Krugman picks a few pieces of sentences from various commentators to argue that conservatives are "winding up" domestic terrorists. True to form, Krugman ignores any evidence that cuts against his argument, such as that the museum shooter had a history of violence dating back at least to 1981, and was a neo-Nazi who hated conservatives and Fox News.
[added] Krugman also places blame on these same commentators for the shooting of Dr. George Tiller. Yet there has been no evidence that the shooter was motivated by what anyone else said. The fact that someone may have criticized Tiller, even harshly, does not logically establish evidence of causation. Mixing up mere association (i.e., both the killer and commentators criticized Tiller) with causation (the commentators caused the killer to act) is a common logical fallacy of which Krugman must be aware.
While Krugman places the blame on conservatives for the museum [and Tiller] shooter[s], Krugman fails to consider the implications of his own logic. Since Krugman has been one of the harshest critics of the Bush policies (as continued by the Obama administration), then using his own logic Krugman himself is "winding up" the next Islamist terrorist attack. Or maybe Krugman wound up the last Islamist attack, just days before the museum shooting, when a convert to Islam upset over U.S. policies in Iraq and Afghanistan killed an Army recruiter.
Will Krugman accept the responsibility he seeks to impose on others? Don't count on it. The best thing about playing the "hate card" is that consistency is not required.
UPDATE: Not suprisingly, Eugene Robinson at the Washington Post plays the "hate card" today as well:
What we don't know is whether all the blast-furnace rhetoric coming from the right is giving validation and encouragement to some confused, angry man or woman with a rifle or a truck full of fertilizer -- the next "lone wolf," preparing to howl.Interesting how neither Krugman nor Robinson applies his (il)logic to the shooting of the Army recruiter by someone who fed off of the anti-Bush rhetoric espoused by people like .... Krugman and Robinson. Of course, "we don't know" if there were any causal link, but let's smear all anti-Bush commentators just to be fair.
UPDATE No. 2: Let me see if I have the logic straight. Harshly criticising someone makes one morally if not legally responsible for the violent actions of those who share similar beliefs, and who may have heard the criticism. So Krugman and Robinson must be liable for the lunatics referred to in the search below:
Related Post: Because Only The Far Right Incites Violence