Who is Charles Krauthammer, really?
David Solway at Pajamas Media has exposed Charles Krauthammer's weird double-standards, giving some very good examples of why IMO, he really isn't worth the conservative movement's time, and they should be careful of him:
I think it's time for the conservative movement to stop relying on someone as cynical as Krauthammer for observations on the state of the world. He is no help in the war against Islamofascism, and if he slandered Wilders, then the Dutchman should seriously consider suing him in court, which would decidedly be a big help in dealing with RINOs.
Despite his apparent conservative credentials, Krauthammer had already become somewhat problematic after his stunning denunciation of the intrepid Geert Wilders at National Review Online. This is a great enigma since, extrapolating from his earlier track record as a sober and insightful observer of the world’s combustible transactions, Krauthammer might have been expected to give the Dutch parliamentarian his seal of approval. But to slander Wilders — a vigorous critic of political correctness, a courageous defender of democratic rights, and a man dedicated to resisting the Islamic cannibalizing of Western civilization — as “extreme, radical and wrong” is clearly beyond the pale. So gratuitous a condemnation seems especially mean-spirited when one recalls that Wilders is living under an Islamic death fatwa for speaking his mind. The stigma lies more with the American journalist than the Dutch politician.Kudos to Solway for citing these horrific hypocritical tactics Krauthammer has engaged in, which has often made me feel truly disgusted with him. Krauthammer has also implied he doesn't want people like me to live in east Jerusalem, and Caroline Glick rightly took him to task for that too. In that case, is he really worth turning to for worthy commentary? His job at the Washington Post, a left-liberal newspaper, should give a clue how he's merely symbolic.
And when Krauthammer proceeds to dismiss “Islamism” as merely “an ideology of a small minority,” he loses credibility, revealing a state of denial more plausibly associated with America’s coastal elites, public intellectuals, academic limpets, and media dilettantes like Paul Krugman, Peter Beinart, Thomas Friedman, David Remnick et al. Andrew Bostom takes Krauthammer roundly to task for his “fundamental ignorance of mainstream, classical Islamic Law” and for his “uninformed, incoherent musings on Geert Wilders and Islam.” Diana West, too, in The Death of the Grown-Up, castigates Krauthammer for going “all mushy on us,” passing off as “Islamist” what is plainly part of “Islam as a whole, as a historical continuum, as the theology of what we know as terrorism, as a rationale for dhimmi repression.” How someone as presumably knowledgeable as Krauthammer could become on this matter a charter member of the middlebrow illiterati is troubling.
[...]
He clearly leans toward the conservative standpoint on the major questions of foreign policy and the Constitution; yet on social issues such as abortion, energy taxes, and stealth jihad he seems sympathetic to the liberal perspective. True, he opposes the Cordoba mosque project as a violation of “hallowed ground”; on the other hand, as we have seen, he trashes Wilders who has spoken passionately against the Cordoba mosque. What gives? The same man who came out strongly in Israel’s defense during the 2006 “Lebanon War,” backed by the conservative right, also supported Ariel Sharon’s disastrous “disengagement” from Gaza in 2005, which was naturally encouraged by the liberal-left.
I think it's time for the conservative movement to stop relying on someone as cynical as Krauthammer for observations on the state of the world. He is no help in the war against Islamofascism, and if he slandered Wilders, then the Dutchman should seriously consider suing him in court, which would decidedly be a big help in dealing with RINOs.
Labels: dhimmitude, islam, Israel, jihad, msm foulness, New York, RINOs, terrorism, United States
