There are times when Charles Krauthammer has a central point
to make, and so he writes a column which he fills with core arguments that lead
to a conclusion which happens to be the point he is making. At other times,
however, he does not have a point to make but writes a column anyway; one that
he fills with flimsy arguments of the kind that are usually based on
half-truths and fantasies.
He did that in the column he wrote under the title: “Obama:
Charlie Who?” and the subtitle: “Our president seems to have forgotten that the
war is still on. The Islamists haven't.” It was published on January 15, 2015
in National Review Online. Relying on a half-truth and a fantasy, Krauthammer
erects a construct which he holds together with arguments no sturdier than a
castle made of sand and nothing more.
The half-truth he cites is to the effect that Obama
abdicated leadership “for which the White House has already admitted error,” he
says. That is not entirely true because in response to a trivial question, the
White House spokesman only did what was necessary to pacify a reporter trying
to start a silly discussion about a non-event. It was most likely a Fox News
reporter that wanted to know if it was not an error for America not to send a high ranking
representative to the Paris
rally.
Well, anyone that has seen Ed Henry ask this kind of
questions is reminded of the dog that cannot walk by a pole or a tree trunk
without lifting a leg and peeing on it even when the dog has not a drop of pee
in its bladder. And so, the White House spokesman said something like, maybe
the Administration should have send a higher ranking someone than it did, a
remark that put an end to this line of query.
As to the fantasy, Krauthammer claims that the Obama
Administration has knowledge to the effect that thirty percent of the Guantanamo detainees who
are released, return to the battlefield. This is false because the
Administration has repeatedly stated that only 6 or 7 percent of those released
have returned to the battlefield.
Still, using his sandcastle as a fortress to protect and
defend his conclusions, Krauthammer begins the article with the conclusions,
and sets out to defend them. Alas, he ends up agreeing with the Administration
on almost everything while trying in vain to show that he disagrees on
everything. Here is his main conclusion: “the veneer of solidarity was exposed
as tissue thin. It began dissolving as soon as...” To show how this happened,
he explains that “within 48 hours, new protests, denunciations, and threats
evinced a round of doubt and self-flagellation about the limits of free
expression. Hopeless.”
Take a good look at that word “hopeless,” and ask yourself
why the author would want the leader of the “free world” to put his
administration in a hopeless situation. If apathy is the response you get from
the rest of the world when it comes to involving the nation in a perpetual “war
on terror,” is it not time for Krauthammer and those like him to acknowledge
that Obama is following a wise course? Would this not be better than reprimand
the man for displaying a “profound ambivalence about the very idea of the war
on terror”?
And yet, brushing aside his own presentation and his
conclusions, Charles Krauthammer asserts: “Paris shows that this war is not over.”
Instead of calling the situation he just described as being a breakdown in
world order caused by the Jewish inspired American military assault on Iraq , he
advocates the open ended continuation of a war that should never have been.
And here too, he uses an upside down logic to make a point.
Anyone sane would say that: because we made the situation worse each time that
we interfered, we must now impose a moratorium on ourselves and watch the
situation take its course rather than participate in it.
But not Krauthammer who describes the situation as having
reached a point where “the Paris killers were
well trained, radicalized, jihadist warriors,” then argues it is why America must
get involved even more.
Get involved even more? To do what? To fix the situation, he
says. And how would this happen if the more that the Jews dig, the deeper the
hole in which America
sinks? No response there.