PDA

View Full Version : Another Good Column by Krauthammer



llotter
06-01-2012, 07:01 AM
From today's Washington Post:

Charles Krauthammer

A very strange story, that 6,000-word front-page New York Times piece on how, every Tuesday, Barack Obama shuffles “baseball cards” with the pictures and bios of suspected terrorists from around the world and chooses who shall die by drone strike. He even reserves for himself the decision of whether to proceed when the probability of killing family members or bystanders is significant.

The article could have been titled “Barack Obama: Drone Warrior.” Great detail on how Obama personally runs the assassination campaign. On-the-record quotes from the highest officials. This was no leak. This was a White House press release.

Why? To portray Obama as tough guy. And why now? Because in crisis after recent crisis, Obama has looked particularly weak: standing helplessly by as thousands are massacred in Syria; being played by Iran in nuclear negotiations, now reeling with the collapse of the latest round in Baghdad; being treated with contempt by Vladimir Putin, who blocks any action on Syria or Iran and adds personal insult by standing up Obama at the latter’s G-8 and NATO summits.

The Obama camp thought that any political problem with foreign policy would be cured by the Osama bin Laden operation. But the administration’s attempt to politically exploit the raid’s one-year anniversary backfired, earning ridicule and condemnation for its crude appropriation of the heroic acts of others.

A campaign ad had Bill Clinton praising Obama for the courage of ordering the raid because, had it failed and Americans been killed, “the downside would have been horrible for him. “ Outraged vets released a response ad, pointing out that it would have been considerably more horrible for the dead SEALs.

That ad also highlighted the many self-references Obama made in announcing the bin Laden raid: “I can report . . . I directed . . . I met repeatedly . . . I determined . . . at my direction . . . I, as commander in chief,” etc. ad nauseam. (Eisenhower’s announcement of the D-Day invasion made not a single mention of his role, whereas the alternate statement he’d prepared had the landing been repulsed was entirely about it being his failure.)

Obama only compounded the self-aggrandizement problem when he spoke a week later about the military “fighting on my behalf.”

The Osama-slayer card having been vastly overplayed, what to do? A new card: Obama, drone warrior, steely and solitary, delivering death with cool dispatch to the rest of the al-Qaeda depth chart.

So the peacemaker, Nobel laureate, nuclear disarmer, apologizer to the world for America having lost its moral way when it harshly interrogated the very people Obama now kills, has become — just in time for the 2012 campaign — Zeus the Avenger, smiting by lightning strike.

A rather strange ethics. You go around the world preening about how America has turned a new moral page by electing a president profoundly offended by George W. Bush’s belligerence and prisoner maltreatment, and now you’re ostentatiously telling the world that you personally play judge, jury and executioner to unseen combatants of your choosing and whatever innocents happen to be in their company.

This is not to argue against drone attacks. In principle, they are fully justified. No quarter need be given to terrorists who wear civilian clothes, hide among civilians and target civilians indiscriminately. But it is to question the moral amnesia of those whose delicate sensibilities were offended by the Bush methods that kept America safe for a decade — and who now embrace Obama’s campaign of assassination by remote control.

Moreover, there is an acute military problem. Dead terrorists can’t talk.

Drone attacks are cheap — which is good. But the path of least resistance has a cost. It yields no intelligence about terror networks or terror plans.

One capture could potentially make us safer than 10 killings. But because of the moral incoherence of Obama’s war on terror, there are practically no captures anymore. What would be the point? There’s nowhere for the CIA to interrogate. And what would they learn even if they did, Obama having decreed a new regime of kid-gloves, name-rank-and-serial-number interrogation?

This administration came out opposing military tribunals, wanting to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed in New York, reading the Christmas Day bomber his Miranda rights and trying mightily (and unsuccessfully, there being — surprise! — no plausible alternative) to close Guantanamo. Yet alongside this exquisite delicacy about the rights of terrorists is the campaign to kill them in their beds.

You festoon your prisoners with rights — but you take no prisoners. The morality is perverse. Which is why the results are so mixed. We do kill terror operatives, an important part of the war on terror, but we gratuitously forfeit potentially life-saving intelligence.

But that will cost us later. For now, we are to bask in the moral seriousness and cool purpose of our drone warrior president.

Soflasnapper
06-01-2012, 07:23 PM
Krauthammer's eloquent phrasing hides his howling illogic and factual errors and his own terrifying bloody advocacy.

Thank God Obama isn't listening to the likes of Mr. K and launching on Iran as Mr. K would wish, which contrary to the happy horsesh!t talk would likely start WW III, or at best, plunge the world into a very much deeper depression. This is among Obama's most important roles right now-- standing almost alone against the rush to what would be ruinous war, on the basis of no nuclear program or capability at all? (So say our top military and intelligence experts, and Israel's own recently fired intel chiefs as well.)

Standing by while thousands are massacred in Syria? Hardly. It is the west's hired terror groups that are doing it (Mr. K missed that attack line on the pres, because no one is supposed to admit the west is doing this in an effort to topple another domino in the region, ala the plan for 7 countries to fall that Wes Clarke learned of and wrote about, from his high command contacts-- a neo-con project that Mr. K fully endorses and supports. That's right, look it up. We have hired mercenaries from terror groups to attack the civilians and blame the deaths on the guy we want to take down, and not for the first time, as for example we did it in Iran when taking Mossadegh down.)

Putin is NOT blocking 'any action' on Iran, as sanctions with the bite of a cause for war are currently being ratcheted up on that country, ruining its economy, cutting in half the value of its currency, and creating enough economic chaos that it may topple the regime if kept in place long enough.

This particular lie shows the game Mr. K is up to. Weak, weak... no, too strong! Strong because he's weak! Whatever.

He's in the hall of fame of sophistry for good reason. A pleasing delivery does not mean factually correct.

eg8r
06-01-2012, 08:05 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thank God Obama isn't listening to the likes of Mr. K and launching on Iran </div></div>LOL, yeah he is already getting great advice and launching on the Poles.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
06-02-2012, 09:13 AM
Obama only compounded the self-aggrandizement problem when he spoke a week later about the military “fighting on my behalf.”

This observation from Mr. K is true. I noticed it when he said it, and was pretty sure it would spark a firestorm of criticism. And I was surprised it did not, or at least if it did it was a small brush fire that escaped my attention, not the full blown media frenzy I expected.

It was in the context of the gay marriage turnaround, and Obama did indeed say he was reminded of the impact on the military who 'were fighting for me,' or 'fighting on my behalf.' Although they are fighting under his overall command as CIC, they are fighting for the country and the security interests of all of us, not 'for him.'

Another poorly phrased remark? Either there are some tin ears in the speech writing process and those vetting it, or Obama is mistakenly over-ruling voices of reason to his detriment, or maybe there is some deliberate sabotage going on.

Even if Obama is that egomaniacal and grandiose, one would think he's clever enough to mask it, if the impetus is coming from him. If it's the end result of a normal process, he might not see what is so wrong about it, under the assumption that he's so full of himself.

Soflasnapper
06-02-2012, 09:20 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thank God Obama isn't listening to the likes of Mr. K and launching on Iran </div></div>LOL, yeah he is already getting great advice and launching on the Poles.

eg8r </div></div>

He made a remark using two words instead of a clumsier five word circumlocution that offended overly delicate Polish national sensitivities. That's hardly launching on the Poles. His removal of the planned ABM siting in Poland actually prevented them from being the targets of REAL launching, as Russia would make such installations nuclear targets if the excrement ever hit the fan, and wouldn't otherwise.

As an interesting bellweather, it is Chicago that is ground zero for Polish American concentration. That means the environment Obama and many of his Chicago crew came out of should have acquainted them with Polish attitudes.

If this is really a big deal, look for softening support in Chicago and then proportionately, Illinois. I predict this will not take place, but await any data to see whether it happens or not. I try to be an empiricist and factually grounded, even if I don't always succeed at that.

llotter
06-03-2012, 07:19 AM
The Moron is so full of himself and it is just a little surprising that so many will simply rationalize his ham-handed remarks. Remember the gifts to the Queen of England, an ipod filled with his speeches and a couple other items that were purchased at the airport gift shop. And remember the abrupt returning of the bust of Churchill, putting some personal issue ahead of the country.

Not only is he incompetent but so are those he appoints, like the Secretary of State, whose department should insure that protocols are followed and embarrassments are avoided. Recall the Reset Button with the incorrect Russian inscription.

The list is never-ending of The Moron's stupidity in dealing in foreign affairs and the consequences are showing themselves as stability evaporates in every corner of the world.

Soflasnapper
06-03-2012, 12:21 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Beck's theory dissolves, of course, since his premise - that Obama returned the "gift" the U.S. received from the British - has long since been undermined. The original U.K. Telegraph article detailing the return of the statue made clear that the British embassy said it had only been "uniquely lent to a foreign head of state, President George W Bush," not given in perpetuity to the U.S. government:

A British Embassy spokesman said: "The bust of Sir Winston Churchill by Sir Jacob Epstein was uniquely lent to a foreign head of state, President George W Bush, from the Government Art Collection in the wake of 9/11 as a signal of the strong transatlantic relationship.

"It was lent for the first term of office of President Bush. When the President was elected for his second and final term, the loan was extended until January 2009.

"The new President has decided not to continue this loan and the bust has now been returned. It is on display at the Ambassador's Residence."

Likewise, the White House has stated that the Churchill bust had been scheduled for return to Great Britain prior to Obama's presidency:

Some Britons took offense when Winston Churchill's bust was replaced with King's. But the decision to return the Churchill bust to the British - it had been presented by former Prime Minister Tony Blair to Bush on loan - had been made before Obama even arrived.

"It was already scheduled to go back," [White House curator William] Allman said.
</div></div>

Your claim that if only Obama and his team were competent, the world would have stability in every corner of the world is preposterous. America does not have that ability, and never has, under any president, as there are typically some dozen or more wars, or armed conflicts or rebellions, at any given time.

For a small government conservative, you have bought into a phenomenal imperial capability for our country that is wholly incompatible with a small government.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A British Embassy spokesman said: "The bust of Sir Winston Churchill by Sir Jacob Epstein was uniquely lent to a foreign head of state, President George W Bush, from the Government Art Collection in the wake of 9/11 as a signal of the strong transatlantic relationship.

"It was lent for the first term of office of President Bush. When the President was elected for his second and final term, the loan was extended until January 2009.

"The new President has decided not to continue this loan and the bust has now been returned. It is on display at the Ambassador's Residence."</div></div>

The original Telegraph article referenced above. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/4623148/Barack-Obama-sends-bust-of-Winston-Churchill-on-its-way-back-to-Britain.html)