You (Could Have) Read It Here First

Long-time readers (hi Sweetie!) know how much I admire Charles Krauthammer’s writing. I’ve said that when I read his columns, I often wish I had written them first. Well, now that fantasy has partly come true.

Krauthammer’s column today covers some of the same ground as my post Wednesday on Obama’s mixed signals to the Muslim world. (No, I am not so delusional as to think he got the idea from my blog, which weighs in at 213,974th in Technorati’s blog rankings. I’m just tickled that we’re on the same wavelength.)

We both reacted to Obama’s statement that he wants to return to “the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago” by noting that the Iran Hostage Crisis began 30 years ago. Despite Obama’s implication that his predecessor’s administration was hostile to Muslims, we both noted that Bush prominently reached out to Muslims six days after 9/11.

Here’s an additional Krauthammer point that I wish I had made:

In these most recent 20 years — the alleged winter of our disrespect of the Islamic world — America did not just respect Muslims, it bled for them. 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.

Great column, Chuck! I mean Charlie. I mean… Mr. Krauthammer.

(Photo: Univ. of North Carolina)

6 thoughts on “You (Could Have) Read It Here First

  1. LOL. I love the first comment… as if “neocon” is a horrible word.

    I’m glad that Chuck took your message and ran with it. He is a great mind and I’ve always wondered where he sourced his material.

    Now I know. 😉

  2. Thanks for having my back, Matt…

    Anonymous, perhaps this will clarify things: One of my other favorite commentators goes by the name Neo-neocon. I wear that label proudly.

  3. Welcome aboard, Julie! Glad to know that Tweeting is worth the trouble. (Although it now happens automatically, via Twitterfeed.)

    John, I stopped reading Herbert and Krugman years ago — their Bush Derangement Syndrome afflictions were so potent, I could never get past the second paragraph.

    But here’s how responsive I am to my commenters — I actually just went to the Times site to see if they’re any better now that they don’t have Bush to kick around anymore.

    Krugman’s current column on health care reform is unobjectionable enough — not sure I agree with his approach, but he made me think.

    So I went back one column and found this intellectually dishonest passage:

    “Next, write off anyone who asserts that it’s always better to cut taxes than to increase government spending because taxpayers, not bureaucrats, are the best judges of how to spend their money.

    Here’s how to think about this argument: it implies that we should shut down the air traffic control system. After all, that system is paid for with fees on air tickets — and surely it would be better to let the flying public keep its money rather than hand it over to government bureaucrats. If that would mean lots of midair collisions, hey, stuff happens.”

    Um… Mr. Nobel Prize-winning economist… do I need to explain the concept of “margins” to you? As in, tax cuts at the margins are better than government spending at the margins? No serious person advocates eliminating all taxes, or eliminating air traffic control.

    On to Herbert, who is as vicious and small-minded as ever. Here is the first paragraph of his latest column:

    “What’s up with the Republicans? Have they no sense that their policies have sent the country hurtling down the road to ruin? Are they so divorced from reality that in their delusionary state they honestly believe we need more of their tax cuts for the rich and their other forms of plutocratic irresponsibility, the very things that got us to this deplorable state?”

    I do not feel a need to know what the second paragraph says.

Leave a Reply to Kirk Petersen Cancel reply

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