[Dutchgirl]

For all who missed it on C-Span...

[Maria S]

He may be a quadriplegic in a wheelchair, but Charles Krauthammer stands head and shoulders above any other political writer these days...in my opinion. What an intellect!

[PGalt]

Thanks for the post. Very good article. Interesting discussion bump.

[rdb3]

2-B-C

[Reactionary]

"First, because we do not have the imperial culture of Rome. We are an Athenian republic, even more republican and infinitely more democratic than Athens."

We aren't "infinitely more democratic than Athens." After all, the Athenians selected some of their political leaders by drawing lots. We are only "infintely more democratic" in the sense that we are more egalitarian.

[Museum Twenty]

Thanks for this post -- The speech was great on C-Span.

[PogySailor]

Wow! I wish I'd seen his speech.

[NovemberCharlie]

An interesting article. You might contrast it with this one, which touches on many of the same points.

[cwb]

Wow! This IS a great article. In fact, there are some nice pieces here, that point to both the hypocrisy and the danger of liberals...who do believe in using force, but not in the national interests of the US. The irony in so much of what liberal utopiates want to accomplish, is that they wouldn't be able to accomplish any of their own goals without the supremacy of the US. That of course, is also part of the hypocrisy, as it is liberals who overwhelmingly use the US military to enforce their ideals of morality and humanitarianism. And yet, it is they who seek to diminsh US supremacy...either through treaties that tie our hands, or their wars, which do nothing to secure US interests...and in many cases, cause the very backlash they accuse Bush of creating with our allies.

Liberals wish to create this global equality, failing to realize that it is only US power that could ever actually impliment such a policy. Their idea that a conglomerate of UN nations, with different ideals, cultures, governments, etc., can somehow unite for common cause and solve the world's problems, when our very own Congress of semi like-minded individuals, can't agree on anything, is naive at best...and dangerous at worst. Liberals seem to think that by binding the US, the rest of the world will be better off...not realizing that it is at those times when the rest of the world most misbehaves and challenges, not just the USA, but the princliples of freedom and democracy, as other countries get threatened by their neighbors...whether it is fascism, socialism, communism or our latest -ism, Islamism. To weaken the US at a time when we are again facing a threatening force is ignorant...yet that is what some Democrats argue when they talk about the UN and multilateralism. Of course, when it is a Democratic president, they never worry about such menial tasks.

[ZULU]

Krauthammer may not support the Second Amendment, but on foreign policy. simply BRILLIANT! Bish should make him Secretary of State.

[CyberAnt]

I saw some of it, but it's great to read all of it. Thanks for posting this .. and I did Bookmark it.

[nopardons]

BTT

[Zack Nguyen]

Great post.

Why? No sentient being could believe that, say, the chemical or biological weapons treaties were anything more than transparently useless.

Because leftists are humanists - they believe that their good intentions and meaningful, soulful speeches are enough to sway the masses to give peace a chance. They bvelieve in the absolute power of their words. They are always wrong. Witness Clinton and North Korea. Only a liberal would trust a Communist.

[Norman Arbuthnot]

Moreover, the doctrine of preemption against openly hostile states pursuing weapons of mass destruction is an improvement on classical deterrence. Traditionally, we deterred the use of WMDs by the threat of retaliation after we’d been attacked--and that’s too late; the point of preemption is to deter the very acquisition of WMDs in the first place.

Whether or not Iraq had large stockpiles of WMDs, the very fact that the United States overthrew a hostile regime that repeatedly refused to come clean on its weapons has had precisely this deterrent effect. We are safer today not just because Saddam is gone, but because Libya and any others contemplating trafficking with WMDs, have--for the first time--seen that it carries a cost, a very high cost.

What is really scary is that we are probably only one more RAT administration away from having the problem of WMD's and rogue states spin totally out control. IMO it is impossible to envision any RAT who could actually win their nomination within the next 10 years having the political courage and determination to launch a preemptive strike on another member of the Axis of Evil or any number of other rogue/terrorist organizations that pose a serious threat to the people of the United States if that is what is required.

The real definition of an "imminent threat" should be any WMD program that can be developed within the time frame of the next RAT administration. Bush can't say that, but it is true.

We will have to hope and pray (and vote for) that Bush wins a second term so he can continue to neutralize the most serious threats on the horizon( N. Korea, Iran, Pakistan, etc. ,etc.) . I'm not totally satisfied with Bush43 (Too much spending on non-security related programs,weak on the immigration problem, etc), but overall I think he has performed well, especially with regard to national security. That issue trumps everything else.

[BunnySlippers]

Reading later.

[Right_in_Virginia]

BTTT

[Bernard Marx]

Bump for later.

[Diddle E. Squat]

Ya'll might find this of interest. Thoughts?

[PA Engineer]

Bump for later read.

[lainde]

BTTT...Just excellent!

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

Krauthammer continually and conveniently ignores, handwaves, the real moral problem of both the neocon and liberal policy he describes, Communist China. It's almost like a holy friggin' 3rd rail.