Krugman: 9/11 is "occassion for shame"

[CJK]

The tool couldn't even keep his partisan hackery to himself for just one day.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The obvious reason is that he is a pathetic coward.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/11/the-years-of-shame/

[CJK]

Why is it that Republicans turn into weepy vaginas when it comes to 9/11 but then do everything in their power to downplay the civilian bodycount in Iraq or the number of people who die every year because of a lack of health insurance? This is a rhetorical question that doesn't need to be answered.

Anyways, everyone who is outraged about this needs to grow up. The worst aspect of 9/11 was how we reacted to it by far seeing as we created Guantanamo Bay, the PATRIOT Act, unnecessary departments and institutions to waste money, increased defense spending, killed hundreds of thousands of civilians, killed soldiers overseas etc. While I weep for the lives lost, the real travesty was how we used the unity and flag waving to cause more unnecessary death overseas.

This comment distills perfectly the difference between the liberal and conservative thought processing. Conservatives believe the worst aspect about 9/11 was the senseless terrorism. Liberals think the worst aspect about 9/11 were the governments efforts to stop said senseless terrorism.

I thank you for showing your true colors.

[CJK]

We should also think about all those heroes who can't attend ceremonies because they were put on a watch list

Name one.

[CJK]

No, 9/11 is not a time to feel shame for Americans. Maybe the Republican party, but not Americans. 9/11 was exploited to take America into the war in Iraq, which cost more in every way (fiscally, morally, and most importantly the lives of American soldiers and the citizens of Iraq) than the more understandable war in Afghanistan (which should have been conducted in a different way but something needed to be done). Americans should remember clearly how 9/11 was exploited, but it's nothing to be ashamed of. Angry maybe, but not ashamed.

Another liberal myth. It really astonishes me how people forget that a majority of Americans favored war with Iraq BEFORE 9/11.

[CJK]

No, 9/11 is not a time to feel shame for Americans. Maybe the Republican party, but not Americans. 9/11 was exploited to take America into the war in Iraq, which cost more in every way (fiscally, morally, and most importantly the lives of American soldiers and the citizens of Iraq) than the more understandable war in Afghanistan (which should have been conducted in a different way but something needed to be done). Americans should remember clearly how 9/11 was exploited, but it's nothing to be ashamed of. Angry maybe, but not ashamed.

Another liberal myth. It really astonishes me how people forget that a majority of Americans favored war with Iraq BEFORE 9/11.

Do you have proof of this statement?

Gallup Poll, February 19-21 2001

Would you favor or oppose sending American troops back to the Persian Gulf in order to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq?

Favor: 52%
Oppose: 42%

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1633/Iraq.aspx#4

The "Favor" position rose to 74% after 9/11 but by August 2002 it had fallen back to 53%.

[CJK]

No, 9/11 is not a time to feel shame for Americans. Maybe the Republican party, but not Americans. 9/11 was exploited to take America into the war in Iraq, which cost more in every way (fiscally, morally, and most importantly the lives of American soldiers and the citizens of Iraq) than the more understandable war in Afghanistan (which should have been conducted in a different way but something needed to be done). Americans should remember clearly how 9/11 was exploited, but it's nothing to be ashamed of. Angry maybe, but not ashamed.

Another liberal myth. It really astonishes me how people forget that a majority of Americans favored war with Iraq BEFORE 9/11.

Do you have proof of this statement?

Gallup Poll, February 19-21 2001

Would you favor or oppose sending American troops back to the Persian Gulf in order to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq?

Favor: 52%
Oppose: 42%

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1633/Iraq.aspx#4

The "Favor" position rose to 74% after 9/11 but by August 2002 it had fallen back to 53%.

Before 9/11, that was a very theoretical question though. I doubt that if Bush ramped up for war without it, it never would have happened. The Democrats wouldn't have capitulated like they did and the media wouldn't have pushed for it/not questioned the legitimacy of the invasion.  

Also:
Do you think Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the September 11th terrorist attacks, or not?
August, 2002
Yes 53%
No 34%
Not Sure 13%

March, 2003
Yes 51%
No 41%
Not Sure 8%

Aren't most political questions theoretical? It was certainly less theoretical than invading Iran or even Afghanistan. First, there was unfinished business after the Gulf War and people still remembered the easy victory of 1991. Second, we were already fighting Iraq in 2001. Look at this newspaer article http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/17/world/attack-iraq-overview-us-british-jets-strike-air-defense-centers-iraq.html.

As for the Democrats, it was a Democratic President who first said the U.S. sought regime change in Iraq back in 1998. The media thought that Iraq had WMDs before 9/11, so that rationale might not have been challenged.

The reason that people thought Saddam was involved in 9/11 was because they thought he was a menace. They did not think he was a menace just because they thought he was involved in 9/11.

It would be legitimate to accuse Bush of exploiting 9/11 if he attacked Iraq in the immediate months following. In fact, Rumsfeld wanted to launch a limited invasion of southern Iraq scheduled to begin in February 2002 that would have set up Shiite enclave, seized most of Saddam's oil, and prepared the way for a later piush to Baghdad either by American troops or American trained Shiite and Kurdish fighter (this was in "Cobra II"). But Bush rejected that option.