I am a Krugman fan and I agree with his recent assertion that the U.S. took actions in response to 9/11 that were politically motivated – we now know that linking 9/11 to Iraq, Al-Qaeda in Iraq, and weapons of mass destruction was a stretch at best and possibly out right, purposeful deception. I might have voted for Colin Powell for President at the time, but I can still see his presentation showing the diagrams of the semi trailers converted to serve as manufacturing facilities for the production of WMD – pretty much the end of his credibility.
Still couldn’t Krugman find ways to make the point without using phrases like “fake hero” and “marker of shame”. Is this the way to get attention? When did this “over the top” rhetoric begin and does everyone joining in advance any given cause? It seems so many are now focused on impressing their friends rather than persuading their adversaries.
Pundits are lining up on this topic in predictable ways. It would be interesting to cross reference complaints about the phrase “fake hero” with complaints about the phrase “ponzi scheme”.