Krauthammer’s Deception: Undermining America

(1) CollossusCharles Krauthammer is not dumb. When he distorts the dimensions of the problems in Iraq he is being disingenuous by doing a disservice to America in order to continue his advocacy of our country taking a road that will cause us immensely more harm and heartache. In his recent column in the Washington Post, the Fox News’s Krauthammer who continually hammers away at President Obama’s policy from his perch atop the neo-conservative fantasy pole deliberately distorts and confuses facts.

Read his article and see how he changes a problem with the Islamic State (IS) into a problem with Iran. Keep in mind when reading Krauthammer that he is a big Netanyahu fan. He always anxiously advocates attacking Iran. It is a wonder the man can face the public without blushing. Apparently he has no shame at all or is of the firm belief that America is made up of a confederacy of dunces unable to detect an absurd position.

In his recent column titled: “You Want Hypotheticals? Here’s One” he starts his column off with these sentences. “Ramadi falls. The Iraqi army flees. The great 60-nation anti-Islamic State coalition so grandly proclaimed by the Obama administration is nowhere to be seen.” You would believe he is going to talk about the Islamic State (IS) that recently had success in some battles. You would be wrong.

He goes on to tell us that under President Bush our invasion of Iraq resulted in a victory. To support that he quotes a 2011 statement by President Obama three years after he was in office that: “We are leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq, with a representative government that was elected by its people.”

He adds that, “We didn’t just withdraw our forces. We abandoned, destroyed or turned over our equipment, stores, installations and bases.” It seems to me that is the natural thing to do when you win a war and believe a country is able to stand on its own feet. You give the people you have installed in power the means to continue.

Then he suddenly switches his argument: “We surrendered our most valuable strategic assets, such as control of Iraqi airspace, soon to become the indispensable conduit for Iran to supply and sustain the Assad regime in Syria and cement its influence all the way to the Mediterranean.”

What has that got to do with the threat from IS? How did we end up dealing with Iran and Syria. As for Iran cementing its influence in Syria that seems doubtful since the IS forces have just taken Palmyra in Syria and have Assad on the run.

He tells us that the mistake in Iraq was not invading but leaving after we achieved victory. When then do we leave? Must we stay there forever? For whenever we ever left something bad might happen.

Krauthammer wants Hillary Clinton to be asked a question that begins: “When you arrived at State, al-Qaeda in Iraq had been crushed and expelled from Anbar. The Iraqi government had from Basra to Sadr City fought and defeated the radical, Iranian-proxy Shiite militias.”  

Don’t you see how false that question is?  The Iraqi government never crushed, expelled or defeated anyone. We did it. The United States did it. We set Iraq free and gave it the means to stay that way.

Krauthammer continues with the suggested question: “Yet today these militias are back, once again dominating Baghdad. On your watch, we gave up our position as the dominant influence  . . . — forfeiting that position gratuitously to Iran. Was that not a mistake? And where were you when it was made?”

He is wrong again. We did not cede or forfeit the position. If anyone did it was the Iraqi government. Yet even that is questionable. After all, the Iraqi government is a Shiite dominated government.

But all of that is minor compared to the great hypocritical part of his post. That is why I suggest Krauthammer is deliberately deceitful.

Krauthammer concludes: “Iraq is now a battlefield between [IS] . . . and the Shiite jihadists of Iran’s Islamic Republic. There is no viable center. We abandoned it. The Obama administration’s unilateral pullout created a vacuum for the entry of the worst of the worst. 

The truth is the Shiite militias (Krauthammer wrongly labels them as jihadists) who will fight IS are not from Iran. They are Iraqis. They are fighting to protect the center, the present Iraq government of the Shiites of Iraq which we installed. The only vacuum is in Krauthammer’s logic.

Half-truths like Krauthammer hiding his advocacy of a war with Iran and getting us back in a combat role in Iraq do us a disservice. Unfortunately his deceptive views have a wide audience. But neither he nor the Republican leaders who are trying to undermine Obama’s deal with Iran want to face the problem that any attack on Iran will only increase the strength of IS; perhaps they want that and to keep us perpetually involved in wars in the Middle East.

Then we must ask:“Cui Bono.” It certainly will not be America’s.

8 thoughts on “Krauthammer’s Deception: Undermining America

  1. “The fact is that by the end of Bush’s tenure the war had been won… what is not debatable is that it was a victory. Bush bequeathed to Obama a success. By whose measure? By Obama’s. ” –Charles Krauthammer

    What a charlatan. Suddenly Krauthammer considers Obama an authority on something? He’s going to prove Bush was victorious by quoting Obama? The President is not to be trusted… except when he seems to be agreeing with Charles Krauthammer. Then the President becomes not only trustworthy but an authority.

    Is that what future-historians will do when they are evaluating the success or failure of Bush’s adventurism in Iraq, look at what Bush’s successor, President Obama said in finding a face-saving way out?

    Historians will only look to those remarks of Obama, quoted by Krauthammer, in evaluating how elegantly Obama extricated the United States from from the merry go round of Krauthammer’s Pyrrhic victories.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/you-want-hypotheticals-heres-one/2015/05/21/909713d6-ffe9-11e4-805c-c3f407e5a9e9_story.html

  2. Krauthammer and O’Reilly pass themselves off on Fox as conservatives but they aren’t. Neither voted for Reagan in 1984. They weren’t goofy college kids at that time they were in their mid thirties. 60% of the voters picked Reagan. His administration was a great success. The alternative was the complete failure of the Carter philosophy. Yet those two couldn’t see it. They have no credibility. Fox is half owned by Saudi interests, That explains the incessant denouncing of Iran. Al Jazera is owned by the Qatar government and produces Sunni propaganda regularly. Fox does the same. They are both shills for the GCC. Why hasn’t BHO stopped the Saudi attack on Yemen? Hundreds of civilians have been killed. Is our ally engaging in war crimes? When Israel bombed Gaza and killed hundreds of civilians some accused them of war crimes. Why are American weapons being used to kill civilians? All the major terrorists groups are Sunnis i.e. ISIS, Al Qaeda, Al Nusra, Al Shabab. Yet the media wants to tell us the Shia are the problem. You are 100% right about Krauthammer. Total fraud. 2. The Tim Flaherty charge is bogus as it gets. Every defense lawyer is required to reach out to the victim to ascertain information to assist in his clients defense. If the charge is A and B it common practice to see if an accord and satisfaction could be reached. Having reached one the lawyer would assume the case was over. Was a written Accord and Satisfaction executed? If so even if the victim showed up for trial he could indicate he didn’t want to proceed. The judge may inquire if any threat or coercion was involved. But if the judge finds none he will dismiss the case even if the DA objects. The second charge complicates this approach. But if a witness asks a defense lawyer if he has to talk to the Police the lawyer can say no. If the question is does he have to comply with a grand jury subpoena the answer would be yes. When the victim called Flaherty was he seeking his legal advice? There may have been a conflict of interest but no crime is committed. The charges against Fitzpatrick and Flaherty, along with those against Murphy, Turner, Swartz, Connolly and Rico were groundless, manufactured crimes. What does it say about the DOJ and FBI? They have become lawless. When Reagan was president there were 1800 AUSAs. Now there are 8000. They have to invent crime to justify there bloated existence. The Post Office is the most efficient Federal program. The rest ,save the Military, are superfluous appendages.

    1. NC:

      1. Saudi Arabia is playing a game. Obama seems not to know it. Obama won’t put more American troops in to Iraq because he wants Saudi Arabia to get in the battle against ISIS. Saudi Arabia won’t do it for two reasons: 1. ISIS is a Sunni group which is fighting against the Shia in Iraq and Syria so it figured even if it won it could reach and accommodation with it; the other reason is they expect the U. S. will eventually come in and they won’t have to.

      2. I’m wondering how the Middlesex DA who worked with Wyshak in going after Flaherty played into this. Knowing him he thought he had a deal with the guy and figured it was easier to have the guy not show up in court rather than going through the paperwork. How could he ever imagine Fred Wyshak was looking at him. It was a nothing case where at best Flaherty was sloppy. I think this more than anything points out the evil in Wyshak. He would ruin a guys career over a technicality. It is very shameful.

      By the way did you know if you told a guy not to talk to an FBI agent you might be committing a crime. Talk about losing the right of free speech. Wyshak would make a good communist requiring everyone to turn everyone else in. I feel bad for Tim and amazed at how few lawyers understand how out of line this is.

      Do you think they’ll try to take his ticket? Have you seen a pattern in Wyshak’s indictments: O’Brien, Fitzpatrick, Flaherty. Think some Irish kids gave him a trashing when he tried to bully some other kid in the playground.

  3. Manufacturing and creating crime to solve it? That sounds about right in many instances.

    The DOJ’s increase from “1800 AUSAs” to “8000” means what “nc” writes when he/she states: “They have to invent crime to justify there bloated existence.”

    dougkinan@yahoo.com

  4. Who could have known such a mediocre asst dist atty could prove such a self-avowed expert on foreign policy. Connolly is as big a Obamadorer as Dr Krauthammer is a Netanyahu supporter. Obama was warned not to leave Iraq w/o a Status of Forces agreement. He was warned not to telescope the date of American departure. But being the great experienced military leader he imagines he is, Obama ignored that advice, leaving a weak, corrupt Sunni dominated leader presiding over an inevitable catastrophe. Iran is playing a destabilizing role, allowing IS to wreak havoc. No deal with Iran is forthcoming even after Kerry’s surrender to their demands. IS now fights w/ abandoned American-provided equipment & billions of stolen American dollars. So you love Obama, Matt. Good for you. It’s reduced you to blogging gibberish

    1. Ah, Francis:

      Every once in a while we get someone like yourself who likes to go the ad hominem route rather than discuss the issues. You apparently know nothing about my position on Obama but it doesn’t stop you from making assumptions. That’s one sign a an ad hominer but another is a sad lack of knowledge of the issues. When Obama left Iraq he did not leave a Sunni leader in charge as you suggest. The prime minister was Nouri al Maliki who had been in office since 2006 when Bush was president. He was a Shia not a Sunni.

      Now you would want to know that ISIS is a Sunni group. The Iranians are Shia. They do not like each other.

      It was Iran that helped the Iraqis drive ISIS out of Tikrit a month ago. Is that what you mean by destabilizing? It is Iran that is helping the Iraqi forces drive ISIS out of Ramadi right now. How can you say it is letting “IS . wreak havoc” when it is the only force helping the Iraqis on the ground fight them. You just seem to be spouting things without having your facts straight.

      As for Kerry’s surrender in the deal did you know there were five other countries involved in the negotiation with Iran? Do you have any idea what demands Kerry surrendered to or are you just saying that like you said Obama left a Sunni in charge.

      It’s appreciated you took the time to comment but if you’d study the issues a bit and stick to discussing them that would be great. PS: and please, please, don’t disclose how mediocre an asst dist atty I was.

    2. In addition to what Matt said, let me point out that you have the status of forces agreement part backwards. President Bush negotiated the departure date. Among other things, the existing status of forces agreement that exempted US troops from Iraqi law expired at that point. Iraq refused to renew it. Therefore, had President Obama not withdrawn the troops on President Bush’s schedule, they would not have been protected by a status of forces agreement.

      As to who’s funding ISIS and the other Sunni militant groups, take a look at http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2015/05/this-is-it.html.

  5. There are no easy and clear solutions in the Middle East for Barak Obama, Dr. Krauthammer or former Norfolk County Dervish ADA Matt Connolly. Mediocrity is a word that gets bandied around in different contexts as a sort of bland blanket indictment that lacks specificity. ; language it as mediocre and you simply indicate personal disapproval and censure, call. performance superlative, well then you are a fan. I disagree in many instances with our pandit moderator, Mr. Connolly. But I appreciate that in the spirit of THE INTELLIGENT CITIZEN, he formulates opinions on divers subjects and rationally presents them. I knew Dr.K back in the day. He was Shrink Numero Uno at Mass General and a Beacon Hill Denizen. He would wheel in determinedly to a civeted corner of one of my hang bars in the early eighties. I would always have the attendant court make way for him, and he would hoist himself laboriously and independently up into a corner alcove seat. Many times we sat together, in silence. Dr. K liked being in my corner and neither of us felt a need to chat though I believe he delighted in eavesdropping on my …. elucidations :-)… to various confederates on various matters. During one such I lost my temper with a … slacker. I will always remember the hypnotic gaze Dr. K arrested me in. I remonstrated, but he said not a word ; he just steadily, clinically, and deeply compassionately … regarded me. I turned sharply and walked out. He is a phenomenally brilliant and iconoclastic guy. But sometimes Silence is the best medicine .

Leave a Reply

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