The Righteous Redeemer Can't Get Away With It

Obama doesn't lie. He implies, he misdirects, he misleads--so fluidly and incessantly that he risks transmuting eloquence into mere slickness. Slickness wasn't fatal to "Slick Willie" Clinton because he possessed a winning, near irresistible charm. Obama's persona is more cool, distant, imperial. The charming scoundrel can get away with endless deception; the righteous redeemer cannot. ~ Syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer. http://www.newsok.com/gliding-from-one-dubious-claim-to-another/article/3401995?custom_click=headlines_widget

Share |

Krauthammer: Why Are We Apologizing?

"In these most recent 20 years, the alleged winter of our disrespect of the Islamic world (according to Barack Obama), 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. 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?" - Nationally-syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer.

Share |

Krauthammer Nails Gibson, Who 'Got it wrong'

By Charles Krauthammer/The Washington Post ~ "At times visibly nervous . . . Ms. Palin most visibly stumbled when she was asked by Mr. Gibson if she agreed with the Bush doctrine. Ms. Palin did not seem to know what he was talking about. Mr. Gibson, sounding like an impatient teacher, informed her that it meant the right of 'anticipatory self-defense.'"- New York Times, Sept. 12.

Informed her?

Rubbish.

The New York Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson got it wrong.

There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration -- and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today.

It is utterly different.He asked Palin, "Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?"

She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, "In what respect, Charlie?"

Sensing his "gotcha" moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, Gibson grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine "is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense."

Wrong.

Read all of the column at www.washingtonpost.com.

Share |