William Jefferson Clinton in 1998, when he signed the Iraqi Liberation Act.

Since when did Bill Clinton become a neo-con?

Sounds like a matter of a guy not knowing (or caring) what he's talking about, attempting to use his platform to push a revisionist history and progressive present. More power to him, but he also should get called out for it.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

negrodamus said it best

"why do we think iraq was wmds?"

"because we still have the receipt"

 

[Denny Crane]

negrodamus said it best

"why do we think iraq was wmds?"

"because we still have the receipt"

We have the receipt for biological matter that could be weaponized. The gas he used was vx nerve gas and mustard gas. Those were of German and Russian origin.

 

[Denny Crane]

Clinton bombed Iraq on the day the special prosecutor interviewed Monica Lewinski. Some people suggested he bombed that day to divert attention from his personal issues and impeachment. In spite of this, republicans in congress backed him, because Clinton had a job to do.

There's no evidence the bombing completely destroyed all of Saddam's WMDs.

This leaves three possibilities:

1. Both Clinton and Bush lied about the WMDs to justify attacking Iraq.

2. Both Clinton and Bush were telling us what (intel) they believed to be true.

3. Saddam fooled everyone.

 

[jlprk]

We borrowed $0 from China.

The wars cost $100B a year on or off the budget. The government was running a surplus and increased its revenues to $2.5T from $2T. If government grew by $600B a year in addition to the wars, we'd have a balanced budget. So how is it that we're borrowing from China to pay for just the wars? We're borrowing from China for EVERYTHING else, for the MASSIVE increase in the size, scope, and spending needs of the government.

The wars cost $100B a year on or off the budget.

--I've read it was more.

The government was running a surplus and increased its revenues to $2.5T from $2T.

--By 9/11/01, anticipated surpluses had been lost. Bush had already blown it with increased spending and decreases coming in taxes.

If government grew by $600B a year in addition to the wars, we'd have a balanced budget. So how is it that we're borrowing from China to pay for just the wars?

--No one said we didn't borrow from China for any expenses other than the wars. The guy said we borrowed from China to pay for the wars, and you said we're not borrowing anything at all from China. Nice try to confuse everything. I'm still reeling, actually.

We're borrowing from China for EVERYTHING else, for the MASSIVE increase in the size, scope, and spending needs of the government.

--While that's irrelevant to you saying that we didn't borrow anything from China, I'll answer it. You're using average cost when you should use marginal cost (cost of making one more widget). If there had been no war, the savings would have been the marginal cost, not the average cost of all government expenditures.

 

[jlprk]

This leaves three possibilities:

1. Both Clinton and Bush lied about the WMDs to justify attacking Iraq.

2. Both Clinton and Bush were telling us what (intel) they believed to be true.

3. Saddam fooled everyone.

4. He fooled you. But not the millions worldwide who demonstrated for months leading into the war, screaming bullshit that he had WMDs. In my hamlet the bridges over the freeway at every exit were full of people with signs all day for months, waving at cars passing below.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

The wars cost $100B a year on or off the budget.

--I've read it was more.

The government was running a surplus and increased its revenues to $2.5T from $2T.

--By 9/11/01, anticipated surpluses had been lost. Bush had already blown it with increased spending and decreases coming in taxes.

If government grew by $600B a year in addition to the wars, we'd have a balanced budget. So how is it that we're borrowing from China to pay for just the wars?

--No one said we didn't borrow from China for any expenses other than the wars. The guy said we borrowed from China to pay for the wars, and you said we're not borrowing anything at all from China. Nice try to confuse everything. I'm still reeling, actually.

We're borrowing from China for EVERYTHING else, for the MASSIVE increase in the size, scope, and spending needs of the government.

--While that's irrelevant to you saying that we didn't borrow anything from China, I'll answer it. You're using average cost when you should use marginal cost (cost of making one more widget). If there had been no war, the savings would have been the marginal cost, not the average cost of all government expenditures.

http://sportstwo.com/threads/195256-The-Dead-the-Dollars-the-Drones-9-11-Era-by-the-Numbers

 

[barfo]

which unjustified war voted on by the Congress and enjoying large popular support at the time is he (are you) referring to? Iraqi Freedom or Enduring Freedom? Or the "Global War on Terror?"

I mean, listen to the President:


By "President", I mean William Jefferson Clinton in 1998, when he signed the Iraqi Liberation Act.

Since when did Bill Clinton become a neo-con?

Sounds like a matter of a guy not knowing (or caring) what he's talking about, attempting to use his platform to push a revisionist history and progressive present. More power to him, but he also should get called out for it.

I'm not sure I understand your point, Brian. You seem to be arguing it is reasonable that Bush thought there were WMDs. But Krugman's comment was about his using 9/11 to justify the war with Iraq.

barfo