Donald Rumsfeld is mad as hell at Paul Krugman for his piece yesterday regarding 9/11, so much so that the former defense secretary cancelled his subscription to the New York Times.
In a tweet on Monday Rumsfeld noted:
“After reading Krugman’s repugnant piece on 9/11, I cancelled my subscription to the New York Times this AM.”
In his blog post Krugman wrote:
“What happened after 9/11 … was deeply shameful” while calling the memory memory of 9/11 “irrevocably poisoned; it has become an occasion for shame. And in its heart, the nation knows it.”
After hearing of Rumsfeld’s tweet Krugman responded to the Politico noting:
“I’m not saying anything in that post that I wasn’t saying back in 2002, when people like him [Rumsfeld] were riding high.”
The times and Rumsfeld have never gotten along, he clashed with paper editors after they praised a decision allowing two Americans who said they had been tortured in Iraq to sue Rumsfeld. The paper also panned his book “Known and Unknown” at one point calling it a “tedious, self-serving volume” that is “filled with efforts to blame others.”
For some reason I don’t think this is the last we’ll hear from Rumsfeld about the New York Times or vice versa.
In the meantime, while I can honestly care less what Krugman has to say about the event, his self serving need to bring up an old argument on the 10th anniversary of 9/11 is shameful on its own.
What do you think about the Krugman 9/11 piece and Rumsfeld’s idea to cancel his NYT subscription after the blog post was published?
