Krauthammer

Joe: Thanks for once again saying what everyone knows and no one says.

Joe:
.
Unless you're ready to argue FDR -vs.-Lincoln you need to review your arithmetic.

It is well known that you spend a lot of time travelling to where the news is in Iraq and Afghanisatan. While this provides you with a first hand perspective of what's happening, it also means that you travel under the care and protection of the US military and that too can color your perceptions and has an unmistakable effect on your reporting.
I don't think there's anything offensive about me pointing that out and I therefore don't think there's antything offensive about your observations about Mr. Krauthammer's reporting.
.
Add to that the fact that he's among the most hateful people on the planet and I'd say you have absolutely nothing to apologize for.

JK,
I have to say, the Politico article makes you look bad. While I know you were not trying to make a statement regarding his disability, the fact that the article has you making mention of that only makes it worse.
I have been a long time reader of Krauthammer and have even sent e-mails critiquing his observations. His article involving Rev. Wright and William Ayers was way over the top. One wonders if he has actually read or heard anything written or said by either man. The real problem is his smugness in "I once was a liberal, but now I have grown." That somehow because he was once on the "other side" he can be arrogant about his ideas.
I was surprised to learn of his disability, but I can say, it has not in anyway changed my opinion of him or his judgments. I believe Mr. Krauthammer would not have it any other way.

"His work would have a lot more nuance if he were able to see the situations he's writing about."
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22743_Page2.html#ixzz0G4ainXKU&B
.
Do you think perhaps Joe, you may have been a little be angry at a man whose body no longer functions, but his mind is brilliant. Versus in your case, you spew out garbage from a pen or keyboard, but there is absoletely no substance or semblence of intelligence behind the words?
.
I will let the scarecrow complex you have developed out of your days on the Wizzard of Oz be the judge.

In the column Ben Smith wrote called Krauthammer, "a coherent, sophisticated and implacable critic of the new president."
.
This is demonstrably false. Reading Krauthammer is like entering a world of strawman arguments whose coherence and sophistication are strained, at best. Calling him coherent and sophisticated is an astonishing assertion.
.
EJ Dionne says he isn't a "hater," but that is the weakest faint praise imaginable when the "haters" of Obama are people who seem genuinely unhinged. Krauthammer may be the least crazy person in the right-wing asylum, so hooray for him, I guess.
.
BTW, I didn't know Krauthammer was confined to a wheelchair. But he certainly seems like gets around quite well. I don't know why his condition would limit his access to situations in the United States that he writes about, nor do I understand how his condition limits his ability to talk to people who have been in situations like he can't access himself.
.
At least he has an excuse, unlike Limbaugh, Hannity, and O'Reilly who can't be bothered to get to Iraq or Afghanistan.
Read more: "Barack Obama's biggest critic: Charles Krauthammer - Ben Smith - POLITICO.com" - http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22743.html#ixzz0G4aHGrkW&A

It was a valid point clumsily made. And a nice apology/clarification.

With the kind of escort the military provides reporters, especially national ones, being in a wheelchair isn't really an excuse for being unable to travel to Iraq. Sorry.

Reading the Politico comment it sounded more to me like you were looking for a mitigating excuse for his bellicosity. If one exists I doubt it stems from his disability.
.
Nothing else you said is particularly critical. In fact, I don't see how Krauthammer deserves your "admiration." For his intellectual ability? What he does with it matters much more.
.
Most of us here think Obama's a very clever politician, as you pointed out re: his appointment of Huntsman. But that Krauthammer sees something nefarious in Obama's character puts him in league with the trolls here, and that is indeed tragic.

kathy
.
I think it should be pointed out that the person criticizing Joe is again the ass hat from Commentary magazine. I say this because Spencer Ackerman already smacked Podhertz down earlier this morning over it and if thats who Joe is referring to the truth is that person doesn't even deserve to have their criticisms answered because he is a frikkin idiot.
.
http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2009/05/20/joe-klein-hates-the-disabled/

Krauty's is an idiot chicken-hawk that would sell his soul if he had one. Jesse Ventura recently got into it with one of the Fox morning fools and told him not to try to talk the talk if he was not prepared to walk the walk. Some of Krauty's tomes might seem more plausible (ha!) if he was not such a coward.

"There's something tragic about him, too," Klein said, referring to Krauthammer's confinement to a wheelchair, the result of a diving accident during his first year of medical school. "His work would have a lot more nuance if he were able to see the situations he's writing about."
.
THAT'S what people are pretending to be upset about? The Beltway crowd never fails to amuse me.

When is Krauthammer going to apologize for helping lead the propaganda campaign that got us into Iraq?

Just how does one 'malinger', Joe? Do you need two good legs to do that?

Thanks to being married to someone from that Middle East, I been there quite a bit over the last 28 years. I've seen plenty of people in wheelchairs over the years. Quite a few wars, quite a few disabled people, DUH!

The Borgen Project has some good info on the cost of addressing global poverty.

$30 billion: Annual shortfall to end world hunger.
$550 billion: U.S. Defense budget

[...] to make one, albeit with malapropisms, while simultaneously accusing the person to whom he is apologizing of [...]

Krauthammer is a moral midget and has been for a very long time:
.
July 21, 1995
.
Letters to the Editor
The Washington Post
1150 15th Street NW
Washington, D.C. 20071
.
Dear Editor:
.
Based on the relative number of deaths resulting from the Tokyo firebombing of March 9, 1945 and the Hiroshima nuclear bombing, Charles Krauthammer defies anyone to explain the moral difference between the two [The Strategic Logic of Hiroshima, op-ed July 21]. I hope that Mr. Krauthammer understands that morality comes not from effect but from motive, wherein lies the important controversy over this act.
.
The question he correctly quotes, ‘why...were American policy policy-makers in such a rush to drop the bomb,' remains unanswered by Mr. Krauthammer. It is possible that the firebombing and the nuclear bombing are not morally equivalent, as Mr. Krauthammer sees them, because the motives behind these two acts may have been different. Historians have attempted to show that the reasons for bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki included: as a demonstration for feared Russia and to justify the bomb projects to the American public. The lack of strategic value in bombing these targets, relative to the Tokyo bombing, lends weight to their argument.
.
But it is indeed an age of moral confusion when the issue of the intentional killing of innocent civilians in war is subordinated to an argument about the morality of the method. Until recent history, such acts were thought to be committed by only the most barbaric civilizations. So it is not surprising, in committing the horrific Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings (even in response to unspeakable evil), that we should seek the solace of moral justification. The trouble is, as Mr. Krauthammer explains, “morality does not change, “ and the killing of noncombatants may have logic but has never been moral by any means.
.
Sincerely,
[shepherdwong]

Joe Klein...Truly a giant among the idiot readers of an unreadable liberal fishwrap. Good luck Time as you careen flailingly into NewsWeek land...the land of unicorns and dreams.

Right-wingers take offense at a rainy day. Screw 'em.
.
The nicest thing I can say about Krazyhammer is that he makes no attempt to hide his essential rottenness. If hate was heat you could roast a turkey in his lap.

Here come the Commentarytards.

Joe,

This post really ticks me off. I read that Politico article and was especially angered by quotes like this: "He's the most important conservative columnist right now," said Times columnist David Brooks.

I am so sick of this fawning load. It is such a privilege to be a writer, especially for famous publications like Time, the Washington Post, and the NY Times. And yet even you still pretend (not sure if you're just trying to be a polite professional) that Krauthammer is an intelligent and skilled writer. He's NOT. It is obvious to a whole hell of alot of people. How do guys like this keep their jobs? The man isn't a debater, he's a deceiver of the indifferent and the ignorant. This isn't partisan. This is real.

What the hell is wrong with the media today?

I'm disabled, and I think some people who are wheelchair-bound become cramped, lifeless, and bitter.

[...] Klein feigns an apology; but, as John Podhoretz aptly writes, “Joe Klein's Idea of An Apology…” …is to [...]

sgwhite: duly noted.