After Paul Krugman said the anniversary of Sept. 11 was an “occasion for shame” yesterday, bloggers and pundits sprang to action, one accusing the New York Times columnist of being a “smug coward,” others asking if the “hack” should be fired.
Even former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld tweeted: “After reading Krugman’s repugnant piece on 9/11, I canceled my subscription to the New York Times this AM.”
Because of the heated response from conservatives (with commenting on the blog disabled no less), Krugman responded today, reiterating his belief that politicians used the tragedy for—what else—political gain:
“It was a time when tough talk was confused with real heroism, whenpeople who made speeches, then feathered their own political orfinancial nests, were exalted along with – and sometimes above – thosewho put their lives on the line, both on the evil day and after.”
Fox News’ Megyn Kelly asked if the Times should fire the columnist, but, why would they? Even The New York Times could use traffic a good 9/11 controversy drives.
Follow Anna Sanders via RSS.