Happy Krauthammer Day

by Henry on April 22, 2012

It’s that time of the year again – it’s been five months plus five months plus five months plus five months plus five months plus five months plus five months plus five months plus five months plus five months plus five months plus five months plus five months plus five months plus five months plus five months plus five months plus five months plus five months plus five months plus five months plus five months since Charles Krauthammer told us

Hans Blix had five months to find weapons. He found nothing. We’ve had five weeks. Come back to me in five months. If we haven’t found any, we will have a credibility problem.

I’ll confess that I was a bit disappointed last week, when Charles Krauthammer didn’t make the cut for Atrios’ shortlist for Wanker of the Decade (he did get a nod-in-his-direction though; Fred Hiatt’s nod was intended to honor the Washington Post’s editorial page as a whole). But having reflected a bit, I think this was the right call. To be a really first rate wanker, you have to be at least partially oblivious to what you are. I’ve always had the sense that Krauthammer knows exactly what he is – nasty and thoroughly mendacious. Not a wanker then, but rather worse than a wanker. He’s whatever it is that Karl Rove is (when rugose and squamous entities drag out their tortured forms from under rocks, to caper and desport themselves beneath the gibbous moon, they console themselves at least they’re not working for American Crossroads).

By the way, next year will be the tenth anniversary. Still writing for the Washington Post, still syndicated, still on the talk shows.

{ 31 comments }

1

b.mit 04.22.12 at 4:32 am

“Not a wanker then, but rather worse than a wanker.”

A tosser? If my understanding of UK English is correct.

2

Jamie 04.22.12 at 5:02 am

Can I have a Krauthammer with that side of dog, please? I think it would go well with this Chilean wine.

3

Guano 04.22.12 at 9:12 am

“Will the Department of State snatch defeat from the jaws of victory?”

No, but who did ? “snatch defeat from the jaws of victory?”

4

joel hanes 04.22.12 at 9:47 am

who did ? “snatch defeat from the jaws of victory?”

I am a Democrat. It is the way of my people.

5

William Eric Uspal 04.22.12 at 2:06 pm

I’ve tried to add Krauthammer Day to his Wikipedia page, but it was removed by some sycophant. (How much material from his critics do you see there?)

6

Uncle Jeffy 04.22.12 at 2:21 pm

Henry, you have renewed my faith in human nature (and reaffirmed my opinion of Kraphammer as one of the all-time wankers of the world). I still can’t figure out why this ogre-like twit has a column in the Washington Post – maybe they have an editorial death wish or something?

Anyway, thanks again for remembering!

7

Davis X. Machina 04.22.12 at 2:26 pm

Didn’t they win the 2002 midterms? And the 2004 general? And it isn’t Krauthammer’s fault the follow-on woas so grotesquely mismanaged — plus Katrina! That’s not his fault.

Anyhow, are you saying that saving America from the twin scourges of slightly higher marginal rates of income tax, and gay marriage, plus a couple of Supreme Court picks, wasn’t worth a war? Or Krauthammer’s credibility?

8

phosphorious 04.22.12 at 3:21 pm

it’s been five months plus five months plus five months plus five months plus . . .

Shouldn’t that be expressed in Friedman Units? Makes it easier to compare the wanking.

9

straightwood 04.22.12 at 4:09 pm

You will note that there has been no mass cancellation of Washington Post subscriptions in response to flagrant and extended editorial wankery. The simple, ugly fact is that Krauthammer reflects the wicked and mendacious character of a majority of the loyal readers of the WaPo. It is long past time to abandon the myth of a decent, long-suffering American people tricked and deluded by wankers and miscreants. Friedman, Brooks, and Krauthammer stay on their perches because they are parroting the lies that ugly America wants to hear.

10

Z 04.22.12 at 7:18 pm

[i]Still writing for the Washington Post, still syndicated, still on the talk shows.[/i]

And I am quite sure he pontificates from there about the need to attack pre-emptively Iran because of its militarized nuclear weapon. And now I googled Krauthammer Israel Iran. And things are of course worse than I could possibly imagine.

11

Bruce McCulley 04.22.12 at 7:20 pm

“I still can’t figure out why this ogre-like twit has a column in the Washington Post…”

Sad to say, being persistently wrong seems to create no career impediments to columnists, economists, etc. playing for Team Republican. Quite the contrary, in fact.

12

parsimon 04.22.12 at 7:54 pm

I admit that I have never before encountered the word “rugose”.

13

Steve Muhlberger 04.22.12 at 8:28 pm

@Straightwood: for the same reason the spy regime and the abuses of the drone war can’t be blamed on Bush and Obama.

14

ponce 04.22.12 at 8:57 pm

The nice things about faith-based predictions is if it proves to be wrong you can just pretend the prediction was never made or claim people misunderstood the prediction.

15

Tim Wilkinson 04.23.12 at 12:55 am

A tosser? If my understanding of UK English is correct.

Not really; ‘tosser’ is a near-synonym (Quine forgive me) – if anything, slightly more dismissive. Ironically, I think the correct term in UK (and IR) usage would rhyme with ‘luck in hunt’.

16

Tim Wilkinson 04.23.12 at 1:04 am

(IR should be RI – rather unfortunately, got caught halfway between initials and abbreviation.)

17

Geoffrey Swenson 04.23.12 at 2:01 am

Krauthammer started writing for the New Republic in the early 80’s and was the main reason why I stopped reading it. I was about 24 at the time, but even that young I could tell that he was only pretending to make intelligent arguments. Even so his command of the language and ability to make detailed (if completely wrong arguments) had me fooled a few times, especially since the New Republic was still a liberal rather than neo-liberal journal before he started messing things up.

At the time his huge support of Isreali actions (probably in Lebanon) was really hard take. I still see him as a talking head on various venues, and he is infurating as ever, sounding so pompous and sure of himself even as most of the things that he says have a huge disconnect from reality.

He takes the prize at being really, really smart about being so utterly, unremittently wrong about just about everything.

18

Robert E. Harris 04.23.12 at 6:22 am

Rugose = having many wrinkles or creases. Krauthammr has those. The rugosa roses have rugose leaves. They are better looking than C. K. The rugosas are good big specimen plants blooming some all year, outside winter. They also are somewhat deer resistant, as they have twigs densely covered with very sharp small thorns. Better to plant these roses than read Krauthammer.

19

Rogers 04.23.12 at 7:36 am

Are we really persuaded this whole “Charles Krauthammer” schtik, side-splitting though it may be isn’t just an ingenious Strangelovian imposture? What if Andy Kaufmans coffin is empty except for a wheelchair receipt?

20

John M. 04.23.12 at 10:26 am

” What if Andy Kaufman’s coffin is empty except for a wheelchair receipt?”

That is the funniest line I’ve read in a while, anywhere. So thanks for that.

21

Nickp 04.23.12 at 12:18 pm

I know Lovecraft thought that rugose and squamous was the height of Scaaaaary, but I just think of tortoises.

22

ajay 04.23.12 at 12:54 pm

I admit that I have never before encountered the word “rugose”.

Shame on you, HP Lovecraft is an essential internet tradition.

23

Tim Wilkinson 04.23.12 at 10:11 pm

Or slithy & glabrous, outposts of onomatopoeia.

24

praisegod barebones 04.24.12 at 4:07 pm

Tim Wilkimson: in deference to American readers, İ think the BBC approved euphemism ‘Hulture Secretary’ is the one to use in this context.

25

Henry 04.24.12 at 4:45 pm

I’ll confess that I hadn’t actually ever looked up the meanings of the words ‘rugose’ and ‘squamous’ before I started writing the post, and had thought that squamous meant something like ‘slimy’ rather than ‘scaley.’ But both adjectives fit Karl Rove remarkably well; additionally, if you watch cable tv, you’ll see that he blinks only once every three minutes or so. And (you’ll need to spend some time using Tivo freezeframe or similar to capture this), when he does blink, it’s not with eyelids but with twin overlapping nictating membranes …

26

Shelley 04.24.12 at 6:00 pm

Still writing, still syndicated….

It seems that no one paid any price for Iraq.

Except our soldiers.

27

Interrobang 04.24.12 at 6:37 pm

No one? Really? What about the million or so extra people who have died in Iraq because of the invasion?

Unless you’re really genuinely trying to express that Americans are the only real people of any consequense, and the rest of us are just sort of fake…

28

Tim Wilkinson 04.24.12 at 7:21 pm

I assumed they would come under the ‘Iraq’ side in ‘price for Iraq’.

29

straightwood 04.25.12 at 4:21 pm

The most appalling realization, yet to sink in among the commentariat, is that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were primarily theatrical productions intended to satisfy the bloodlust of a revenge-hungry people after the 9/11 attacks. These wars were instigated to funnel profits to the military-industrial complex and pursue imperial fantasies, but they were sustained by their entertainment value to a bloodthirsty electorate. That is why there was never a coherent “mission” for either war. Public support for both wars did not evaporate because of an outbreak of rationality; ugly America simply got tired of the format, so the shows had to close. We were no longer amused.

30

Rob in CT 04.26.12 at 5:50 pm

Bloodlust + Fear. Lots and lots of fear. The reality is that 9/11 caused a large chunk of America to piss their pants, and we’ve never really recovered.

31

straightwood 04.27.12 at 4:23 pm

The reality is that 9/11 caused a large chunk of America to piss their pants, and we’ve never really recovered.

The news media certainly never regained their sanity. Today’s New York Times features a front page home front hero story about an old guy who sends thousands of illegal DVD copies to our brave boys at the front. This is the newspaper that once published the Pentagon Papers.

Comments on this entry are closed.