Krugman Responds to 9/11 Column Criticism: “the atrocity was abused”

krugman090421 Krugman Responds to 9/11 Column Criticism: “the atrocity was abused”

(Photo: Weasel Zippers)

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.


  1. Anonymous says:

    I would so like to have a subscription to the NYT just so I could cancel it.

  2. Paul says:

    Krugman was right about Kerick, Bush, Giuliani, Iraq.

  3. Anonymous says:

    Krugman is not a coward for making the over the top vile comments about 9/11, he is a coward for disabling the comments section of his blog,  lest only half his sycophant readers agree with him, rather than the usual 95%.

  4. Maybe you could get a job licking out Dick Cheney’s ass, “srbendicta.” I’m sure he’d enjoy it more than toilet paper.