On Sunday, The Blaze covered New York Times' columnist Paul Krugman's choice to use the September 11 attacks as an opportunity to criticize former President George W. Bush and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, among others.
Unlike Krugman, we allowed our readers to share their comments with us. So far, there are nearly 900 responses (you can read them here). In addition to spawning a grand response from Blaze readers, his words have triggered some sharp reaction from conservative and liberal commentators, alike.
Village Voice writer Nick Greene compared Krugman's post to "an angst-riddled teenager's Facebook status update," rather than a legitimate piece from a New York Times columnist. And this was one of the more complimentary criticisms.
To refresh your memory, here are some of the highlights from Krugman's 9/11 post:
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.
A number of prominent conservatives are enraged by these words. Commentator Michelle Malkin wrote:
...it is worth calling out the smug coward who flung his op-ed crap against the wall and then deliberately turned off his comments section to avoid any heat in the Times’ kitchen. [...]
Koward Krugman’s problem is that he’s a lazy intellectual slob who hurriedly hits the “publish” button before the sand in his little kitchen egg timer empties.
Glenn Reynolds of InstaPundit.com, echos Malkin's sentiments, writing the following about Krugman and his 9/11 statements:
Understand it for what it is, an admission of impotence from a sad and irrelevant little man. Things haven’t gone the way he wanted lately, his messiah has feet of clay — hell, forget the “feet” part, the clay goes at least waist-high — and it seems likely he’ll have even less reason to like the coming decade than the last, and he’ll certainly have even less influence than he’s had.
Even former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld got in on the controversy, Tweeting that he has cancelled his subscription to the New York Times over the "repugnant piece.":
Liberals, though, like Salon.com's Glenn Greenwald, defended Krugman's controversial views. Greenwald Tweeted the following message out, comparing the ridicule Krugman is facing to past criticisms that have befell Michael Moore and The Dixie Chicks:
Of course, Greenwald isn't alone. Crooks and Liars' Nicole Belle wrote the following defense of Krugman:
But is Krugman wrong? Yes, almost 3,000 people died that day, needlessly, horribly. But that day was the impetus for us to attack and invade Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with the attacks and posed no threat to us. To date, we've lost 4,752 allied service members in Iraq and over 100,000 Iraqi civilians. How is this not a black mark of shame on the legacy of 9/11?
With individuals like Krugman and Berkley professor Tom Engelhardt railing so heavily against America, response is likely to continue to come out heavily from the right.
At the same time, liberals who are sympathetic to the view that the American government exploited the attacks for the nation's gain, will continue to come to Krugman's defense.
(h/t The Huffington Post)