We are the only site on the web devoted exclusively to intellectual conservatism. We find the most intriguing information and bring it together on one page for you.

Home
Articles
Headlines
Links we recommend
Feedback
Link to us
Free email update
About us
What's New & Interesting
Mailing Lists
Intellectual Icons
Submissions

 

Paul Krugman and the New York Times: American Patriots?
by Paul Walfield
28 July 2003Paul Krugman

Paul Krugman claims that the folks in the Republican administration are the ones who are “unpatriotic.”


Paul Krugman works for the New York Times.  He also works hard to diminish our country, our military and our morale as a nation.  Krugman is everything a Liberal in the 21st century is known by.
 
The New York Times newspaper at the very least approves of his articles; otherwise, they certainly would not have them as part of their paper.  After all, Maureen Dowd also writes for the Times, bolstering the notion that it is the Times that is the driving force behind its Leftist writers.
 
On July 22nd Krugman wrote an article entitled “Who’s Unpatriotic Now?” in which he damned the Administration of the United States, belittled our military, condemned America for defending itself militarily, and scorned America for not subordinating its sovereignty and security to the United Nations.  Still he wonders who is unpatriotic.
 
The Times article begins with a claim that his is a dispassionate argument.  He refers to “non-revisionist” history and to an article in another newspaper -- with apparently no named sources -- as if it were gospel.  For Mr. Krugman, newspaper articles with no named sources are sacrosanct if they strengthen his position and further his agenda.
 
Krugman states that America’s military is the greatest in all of history, but not for long.  At least not under President Bush, and definitely not if they are actually used in war.  According to Krugman, the war with Iraq “has seriously weakened our military position.”  For a liberal,  conducting the most successful military campaign in recent history is a bad thing for our military.  For Mr. Krugman, closing your eyes to threats against America during a Republican Administration is patriotic, while confronting threats is not.
 
Mr. Krugman explains, “the Army's readiness is eroding: normal doctrine calls for only one brigade in three to be deployed abroad, while the other two retrain and refit.”  How terrible.  America deployed its military to fight a war.  For the liberals, not following doctrine is eroding our military strength.  In other words, if America actually deploys its military in its own national interest, we are not following “normal doctrine” and eroding the military and not being patriotic.  For the liberal mind, that makes sense.
 
Then his article goes further, in an apparent bit of wishful thinking: “And the war will have devastating effects on future recruiting by the reserves.”  It sounds as if Mr. Krugman and the New York Times don’t have access to the very public information coming from our military recruiters, who have been reporting that each branch of America’s military is bringing in new recruits far in excess of projected goals.  For the liberals, furthering their agenda is far more important than the truth.
 
For the liberal, nothing is as important as furthering their agenda and weakening any sense of nationalism.
 
Mr. Krugman believes the United States had no business toppling the brutal and murderous regime of Saddam Hussein, because the United Nations did not give us their approval.  America is now paying a terrible price for its willingness to believe in its own interests and sovereignty, according to Krugman, because “our insistence on launching a war without U.N. approval has deprived us of useful allies.” 
 
Krugman seems to argue that America’s entry into Iraq and deposing a tyrannical regime -- liberating 25 million Iraqis -- was not in the interest of America, and he also argues that if we had just waited a little longer and obtained UN approval, our stay in Iraq would have been more pleasant.
 
Mr. Krugman claims that the folks in the Republican administration are the ones who are “unpatriotic.”  You see, by seeing more than “yellow cake” coming out of Niger as a reason to go to war with Iraq, George Bush and company has done a great disservice to the American people.  By standing up to despots and tyrants and for American security, Republicans are unpatriotic, according to Krugman.  Accusing President Bush of “lying” because he told the truth about Britain finding a connection between Iraq and Niger’s yellow cake uranium is patriotic.
 
To this very day, Britain stands by its findings.  But the liberals continue to claim President Bush deceived us all.  Lying to further their agenda must also be patriotic for the liberals.
 
For Mr. Krugman, “cooking” intelligence is tantamount to aiding and abetting America’s enemies.  You see, according to Krugman, President Bush is a traitor.  Krugman explains that President Bush has weakened America’s ability to defend herself against real enemies because George W. Bush used America’s military to defend America against the threat posed by Saddam Hussein post 9-11. 

For a liberal, for Mr. Krugman, and for the New York Times, America’s efforts to survive as America in the 21st century -- and on a planet that witnessed the murder of thousands of Americans by terrorists still harbored by the likes of people like Saddam Hussein, the Ayatollahs in Iran and the Kim Jong Ils’ of the world --  is “unpatriotic.”
 
For Americans that love their country, for true patriots who see America as the best hope this planet has for peace and justice, we do not need to be asked, “who’s unpatriotic now.”

Paul Walfield is a freelance writer and member of the State Bar of California with an undergraduate degree in Psychology and post-graduate study in behavioral and analytical psychology. He resided for a number of years in the small town of Houlton, Maine and is now a California attorney.

Email Paul Walfield

Send this Article to a Friend