Go Home

Charles Krauthammer

21 documents found in 0 seconds.

Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (76)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (432)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

Someone needs to tell Fox regular Charles Krauthammer that the picture he's demanding to see of President Obama on the night of the attack in Benghazi, Libya has been available on the White House Flickr page since at least January:

Via Media Matters: Krauthammer Still Hasn't Seen This Photo Of Obama From Night Of Benghazi Attack:

Fox News contributor Charles Krauthammer continued to hype the right-wing myth that President Obama was missing on the night of the September 11, 2012 attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

During a May 14 panel discussion on the Benghazi investigation during Fox News' Special Report, Krauthammer requested photographic evidence of President Obama's whereabouts on the night of the Benghazi attack:

KRAUTHAMMER: And where was the president on that night? We've all seen the video and the pictures--well the picture of the situation room--of Obama on the night of the Osama raid. And everybody looks at that, oh yeah he was really involved in that. Show me a picture of where he was on the night of the attack in Libya.

The claim that Obama was absent the night of the Benghazi attack has been repeatedly debunked, both by former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin E. Dempsey.

Some of Krauthammer's other tales he was telling in the segment have been debunked here and here as well.



Thom Hartmann: How the Media Fueled the War in Iraq

Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (239)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (2049)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

Thom Hartmann takes our corporate media and the cheerleaders for war with Iraq to task and ten years after our invasion, asks 'Where are the apologies?'

Via Truthout: How the Media Fueled the War in Iraq:

Yesterday, the U.S. marked the 10th anniversary of the start of the Iraq War. And, over the course of the past ten years, we've learned more and more about how the war with Iraq actually started.

It's incredibly easy to blame the Bush administration for its lies that led us into Iraq. But Cheney, Rumsfeld and company weren't the only ones who played an integral role in convincing this nation that Saddam Hussein was a threat, and that WMD's were a forgone conclusion.

In the days and weeks leading up to the invasion of Iraq, corporate media – and even NPR and PBS - were abuzz with the talking points of the Bush Administration, echoing claims that Iraq had its hands on "yellow cake uranium" and that it had a massive arsenal of "weapons of mass destruction."

Thanks to the media's repeated claims that Iraq and Saddam Hussein were immediate threats to our nation, in the weeks leading up to the invasion, nearly three-quarters of Americans believed the lie promoted by Donald Rumsfeld that Saddam Hussein was somehow involved in the attacks of 9/11.

One of the biggest proponents of the Iraq War was Bill O'Reilly.

Continue reading »



Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (140)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (1107)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

Someone needs to explain the definition of insanity to Bloody Bill Kristol. During a discussion on Fox' Special Report With Bret Baier, Kristol was asked about the Republicans and their recent efforts to "rebrand" the party, and it seems Kristol believes if they just start obstructing President Obama again and vote for things like repealing "Obamacare," they won't have to worry about how they look!

Of course, no one on the panel pointed out to him that that is exactly what they've been doing already for the last four years and it hasn't gone so well. Not that what the others want to do -- keep the same policies but just try to make them sound more palatable to the public -- is going to work, either.

And note to Kristol: Your party doesn't care about doing anything to improve access to health care, making it more affordable or regulating the banks. We don't need to hear their words or yours to know that. All we have to do is look at their voting records to see what their priorities are. The notion that the GOP has any alternatives to fixing anything that is not more of the same is laughable.

Here's more from Real Clear Politics: Kristol: GOP Should Worry Less About Looks; Act On Conservative Principles:

BILL KRISTOL, WEEKLY STANDARD: If I hear another politician talking about rebranding the party or changing the image, why don't they just advance policies? Republicans control the House of Representatives, right? They very much dislike Obamacare. Fine, pass a bill repealing Obamacare or delaying it and then pass a replacement. It's not going to pass the Senate, President Obama's not going to sign it, but it will show how Republican policies help.

Republicans dislike the financial regulations in Dodd-Frank, pass different regulations that help community banks. If you can't pass the whole thing, pass bite-sized pieces of legislation that would help the country. I mean, I really think they should talk less about rebranding themselves and actually pass some legislation, either big legislation or medium-sized bites that which embody conservative principals.

JOHN ROBERTS, FOX NEWS: Why have they been losing so badly on messaging, Bill?

KRISTOL: They haven't been losing that badly on messaging. They lost the presidential election by 3 points, they held the House of Representatives, the Democrats got 1 million more votes for the complete House out of 110 million cast, or something like that. And if they simply govern effectively, if they do their best in the House and they oppose President Obama, they'll do fine. They should worry less about how they look and they should just act according to conservative principles.

Continue reading »



Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (481)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (5386)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

After a number of the talking heads over at Fox "news" slammed Congressional Republicans for not going after Hillary Clinton hard enough during the Benghazi hearings this week and showing the exchange between Clinton and Sen. Ron Johnson during the Senate hearing, Colbert accused Johnson of allowing Clinton to "step all over Ron's Johnson" and"spank him."

Colbert showed Johnson ending the exchange by saying "thank you Madame Secretary" and wondered why the Senator would do so unless "thank you Madame Secretary" was his "safe word."

After showing Johnson and a bunch of the talking heads on the right claiming that Clinton's anger during the hearings was just an act and made up, Colbert followed with this:

COLBERT: Don't get me wrong. These guys know something about faking emotions. They do it every day and I respect them for it. But in this case I'm not buying it. First, it just makes the Republicans look weaker. Now they lost to something that wasn't even real.

And second, second... if you're saying Hillary could fake that kind of anger, that's saying that every woman I've ever enraged might have been faking it. I don't think so fellas. I mean I've infuriated my share of the ladies over the years and let me tell you, I get them there, okay? They always seem pretty worked up. You know, you can tell when it's real. I mean, they're screaming the whole time. I've even had my neighbors complain. [...]

Anyway, these hearings were a debacle that left unanswered the one question they were really about. Is there anything we can do to stop Hillary in 2016?



Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (146)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (1033)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

After the outrage we saw from members on both sides of the aisle the evening House Speaker John Boehner cancelled the vote on hurricane Sandy relief and the subsequent displays by Gov. Chris Christie and Rep. Peter King, among others, leave it to Bill Kristol who has never seen a dime of military spending he didn't love, to come to the defense of John Boehner.

Sadly, as Media Matters noted, he wasn't alone. And his fellow guest on Bret Baier's Special Report, Charles Krauthammer was right there with him as well. The excuse given by Kristol and Krauthammer here was primarily based on concerns that the bill was larded up with some pork that the House didn't have sufficient time to look at, even though the Senate had passed their bill a week before they were asking for this vote to be taken in the House. If that was a real concern, apparently it doesn't matter much now, since Boehner caved to the political pressure and is going to have the House vote "to shore up the National Flood Insurance Program on Friday and will vote on another $51 billion Sandy spending package on Jan. 15."

Whatever the excuses, it seems they were more than happy to give cover to Boehner and the House Republicans for being incapable of being responsible and caring about doing the job of actually governing this country, rather than continued political brinksmanship we've seen from the House and John Boehner and his cohorts taking their vacation time around the holidays, instead of tending to the needs of those suffering in the aftermath of that storm.

Here's more from the Media Matters post on Kristol:

Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol: "I Think The Speaker Was Entirely Right To Pull The Bill." During an appearance on Fox News' Special Report, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol said, "I think the Speaker was entirely right to pull the bill." He added: "$60 billion is about one-tenth of this year's federal domestic discretionary nondefense spending. This is not like, gee, a couple hundred million dollars for some really important, urgent thing." [Fox News, Special Report with Bret Baier, 1/2/13]

Kristol never seems to have those same concerns about our military industrial complex. That's the only jobs program that Republicans seem to support and I've never heard Kristol express any concern over what the waste there is contributing to our budget deficit. Unlimited funds for the Pentagon. Hurricane victims, well you can wait. And don't dare include any pork in that spending because lord knows we can't have that as long as it's going for people who just had their homes destroyed in a storm and to help their state's infrastructure recover.



Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (106)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (455)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

Surprise, surprise! It's all sour grapes over at Fox now that it seems Republicans are finally going to allow a clean vote on this so-called “fiscal cliff” bill that had passed the Senate. Leave it to their resident curmudgeon Charles Krauthammer to use the opportunity to paint President Obama as some evil Socialist who just wants to extract money from those hard-working rich people so that the lazy, good-for-nothing moochers out there can have their “entitlements.”

Never mind that he's completely wrong about President Obama being willing to negotiate with Republicans (far too often with the hostage taking we've witnessed), or that Republicans were the ones who originally voted to have these tax cuts expire. And never mind that we've got record income disparity and if we want to pay for a democratic society with a middle class, we should have a progressive tax code where the rich pay their share.

And of course no segment on Fox would be complete without some revisionist history in the form of St. Reagan worship.

BAIER: I mean, if you look at his deficit and debt commission, the Simpson-Bowles commission and the recommendations that came out of there (sorry Bret, but there were no recommendations from that commission, it failed) and what has not been followed through on, now two years ago, it's pretty remarkable.

KRAUTHAMMER: But he's not interested in that. And he's not interested in leading on spending. He's not interested in cutting spending. I think if you look at this in a large view, it's now becoming very clear who he is and what he wants to do. He's now in his second term. He's liberated.

He can be open about what he wants to do. He once said on '08 that Reagan was a historical President in a way that Clinton or Nixon was not. He meant Reagan changed the nature of the country. He got it hooked on low taxes, less government and an increase in inequality, is the way Obama sees it.

He sees his historical role, Obama, is to undo Reaganism and that means, not to cut spending. It means to raise taxes and he let the cat out of the bag on Monday. In that little rally he had, he said to Republicans, you're not getting any spending today and you know that, any spending cuts, but he said that if you think that you can get spending cuts after this in the rest of our negotiations, the answer is no. If you want a cut in spending, you're going to have to increase taxes on the rich.

Remember, he got an increase in revenues now by raising the rates on the rich. Well, now he's going to return, as he said on Monday and get increased revenue from the rich by eliminating deductions, the other way to do it. So he has no interest in anything other than raising the level of taxation, to sort of pre-Reagan levels, so he can support the entitlement state, which is what his presidency is all about. It's a very long view and I think he's attacking it in exactly the right way, if you were of his ideology.

Yeah, that's the ticket. The Kenyan usurper Socialist Communist just wants to beat up on the poor, oppressed rich people and steal all of their money for those lazy, undeserving seniors who would like their Social Security benefits so they don't starve. Krauthammer's still stuck in the '60's if he thinks this sort of talk is going to move most people when you still have so many people hurting from the recession and unemployed. That said, he knows he's speaking to the Fox viewers here, who are probably stuck right there with him.



Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (151)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (780)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

From ABC's This Week, GOP Representative and flamethrower Raul Labrador took a page out of Charles Krauthammer's book, and blamed the Democrats for the rifts within the Republican party and compared them to bank robbers while saying their plan is to raise taxes on everybody. Never mind that the party protecting the tax cuts for the ultra-rich at all costs is the Republicans.

Of course when host Jonathan Karl pointed out that the Republicans haven't been willing to compromise on anything, Labrador disagreed and said he'd be perfectly willing to compromise... as long as it means the GOP getting everything they want, which is destroying our social safety nets.

KARL: So let's -- but I want to ask, Republicans seem to be incredibly divided on this issue of taxes. You wouldn't even support your leader. You wouldn't even support Speaker Boehner, a relatively modest increase of those making over $1 million.

Charles Krauthammer said that this is -- Republicans are basically completely divided on this. Here's what he said: President Obama's been using this -- and I must say with great skill and ruthless skill and success -- to fracture and basically shatter the Republican opposition. His objective from the very beginning was to break the will of Republicans in the House and to create an internal civil war, and he has done that.

Is that what we are seeing here, is an internal civil war...

LABRADOR: Absolutely.

KARL: ... in the House?

LABRADOR: And I agree with Charles. This -- this has been what the Democrats wanted to do from day one. They have tried to divide the Republicans. They have tried to get us to fight against each other on taxes when -- I'm not really sure that they don't want to go over the fiscal cliff.

You're going to have Howard Dean here a little bit later. He agrees with many Democrats that what -- what they need is actually more revenue. They want to expand the growth of government. They need more revenues. You know, Democrats are like bank robbers. You don't have the money in the 2 percent -- the money is in the 100 percent. They want to raise taxes on everyone.

(CROSSTALK)

KARL: But you're unwilling...

(CROSSTALK)

KARL: ... you're unwilling to compromise at all.

LABRADOR: I'm willing to compromise if we have real cuts.

KARL: Not on taxes.

LABRADOR: No, if we have real cuts -- because what happens in Washington is that we talk about raising taxes today and then we talk about cuts 10 years from now. It happened under Reagan, it happened under Bush, and it's what's going to happen to us once again.

h/t Mediaite



Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (135)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (906)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

Leave it to Charles Krauthammer, and Fox News, to compare the so-called 'fiscal cliff' negotiations to the terms of surrender that ended the Civil War. Krauthammer ended with the thought that Republicans should just walk away because they were in such a strong position of leverage when the economy heads back into a tailspin as a result. This is the type of mindset that not only the conservative pundits have but also some Republican politicians. The smarter among them though realize the folly of Krauthammer's pontificating and are looking for a deal --any deal-- that won't get them lynched by their own supporters. They know Obama has them in a bind and are looking for a face-saving option.

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: It's not just a bad deal, this is really an insulting deal. What Geithner offered, what you showed on the screen, Robert E. Lee was offered easier terms at Appomattox, and he lost the Civil War. The Democrats won by 3% of the vote and they did not hold the House, Republicans won the house. So this is not exactly unconditional surrender, but that is what the administration is asking of the Republicans.

This idea -- there are not only no cuts in this, there's an increase in spending with a new stimulus. I mean, this is almost unheard of. What do they expect? They obviously expect the Republicans will cave on everything. I think the Republicans ought to simply walk away. The president is the president. He's the leader. They are demanding that the Republicans explain all the cuts that they want to make.

We had that movie a year-and-a-half ago where Paul Ryan presented a budget, a serious real budget with real cuts. Obama was supposed to gave speech where he would respond with a counter offer. And what did he do? He gave a speech where he had Ryan sitting in the front row. He called the Ryan proposal un-American, insulted him, offered nothing, and ran on Mediscare in the next 18 months.

And they expect the Republicans are going to do this again? The Republicans are going to walk on this. And I think they have leverage. Yes, for Congressional Democrats it will help them in the future if Republicans absorb the blame because we will have a recession. But Obama is not running again unlike the Congressional Democrats. He's going to have a recession, 9% unemployment, 2 million more unemployed, and a second term that's going to be a ruin. That is not a good proposition if you are Barack Obama.



Colbert Takes Republicans to Task Over 'Avoiding Water-Gate'

Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (149)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (982)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

Leave it to Stephen Colbert to make a mockery of Republicans for their claim that President Obama and the Democrats only moved President Obama's speech indoors because they supposedly would not have been able to fill the stadium where they were over-booked by almost 20,000 -- and that they should have "known what the weather was going to be like months ago" instead of being blindsided by the chance of thunder storms.

As Stephen noted, they could have just pulled out that Weather Channel 100 day forecast if they'd wanted to know whether it was going to be raining or not, or at least that's what resident curmudgeon over at ClusterFox, Charles Krauthammer seemed to be suggesting.



Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (137)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (1193)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

Even many Republican had to admit on Wednesday that former President Bill Clinton knocked it out the park with his rousing endorsement of Barack Obama at the Democratic National Convention, but conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer clearly wasn't feeling the love.

"I think it was a giant swing and a miss," Krauthammer told Fox News anchor Brett Baier. "Mighty Casey -- and Bill Clinton is a natural -- struck out on this. I don't think it will move the needle whatsoever."

"It was vintage Clinton in that it was sprawling, undisciplined and truly self-indulgent," he continued. "This is one of the strangest nomination speeches, I think, ever given. ... I think it was a wasted opportunity of what could have been a great, stirring, rousing endorsement of Obama."

Most of Krauthammer's conservative peers, however, did not share his impression of the former president's 49-minute speech.

"You don't have to come back tomorrow. This convention is done," Republican strategist Alex Castellanos told CNN after Clinton's performance Wednesday night.

"This will be the moment that probably re-elected Barack Obama. Bill Clinton saved the Democratic Party once, it was going to far left, he came in, the new democrats took it to the center. He did it again tonight."