I am unaware of Mr Krugman’s clear record of perfidy and treason. Since the facts are at your fingertips, perhaps you can sketch out for us some of the more vile offenses?
Is your belief based on any particulars, or is it strictly a belief system?
Really? Where?
I mean, his piece, while critical of certain persons obviously, sounded to me more sorrowful in tone than anything else. YMMV and surely does, but I really think you have to read in any venting of spleen.
No, if we’re going to get into analogies, it’s like this:
Suppose, when your kid was in bad shape in the hospital, some fundie acquaintances blamed his situation on his refusal to accept Christ. And now, a few years later, on the anniversary of his hospital stay, you recall that moment and say some very critical things about your fundie acquaintances for exploiting his tragedy to grind their own axe.
Xeno:
Can you cite me where you got that from?
They would most likely me reluctant to contact me, after I had beaten them half to death with a bed pan.
My belief that he is vile and spiteful is primarily based on his writings, of which I have had occasion to read more than a few. My belief that he secretly hates America is more of a spidey sense. 
The gist of my Spanish-America War claims are from memory, but I did some quick internet research to get the dates and casualty figures correct. Mostly Wikipedia. Since my argument hinges on the part plaid by propaganda and cynical exploitation of public outrage rather than the totality of the causes for the war, I’d suggest the first few hits found by this quick Google search for “yellow journalism spanish american war.” I’ll be surprised if any historian substantially disagrees with the basic facts of how propaganda was deployed, and who the major players were. You could also try “theodore roosevelt spanish american war.”
Here is a good review of all the investigations regarding the USS Maine explosion (warning, it’s a pdf). The consensus is not absolute, and there are some disagreements (particularly in computer simulations), but most conclusions are as I stated.
My post was an enormously simplified summary. In truth, the anti-Spain yellow journalism of Hearst and Pulitzer began prior to February 1898. Also, public sentiment was fed by the economic impact of the Cuban rebellion and by outrage over real, excessive retaliation upon Cubans by the Spanish government. Neither of these realities substantially change the degree or manner in which the Maine tragedy was exploited by those parties interested in promoting war with Spain.
ETA: “from memory” does not mean I was alive during the conflict.
Any particular ones? I’ve been reading him for years, and find him to be thoughtful and wonkish, though lately he’s been playing the ‘I told you so’ card a bit much - but then, he really did call it. So I’d be interested in seeing what writings of his you regard as vile and spiteful.
Can’t argue with a tingle. 
Not perfect but a lot closer. This is more like criticizing the folks who propped up the corpse and used it as an excuse to burn down a grocery store where they sell cigarettes.
Cite?
I thought it was pretty clear we were talking about 9/11. The fact that Iraq and Saddam Hussein specifically was a bad guy has little to do with the fact that 9/11 was used as an excuse to invade iraq.
He didn’t WANT to kill innocent Iraqis. He was merely indifferent to it.
At some point, that sort of reckeless indifference becomes just as culpable as intent.
DA, here’s a suggestion; why don’t you read through the whole thread and then go back and respond to one specific argument or series of posts at a time? That might better promote a coherent discussion, prevent repetitive retorts and prompt better engagement with you as an interlocutor, particularly if you concentrate on addressing the later discussions.
Instantly.
Xenophon:
The Maine is an apt comparison. Yellow journalism surrounding the issue seems to be something that would strengthen my case against Krugman, as it brings to light heretofore undiscussed consequences or irresponsible journalism.
A couple of nits that I’d pick with your truly excellent summary:
- “At the same time, US Assistant Secretary of the Navy Theodore Roosevelt, who had long felt a good war against any foreign power would help heal the wounds of the US Civil War and strengthen both the US Navy and US foreign influence, leveraged the momentum provided by the eastern newspapers and agitated for a military response, undercutting President McKinley’s efforts to find a negotiated solution.”
I don’t think there can be any disagreement that Theodore Roosevelt wanted a war, any war, but I don’t see any evidence in your cites for how he leveraged momentum and undercut McKinley. Obviously, it makes things neater if we can liken Roosevelt to Bush, but I think it’s quite a stretch in this case.
The real villains in this case are Hearst and Pullitzer, who because of their bully pulpit in the press and their willingness to prevaricate to serve their own ends effectively manipulated public opinion.
This cite from your links says:
http://library.thinkquest.org/C0111500/spanamer/app.htm
“While the truth about what happened the U.S.S. Maine is still unknown (theories range from completely accidental internal explosions to Spanish torpedo fire to a mine set by agents of the “yellow press”), one can be relatively sure that this war may very well have not happened without the encouragement of the propaganda put out by newspapers all over America. To make this point more blatant, imagine what would have happened if the “yellow kids” (Hearst and Pulitzer) had strongly disapproved of the war, for whatever reason. Spanish brutality would be toned down, seen as a non-issue, and the destruction of the Maine would have been promoted as an accident. Basically, due to the public opinion that they had such thorough control over, propaganda was the decisive factor in starting this war. So, overall, this becomes one of the most significant and representative events in the history of modern propaganda.”
Krugman himself often lies and distorts to serve his own viewpoint (Remember the Harkens thread,) and is pretty much known as a tool and a yellow journalist where politics are concerned by those who are not drinking his kool-aid.
Krugman’s hyperbole and vitriol on this subject going back 10 years has had the same effect on the left as Hearst’s yellow journalism. He got people endorsing a viewpoint that he was not producing honestly. Even as an Op-Ed, what Krugman wrote does not come any where close to fitting the bill as measured, responsible and intellectual. He just spouts opinion without support as if it were fact.
Like Hearst he might as well be manufacturing fake blueprints of imaginary torpedoes.
2. The coal explosion explanation is not quite as accepted as you seem to indicate. The first two military investigation indicated an outside force. The third blamed the boiler. However, the most recent and modern investigation conducted by National Geographic using computer modelling and other sexy and authoritative sounding techniques seems to agree with the earlier military investigations and suggest an outside force.
Again, it’s a truly great post you made Xeno. Doubtless you will take issue with a couple of my statements, and I look forward to your rebuttal. My apologies for the delay, but I wanted to bone up on some of the reading to make sure I did justice to your inspired thesis.
I hope I did.
Again, I read this incidence as less about political manipulation of an event after the fact by politicians and more of a superior example of the dangers of irresponsible journalism and opinion manipulation by scumbags like Hearst and Krugman.
No. Not really. The reason why I didn’t respond to you specifically is that like RTF you again were debating all the reasons why you think we shouldn’t have gone to war, and that’s really beyond the purview of this discussion. You weren’t here, I don’t think, but I’ve done that debate to death with any number of people. So, I kinda figured my response to you was implied in my response to RTF.
Secondly, it’s not fair to you, but there is a lot more coming at me in this thread than I can respond to, so I have to pick and choose even if that means ignoring debate worthy elements in your post.
There’s this assumption here, and kind of riding through the whole thread amongst my opposition, that the War in Iraq has been conclusively demonstrated to have been wrong, and that the Patriot act has been wrong, and the wire tapping wrong, and the war on terror wrong.
I don’t think that one can reasonably accept these opinions as facts.
Right and wrong rarely are. But all of those can be reasonably concluded to be wrong, as well as antithetical to American ideals.
That’s true. Unfortunately they can also be reasonably concluded as correct and in support of American ideals.
That’s why they are opinions and not facts.