New York Times columnist and Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman's 9/11 blog post has stirred much debate and controversy.
On Sunday, the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, Krugman wrote a post titled The Years of Shame in which he asserted that the 9/11 attacks were used to justify an unrelated war the neocons wanted to fight, for all the wrong reasons.
Krugman also blasted Bernie Kerik, Rudy Giuliani, and George W. Bush for racing to cash in on the horror and declared the memory of 9/11 to be irrevocably poisoned and an occasion for shame.
Knowing his post would generate a nasty backlash, Krugman disabled comments on it. Still, reactions poured in online.
Some of his liberal supporters applauded him for having the courage to speak his mind about the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which has cost countless more U.S. lives than the 9/11 attacks themselves.
I stand by Paul Krugman, the truth is rarely pretty, a representative tweet read.
Michael Moore & The Dixie Chicks were just as right back then as Krugman is today - but today the taboos (& their enforcers) are much weaker, tweeted Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com.
Others disagreed with Krugman's assertion on Iraq and trashed his whole post (Paul Krugman hates America is a common tweet).
Still others criticized the insensitive timing of Krugman's comments.
Why you would publish such a hateful piece on a day when the country's heart breaks is beyond me. Whatever your political beliefs, people lost loved ones on 9/11 and using this day to spread more hate and anger is really reprehensible. Just very sad... wrote one person on the Paul Krugman blog Facebook page.
He is hateful and divisive. Brings nothing positive to the table, read a tweet.