As a rule, there’s very little point in critiquing Charles Krauthammer columns. It’s a bit like correcting George W. Bush’s grammar — the errors are obvious, but a little too easy.
But Krauthammer’s latest column, a semi-coherent anti-Obama rant published yesterday, was an embarrassment to himself and the publication that ran it (the Washington Post). By any reasonable measure, the man has the intellectual seriousness of a house-plant.
Most of the initial attacks are just trite. Obama “disdained” flag lapel pins. He “seduc[ed] the hard-core MoveOn Democrats.” He had “last year’s most liberal voting record in the Senate” (which is still a ridiculous claim, by the way). He’s guilty of “brazen reversals of position and abandonment of principles,” an attack I continue to find bewildering in light of John McCain’s dozens of high-profile flip-flops.
But Krauthammer soon shifted from pedantic hackery to outright deception by attacking Obama for reversing course on Iraq.
Two weeks ago, I predicted that by Election Day Obama will have erased all meaningful differences with McCain on withdrawal from Iraq. I underestimated Obama’s cynicism. He will make the move much sooner. He will use his upcoming Iraq trip to finally acknowledge the remarkable improvements on the ground and to formally abandon his primary season commitment to a fixed 16-month timetable for removal of all combat troops.
The shift has already begun. Yesterday, he said that his “original position” on withdrawal has always been that “we’ve got to make sure that our troops are safe and that Iraq is stable.” And that “when I go to Iraq . . . I’ll have more information and will continue to refine my policies.”
He hasn’t even gone to Iraq and the flip is almost complete. All that’s left to say is that the 16-month time frame remains his goal but that he will, of course, take into account the situation on the ground and the recommendation of his generals in deciding whether the withdrawal is to occur later or even sooner.
Done.
Why the Post didn’t just reject such tripe out of hand is a mystery.
Krauthammer plays an odd game in the column — telling readers what will happen (based on nothing more than his own ability to see future events that have not occurred) and then telling readers about events that didn’t happen (based on nothing more than his own ability to manufacture bogus narratives).
So, what we get is a column that argues Obama will abandon his commitment to with a withdrawal policy (when all evidence points to the opposite conclusion) and an argument that Obama already has abandoned his commitment to with a withdrawal policy (when all evidence points to the opposite conclusion).
“He hasn’t even gone to Iraq and the flip is almost complete.” If by “flip,” Krauthammer means “embraces the exact same policy that he’s consistently maintained for over a year,” then sure, he’s absolutely right. If, however, we speak and understand English, than Krauthammer is trying to con readers into believing something that is clearly and demonstrably false.
Note to the Washington Post editorial page: the purpose of op-ed columns is to provide analysis, context, and commentary on current events, not to give unhinged ideologues a forum to publish obvious untruths.
Krauthammer actually goes so far as to argue that Obama is “assiduously obliterat[ing] all differences with McCain on national security and social issues,” which, of course, is pure fantasy.
I’ll just let Yglesias take it from here:
Consider such non-obscure points as John McCain is pro-life and has said he wants to appoint judges who will restrict abortion rights, whereas Barack Obama is pro-choice. John McCain favors an amendment to California’s constitution that would take back gay and lesbian couples’ newfound marriage rights whereas Barack Obama opposes such an amendment. Barack Obama opposes a permanent American military presence in Iraq whereas John McCain favors it. Barack Obama thinks torture is wrong even when the CIA does it, whereas John McCain thinks it’s great for the CIA to torture people. Barack Obama favors good-faith high-level negotiations with Iran, whereas John McCain wants to “bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran.”
One could go on, but it hardly seems necessary — the only question is why The Washington Post thinks it’s a good idea to publish columns that are designed to mislead its audience rather than to inform its audience, or why they think customers would want to pay money for a publication that behaves that way.