How About Krugman's Words for 9/11/11?

#2
#2
Interesting that he chooses a 9/11 anniversary to criticize people for politicizing 9/11 - a political message in itself, IMO. Take the high road and praise the responders and remember the people who perished.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3
#3
He is a liberal hack when it comes to economics, no doubt. I do ask though, besides being in bad taste with his timing, what did he say that wasn't true?
 
#5
#5
MontereyVol said:
Says all you need to know.
Click to expand...

Not really. I don't even know why comments are allowed anyways. I've never read an intelligent conversation in the comments of any article, be it on Fox, CNN, or NYT. The moderation on the comments for the op-ed would be quite the feat.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#6
#6
VOLatile said:
Not really. I don't even know why comments are allowed anyways. I've never read an intelligent conversation in the comments of any article, be it on Fox, CNN, or NYT. The moderation on the comments for the op-ed would be quite the feat.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

He didn't want to be called a hack right under his ridiculous rant.

As the poster above said, that says enough about his article.
 
#7
#7
BeecherVol said:
He didn't want to be called a hack right under his ridiculous rant.

As the poster above said, that says enough about his article.
Click to expand...

What was ridiculous about the rant? Do you not think GWB and Giuliani benefited politically? Do we go into Iraq if 9-11 never happened?

While coming across as whiney and petty, and his comment about it being an occasion for shame was over the top, nothing he said is untrue at its base.
 
#8
#8
BeecherVol said:
He didn't want to be called a hack right under his ridiculous rant.

As the poster above said, that says enough about his article.
Click to expand...

No matter who writes the article and what it is about, people from the other side always call the author a hack based solely on partisanship.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#9
#9
rjd970 said:
What was ridiculous about the rant? Do you not think GWB and Giuliani benefited politically? Do we go into Iraq if 9-11 never happened?

While coming across as whiney and petty, and his comment about it being an occasion for shame was over the top, nothing he said is untrue at its base.
Click to expand...
The implication that all of their actions in response were motivated by politics is utter horseshat and you and Krugman both know it. So yes, what he said is absolutely untrue at its base. He's using the occasion to bring more readers to a shoddy, worthless blog which was Ted Rall quality pathetic.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#10
#10
rjd970 said:
What was ridiculous about the rant? Do you not think GWB and Giuliani benefited politically? Do we go into Iraq if 9-11 never happened?

While coming across as whiney and petty, and his comment about it being an occasion for shame was over the top, nothing he said is untrue at its base.
Click to expand...

1. He uses the term "false hero" (in regards to the people he hates, W. and Giuliani) there is a reason why he doesn't mention those that lost their life including the NYPD and NYFD members.

2. Sure they did. But not by exploiting it as he assumes.

3. I have no idea. We did before. Do you think he needed 9/11 to go into Iraq? This kinda opens the 9/11 conspiracy options.

Whether you agree with going into Iraq or not, Krugman is hack that took the focus off what the day meant to the entire country and made it political.
 
#12
#12
BigPapaVol said:
The implication that all of their actions in response were motivated by politics is utter horseshat and you and Krugman both know it. So yes, what he said is absolutely untrue at its base. He's using the occasion to bring more readers to a shoddy, worthless blog which was Ted Rall quality pathetic.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

This is stupid.

You were living in a hole if you don't beleive the whole terror threat level thing was absolutely manipulated so he (W) could play politics with it. Every time Kerry opened his mouth it went to orange. No way Giuliani gets as far as he does in the presidential primaries, and in fact, we probably don't even know who he is. Dude was a cross-dressing bumbling idiot. Every time the press started to asks pertinent questions about the WMDs leading up to Iraq a new "unconfimred reports of possible threat" was released and charges of being unpatriotic were released from the white house. On one hand they are saying be vigilant and shopping malls and grocery stores are targets, and on the other they are saying the best way to beat the terrorists is to continue on with life as normal. I'm not even sure W gets a second term without it.

You really believe W and his crew sells an invasion of Iraq to the American people without 9-11 happening? No effing way.
 
#13
#13
BeecherVol said:
1. He uses the term "false hero" (in regards to the people he hates, W. and Giuliani) there is a reason why he doesn't mention those that lost their life including the NYPD and NYFD members.

What exactly did W Giuliani do that made them heroes? Its like saying Obama is a hero becasue he was in charge when bin Laden was killed.

2. Sure they did. But not by exploiting it as he assumes.

They absolutely did. The rest of Ws first term and his entire second term was defined by using 9-11 to push political agendas. Absolutely including Iraq.

3. I have no idea. We did before. Do you think he needed 9/11 to go into Iraq? This kinda opens the 9/11 conspiracy options.

Yes, we did need it. There is no way in hell he can sell that to the public. There were legitimate reasons for going into Iraq, but it was WMDs and post 9-11 fears that sold the American public on the war.

Whether you agree with going into Iraq or not, Krugman is hack that took the focus off what the day meant to the entire country and made it political.
Click to expand...

FWIW I do agree that Iraq needed to be dealt with, and taking away from the political aspect, nothing he said is false. I'm not arguing he came across wrong, I'm arguing that everything he said isn't wrong.
 
#14
#14
The post was half true, half false, imo.

The half true part was that it was used by the likes of Cheney and his business interests to justify a misplaced war.

The part that was false was that I think Guiliani and Bush acted out of sincere motives and both I think handled the situation as well as could be hoped for under very difficult circumstances.
 
#15
#15
lawgator1 said:
The post was half true, half false, imo.

The half true part was that it was used by the likes of Cheney and his business interests to justify a misplaced war.

The part that was false was that I think Guiliani and Bush acted out of sincere motives and both I think handled the situation as well as could be hoped for under very difficult circumstances.
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing that, I'm arguing that they benefited politically from it, and were not shy about using it. I absolutely agree they handled it very well in the immediate aftermath.
 
#16
#16
rjd970 said:
I'm not arguing that, I'm arguing that they benefited politically from it, and were not shy about using it. I absolutely agree they handled it very well in the immediate aftermath.
Click to expand...


I really don't feel that, other than the Iraq war (and that's a fairly huge "other than") that there was much if anything inappropriate about the politics of it.
 
#18
#18
Awful timing. Paul has said much the same over the course of his blog, yet never so outright and on 9/11 it self. Leaders play the hand dealt to them. Whether they benefit or not is irrelevant. Obama benefits from an inherited economic collapse to pass a stimulus plan. Flawed logic.
 
#19
#19
rjd970 said:
I'm not arguing that, I'm arguing that they benefited politically from it, and were not shy about using it. I absolutely agree they handled it very well in the immediate aftermath.
Click to expand...
He didn't say they benefitted politically. He said that they weren't heroic and that the whole thing was politics, and that's just a flat out lefty hack lie. Krugman is now a caricature. He won the loony lefty econ award, which has devolved into a joke, and has done nothing but cash in politically ever since. He's the pot incorrectly calling the kettle blue, the disingenuous POS.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#20
#20
rjd970 said:
I'm not arguing that, I'm arguing that they benefited politically from it, and were not shy about using it. I absolutely agree they handled it very well in the immediate aftermath.
Click to expand...

This may not be that dissimilar from what BPV is saying. The immediate handling, including Afghanistan operations, were not really political maneuvering. Krugman leaves a taste in your mouth that all they did was make political benefit. I think that many can agree that Iraq falls into a much less clear category - but is also a much later subject.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#21
#21
Though I don't value Krugman as an economist, I don't think raising controversial questions is ever inappropriate when it comes to the political arena. In times of catastrophe we think a distrust of the government is unpatriotic, but distrust of government is what America was founded on. There is nothing more patriotic.
 
#22
#22
TennTradition said:
This may not be that dissimilar from what BPV is saying. The immediate handling, including Afghanistan operations, were not really political maneuvering. Krugman leaves a taste in your mouth that all they did was make political benefit. I think that many can agree that Iraq falls into a much less clear category - but is also a much later subject.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

and that's why he's wrong. He clearly had the time and space to lay that out in the argument but specifically chose to do otherwise in an effort to be incendiary. People hate Ann Coulter for exactly the same issue. Krugman has joined clowns like Chris Mathews, Olbermann and Hannity as lame political hacks.

I don't think there is any doubt that the 9/11 card was way overplayed by the previous admin and that might have been Krugman's point, but he's clearly bright enough to have made it that way, rather than picking the memorial date of 3,000 Americans to make a hack point.
 
#23
#23
nbakerld said:
Though I don't value Krugman as an economist, I don't think raising controversial questions is ever inappropriate when it comes to the political arena. In times of catastrophe we think a distrust of the government is unpatriotic, but distrust of government is what America was founded on. There is nothing more patriotic.
Click to expand...

Again, he regularly tries to fall back on his expertise to give his loony political bent force and he's using that again here and at a very inappropriate time to make a very misleading point.
 
#24
#24
BigPapaVol said:
Again, he regularly tries to fall back on his expertise to give his loony political bent force and he's using that again here and at a very inappropriate time to make a very misleading point.
Click to expand...

It's an opinion page, so I don't see what the big deal is. It's misleading in your opinion. You don't know for sure what Bush/Giuliani's motives were so you can't say it's misleading. Neither does Krugman know for sure, but that's not the point. I don't want to live in a country where people don't offer up controversial opinions.
 
#25
#25
nbakerld said:
It's an opinion page, so I don't see what the big deal is. It's misleading in your opinion. You don't know for sure what Bush/Giuliani's motives were so you can't say it's misleading. Neither does Krugman know for sure, but that's not the point. I don't want to live in a country where people don't offer up controversial opinions.
Click to expand...

the big deal to me is that he tries to lean on his credentials to make himself more than just a political pundit, yet he's the worst of all of them.

I think it's absurd to assume any motives at all for Bush or Giuliani in the aftermath of the horror. I think, as Bam said, that they simply stepped up to lead in the circumstances thrust upon them and they did it well. Both galvanized the spirit of their constituents.

Krugman chose the memorial of 3,000 dead Americans to make his point. At best he couldn't have known motives, per you, and he should be embarrassed to be so hypocritical in his guess. At worst, he's a worse version of Olbermann.

I don't give a shat if he makes controversial points. In fact, he has to because that's what he has reduced himself to. I just find it pathetic that he used the events of 9/11's 10th anniversary to venture his guess.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top