January 7, 2009
On the Jan. 2 op-ed page, Charles Krauthammer [" Moral Clarity in Gaza "] lauded the "moral scrupulousness of Israel," while Michael Gerson [" Defining Victory for Israel "] asserted: "There is no question -- none -- that Israel's attack on Hamas is justified. " Portraying the Israelis as victims ignores the fact that Israel has unleashed overwhelming force against a densely populated area in which the inhabitants have been under virtual siege for months. Were the United States under a similar blockade, who would decry the deployment of rockets against the blockaders?
September 27, 2008
Perhaps The Post needs to display regularly a clearly worded little boxed announcement that separates the tasks of a reporter and an op-ed columnist. Karl Bergsvik of Springfield [Free for All, Sept. 20] wants columnists to be "unbiased, objective" -- the job, up to a point, of a reporter -- rather than analytical, personal, educational and cranky. The Post should take pride in the range of its columnists (from Eugene Robinson to Charles Krauthammer), not the range of each columnist.
September 24, 2008
Charles Krauthammer ["History Will Judge," op-ed, Sept. 19] thinks President Bush will be vindicated. This is the same Mr. Krauthammer who coined the term "Bush Derangement Syndrome" in 2003, defining it as "the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency -- nay -- the very existence of George W. Bush. " As the economic meltdown ices the cake of the worst presidency in U.S. history, Mr. Krauthammer clearly needs help defining the true Bush Derangement Syndrome from which he suffers: "the chronic rationalization and denial in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency -- nay -- the very existence of George W. Bush.
July 28, 2008
In his July 25 op-ed column, Charles Krauthammer wrote that Sen. Barack Obama "simply wants to get out of Iraq as soon as possible. . . . The reasons change, but the conclusion is always the same. " The latter phrase perfectly characterizes the roaming justifications for invading Iraq, so it's incredible that Mr. Krauthammer would expect this to bolster his point rather than remind readers of war supporters' inconsistency. Earlier in the piece, he condemned Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki for having considered his military ready for the attack on militias in Basra that ultimately required help from U.S. and British forces.
July 22, 2008
In his July 18 column, "Obama's Greatest Admirer," Charles Krauthammer suggested that Sen. Barack Obama is employing the "royal 'we' " in the slogan "We Are the Change We've Been Waiting For" in a thinly veiled act of political narcissism. The problem with this reading is that, rather than being some kind of cult of personality, much of Mr. Obama's appeal springs from his broad-based call for everyone to get involved -- the precise use of "we. " Indeed, Mr. Obama includes himself in the "we" of the general populace rather than setting himself above it. As a voter, I am encouraged by a leader who recognizes that there are other people on this Earth who have ideas and who may want to participate.
June 24, 2008
In his June 20 column, "McCain's Oil Epiphany," Charles Krauthammer described Sen. John McCain's support for lifting the ban on Outer Continental Shelf drilling as a partial response to the run-up in the price of oil. Mr. Krauthammer argued that the proposal is insufficient, and he criticized as shortsighted Mr. McCain's and Sen. Barack Obama's opposition to opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling. Looked at in the context of what is likely to be permanently higher fuel prices, Mr. Krauthammer may be correct.
May 24, 2008
I was struck by the irony of two op-ed columnists, Charles Krauthammer and Michael Gerson, who have been outspoken advocates of President Bush's disastrous foreign policy, writing on May 23 to belittle Barack Obama's proposal to meet with enemy leaders as "an absurdity" (Mr. Krauthammer) and "ridiculous" (Mr. Gerson). Whether they are right or wrong on the merits of such meetings, one would think that these two would at least show a little modesty and humility when holding forth on foreign policy, given that every significant prediction they made before the Iraq war about the effects our invasion would have on foreign actors has proved wrong.
April 22, 2008
In his April 18 op-ed, "Deterring the Undeterrable," Charles Krauthammer claimed that, with respect to Iran, "deterrence is indeed a feeble gamble. " But sometimes it is hard to notice that something has not happened. What hasn't happened is a chemical or biological attack on Israel. Israel is a small country, and chemical and biological weapons could terrorize it very effectively. In the past, the U.S. government has stated its belief that Iran had active chemical and biological weapons programs.
April 12, 2008
I seldom agree with Charles Krauthammer, but I applaud his April 11 op-ed, "The Holocaust Declaration," in which he suggested that President Bush declare that the United States will consider any Iranian attack on Israel to be an attack on this country. I have one suggestion: Don't limit the declaration to Israel. Mr. Krauthammer acknowledged that a nuclear Iran "will deeply destabilize the Middle East, [and] threaten the moderate Arabs with Iranian hegemony. " Why not include under our umbrella the moderate Arab states, so that we make any nuclear capability of Iran irrelevant as an instrument of blackmail not only in the case of Israel but also in the case of countries such as Iraq, Jordan and Saudi Arabia?