Without question.
 |
 Schadenfreude  |
This is the New York Times Schadenfreude Ping List. Freepmail me to be added or dropped.
Posted on 10/22/2003 11:35:13 AM PDT by NYC Republican
As we’ve said before, Paul Krugman is the country’s most embarrassing columnist. His hatred for President Bush has so blinded him that he is no longer a rational person. Today’s column in the New York Times is one of his most over-the-top.
Krugman takes up the subject of Mahathir Mohamad’s “Jews rule the world” speech at the Islamic summit meeting last week. He begins, of course, with a denunciation of Mahathir’s anti-Semitism—“Indeed, those remarks were inexcusable”—and continues, inevitably, with a fatal “But.”
The point of Krugman’s column is that Mahathir’s anti-Semitism is President Bush’s fault:
“[T]o understand why he made those remarks is to realize how badly things are going for U.S. foreign policy….[W]hat's with the anti-Semitism? Almost surely it's part of Mr. Mahathir's domestic balancing act, something I learned about the last time he talked like this, during the Asian financial crisis of 1997-98….Now Mr. Mahathir thinks that to cover his domestic flank, he must insert hateful words into a speech mainly about Muslim reform. That tells you, more accurately than any poll, just how strong the rising tide of anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism among Muslims in Southeast Asia has become. Thanks to its war in Iraq and its unconditional support for Ariel Sharon, Washington has squandered post-9/11 sympathy and brought relations with the Muslim world to a new low.”
So, according to Krugman, if only it weren’t for George Bush—the source of all evil in Krugman’s parallel universe—Mahathir wouldn’t be an anti-Semite; or, if he were, he would keep it to himself. Let’s test that thesis.
Mahathir became famous through his 1969 book The Malay Dilemma, in which he wrote that Jews are "not merely hook-nosed, but they understand money instinctively". He further noted that their "stinginess and financial wizardry gained them commercial control of Europe."
In 1984 he had his government cancel a scheduled visit by the New York Philharmonic Orchestra because it proposed to play a piece by a Jewish composer; Malaysian law prohibits the “screening, portrayal or musical presentation of works of Jewish origin.”
In 1986 Mahathir told an international conference that the Jews had become “monsters” and “apt pupils of Dr. Goebbels.” In the same year he also said that "some countries under Jewish control were using the foreign press to try and topple the Malaysian government."
In a 1993 speech to the United Nations Mahathir said: “a very few people in the West control all the international media... presidents can be made or broken by them." In 1997 he added: "the international media, which is controlled by the West and the Jews, is always projecting a bad image of Malaysia."
In 1997, Mahathir said: "[I]ncidentally, we are Muslims, and the Jews are not happy to see Muslims progress….the Jews robbed the Palestinians of everything, but in Malaysia they could not do so, hence they do this - depress the [Malaysian currency] …[W]e suspect they, the Jews, have an agenda, but we do not want to accuse." After this speech, the Anti-Defamation League characterized Mahathir’s remarks as “consistent with his long record of anti-Semitism and belief in a Jewish conspiracy to bring about the downfall of Malaysia.”
So Mahathir is a life-long anti-Semite who has never hesitated to denounce Jews in Malaysia, at the U.N., or in other international settings. Yet, in Paul Krugman’s twisted world, Mahathir’s anti-Semitism is somehow George Bush’s fault, and a sign of “how badly things are going for U.S. foreign policy.” Krugman shares with many on the left the instinctive willingness to blame the United States for all ills in the world, including the outrageous actions of those, like the Islamofascists, over whom we obviously have little or no control. But Krugman’s hatred of President Bush, which has distorted his reason to the point of insanity, is unique, at least among major columnists. One can only wonder how long the Times will watch him slide downhill without taking any action.
DEACON tips his cap: Wow, Rocket Man. This kind of work is the blogosphere at its best. My only fear is that the Malaysians now may try to shut us down too.
UPDATE: Don't miss Donald Luskin's contribution to the fisking of Mr. Krugman. Turns out that Krugman and Mahathir have a relationship that goes back seven years or so, about which Krugman was oddly reticent in his column. It looks, in fact, as though Krugman may have been on Mahathir's "advisory board" in a capacity similar to that in which he served Enron, i.e., providing respectable cover in exchange for cash.
Yep -pretty good characterization.
Without question.
|
Schadenfreude |
The only blogs I like a little better are PoliPundit.com and RealClearPolitics.com.
Wow, does the UN know about this? Or, is it okay with them?
I guess this is just typical for Krugman. Is this not enough to fully discredit Krugman as a political hack for hire? (and at leat have his column cancelled)
Does the Times get advertising revenue from Matathir for Krugman's column? They should.
I guess this is just typical for Krugman. Is this not enough to fully discredit Krugman as a political hack for hire? (and at leat have his column cancelled)
Does the Times get advertising revenue from Matathir for Krugman's column? They should.
I guess this is just typical for Krugman. Is this not enough to fully discredit Krugman as a political hack for hire? (and at leat have his column cancelled)
Does the Times get advertising revenue from Matathir for Krugman's column? They should.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.