“You’ve done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?” The memorable retort to Sen. Joseph McCarthy is most aptly asked of New York Times columnist Paul Krugman. He, of course, once suggested that Sen. Joe Lieberman (I- Conn.) should be hung in effigy. (“A message to progressives: By all means, hang Senator Joe Lieberman in effigy. Declare that you’re disappointed in and/or disgusted with President Obama. Demand a change in Senate rules that, combined with the Republican strategy of total obstructionism, are in the process of making America ungovernable.”) He was compelled to “clarify” his Lieberman statement, which he did in the most insincere and graceless manner possible. (“Management wants me to make it clear that in my last column I wasn’t endorsing inappropriate threats against Mr. Lieberman.”)

In the wake of the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D- Ariz.), there he was again, rhetorical pitchfork in hand, accusing the Republicans of sparking mass murder.

But nothing quite tops his 9/11 screed:

What happened after 9/11 — and I think even people on the right know this, whether they admit it or not — was deeply shameful. The atrocity should have been a unifying event, but instead it became a wedge issue. Fake heroes like Bernie Kerik, Rudy Giuliani, and, yes, George W. Bush raced to cash in on the horror. And then the attack was used to justify an unrelated war the neocons wanted to fight, for all the wrong reasons. . . . The memory of 9/11 has been irrevocably poisoned; it has become an occasion for shame. And in its heart, the nation knows it.

One cannot begin to imagine what motivates such hatred and contempt for his countrymen, especially on a day when the overriding theme was unity. The president and former presidents spoke without partisanship or rancor. Not Krugman, though. But there is cowardice, too — he deactivated his reader comments on that spasm for “obvious reasons.” Obvious that he would be condemned? Obvious that even among his oh-so-rarefied audience of sophisticates, who deplore what President Obama called “triumphalism,” such bile would garner no praise?

I suppose we should cease to be shocked or appalled. As one noted wag put it, “There’s no shame for New York Times columnists, as they’ve proved over and over again, in using spitballs for words and then hiding behind them.” But it does say something about the deification of the Times, practiced by the editor and so many of her ilk. Their paper is a false god — sneering, obtuse and contemptuous — not a font of truth and wisdom.

One thing you can say for Krugman: The jewel of the liberal media is revealed to be an intellectual black hole and a spiritual wasteland. No wonder it is a dying enterprise. Its countrymen have better things to do than be insulted by the likes of Krugman.