On Planet Krauthammer

DO YOU HEAR THE PEOPLE SING / SINGING THE SONG OF WELL-TEMPERED CONSERVATIVES?

, an out of touch with reality bizzaro world, desperation reigns. Trained as a psychiatrist, this inveterate double plus neo-Con is beyond delusional, he is ideological. In 2002, Krauthammer pronounced:


This is the moment. There is no turning back. The president cannot logically turn back. He says repeatedly, and rightly, that inspectors can only verify a voluntary disarmament. They are utterly powerless to force disarmament on a regime that lies, cheats and hides. And having said, again correctly, that the possession of weapons of mass destruction by Saddam is an intolerable threat to the security of the United States, there is no logical way to rationalize walking away from Iraq–even if the president wanted to. Nor can the president turn back politically. He began the march on Iraq with his State of the Union address a year ago. He identified the axis of evil as the single greatest threat to America and the world. To now admit that he can and will do nothing to meet that very threat would not just leave him without a foreign policy, it would destroy his credibility as a leader. Most importantly, there is no turning back geopolitically. After the liberation of Afghanistan, the United States made disarming Iraq the paramount American security objective in the post-9/11 world.

http://townhall.com/columnists/charleskrauthammer/2003/01/24/its_time_to_act

Beyond the fatuous premise of disarming Iraq to enhance world peace, the neo-Con fantasy that democracy would sprout like a beanstalk in a culture unaccustomed to comprise and a society that is based on competing centers of power was Peter Pan crunchy crapola, not Skippy smooth. Moreover, justification for the invasion of Iraq was not based upon establishing democracy: WMD. The democratic in name only Iraqi government can not provide basic services such as electricity and potable water or provide security.

By Khalid al-Ansary
BAGHDAD | Sat Feb 26, 2011 12:32am EST

(Reuters) – Thousands of Iraqis inspired by uprisings around the Arab world protested on Friday against corruption and poor basic services in nationwide rallies where at least 10 people died in clashes with security forces.

Scores of others were hurt in skirmishes during Iraq’s “Day of Rage” when demonstrators tried to storm government buildings and security personnel fired shots to try to disperse them.

There were no reports of insurgent attacks against the protests despite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki’s warning that al Qaeda militants and others might try to disrupt the rallies.
Maliki vowed not to ignore the protesters’ demands.

“I would like to assure all our people that nothing which they have protested against due to their discontent will go in vain,” he said in a statement. “I will follow up personally the implementation of all issues under my authority as prime minister.”

The most violent clashes between protesters and security forces occurred in the restive areas of Hawija and Mosul in the north and the southern oil hub of Basra.

Eight years after the U.S.-led invasion which ousted Sunni dictator Saddam Hussein, development remains slow and Iraqis complain of shortages of food rations, water, power and jobs.

The Arab world has erupted in protests aimed at ousting long-standing rulers and holding free elections but Iraqis have focused more on gripes over essential needs and corruption.

“We are here for change, to improve the situation of the country. The education system is bad. The health system is also bad. Services are going from bad to worse,” said 27-year-old Lina Ali, part of a protest youth group on Facebook.

“There is no drinkable water, no electricity. Unemployment is growing, which can push the youth toward terrorist activities,” she said at Baghdad’s Tahrir Square.

Frustration has mounted in the war-torn state, which has vast oil reserves and the potential to be a major producer. “Where’s my share in the oil profits?” one banner read.

“People are hungry. We ask the government to find job opportunities for the young,” said 52-year-old Um Safa, who walked from Baghdad’s northeastern Sadr City slum to Tahrir Square to take part in the protests.

www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/26/us-iraq-protests-idUSTRE71O59L20110226

Iraq Shuts Office of Protest Organizers

By MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT and JACK HEALY
Published: March 7, 2011

BAGHDAD — Two political parties that in Baghdad over the past two weeks said Monday that security forces controlled by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki had ordered them to close their offices.

The actions, which the government said were merely evictions, came amid growing concerns that Mr. Maliki’s American-backed government is using force and other measures to stifle dissent in this fragile democracy, where tens of thousands of demonstrators have seized on the upheaval sweeping the Arab world to rally for government reforms and better services.
Officials for the Iraqi Nation Party and the Iraqi Communist Party said in interviews that dozens of armed security forces had come to their offices here Sunday, two days after another round of demonstrations.

Though the parties do not have any seats in Parliament, they are outspoken critics of Mr. Maliki’s government. They called the evictions illegal efforts to weaken them.

“He is breaking the Constitution; he is breaking the law,” said Mithal al-Alusi, the leader of the Iraqi Nation Party and a former member of Parliament, referring to Mr. Maliki.

Mr. Maliki’s cabinet said there was no political motive behind the evictions, which it called part of a longstanding plan to return publicly owned buildings to government use.

www.nytimes.com/2011/03/08/world/middleeast/08iraq.html

Posted at 11:15 AM ET, 03/ 4/2011
Krauthammer and the “Bush freedom agenda” fallacy

By Adam Serwer

Ever since the uprisings began unfolding in the Middle East, conservatives have struggled to make the case that they vindicate George W. Bush’s vision of history. This morning, attempts a somewhat nuanced rendition of this argument, insisting that the Mideast events represent a triumph for Bush’s “freedom agenda”:

Now that revolutions are sweeping the Middle East and everyone is a convert to George W. Bush’s freedom agenda, it’s not just Iraq that has slid into the memory hole. Also forgotten is the once proudly proclaimed “realism” of Years One and Two of President Obama’s foreign policy — the “smart power” antidote to Bush’s alleged misty-eyed idealism.

Bush’s “freedom agenda” has been so narrowed by his supporters as to be virtually unrecognizable from what it actually was. The American people didn’t support war in Iraq because they wanted to establish a democracy; they supported the war because the president of the United States told them that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and falsified a connection to al-Qaeda and that implied a willingness to use them.

Beyond the disastrous invasion of Iraq, Bush’s “Freedom Agenda” was mostly characterized by the bipartisan continuity of support for despotic client states, except where the U.S. refused to adhere to the results of elections we didn’t like, as when Hamas prevailed in Gaza. Krauthammer’s argument that Libyan dictator Moammar Gaddafi was sufficiently frightened by the invasion to give up an arsenal he won’t be able to use against protesters now has merit, but that in and of itself doesn’t justify the invasion of Iraq, either.

To narrow the “Freedom Agenda” to simply believing the people have a right to self-determination is to excise everything about it that was objectionable. What’s exciting about what’s happening in the Middle East is that it is not happening as result of American military intervention, which augurs for a more lasting and stable outcome. The protests don’t vindicate the idea that American military intervention is a necessary precursor to democratic transition in the Middle East; they suggest the opposite conclusion.

The invasion, and subsequent instability, also provided other despotic regimes in the region with an excuse to avoid democratization by pointing to violence in Iraq.

Now, it can be argued that the price in blood and treasure that America paid to establish Iraq’s democracy was too high. But whatever side you take on that question, what’s unmistakable is that to the Middle Easterner, Iraq today is the only functioning Arab democracy, with multiparty elections and the freest press. Its democracy is fragile and imperfect – last week, security forces cracked down on demonstrators demanding better services – but were Egypt to be as politically developed in, say, a year as is Iraq today, we would think it a great success.

Look, we still do not know how all of this is going to turn out, and I think this vastly overstates the health of Iraq as a democracy. But not only is Iraq among the states being rocked by popular protests, arguing that a democratic Egypt that looks like Iraq does today would be a great victory is to ignore the years of war, terrorism, ethnic strife, and thousands of deaths that have characterized the intervening years in Iraq. Would a relatively stable democratic Egypt without all those things be really great? Sure. But what does that have to do with Iraq?

have surely mediated this pan-Arab (and Iranian) reach for dignity and freedom. But the Bush Doctrine set the premise.

No matter how many times and in how many ways conservatives write this, it never stops being patronizing. Protesters in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Libya and Iran are not rising up because President Bush gave them a pat on the head and told them they were worthy of dignity and freedom. Their inspiring courage, their bravery in the face of brutality and despotism, is a triumph all their own.

At bottom, there’s a very basic contradiction at the heart of the conservative interpretation of today’s events. On the one hand, they argue, the success of the protests vindicate Bush’s faith in their democratic yearnings. On the other, they argue, Obama is doing everything wrong. Yet if Obama’s doing everything wrong, even as some of the protests continue to succeed, what that really shows us is that we aren’t the important actors here. This isn’t about us. And it isn’t about Bush.


http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/03/the_middle_east_is_not_rising.html

From Baghdad to Benghazi

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, March 4, 2011

Voices around the world, from Europe to America to Libya, are calling for U.S. intervention to help bring down Moammar Gaddafi. Yet for bringing down Saddam Hussein, the United States has been denounced variously for aggression, deception, arrogance and imperialism.

A strange moral inversion, considering that Hussein’s evil was an order of magnitude beyond Gaddafi’s. Gaddafi is a capricious killer; Hussein was systematic. Gaddafi was too unstable and crazy to begin to match the Baathist apparatus: a comprehensive national system of terror, torture and mass murder, gassing entire villages to create what author Kanan Makiya called a “Republic of Fear.”

Moreover, that systemized brutality made Hussein immovable in a way that Gaddafi is not. Barely armed Libyans have already seized half the country on their own. Yet in Iraq, there was no chance of putting an end to the regime without the terrible swift sword (it took all of three weeks) of the United States.

No matter the hypocritical double standard. Now that revolutions are sweeping the Middle East and everyone is a convert to George W. Bush’s freedom agenda, it’s not just Iraq that has slid into the memory hole. Also forgotten is the once proudly proclaimed “realism” of Years One and Two of President Obama’s foreign policy – the “smart power” antidote to Bush’s alleged misty-eyed idealism.

It began on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s first Asia trip, when she publicly played down human rights concerns in China. The administration also cut aid for democracy promotion in Egypt by 50 percent. And cut civil society funds – money for precisely the organizations we now need to help Egyptian democracy – by 70 percent.

This new realism reached its apogee with Obama’s reticence and tardiness in saying anything in support of the 2009 Green Revolution in Iran. On the contrary, Obama made clear that nuclear negotiations with the discredited and murderous regime (talks that a child could see would go nowhere) took precedence over the democratic revolutionaries in the street – to the point where demonstrators in Tehran chanted, “Obama, Obama, you are either with us or with them.”

Now that revolution has spread from Tunisia to Oman, however, the administration is rushing to keep up with the new dispensation, repeating the fundamental tenet of the Bush Doctrine that Arabs are no exception to the universal thirst for dignity and freedom.

Iraq, of course, required a sustained U.S. military engagement to push back totalitarian forces trying to extinguish the new Iraq. But is this not what we are being asked to do with a no-fly zone over Libya? In conditions of active civil war, taking command of Libyan airspace requires a sustained military engagement.

Now, it can be argued that the price in blood and treasure that America paid to establish Iraq’s democracy was too high. But whatever side you take on that question, what’s unmistakable is that to the Middle Easterner, Iraq today is the only functioning Arab democracy, with multiparty elections and the freest press. Its democracy is fragile and imperfect – last week, security forces cracked down on demonstrators demanding better services – but were Egypt to be as politically developed in, say, a year as is Iraq today, we would think it a great success.

For Libyans, the effect of the Iraq war is even more concrete. However much bloodshed they face, they have been spared the threat of genocide. Gaddafi was so terrified by what we did to Saddam & Sons that he plea-bargained away his weapons of mass destruction. For a rebel in Benghazi, that is no small matter.

Yet we have been told incessantly how Iraq poisoned the Arab mind against America. Really? Where is the rampant anti-Americanism in any of these revolutions? In fact, notes , the United States has been “conspicuously absent from the sloganeering.”

It’s Yemen’s president and the delusional Gaddafi who are railing against American conspiracies to rule and enslave. The demonstrators in the streets of Egypt, Iran and Libya have been straining their eyes for America to help. They are not chanting the antiwar slogans – remember “No blood for oil”? – of the American left. Why would they? America is leaving Iraq having taken no oil, having established no permanent bases, having left behind not a puppet regime but a functioning democracy. This, after Iraq’s purple-fingered exercises in free elections seen on television everywhere set an example for the entire region.

Facebook and Twitter have surely mediated this pan-Arab (and Iranian) reach for dignity and freedom. But the Bush Doctrine set the premise.


www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/03/AR2011030304239.html

Instead of opining from blissful ideological ignorance, Doc Krauthammer should consult facts before exposing his bias. The fluid “Bush Doctrine” has played no role in the Arab revolts: populism

“The kids don’t buy these bullshit arguments anymore,” the veteran French-Tunisian commentator Guy Sitbon told me. Several times, I wished that Tony Blair could have stood by incognito to hear the reasoned contempt poured on his fears about Islamic fundamentalism, which, interestingly, chimed with nightmares about al-Qaida evoked last week by his old hugging pal, Colonel Gaddafi. This quake is not about religion or even ideology in the dogmatic sense – it’s about creating societies with dignity, fairness and justice. The things that obsess Arab people are corruption and the abysmal standards in public life. To most, that seems as good a place to start as any.

As westerners, it’s easy to let the rhetoric about human rights and democracy wash over us, but that’s because we live in free societies. When the people in Tahrir and Kasbah squares talk about rights with such blazing passion, you feel slightly ashamed. Still, it is true the words are abused the world over. In Tunisia, the party run by Ben Ali was, without a trace of irony, named the RCD, or the Constitutional Democratic Rally , which, oddly enough, precisely describes the nature of the movement that eventually threw him out of Tunisia and into a Saudi hospital.

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/06/tunisia-protests-egypt-democracy

From the Washington Post:

eezmamata wrote:
Bush Good. Obama Bad.

– Krauthammer

And they pay you for this sht? We already have your opinion on anything that happens anywhere in the world.
3/4/2011 2:24:39 AM

judy_p01 wrote:
mike85 wrote:
It is amazing how quickly the chameleon liberals change their tune when faced with real problems, and how quickly they deny that change once everything is OK again. The liberals refuse to remember that 96 Democrats, including John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, and Nancy Pelosi testified on Congress’s floor demanding that George Bush invade Iraq, and 100% of the Congressmen and Senators voted for the invasion, then later blamed the entire thing on Bush.
_____________________________________

Hate to tell you, bud, but the invasion is on Bush. He was the ‘decider’ on this one.

Congress didn’t vote to invade Iraq. They voted to give the authorization to Bush to invade if he felt it was necessary. The vote was not 100%. It passed the Senate by a vote of 77 to 23, and the House of Representatives by a vote of 296 to 133.

Big mistake, I know, but they did it.

Kennedy and Pelosi voted against the bill.

You did get one thing right (congratulations!!). Kerry did vote for it.

3/4/2011 1:51:49 AM

tjbrosseau44yahoocom wrote:
Chuckles, nice try at Orwellian logic, Newspeak et al, but if you want to advance someone as a thinker and visionary first you should get rid of all the evidence to the contary. George the Dolt couldn’t think his way out of an outhouse. He couldn’t figure out how to pour pee from a boot it the directions were stamped on the heel. Chuckles laughable assursion that there was a plan or even a notion or a germ of an idea behind what Bush wroght in the Middle East other than political and finacial profit is just silly.
3/4/2011 1:46:35 AM

hgillette wrote:
Which Bush doctrine are you talking about? The one about lying and starting unnecessary wars and committing war crimes? The one about screwing everything you do up? The one about never admitting a mistake? There are so many Bush Doctrines to choose from and they are all poisonous.
3/4/2011 1:41:06 AM

eddymac99 wrote:
The difference is that half of the people of Libya are calling out to the world to help them as they struggle to succeed in their up-from-the-bottom revolution. The majority of Libyans want intervention from the West and they are crying out for it.

Which is different than the United States unilaterally (with a doff of the hat from the lap-dog British leader) invading Iraq for purely geopolitical and resource-based reasons, acting in part on the deluded notions of men like Mr. Krauthammer. (Nine years later and the quagmire persists. Of course, Krauthammer and his ilk call the denuded Waste Land that is today’s Iraq a “democracy.”)

The United States was not appalled by Saddam Hussein’s use of chemical weapons against Iranian soldiers; in fact; United States satellite imagery was passed by Americans (CIA) to the Iraqis so that they could locate groups of Iranian troops that were then attacked with poison gas. (At about the same time, Donald Rumsfeld was over in Baghdad shaking Saddam’s hand.)

When Saddam gassed entire villages of his own people he used helicopters provided to him by the United States that sprayed poison death that generous American loans and food subsidies had allowed him to buy.

Years later, when things had changed — when Saddam became America’s enemy instead of the enemy of America’s enemy — hypocrites like Krauthammer claim to be appalled by his use of chemical weapons.

It is so difficult to have a rational discussion with an ideologue like Krauthammer.

There are still no Arab and/or Middle Eastern democracies. (Iraq is an occupied country, so it doesn’t count. If, five years after the occupying forces leave, Iraq is still a viable democracy, then Bush will have been proven correct. The invasion will be vindicated. But we will have to wait and see. — Every expert on the region whom I have read expects Iraq to slide back into some form of dictatorship when the occupiers leave. But time will tell.)

This current wave of “democracy” throughout the Middle East that Krauthammer gives George W. Bush full credit for is just beginning. Hopefully, real democracies will emerge from this. Everyone, liberal and conservative alike, wants that. Sadly, a look at the history of the region would seem to indicate that the efforts of these downtrodden people to overthrow their despicable leaders will be hijacked by new despicable leaders (either Islamist or secular) and new tyranny will replace the old tyranny. (I hope I’m dead wrong on that.)

And if that does happen, it will be Barack Obama’s fault, according to Mr. Krauthammer.

This is all happening more than two years into Barack Obama’s presidency, but because things look positive right now, it is all thanks to George W. If it all falls apart, and instead of one psychotic Islamo-Fascist state in Tehran, the region has three or four, well that will be Obama’s fault. That’s how Krauthammer reckons the world.

And maybe, just maybe, all of this has nothing whatsoever to do with the United States. Can Mr. Krauthammer even fathom things happening in the world that are not the work of the United States’ influence?

Of course he can’t.

Here’s how his mind works: Conservative/Republican ideas are the fount of all good things that happen politically and economically around the world. Liberal/Democratic ideas are the cause of all that is despicable and failed.

Mr. Krauthammer is an intellectual midget.
3/4/2011 1:38:46 AM

mike85 wrote:
vsingh0501 wrote:
mmwatch wrote:
vsingh0501 wrote:
Kraut is still busy rewriting history. Iraq was invaded on the pretext of WMDs and Nukes not to establish democracy( which would have been a non starter as a reason for the invasion. 
Everything else ( democracy, bad guy etc.) was tacked on later as a rationale when things went from bad to worse post invasion.
————————————-

vsingh0501: your two paragraphs above are not consistent with each other. Please collect your thoughts, and repost; may I suggest you make an effort to say something coherent, rather than spewing out partisan stream-of-consciousness.

MMWAtch:
Maybe if you learned English and Logic instead of watching what ever you watch you may have a hope to understand what i wrote.

At this point that does seem to be a long shot for you. I suggest you listen to the Palin/Huckabee/Beck clan to find the consistency you seek.

good luck!
==========

MMWAtc, it is obvious that you graduated from one of those liberal schools that let you make it up as you go along.
3/4/2011 1:29:54 AM

Tell-the-Truth-Please wrote:
Chuckie writes, “Now, it can be argued that the price in blood and treasure that America paid to establish Iraq’s democracy was too high.”
No Chuckie it can’t be argued. The verdict is already in: the Bush invasion of Iraq was a con job to the American people. There was never a belief by the Bushies that a democratic Iraq would spread to the middle east. The invasion was to settle the score with Saddam for the 1st war. These are all known facts Chuckie.
Please Chuckie, in the name of the 4,000 Americans and 100,000 Iraqi’s killed by the Bush con-job please stop trying to make a case for Bush & company and have compassion & respect for the dead and their survivors.
3/4/2011 1:29:49 AM

mike85 wrote:
It is amazing how quickly the chameleon liberals change their tune when faced with real problems, and how quickly they deny that change once everything is OK again. The liberals refuse to remember that 96 Democrats, including John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, and Nancy Pelosi testified on Congress’s floor demanding that George Bush invade Iraq, and 100% of the Congressmen and Senators voted for the invasion, then later blamed the entire thing on Bush.
3/4/2011 1:25:39 AM

greg_cunneen wrote:
Convert to Bush’s “freedom” agenda? Dream on.
3/4/2011 1:22:08 AM

judy_p01 wrote:
merley1 wrote:
Mini22 wrote:
Laughable! The same old Neo-con parlor trick. If you keep saying it, then it will become truth.
Fact: Bush invaded Iraq to find weapons of mass destruction that he told the American public were there and would eventually be used against us. After no weapons were found, he then switched to the “let freedom ring!” theme.

………………………….
………………………….
This comment is laughable– some, perhaps all!, the libs reeling from the 11/2/10 election debacle
need to reread Bush’s 2003 SOTU speech.
Bush didnt claim Sadddam had WMD’s, only that he gave no proof of their destruction. There was NO way W was going to let a world leader stay in power who was openly paying bounties to the families of suicide bombers. Fortunately, all the libs who like to rewrite history in blogs cant rewrite the 11/2/10 shellacking!
_________________________________________

you are in Never Neverland with Charlie.
GWB, March 17th, address to the nation
“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/wariniraq/gwbushiraq31703.htm

3/4/2011 1:20:07 AM

fridaolay wrote:
Krauthammer is becoming a nutcase, with some loose bolts. He wants to re-write history, according to his own interpretation. He has become so delusional that I am waiting for him to write in his next article that when the Israelis were slaves in Egypt, and were being mistreated by the Egyptian pharoes, it wasn’t Moses who led them into freedom. No! It was Dubya.
3/4/2011 1:20:01 AM

Albright4Snapper wrote:
Krauthammer is a lunatic
3/4/2011 1:18:00 AM

gomer3 wrote:
Comments so far are hysterical, but not in the ‘ha ha’ sense. In the way that madness is caused when the foundation of ones self-definition comes crumbling down.
Progressives become unhinged at the suggestion that the Iraq war may yet be justified. When Iraq is South Korea in 30 years, these haters on the left will be
lost. Their religion of Bush hatred will be invalidated.
Is it deniable that Gaddafi gave up WMD when he saw what the US did to Saddam?
Did Bush have a hand in these events?
Answers: no and yes
Bush and Jefferson had it right: all men are endowed with certain unalienable Rights: Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness… That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…
3/4/2011 1:17:57 AM

swiftsmail wrote:
hey mmwatch, how’s this version below? I made it a little clearer for you. I understood the first version perfectly but apparently a nitwit like yourself has trouble with logic and english or both.
Kraut is still busy rewriting history. Iraq was invaded on the pretext of WMDs and possible nukes and not to establish democracy. The marketing of democracy came later after the WMD excuse failed miserably. If the original motivation for the invasion of Iraq had been democracy, it never would have happened in the first place. Bush never was interested in democracy; he only became interested in it after he realized that he had absolutely no talent for managing not only his country but a foreign one as well. Its called a creating a strategic diversion, using the parlance of the times.
3/4/2011 1:06:36 AM

vsingh0501 wrote:
mmwatch wrote:
vsingh0501 wrote:
Kraut is still busy rewriting history. Iraq was invaded on the pretext of WMDs and Nukes not to establish democracy( which would have been a non starter as a reason for the invasion. 
Everything else ( democracy, bad guy etc.) was tacked on later as a rationale when things went from bad to worse post invasion.
————————————-
vsingh0501: your two paragraphs above are not consistent with each other. Please collect your thoughts, and repost; may I suggest you make an effort to say something coherent, rather than spewing out partisan stream-of-consciousness.
MMWAtch:
Maybe if you learned English and Logic instead of watching what ever you watch you may have a hope to understand what i wrote.
At this point that does seem to be a long shot for you. I suggest you listen to the Palin/Huckabee/Beck clan to find the consistency you seek.
good luck!
3/4/2011 1:02:59 AM

rpslaw48 wrote:
You’re an idiot. Libya is not anything like Iraq of ten years ago. No one has trumped up any charges for an invasion.
3/4/2011 12:59:58 AM

RoJaKa wrote:
Charles: I think we should attribute all this to Bob Dylan, for writing “Blowing in the Wind” and “The Times They Are a-Changing,” plus many other songs extolling “freedom.”
3/4/2011 12:59:52 AM

dolph924 wrote:
Just how feeble minded do you have to be to look to a guy with a brain ravaged by cocaine and alcohol for “doctrines.” How the **** does this dimwit keep getting published in the Post?
3/4/2011 12:53:47 AM

mmwatch wrote:
vsingh0501 wrote:
Kraut is still busy rewriting history. Iraq was invaded on the pretext of WMDs and Nukes not to establish democracy( which would have been a non starter as a reason for the invasion. 
Everything else ( democracy, bad guy etc.) was tacked on later as a rationale when things went from bad to worse post invasion.
————————————-
vsingh0501: your two paragraphs above are not consistent with each other. Please collect your thoughts, and repost; may I suggest you make an effort to say something coherent, rather than spewing out partisan stream-of-consciousness.
3/4/2011 12:49:56 AM

kevinbitz wrote:
This had nothing to do with Bush…. try some little fruit stand guy who started himself on fire, Facebook and the internet. Bush was ZERO!
3/4/2011 12:49:54 AM

fridaolay wrote:
When I heard Gaddafi recently say that his people love him, I, like many other people, thought he was being delusional. When I read that Krauthammer believes that “everyone is a convert to George W. Bush’s agenda”, everyone should recognize that Krauthammer is suffering from the same delusional symptoms as Gaddafi.
Krauthammer is not making any sense. Obviously, Krauthammer is so confused or demented, that he doesn’t any longer understand one of the simple rules of logic: CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION. Just because people in the Middle East reacted expontaneously to the call of freedom and democracy, it doesn’t mean they are following George Bush’s call.
Doesn’t Krauthammer understand that the desire to be free is a primeval instinct, inherent in all human beings and animals?
3/4/2011 12:47:45 AM

judy_p01 wrote:
Charlie, Tinkerbelle will be joining you soon in the Peter Pan Never Neverland fantasy you have created in this P.O.S. column. Just when I thought you couldn’t get any more delusionsal. I would be here all night debunking the c*#p you have spewed this week.
Seriously, there is something wrong with you.
3/4/2011 12:47:00 AM

powellsanmiguel wrote:
Absolutely true. Probably shouldn’t have invaded Iraq, but we did. Lord knows we shouldn’t invade Lybia; if they didn’t like the jerk they shouldn’t have hired him.
3/4/2011 12:43:44 AM

ozma1 wrote:
“But whatever side you take on that question, what’s unmistakable is that to the Middle Easterner, Iraq today is the only functioning Arab democracy, with multiparty elections and the freest press.”
Yes, the Iraqi press is so “free”. From a Kurdish story datelined February 26, 2011:
“The Press Freedom Defending Association in Iraq condemned the arrests and attacks against dozens of journalists and media in various parts of Iraq on Friday.
Uday Hatem, told AKnews that what happened on Friday is a dangerous precedent in the violation of press freedoms, and the arrest of this number of correspondents and journalists show that the press freedom in Iraq will be targeted mainly by the executive branch in the country.
He demanded of releasing the ‘journalists who are still in detention and to hold accountable the security detachments that arrested them to provide certain guarantees of non-repetition of violations of the legitimate rights of the media and freedom of expression guaranteed by the Constitution.’”
SOURCE: http://www.aknews.com/en/aknews/3/221313
3/4/2011 12:34:39 AM

8-Man2 wrote:
Yes, the Bush doctrine would be the same as we have now without all the killing and death.
3/4/2011 12:32:09 AM

mcdonadg wrote:
First off, you might hold off to see what ACTUALLY HAPPENS before declaring the world safe for democracy. It seems that so far a few military juntas have taken the place of a few military tyrants. Secondly, WHY IS IT OUR JOB TO RID THE WORLD OF TYRANNY? The Iraqi people are never going to kiss our feet and thank us for plunging their country into decades of sectarian war and death. People must rise up for themselves, and outside invaders will never be welcomed or thanked for playing liberator. Napoleon learned that lesson well, but it seems the west keeps forgetting it.
3/4/2011 12:29:40 AM

swiftsmail wrote:
So Krut, when it comes to earning a buck, you’re all about capitalism but when it comes to revolution, you’re an imperialist communist. Which is it? Don’t you know that both doctrines hold true in both situations? All democracies must stand on their OWN two feet just like all successful entrepreneurs. We only treasure that which we paid for thru blood, sweat, and tears.
3/4/2011 12:19:50 AM

Phoebefu wrote:
We hail freedom of the press. But please do not forget that news should be based on facts. Have a look at so-called Jasmine revolution!
3/4/2011 12:17:02 AM

swiftsmail wrote:
hey CK, I love it when you write about Libya and Iraq like you know what you’re talking about…having spent next to 0 time in either country and yet espousing on it like you actually lived thru either oppressive regime and can actually compare and differentiate between levels of oppression is a freaking joke. YOU MY FRIEND ARE A LITERATI CLOWNY. GO TO BED, HAVE A LONG, TALL WATER and SDAFU.
3/4/2011 12:14:09 AM

Phoebefu wrote:
The Western slaves cannot wait to lead the way for the US military to overthrow the current government and institutions, so that they can come to power and copy the West.
3/4/2011 12:13:53 AM

vsingh0501 wrote:
Kraut is still busy rewriting history. Iraq was invaded on the pretext of WMDs and Nukes not to establish democracy( which would have been a non starter as a reason for the invasion. 
Everything else ( democracy, bad guy etc.) was tacked on later as a rationale when things went from bad to worse post invasion.
When is this champion idiot going to learn that the only democracy that will stick is the one that the people impose themselves.
In all this turmoil one thing has always remained constant: The NeoCons are incapable of learning from their mistakes – that is a trait they have in common with all these dictators.
3/4/2011 12:12:40 AM

smith2231 wrote:
What a disgustingly racist and paternalistic piece. The Arab masses can’t decide upon revolution on their own; they need the Great White Father to come in with pure love in his heart to instigate things for them.
3/4/2011 12:11:09 AM

Dcsandiego wrote:
Aside from the predictable loonies on the right, Gerson, Thiessen, Kristol, etc, does anyone take this guy seriously. I mean this Bush Doctrine “canard” had been pilloried and mocked by all the sensible commentators and policy strategists in the nation, yet Krauthammer keeps peddling this comedy?
Does he get paid by the laughs Fred Hiatt and Jackson? (of course, you guys are probably asking, “hey, what’s so funny.”
3/4/2011 12:09:55 AM

rcvinson64 wrote:
To compare what happened in Iraq to the situation in Libya is foolish. Iraq was toppled by us. The Libyans started their own revolt and are asking for help. Is honest dialogue part of your mentality?
3/4/2011 12:02:30 AM

Nymous wrote:
I may support democracy, but getting in the middle of other countries revolutions is a perilous path.
They aren’t hating on China, yet the Chinese had 30k workers & deep ties to the regime in Libya. The US by contrast had all of about 200 people there.
These narratives of blame are never very accurate. They have more to do with parochial fictions tied to envy more than anything else. The only way to counter the example America sets (even being flawed but functional in spite of it) is to come up with a lying narrative about why America is bad. The chants & blame for everything under the sun the Iranians pulled for 30 years took a long time to wear thin, but they finally have. People started to realize the problem was their own government, not some other country.
Trite ideas aside, these are not easy problems. The US wasn’t anticipating that the first thing the Iraqi people would do with their freedom was to kill their neighbors & anyone slightly different than they are. The notion was so stupid as to be beyond consideration, but that’s exactly what they did.
3/4/2011 12:00:23 AM

brb2 wrote:
This sounds eerily like something out of Orwell’s 1984 along the lines of “WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.”
3/3/2011 11:56:09 PM

AverageJane wrote:
Something tells me that we wouldn’t be reading Krauthammer’s fantasy if the overthrows of the past few months were instigated by extremists, even if they were to oust a viscious monster.
3/3/2011 11:51:42 PM

ozma1 wrote:
“Now, it can be argued that the price in blood and treasure that America paid to establish Iraq’s democracy was too high. But whatever side you take on that question, what’s unmistakable is that to the Middle Easterner, Iraq today is the only functioning Arab democracy, with multiparty elections and the freest press.”
Yes, because on Planet Krauthammer all those dead Iraqis as a direct consequence of our invasion and occupation don’t really matter to anything. The millions of displaced Iraqis? They don’t bother Charles a bit.
3/3/2011 11:51:02 PM

On Planet Krauthammer


About Jerry Frey

Born 1953. Vietnam Veteran. Graduated Ohio State 1980. Have 5 published books. In the Woods Before Dawn; Grandpa's Gone; Longstreet's Assault; Pioneer of Salvation; Three Quarter Cadillac
This entry was posted in What You Think and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*


7 + one =

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>