PAUL KRUGMAN, S.O.B.

I expect so little from vermin like Paul Krugman that pretty much anything he blathers on about in his column at the New York Times just rolls right off me. 
 
But today’s column is different.  Mr. Krugman, the thoroughly discredited economics “guru”, develops a snarky little scenario he calls the Arabian Candidate.  In it, he tells of a president who, under the guise of fighting terrorism, is really just an Islamist mole.  The charges Krugman makes are so outrageous, they make my blood boil.  Here’s a sampling:
 
“Once the public's attention shifted, he would systematically squander the military victory: committing too few soldiers, reneging on promises of economic aid.”
 
And just who doles out that “economic aid”?  Is it not CONGRESS, where one presidential candidate “voted for the $87 billion be fore voting against it”?
 
“Meanwhile, he would lead America into a war against a country that posed no imminent threat. He would insinuate, without saying anything literally false, that it was somehow responsible for the terrorist attack. This unnecessary war would alienate our allies and tie down a large part of our military. At the same time, the Arabian candidate would neglect the pursuit of those who attacked us, and do nothing about regimes that really shelter anti-American terrorists and really are building nuclear weapons.”
 
I am so sick of hearing that the President insinuated Iraq was responsible for 9/11.  He did no such thing.  He said Iraq was a supplier and sponsor of terrorists and we need to wipe out the hornets nest before we get stung.  And was not Iraq a shelter for terrorists?  Where was Abu Nidal? Abdul Rahman Yasin? Abu Abbas?  Paul Krugman's basement?  No, being sheltered in Iraq.  I’m also sick of hearing that he is doing nothing about the countries who are a “real” threat to the United States.  What exactly does Krugman want us to do in North Korea?  Invade against a standing army over a million soldiers?  His liberal icon tried to bribe them in 1994 and now they have missiles that can reach California?  What does Krugman want us to do?  Strangely silent he remains.
 
“Who knows? The Arabian candidate might even be able to deprive America of the moral high ground, no mean trick when our enemies are mass murderers, by creating a climate in which U.S. guards torture, humiliate and starve prisoners, most of them innocent or guilty of only petty crimes.”
 
The irony of a liberal speaking of “moral high ground” would be downright hilarious if he wasn’t, once again repeating the charge that President Bush “created a climate” that allowed under trained soldiers to act stupidly.  If there is anyone to blame for the moral breakdown of our military, it is Bill Clinton, who, more than anyone, created a climate in the military that everything is OK as long as there’s no blue dress.  He decimated the ranks by downsizing the armed forces and left it rudderless.  It has been George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld who took on the thankless job of rebuilding the United States military to it’s former glory.
 
And perhaps the most outrageous charge made by Krugman, and I say charge even though Krugman would say he was only speaking “theoretically”,  is this:
 
“And by repeatedly issuing vague terror warnings obviously timed to drown out unfavorable political news, his officials would ensure public indifference if and when a real threat is announced.” (emphasis mine)
 
That is serious charge, that President Bush’s intention is to “ensure public indifference” to a terrorist threat because the only thing that can be inferred from that is Bush wants people to be killed.

I despise Paul Krugman and call upon the New York Times to publicly reprimand him for this comment, theory or not. (Wasn’t there someone else who spoke of a treason charge against President Bush, but only in theory?)