An official from the U.S. State Department has called the Charlotte family of al-Qaida propagandist Samir Khan to offer the government’s condolences on his death in a U.S. drone attack last week in Yemen, according to a family spokesman.
“They were very apologetic (for not calling the family sooner) and offered condolences,” Jibril Hough said about the Thursday call from the State Department to Khan’s father, Zafar.
The phone call came a day after the family released a statement through Hough that condemned the “assassination” of their 25-year-old son – a U.S. citizen – and said they were “appalled” that they had not heard from the U.S. government to discuss their son’s remains or answer questions about why Khan was not afforded due process.
Allahpundit explains the apparent political necessity of such a call, but … but… Khan was a jihadi propagandist who worked for al-Qaida. Period. Live by the treasonous sword, die by it.
Michelle Malkin attended a memorial service this morning at America the Beautiful Park here in Colorado Springs.
I attended Mass.
She left inspired and with her resolve intact.
I left angry and disillusioned.
My husband and I looked at each other in near disbelief this morning as our priest derided the aftermath of 9/11 much like Paul Krugman did. The priest mentioned revenge and vengeance. Krugman invoked the “false heroes” of Bernie Keric, Rudy Guiliani, and George W. Bush. The priest then offered the ultimate solution: forgiveness.
I can forgive this display:
But I will not forget.
In my heart, I cannot forgive this:
Nor do I think I should.
This doesn’t bring to mind revenge and vengeance. Before the turn-the-other-cheek homily this morning, I wrote:
Shame isn’t my first thought of 9/11 and its aftermath. Service, sacrifice and perseverance are. And it shames me to know that there are others–other Krugmans out there–who fail to understand.
What does my priest fail to understand? This isn’t about forgiveness. This isn’t about revenge. This is an epic fight of good and evil. This is survival. There’s no 7 x 70 in survival.
To see liberals with such a disdain for our country that I wonder how they’ve managed to stay so long.
I don’t usually think of myself as naive, but reading this bit of vile liberal self-loathing from Paul Krugman feels like a slap:
What happened after 9/11 — and I think even people on the right know this, whether they admit it or not — was deeply shameful. Te atrocity should have been a unifying event, but instead it became a wedge issue. Fake heroes like Bernie Kerik, Rudy Giuliani, and, yes, George W. Bush raced to cash in on the horror. And then the attack was used to justify an unrelated war the neocons wanted to fight, for all the wrong reasons.
A lot of other people behaved badly. How many of our professional pundits — people who should have understood very well what was happening — took the easy way out, turning a blind eye to the corruption and lending their support to the hijacking of the atrocity?
The memory of 9/11 has been irrevocably poisoned; it has become an occasion for shame. And in its heart, the nation knows it…
An occasion for shame?
Oddly enough, that’s not what I felt yesterday when I saw this:
I didn’t feel shame at my tears during the National Anthem, either, surrounded by thousands of others who knew the words, too.
Shame isn’t my first thought of 9/11 and its aftermath. Service, sacrifice and perseverance are. And it shames me to know that there are others–other Krugmans out there–who fail to understand.
Professor Jacobson writes he is glad Krugman voiced his distasteful refrain, one no doubt echoed in the halls of the White House:
I’m glad Krugman gave voice to it on this day. They can’t stand the fact that the attacks on 9/11 proved that their world view was wrong, and every mention of 9/11 is like a thorn in their political sides.
Meanwhile, the rest of us will continue to remember 9/11 in an “oddly subdued” manner.
UPDATE: Ed Morrissey chimes in with a worthy reminder:
That’s one reason I find it hard to get worked up over this blog post, but the other is that it’s such a lousy piece of writing. It’s nothing Krugman wouldn’t say (and probably does say) the other 364 days out of the year, and Krugman says it in pretty much the same vacuous manner of the everyday sufferers of Bush Derangement Syndrome. After reading this, you seriously have to remind yourself that the New York Times pays Krugman to write it; this wouldn’t even pass muster for a Letter to the Editor at most newspapers. It’s so trite, sad, and cliched that it’s hardly worth the effort to rebut. He’s mailing this in from 2003. It’s as if Krugman hasn’t bothered to think about 9/11 in the past ten years at all, which says a lot more about Krugman than it does about 9/11.
And for that matter, so does this:
I’m not going to allow comments on this post, for obvious reasons.
Yes, the reasons are obvious, but it’s equally obvious that Krugman doesn’t have a clue what they are.
Politicaljunkie Mom 