I wonder if Paul Krugman knows the definition of hypocrisy. Well, here it is from Merriam-Webster: “the false assumption of an appearance of virtue.” How is this relevant to his absurd column today? One paragraph of his column says it all:
There has been much tut-tutting by pundits who complain that the movie, though it has yet to be caught in any major factual errors, uses association and innuendo to create false impressions. Many of these same pundits consider it bad form to make a big fuss about the Bush administration’s use of association and innuendo to link the Iraq war to 9/11. Why hold a self-proclaimed polemicist to a higher standard than you hold the president of the United States?
Well, Professor, the reason you hold a self-proclaimed polemicist to a higher standard is that his entire case is built on trying to show the “truth” behind Bush’s “lies.” By creating a movie that is chock-full of “the false assumption of an appearance of virtue,” he not only destroyed his credibility, but brought down the whole case with him.
Krugman, maybe, next time, you could think about your article before you publish.