Conservative Refocus

By Barry Secrest

Our respectful commemoration of 9/11 was unfortunately interrupted by the nadir of suffusive, brain retardant, "left-wing think"  from none other than Paul Krugman of the NY Times, being OUR ALIEN  ATTACK ECONOMIST, who on 9/11 lamented:

Is it just me, or are the 9/11 commemorations oddly subdued?

Actually, I don’t think it’s me, and it’s not really that odd.

Indeed, Paul Krugman...

Fascinating, but not unexpected, from a man such as Krugman, so obnoxiously liberal that Obama, to him, is the second coming of Thomas Jefferson. Krugman finds something both odd and not odd at the same time... an emotion that we Conservatives systemically feel for our Liberally infected zombie-like opposites on a painfully consistent basis.

But, does Krugman actually think that American's should be exultant over an attack that took so many American lives? One must suppose that Krugman somehow feels a certain  joyousness, if he actually thinks America was "oddly subdued." So Paul, should we have been dancing in the streets at our decade-long decimation of the terrorist attackers as did much of the Mideast after the attacks on us?

We don't think so because, unfortunately, this ideological battle is far from being won.

In Krugman's column of 9/11, he enigmatically found America's sense of subdual as an oddity, which then brings those of who of us who have either been blessed or cursed with true common sense into a heartfelt seasoning of outrage, yet again. But then Krugman corrects himself by stating that "it's not really that odd."

Uh-oh, get ready whenever Liberal pundits correct themselves in a literary stuttering format. Ergo, here it comes:

What happened after 9/11 — and I think even people on the right know this, whether they admit it or not — was deeply shameful. The atrocity should have been a unifying event, but instead it became a wedge issue. 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

Told ya!

Here, and once again, as through the lengthy annals of Socialism's failures , Krugman seeks to deploy the communistic format of historical revisionism. After 9/11, Bush and virtually every Democrat in Congress, every Republican and American in general was in total and complete agreement. The feeling was that, whoever knocked these towers down would be found and punished; whomever threatened us would also be decisively corrected, preemptively, if necessary. It was a stance of rabid defiance and complete defense.

To say that Bush and Giulani "cashed in on the horror of 9/11" would be akin to stating that Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill cashed in on the Pearl Harbor attack horrors of Dec. 7,1941--"a date that will live in infamy." But, in fact, Krugman probably has mixed emotions about our WWII fight, as well.  You see, it's simply the nature of Liberals to second-guess anything that must be done with both ferocity and a certain finality.

As I recall, and to refute Krugman's memory lapse, it was not just the neocons who wanted retribution after 9/11.  Pretty much everyone in America was ready for a fight, except a large number of knee-knocking Liberals who preferred a stance of lily-livered appeasement, as is typical.

But we do find it poignant that Krugman would seek to cast the blame on the "horrible heroes" of 9/11, being those who's first thought was to both  protect and defend. Alas, moderate left-winger Bill Clinton only missed his mark by a couple of years, but what would Clinton have done? A question for the ages, but, I have a pretty good idea his actions probably would have fallen a bit short of decisive. It was Clinton, after all, who had Bin laden dead to rights and then failed to act.

However, all of Krugman's pent-up angst over his fake heroes of 9/11, no doubt, would probably have to include the many heroic firefighters, policemen and first responders who also lost their lives on that day. Krugman pretty much denigrates the memory of each and every one of those brave and dedicated men and women in his column of politicized vilification.

In fact, the feeling, I am certain, is not lost on either me or the reader, that Krugman most likely counts the death-dealing terrorists on that terrible but beautiful day as the true hero's of his 9/11.

Krugman goes on:

The memory of 9/11 has been irrevocably poisoned; it has become an occasion for shame. And in its heart, the nation knows it.

Once again, Krugman completely leaves out the poisonous ideology of radical Islam, which became the actual act of an atrocity-- in the hijacking of a religion for the purpose of exploitation and barbarianism and violence. In fact, at no point in his column does Krugman mention the actual evil-doers. Instead, Krugman seeks to politicize one of the nation's most horrible sneak attacks into a diatribe opposing the defense of America against all threats to its defining civilization.

The memory of 9/11, Paul Krugman, will always be poisoned, but certainly not because of America's swing into action. The poison refers to a cowardly sneak attack on civilians and a terrible death to its airborne victims and tower-born inhabitants. Non-military men, women and children were all targeted for extermination. This is an evil poison whose only true inoculation is the decimation of its core. The radical Islamic forces being a beast with many evil heads, has had the US military methodically cleaving one after another off, effectively blood-letting the might of the beast like a meticulously precise barber in the middle-ages.

Will Krugman weep for them?

Krugman concludes:

A lot of other people behaved badly. How many of our professional pundits — people who should have understood very well what was happening — took the easy way out, turning a blind eye to the corruption and lending their support to the hijacking of the atrocity?

Indeed Mr. Krugman, your shame knows no bounds, and your misleading ideology showcases only the need for those of your mindset to be defeated, and soundly, if not completely, in 2012.

The true shame within this nation is not the defense against a cowardly attack by barbarians, but rather, the true shame lies in the millions of people like Krugman. A man so cowardly that he chose to close his column to comments rather than allowing people to refute him within his own column. The even greater shame lies in the actions of those who agree with Krugman. There have been a number of opinion pieces both on the moderate Right and the Left that have agreed with Krugman's idiocy. To those people, we should remind them that the terror of 9/11 is but a simple collection of security mistakes away from being 9/11/11 or even 9/12.

Those individuals who mean to cast aspersions simply do not understand this enemy, nor the larger point in all of this. How can anyone say that Bush and the entire Government erred in their bold Mideast plans when no other mass attacks have come to fruition for at least a decade?

The true poison here lies also with Krugman's alternative reality of Liberalism, which, as we have seen, is no less harmful than the poison of Islamic radicalism, just a good deal slower while being more all-encompassing.

But Krugman will not make one mention of the evil aggressors who started this war in the name of Islam, and who, even now, plot ways to kill us while Krugman pensively cries foul against the heroes of our defense.

Typical and, yes, expected, but then, we all know deep down that if Krugman's aliens actually did attack we Americans, Krugman would find some solicitous means to take their side as well.