3
POPSReal men don't read D.C. pundits
Even worse than Krauthammer's column today, though, was David Brooks in the New York Times. Partly it's because Brooks likes to pretend to be open-minded and reasonable, while spouting neocon talking points, and occasionally liberals get pulled in by him. But today was trademark lazy ideological Brooks. As Glenn Greenwald notes, unbelievably he bragged about "doing what journalists are supposed to do" -- which he defined as talking to a handful of anonymous pro-war sources, who uniformly criticized Obama's inaction to date on McCrystal's troop request. That's some brave shit. Not quite David Rohde brave, but hey, he made the calls! If it was unanimous, that means he didn't call retired Marine Matthew Hoh, who resigned from a civilian post in Afghanistan this week because he said we can't win, and our presense is only fueling the insurgency. Hoh told the Washington Post's Karen de Young he's "not some peacenik, pot-smoking hippie who wants everyone to be in love" and that he believes
6
POPSCharles Krauthammer: The Three Envelopes 
I suppose, explain away his own, well, yearlong drift on Afghanistan. This compulsion to attack his predecessor is as stale as it is unseemly. Obama was elected a year ago. He became commander in chief two months later. He then solemnly announced his own "comprehensive new strategy" for Afghanistan seven months ago. Obama is obviously unhappy with the path he himself chose in March. Fine. He has every right -- indeed duty -- to reconsider. But what Obama is reacting to is the failure of his own strategy. There is nothing new here. The history of both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars is a considered readjustment of policies that have failed. In each war, quick initial low-casualty campaigns toppled enemy governments. In the subsequent occupation stage, two policy choices presented themselves: the light or heavy "footprint." In both Iraq and Afghanistan, we initially chose the light footprint. This was the considered judgment of our commanders at the time,
9
POPSDon't be surprised the media elite sided with Fox The point's neither complex nor subtle. In this country, journalists don't sponsor or participate in partisan political events. Maybe in Venezuela or China, but in the United States, no. Explaining to the New York Times, deputy White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer said, "We simply decided to stop abiding by the fiction, which is aided and abetted by the mainstream press, that Fox is a traditional news organization." Quantcast Yet neither the Times nor most "mainstream" pundits evaluated the claim on its merits. Most pretended not to grasp the White House's point, and then went straight to the aiding and abetting. Many invoked the ghost of Richard Nixon. Why, to criticize Fox, claimed the Washington Post's Ruth Marcus and Charles Krauthammer, was downright "Nixonian." NPR's Ken Rudin recalled "what Nixon and Agnew did with their enemies list." So did CNN's Anderson Cooper. Rudin subsequently apologized for the "boneheaded" comparison; Cooper didn't.
8
POPS Charles Krauthammer :: Fox Wars only disburses more than $3 trillion every year but is extending its reach ever deeper into private industry -- finance, autos, soon health care and energy. Think twice before you run an ad on Fox. At first, there was little reaction from other media. Then on Thursday, the administration tried to make them complicit in an actual boycott of Fox. The Treasury Department made available Ken Feinberg, the executive pay czar, for interviews with the White House "pool" news organizations -- except Fox. The other networks admirably refused, saying they would not interview Feinberg unless Fox was permitted to as well. The administration backed down. This was an important defeat because there's a principle at stake here. While government can and should debate and criticize opposition voices, the current White House goes beyond that. It wants to delegitimize any significant dissent. The objective is no secret.
4
POPS Debacle in Moscow by Charles Krauthammer And what's come from Obama's single most dramatic foreign policy stroke -- the sudden abrogation of missile defense arrangements with Poland and the Czech Republic that Russia had virulently opposed? For the East Europeans it was a crushing blow, a gratuitous restoration of Russian influence over a region that thought it had regained independence under American protection. But maybe not gratuitous. Some brilliant secret trade-off to get strong Russian support for stopping Iran from going nuclear before it's too late? Just wait and see, said administration officials, who then gleefully played up an oblique statement by President Dmitry Medvedev a week later as vindication of the missile defense betrayal. The Russian statement was so equivocal that such a claim seemed a ridiculous stretch at the time. Well, Clinton went to Moscow this week to nail down the deal. What did she get? "Russia Not Budging On Iran Sanctions: Clinton Unable to Sway Counterpart."
4
POPSObama's Wrecking Crew Charles Krauthammer Hillsdale College Professor Paul Rahe writes: Krauthammer's point is simple and unassailable. There is, he argues, an intimate connection between the foreign policy being pursued by the Obama administration and its domestic policy. The work undertaken in the domestic sphere by what I have called "Obama's wrecking crew" will, he points out, put a stop to the pattern of dynamic economic growth that made it possible for the United States to defeat Japan, contribute decisively to the defeat of Nazi Germany, contain communism, and ultimately defeat and prepare the way for the dismemberment of the Soviet Union. It will produce economic stagnation of the sort that the Europeans have suffered from for decades, and it will eventuate in a collapse of the American dollar This, as Krauthammer shows, Obama and his minions understand, and this they want -- the elimination of the foundations for American hegemony and the crippling of this country.
6
POPSBeck Breaks Jarrett/Frank Marshall Davis/Obama Connection Krauthammer On Obama's Radical Associates Charles Krauthammer connects the dots-Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Van Jones. If a President hangs around with radicals before he has power-why expect that to change when he rules the roost? http://newzeal.blogspot.com/2009/09/krauthammer-on-obamas-radical.html
8
POPSSpecial Report Panel Says Van Jones is a "Whack Job"; Has to Go - Video 9/3/09 Of course, the elephant in the room is that a radical like Van Jones was hired by President Obama because Obama is totally comfortable with him. It is impossible to believe Obama did not know about Jones' radical views. Just like Obama knew about Rev. Wright's radical views, and Father Pfleger's radical views, and radical William Ayers, he knew exactly who he was asking to join his administration. President Barack Obama is comfortable with radicals because he has a radical agenda himself. The American people are waking up to this reality that so many tried to warn about during the 2008 campaign. People did not want to believe it, but Obama's actions and decisions - decisions like hiring Van Jones - are making millions of people believers now.
2
POPSMedvedev Resets The "Reset Summit" Mr Medvedev, speaking at the G8, also appeared to change his tone on the missile defence shield itself. During Mr Obama's visit he told the US leader, using markedly softer language than normal, that "no one is saying that missile defence is harmful in itself or that it poses a threat to someone". But in Italy on Friday, Mr Medvedev returned to the Kremlin's traditional posture on the system, describing it as "harmful" and "threatening to Russia". Aaaaand we're back to square one --- reset indeed. As I noted earlier in the week, the Russians are giddy that they pried loose a key concession from Obama in the form of linking strategic nuclear cuts to missile defense. Charles Krauthammer observes that not only is this linkage a terrible idea, but that Obama's faith in the power of anachronistic arms control mechanisms is comical ... and quite dangerous: Obama says that his START will be a great boon, setting an example to enable us to better pressure
5
POPSWho Stands With The Freedom Fighters of Iran? Iran's dictatorship is the heart of much of Islamic terrorism and violence throughout the Middle East and the world. Ridding the world of that evil transcends the more narrow concerns about Iranian nuclear development! President Obama, behind the curve of even Democrats in his own party in the House who voted unanimously for a resolution sponsored by Mike Pence, (R-IN) to "Condemn the ongoing violence against demonstrators by the Government of Iran and pro-government militias," finally some additional fortitude Saturday afternoon and released the following statement: The statement above is a subtle shift from Obama's statements earlier in the week where he repeated the phrase "respect Iranian sovereignty" which is code for respect the dictatorship of the Mullahs. Today's phrase "If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community" is a subtle, but significant shift.
2
POPSThe Latest From Iran What should President Obama do about Iran? He can do what he does best: Talk. He should roll out the TOTUS and give the Iranian mullahs and moguls an old-fashioned spanking. Complete with direct quotes from the Koran. Alas, this will not happen. Dr. Charles Krauthammer this week said of President Obama: “All hangs in the balance. The Khamenei regime is deciding whether to do a Tiananmen. And what side is the Obama administration taking? None.” Ouch. I feel the pain not for the target of Dr. Krauthammer’s words, but for the rest of us. 53% of the nation gave 100% of the world a leader of the free world someone who, when danger comes, dares to vote " present. Such a timorous approach to adversity is decidedly James Buchanan-like, as opposed to Harry Trumanesque or John Kennedyesque. There is much intelligence in not taking unnecessary risks. There is greater ignorance in trying to avoid all risks at all times.
3
POPSWashington Post fires its best columnist What makes this firing so bizarre and worthy of inquiry is that Froomkin was easily one of the most linked-to and cited Post columnists. At a time when newspapers are relying more and more on online traffic, the Post just fired the person who, in 2007, wrote 3 out of the top 10 most-trafficked columns. Froomkin's statement: I’m terribly disappointed. I was told that it had been determined that my White House Watch blog wasn’t "working" anymore. But from what I could tell, it was still working very well. I also thought White House Watch was a great fit with The Washington Post brand, and what its readers reasonably expect from the Post online. As I’ve written elsewhere, I think that the future success of our business depends on journalists enthusiastically pursuing accountability and calling it like they see it. That’s what I tried to do every day. Now I guess I'll have to try to do it someplace else.
6
POPSMisguided Rhetoric Krauthammer concludes: Creating false equivalencies is not moral leadership, but moral abdication. And hovering above it all, above country and history, is a sign not of transcendence but of a disturbing ambivalence toward one's own country.
4
POPSHOW FOX NEWS OPENED AMERICA Charles is a great journalists, and his sincerity in this article is genuine. Liberals will spit at the thought of this perspective. but like it or not, the truth is in the viewers. and they obviously agree.
3
POPSCharles Krauthammer Wins Breindel Award for Excellence in Journalism Breindel, a former editorial page editor of the New York Post and senior vice president of the News Corporation, died of liver complications in 1998. Past winners of the award created in his honor include Bret Stephens of the Wall Street Journal and Max Boot, now a senior fellow at the Council of Foreign Relations. "If we look at the past winners, it's for years now honored people are swimming upstream rather than taking the easy way down, politically and ideologically speaking," Krauthammer said. "It's a special award."
4
POPSYou bastards, you've killed us all! We have phony rich people (with interest-only mortgages and piles of debt), phony beauty (with plastic surgery and cosmetic procedures), phony athletes (with performance-enhancing drugs), phony celebrities (via reality TV and YouTube), phony genius students (with grade inflation), a phony national economy (with $11 trillion of government debt), phony feelings of being special among children (with parenting and education focused on self-esteem), and phony friends (with the social networking explosion). All this fantasy might feel good, but, unfortunately, reality always wins. The mortgage meltdown and the resulting financial crisis are just one demonstration of how inflated desires eventually crash to earth.
8
POPS Obama in Bush Clothing By Charles Krauthammer Friday, May 22, 2009 "We were able to hold it off with George Bush. The idea that we might find ourselves fighting with the Obama administration over these powers is really stunning." If hypocrisy is the homage that vice pays to virtue, then the flip-flops on previously denounced anti-terror measures are the homage that Barack Obama pays to George Bush. Within 125 days, Obama has adopted with only minor modifications huge swaths of the entire, allegedly lawless Bush program. The latest flip-flop is the restoration of military tribunals. During the 2008 campaign, Obama denounced them repeatedly, calling them an "enormous failure." Obama suspended them upon his swearing-in. Now they're back. Of course, Obama will never admit in word what he's doing in deed.
3
POPSFar Left Hack Poking Fun At Crippled Conservatives Klein is a very respected liberal writer. More... mpw280 adds: Maybe Joe Klein would would write better if he could see the things he writes about better, but that would entail him removing his face from Obama's a$$. True.
3
POPSStand Up, Joe Klein, So We Can Kick Your A** as "ass welt journalism" Part of the problem is that journalism terminology glorifies "shoe-leather reporting," whereby you pound the pavement so often you wear out the soles of your shoes. Yet there's no widely used term of approbation for the other kind of reporting. For this very reason, my New Republic colleague Franklin Foer and I decided a few years ago to coin a phrase: ass-welt reporting. I'm not saying that every news story could be reported without leaving one's desk. (Bernstein: "Woodward, look! I found a clip from 1971 in which President Nixon tells the Omaha World-Herald he plans to order his goons to break into Democratic headquarters in the Watergate Hotel!" Woodward: "I'll cancel that meeting with Deep Throat.") I'm simply saying that, sometimes, laziness can be the better part of valor. "Laziness"? Grrr justoneminute - tom mcguire http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2009/05/stand-up-joe-klein-so-we-can-kick-your-a.html linked to julescrittenden
4
POPSBonfire of the Trivialities ~ By Charles Krauthammer retroactive confiscatory tax. The common law is pretty clear about the impermissibility of ex post facto legislation and bills of attainder. They also happen to be specifically prohibited by the Constitution. Nor has the president behaved much better. He, too, has been out there trying to lead the mob. But it's a losing game. His own congressional Democrats will out-demagogue him and heap the blame on the hapless Timothy Geithner. It is time for the president to state the obvious: This recession is not caused by excessive executive compensation in government-controlled companies. The economy has been sinking because of a lack of credit, stemming from a general lack of confidence, stemming from the lack of a plan to detoxify the major lending institutions, mainly the banks, which, to paraphrase Willie Sutton, is where the money used to be. Obama has been strangely passive about this single greatest threat to the country.
5
POPS No Apology, Mr. President It engaged in five military campaigns, every one of which involved — and resulted in — the liberation of a Muslim people: Bosnia, Kosovo, Kuwait, Afghanistan and Iraq. The two Balkan interventions — as well as the failed 1992-93 Somalia intervention to feed starving African Muslims (43 Americans were killed) — were humanitarian exercises of the highest order, there being no significant U.S. strategic interest at stake. In these 20 years, this nation has done more for suffering and oppressed Muslims than any nation, Muslim or non-Muslim, anywhere on Earth. Why are we apologizing? I can’t improve on Krauthammer. Go read it for yourselves.
1
POPSLeaked Menu of George Will's Catered Dinner Party for Barack Obama Hors d’oeuvres Skewers of Unmitigated Gall Fingerless Sandwiches Record Dow Asiago-Spinach Dip Mercury-Infused Bay Scallops with Deregulation Coulis Chickenhawk Balls Wrapped in Old Glory Choose one from the following courses: Soup du Jour Torture Chowder Intellectually Dishonest Bisque Puree of Lying Sack of Potato Soup Salad Segregated Greens with Reaganesque Croutons Cryto-Fascist Pasto Appetizers Heartless Artichoke Tartine Propagandistically Stuffed Mushrooms Clams in a Half Cell Indoctrinated Shrimp Cocktail Entrees Beef Orwellian War on Terror Risotto Shredded Constitution with Well-Placed Leeks Bipartisan Turducken™ Cold Shoulder of Pork and Earmark Dumplings Tax Refund Gruel with Coal Ash Croquettes Half-Baked Change over Discouraging Pilaf Dessert Illegally Wiretapped Tiramisu Cinnamon Renditioned Flan Wingnut Brittle Gelato Quid Pro Quo Cookies Trickle-Down Huckleber
1
POPSObama's Jan. 13th Neocon Dinner with William Kristol, founder of the Project for a New American Century and son of Irving Kristol, the "father of neoconservatism" (who also first coined the term for them) and Charles Krauthammer (PNAC member) and two other conservatives. The self-labeled neoconservatives were the authors of the Iraq War which Obama insists he opposed. Actually, Obama should feel very comfortable supping with the Neocons since they are originally from the Left , not the Right. That's right, just like leaders of US world wars to "make the world safe for democracy", like Presidents Wilson and FDR (both Dems). They are RINOs. "Setting the table", so to speak, for Obama no doubt. Really now, why would Obama dine with them? Actually, the host, George Will is more of a libertarian conservative and supported Ron Paul for President, so it is good that he was there, but in bad company.
2
POPSMore Scary Obama Footage The MSM Will Never Show You Who do you want answering that phone at 3 a.m.? A man who's been cramming on these issues for the past year, who's never had to make an executive decision affecting so much as a city, let alone the world? A foreign policy novice instinctively inclined to the flabbiest, most vaporous multilateralism (e.g., the Berlin Wall came down because of "a world that stands as one"), and who refers to the most deliberate act of war since Pearl Harbor as "the tragedy of 9/11," a term more appropriate for a bus accident? Or do you want a man who is the most prepared, most knowledgeable, most serious foreign policy thinker in the United States Senate? A man who not only has the best instincts but has the honor and the courage to, yes, put country first, as when he carried the lonely fight for the surge that turned Iraq from catastrophic defeat into achievable strategic victory?
7
POPSMalignant Narcissicm "The public record shows this: First, within the minds of Barack and Michelle Obama resides the grandiose, even megalomaniacal notion that they have the power to make the world as-it-is into the world-as-it-should be. Second, the Obamas look to talk-show host, Oprah Winfrey, as their "global role model" to effect this change. Third, as the Obamas' model for change, Oprah relentlessly promotes the grandiose New Age religion of her guru, Eckhart Tolle. "
2
POPSThe Bush Doctrine: Preventive, Not Pre-emptive War While Krauthammer (neoconservative columnist) desperately covers for Palin in the aftermath of the ABC Gibson interview Robert Schlesinger gets it right. Palin and Gibson were both wrong, and Palin not even close. His playground analogy makes it clear and that the neocons have confused "pre-emptive war" with "preventive" demonstrates the difference between just and unjust war. For the record, Charles Gibson didn't get the Bush Doctrine right either. But at least, unlike Sarah Palin, he had an idea of what he was talking about (a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy for the last six years). Read the full article. Recall Ron Paul's excellent line in the republican debates about America's greatest moral problem: "We in the past have always declared war in the defense of our liberties or go to aid of somebody... But now we have accepted the principle of preemptive war — we have rejected the Just War theory of Christianity. [/q
2
POPSCharles Gibson's Gaffe Charles Krauthammer I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of the Weekly Standard entitled, "The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism," I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush Doctrine. Until Iraq. A year later, when the Iraq war was looming, Bush offered his major justification by enunciating a doctrine of preemptive war. This is the one Charlie Gibson thinks is the Bush doctrine. It's not. It's the third in a series and was superseded by the fourth and current definition of the Bush doctrine, the most sweeping formulation of the Bush approach to foreign policy and the one that most clearly and distinctively defines the Bush years.
1
Pops
Newest Clips
Latest Comments
Most Pops
Print
Save
Turn on live update