Krugman's 'years of shame', ctd

The economist adds to yesterday's poorly-received comments:

Now, I should have said that the American people behaved remarkably well in the weeks and months after 9/11: There was very little panic, and much more tolerance than one might have feared. Muslims weren’t lynched, and neither were dissenters, and that was something of which we can all be proud. But the memory of how the atrocity was abused is and remains a painful one. And it’s a story that I, at least, can neither forget nor forgive.

Apparently Donald Rumsfeld has cancelled his subscription to the Times over Krugman's blog post, in which the Nobel-winning economist wrote that "the memory of 9/11 has been irrevocably poisoned; it has become an occasion for shame. And in its heart, the nation knows it." To me, canceling your subscription to a newspaper (especially the leading voice of newspapers, the Times) over what one columnist wrote on his blog seems like something of an overreaction. Although, in fairness, this isn't former Defense Secretary Rumsfeld's first issue with the newspaper: a Times review deemed his book a "tedious, self-serving volume" that is "filled with efforts to blame others." Probably an accurate description, I must say. Krugman thinks that's shameful? He should see this.

(Just on this note: you're probably aware that the newspaper in question has installed a paywall limiting non-subscribers to 20 articles a month. I'd hate for you to waste your quota, and this post has a number of links to their website. Consider this a warning.)