The Difference

If conservatives want to argue that Barack Obama's been flip-flopping on Iraq, I'll disagree but I could see what they mean. Charles Krauthammer, however, can't seriously believe that Obama's been "assiduously obliterat[ing] all differences with McCain on national security and social issues" since the end of the primaries.

Consider such non-obscure points as John McCain is pro-life and has said he wants to appoint judges who will restrict abortion rights, whereas Barack Obama is pro-choice. John McCain favors an amendment to California's constitution that would take back gay and lesbian couples' newfound marriage rights whereas Barack Obama opposes such an amendment. Barack Obama opposes a permanent American military presence in Iraq whereas John McCain favors it. Barack Obama thinks torture is wrong even when the CIA does it, whereas John McCain thinks it's great for the CIA to torture people. Barack Obama favors good-faith high-level negotiations with Iran, whereas John McCain wants to "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran." One could go on, but it hardly seems necessary -- the only question is why The Washington Post thinks it's a good idea to publish columns that are designed to mislead its audience rather than to inform its audience, or why they think customers would want to pay money for a publication that behaves that way.

Comments

Anybody who has read the columns by Dr. Krauthammer knows that the only issue that interests him is Iran. He thinks that Senator McCain will bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran and that Senator Osama will not. Period, end of story.

Posted by SLC | July 4, 2008 11:39 AM

Since McCain has held both views on every issue at some point, it is hard not to agree with something JM has said in the past.

Posted by John McCain: More of the Same | July 4, 2008 11:42 AM

It seems you are being coopted by the beltway media company you are now keeping. In what way can you "see what they mean" that Obama has flip-flopped on Iraq?

Posted by bemused | July 4, 2008 11:46 AM

Matt, I have an economic answer for your question. The Washington Post makes a lot of money of Krauthammer and its other horrible (they're all horrible) op-ed writers. They syndicate these writers to the many small-town rags who are too cheap to hire people to ape their publishers' crackpot views. This is also why it's impossible to remove an op-ed columnist from a big-time paper without using dynamite. They are commodities.
PS: Same goes for the NYT's pretty much less horrible op-ed columnists.

Posted by JMG | July 4, 2008 11:49 AM

". . . the only question is why The Washington Post thinks it's a good idea to publish columns that lie to its audience . . . "

Fixed it.

Posted by Joel | July 4, 2008 11:57 AM

These people (the WaPo editorial paginistas) have a decade or more of their lives involved with rogue state rollback. They are rationalizing Obama's views in the hope that they can at least maintain their status and not be discredited. Good luck with that!

Posted by joejoejoe | July 4, 2008 12:00 PM

JMG: that may be true today, but eventually, some publishers are going to realize that readers aren't buying the paper for the op-ed writers, and whatever that cost is, it's too high.

i expect op-ed writing as we know it today (overpriced, lazy pundits producing next to nothing every week) and completely replaced by some variants of blogging.

Posted by howard | July 4, 2008 12:12 PM

The final proof that the birth certificate of Senator Obama posted on Daily Kos and on the Obama campaign website are forgeries. When is the senator going to show the real birth certificate, if it indeed exists?

"Blogger admits Hawaii birth certificate forgery, subverting Obama claims
By Israel Insider staff July 3, 2008

Bookmark to del.icio.usDigg!Digg This Story

A crop from the image for which opendna aka Jay McKinnon takes credit (see context in reproduction below). Posted on Photobucket and in comments attached to the Daily Kos blog post where the purported Obama birth certificate appears

Jay McKinnon, a self-described Department of Homeland Security-trained document specialist, has implicated himself in the production of fake Hawaii birth certificate images similar to the one endorsed as genuine by the Barack Obama campaign, and appearing on the same Daily Kos blog entry where the supposedly authentic document appears.

The evidence of forgery and manipulation of images of official documents, triggered by Israel Insider's revelation of the collection of Hawaii birth certificate images on the Photobucket site and the diligent detective work of independent investigative journalists (led by JimJ and Texas Darling) and imaging professionals such as Polarik in the three weeks since the publication of the images, implicate The Daily Kos, a "progressive" blog site, and the Obama campaign's "Fight the Smears" website, in misleading the public with official-looking but manipulated document images of doubtful provenance. Moreover, the blog and the campaign have been negligent in allowing the promotion of obviously forged and fake official documents together with the purported image of Obama's birth certificate.

ORIGINS OF THE SUSPECT IMAGE ON DAILY KOS

The blog entry, posted by the site founder Kos (Markos Moulitsas), is presented as a response to a request by Jim Geraghty of the National Review Online, who had, three days before, called for the Obama campaign to release the candidate's birth certificate:

Having done some Obama-rumor debunking that got praise from Daily Kos (a sign of the apocalypse, no doubt), perhaps the Obama campaign could return the favor and help debunk a bunch of others with a simple step: Could they release a copy of his birth certificate?
Reporters have asked for it and been denied, and the state of Hawaii does not make such records public [...]

So Kos aka Moulitsas goes out and gets one. One impressed commenter on the site asks Kos where he got it. He answers:
"I asked the campaign. This 'journamalism [sic] thing actually works sometimes."

But why would a presidential campaign that has its own "Fight the Smears" website rely on a radical left-wing blog like Daily Kos to post its official documents, especially one as sensitive and controversial as a birth certificate? A few days later the Obama site would post a very low resolution, barely legible image -- it still is there on the site, with no reference to the one first posted at the Daily Kos.

Yet the service of Daily Kos to the Obama campaign raises some questions: Who in the campaign would be authorized to release a personal document of Barack Obama's birth certificate? Was it a paper document that they sent to Kos to scan, or did the Obama campaign scan the original and send it to Kos? If so, why not just post it on the Fight the Smears site? Or is there another possible source for the document? There is no documentation of the provenance of this image, from whom and why it was transmitted to Daily Kos, and in which format. None, that is, except for the say-so of Markos Moulitsas, who said he simply asked the Obama campaign for it.

The perceived unreliability of the image has provoked petitions and widespread demands for Obama to submit for objective inspection the paper versions of the "birth certificate" he claimed in his book Dreams from My Father was in his possession, as well as the paper version of the Certificate of Live Birth for which the image on the Daily Kos and the Obama "Fight the Smears" website was supposedly generated.

Without a valid birth certificate, the primary record of US birth, Obama cannot prove that he fulfills the "natural born citizen" requirement of the Constitution, throwing into doubt his eligibility to run for President and throwing the race into turmoil. His presumed Kenyan-born father was foreign-born, and his mother was too young at the time of birth to confer natural born status by virtue of her American citizenship. Thus his citizenship comes down to proving he was born in the USA, and his campaign has staked its credibility on the authenticity of the Daily Kos-derived birth certificate image. (These aspects of the case are covered extensively in the previous article in this series.)

WHO IS OPENDNA/JAY McKINNON?

McKinnon, who says he is 25-30 years old, operates a website called opendna.com and uses the opendna screen name on various web sites and blogs, including his comments and diary on The Daily Kos. In recent years he has divided his time between Long Beach, California and Vancouver, British Columbia. He is a Democratic political activist, frequent contributor to the left wing Daily Kos blog, and a fervent Barack Obama supporter.

"opendna" posted two versions of a "Certification of Live Birth" document image that, as demonstrated in the respective blogs of analysts Polarik and JimJ, have a common visual signature (a dot that appears on all four images) with the images posted on the Daily Kos site image that the Obama campaign has endorsed as genuine on its "Fight the Smears" website and has distributed to news media as the "real" birth certificate of Barack Obama. The signature dot appears on that one, too, when magnified, albeit a bit ... smeared.

Here's the same anomaly appears in Jay Mckinnon/opendna's images (highlight added by JimJ:

View the larger image.

One image created and posted by opendna is what he describes as a "blank template" of a State of Hawaii Certification of Live Birth. Only two data fields are filled in: the ISLAND OF BIRTH ("Oahu") and the HOUR OF BIRTH (7:24 PM). Neither of the images have a posted date stamp, but embedded EXIF information contains the time stamp of June 12 at 8:24am, the same day and time Daily Kos posted the purported Obama birth certificate.

Both images lack two salient characteristics present in the Barack Obama birth certificate images claimed by the Daily Kos blog and Obama's "Fight the Smears" site. The Field under CERTIFICATE NO is blank whereas on the purported "Obama birth certificate" that area is blacked out as if to conceal a real number. In addition, the two documents posted to the opendna account lack the reversed date (June 6, 2007) that appears at the bottom of the purported "Obama birth certificate."

However, the ISLAND OF BIRTH and the HOUR OF BIRTH is identical on the "Haye I.B Ahphorgerie" and blank certificates as well as the purported "Obama birth certificate," which also claims 7:24 pm as the HOUR OF BIRTH and Oahu as the ISLAND OF BIRTH. The odds of an identical time occurring by chance in two certificates is 1440 to 1. Either the former is derived from the latter, or the latter is derived from the former.

If "Haye I.B Ahphorgerie" were derivative of the purported "Obama birth certificate," it would have meant that -- in a matter of minutes on the morning of June 12, 2008, opendna would have had to tracelessly erase all fields (save ISLAND OF BIRTH and the HOUR OF BIRTH), and to painstakingly remove the blacked out area near CERTIFICATE NO and the reversed date that appears at the bottom of the purported "Obama birth certificate." Given the complexity of the background pattern, it would have been difficult to do this without leaving behind traces of the extractions. For what motive would one want to do this?

Given that this is an official state document, the risks of altering and tampering with it, or offering it for the express purpose of creating a forgery, or promoting it on a website, would seem to be rather high for fun and games.

The second possibility is that the blank document preceded the purported Obama birth certificate, serving as a "master" for the other. Either one would find a "blank document" and fill it in, or one would scan or photograph an authentic document and then "clean it" to create a blank document that would be filled in with personal details and the necessary stamps and signatures. One might be inclined to leave in type for two rows for alignment purposes and to ensure that the font type and size are consistent. Later one would fill in the blank areas with the desired data and "authentic" markings.

A FORGER'S SECRET CONFESSION ON THE DAILY KOS

The significance of opendna's forged birth certificate template can be discerned by looking more closely at the Daily Kos blog entry in which the purported Obama birth certificate first appears.

Indeed, the document image was initially posted with a resolution of 1024 x 1000. Only later, after it was discovered that the document stamp and official signature were lacking from the document image, Kos replaced the image with the much higher resolution in which it is claimed that, after a series of complex image manipulation steps using special imaging software, a faint image of something the website claims is the missing seal appears. (Even if there is a seal, it's not clear it's a seal from an Obama birth certificate, and there is no visible registrar signature, which is also required for a certified document.) But it is impossible to make out with the naked eye, and the manipulation is illegible and useless for verification purposes.

A possible answer for some of these anomalies is provided in banter between opendna and other commenters in the discussion thread of the blog post.

At 12:41pm, a prior request for a "font expert" is answered by opendna: "How about a certified DHS [Department of Homeland Security] document expert?" And by 1:35pm opendna comes up with a suggestion: "Why don't you just print one up for him? Here's a blank template.

And sure enough, there in the comments stream, he provides the "almost blank" Hawaii birth certificate image that appears on his Photobucket account, with just the information for the island and hour of birth.

The next commenter is impressed: "why can't Geraghty find this stuff? (but bloggers like you have it at thier fingertips? No wonder print media is in total collapse."

Now, as the time stamps would have it, opendna's suggestion is out of synch, appearing 4-5 hours after the initial posting of the purported Obama birth certificate document. That doesn't make much sense: Kos doesn't need a birth certificate for Obama -- one was already posted!

So why would OpenDNA post this? What explains his suggestion that Kos "print one up" with a "blank template"? Is he just trying to be funny? Is he trying to impress the other commenters? For this did he go through the trouble of removing all the text and the reverse date-stamp? Or was the blank template "just lying around somewhere" on his computer or in some corner of the Internet, just happening to have the identical information as the purported Obama birth certificate?

A hint may be found here (click the image to open one in higher resolution):

"Corvo", a very frequent commenter on Daily Kos, had written at 10 am: I'm sure that every forgery includes a note that essentially says "Hey! I'm a forgery!"

At 01:27:12 PM PDT, some three hours later, under the subject "!!!" and without any further comment, OpenDNA posts a crop of his Haye I.B Ahphorgerie image.

In other word, in response to Corvo's comment, McKinnon makes a visual "joke" -- "Hey," the document is saying: "I be a forgery!"

Remarkably, though, the Ahphorgerie crop appears seven minutes before opendna posts the "blank template" birth certificate image with the suggestion to "print one up" for Obama. So opendna was working on the image at that time.

Of course, the almost-blank "Haye I.B Ahphorgerie" birth certificate is not a particularly useful counterfeit but, as McKinnon suggests, it could be put to good use by "printing one up" using the "blank template." It's as if opendna couldn't resist boasting, after the release of the "official" Obama version, of his own role: "Hey, I be a forgery!"

It is certainly worthy of note that the "Haye I.B Ahphorgerie" image and comments were subsequently excised from the discussion thread, something that could only have been done by a site administrator or Kos himself. However, the management failed to clean up in the site archive from where these images were pulled and, as of this writing, is still publicly accessible. The suppression of the comments indicates that one or more persons at Daily Kos were involved in the attempted cover-up.

ON THE UNBEARABLE EASE OF BIRTH CERTIFICATE FORGERY

None of this is not to imply that McKinnon himself forged the Obama document, with all the fields filled in with information about the presidential candidate but lacking the visible stamp and signature that alone would make it an authentic document. Nor is their proof positive about how the almost-blank "Oahu 7:24pm" document is related to the one endorsed by the Obama campaign that features those exact details.

The presence on the Daily Kos blog of the admittedly forged almost-blank templates of the document, and the admission of forgery by opendna in that same blog entry, not to mention the technical signatures uncovered by Polarik and JimJ, should cause the Obama campaign to radically reassess its reliance on the image of the birth certificate published by the Daily Kos.

If the website is the home for a self-admitted federally-trained document specialist, with examples of forgery posted concurrently with the image they claim as authentic, is that a venue appropriate for a presidential candidate to showcase the only available high resolution purported image of his vital records? If the birth certificate endorsed by his campaign turns out to be a fraud -- and the overwhelming evidence assembled points to it being precisely that -- what would that say about the credentials and judgment of the presidential candidate it purports to represent? Let alone his Constitutional eligibility to serve.

Yet the Obama campaign, three weeks later, continues to run a derivative of the Daily Kos posts, and insists on its authenticity while refusing to submit any paper proof of birth for official or independent inspection, as if proof of Constitutional fitness to serve is of no consequence.

In the summer of August 2006, blogging on the Daily Kos, opendna aka Jay McKinnon showed off his DHS-derived knowledge, discussing under the heading of "The Perfect ID Card" the ease of forging US documents, birth certificates in particular:

"Most Americans have worse ID than illegal immigrants. So, you have a letter from a notary that says you told him you're a citizen. Is that supposed to mean something? I'm certain he would sign one saying I told him I'm a carrot. Birth certificates, are you serious? Take a look at yours. Chances are I could counterfeit it at Kinkos."

Jay McKinnon may not have had to go that far.

In the course of my subsequent email exchange with McKinnon -- more on that in the next article -- he at last agreed to release the following statement: "I believe there is overwhelming evidence that Senator Obama is a natural born US Citizen, and I have no evidence to contradict that belief." He did not relate to the veracity of the Obama birth certificate images.

This is Part 4 of a series. Here's where you can find Parts 1, 2, and 3. Other articles about Barack Obama and his mysterious background are linked on the upper left of this article. In Part 5 (coming soon!), more on the email exchange with Jay McKinnon, some hints from him about "Uncle Mark", a referral to the "Canadian CIA," and an attempt by him to downplay the importance of the purported online birth certificates, the authenticity of which he admits cannot be verified. "

Posted by SLC | July 4, 2008 12:17 PM

Matt, I think you have the wrong focus on this. Obama ran, successfully, on a platform that was good politics and good governance -let's make peace in the Middle East, let's end the money and blood suck in Iraq, let's talk to our "enemies". He is now rapidly falling into the hands of D.C. Consultant politics, and he has, indeed, visibly aligned himself with the dreadful, stupid foreign policy represented by the average Fred Hiatt op ed. Hiatt was, I thought, laughable for claiming that Obama's foreign policy was a mere continuation of Bush's. That is looking less laughable by the day.

This is neither good politics nor good governance. Don't defend Obama! At least attack the DLC-ish view that, once again, is going to give our foreign policy to the most loutish, brutal and stupid, aka the GOP. Even if Obama is elected, at this rate, he will have tied his hands to do anything that isn't loutish, brutal and stupid.

This isn't the Obama who successfully undermined Clinton. If he has swallowed the surge is working, everybody wants to spend another 150 billion dollars in Iraq mantra (and you just attended the very hive of mainstream thinking and could witness, firsthand, the gilding of the excrement and the way it becomes cw) he will definitely lose his best issue, and maybe the election.

How stupid to think that he has to present himself as "responsible" in terms that the Weekly standard crew can approve of. Obama has to wake up. What he is doing is not only muddying his issues, but is doing the one thing that can cut off the crucial flow of his funding. Coming out for the Iraq war is braindead.

Posted by roger | July 4, 2008 12:19 PM

Just for the record, there are some of us who are long-time conservatives who no longer even bother to read Krauthammer's columns because he has so far lost touch with reality. (Or, to be fair, he may be clear on reality, but be so far gone to cynicism himself that he says things that he knows are totally untrue.)

Take suggesting that Obama's position on Iraq today is any different that it was 6 months ago. The parts that are emphasized have changed, since the general election audience is different from the Democratic primary audience. But anyone who actually listened to what he has been saying knows that the overall policy is the same as it has been all along. And that is true whether you approve or disapprove of what that policy is.

Posted by wj | July 4, 2008 12:20 PM

Indeed, "one could go on". But who needs more sophomoric mis-characterizations of either candidates actual statements and records? Total horseshit, Matt.

Posted by robert powell | July 4, 2008 12:25 PM

He's not flip-flopping . . . here's Obama's problem: he overestimates the American political climate sometimes. To any rational person, plans for withdrawal from a warzone are going to be subject to details on the ground and some changes/refinements in those details.

I think Obama thinks about things in very rational LSAT-type logic, and fails to realize that the media's going to pounce on any hesitation or moderation in his comments (and he's naturally a careful person, whose comments are usually very measured). In the modern media context, taking a measured approach is a negative.

Posted by Thad | July 4, 2008 12:30 PM

You, ah, got a little bit of spam there, Matt. Might want to clean that up.

Posted by Demosthenes | July 4, 2008 12:32 PM

He's not flip-flopping . . . here's Obama's problem: he overestimates the American political climate sometimes. To any rational person, plans for withdrawal from a warzone are going to be subject to details on the ground and some changes/refinements in those details.

I think Obama thinks about things in very rational LSAT-type logic, and fails to realize that the media's going to pounce on any hesitation or moderation in his comments (and he's naturally a careful person, whose comments are usually very measured). In the modern media context, taking a measured approach is a negative.

Posted by Thad | July 4, 2008 12:34 PM

roger -- and Matt -- please just read wj's 2nd paragraph above (well, also Josh Marshall's spot-on rant of last night). The GOP continues to whip Dems' asses in the media-spin race, and that's truly, truly got to stop. But people who frequent (and write!) blogs like this really should know better than to fall for such crap.

Posted by rj | July 4, 2008 12:36 PM

Don't you moderate this at all? I suspect that if one of George Carlin's seven words was used, you'd modify or drop the post.

So why don't you drop the 2500+ screed of "SLC" (who courageously hides in anonymity)?

Stop letting the Republicans use the media to spread their slurs.

This is pretty open race-baiting and your letting this person use your pages to do it.

Posted by john Dowd | July 4, 2008 12:38 PM

robert powell of "Saddam was Hitler, Bush is Nelson Mandella mixed with Prince Charming whose unprovoked slaughter of Iraqis saved their lives" fame? Complaining about "sophomoric mischaracterizations"? This is just too funny!

Hey powell, ever discover that George W. Bush didn't invade Iraq with his time machine?

Posted by Not as bloodthirsty as robert powell | July 4, 2008 12:41 PM

SLC

WHAT A BUNCH OF HOOEY! What the hell are you talking about? You make NO sense. He was born in Honalulu, HI to an 18 year old University of Hawaii student. Why would he have a fake birth certificate? This kind of stuff is sick. It is PUMA/Rethug spammer crap! Get a life!

Posted by margoharris | July 4, 2008 12:49 PM

SLC is just hysterically bothered about anything 'mooozlimy'. He posts every now and then with some anti-Obama screed posted by the scared nincompoops at "israelinsider" who are afraid that Obama's gonna sell Israel to Hamasmedinejadbolla'lQaida, and then the stupid post is proven empirically and disastrously wrong -- you know, like Snopes.com wrong, I don't means sophisticatedly wrong, like, it's based on the 2nd hand now elderly recollections of somebody that was NOT Obama's grade school teacher and by the way it's just even some dude's interpretation of what that 2nd hand elderly recollection must have meant -- and SLC will then wait until israelinsider sends him a new 'hey'dja here this about Osama I mean Obama'.

Posted by El Cid | July 4, 2008 1:00 PM

It is great to read the distain for Charles Krauthammer. When ever there is a genuine threat to the house of cards that lefty loons construct, all the same adjectives and club house, washwomen like gossip comes outs in force to squash that threat. In this case it's the insights of Krauthammer.
It isn't ever worth the time and trouble to attempt to unweave the misrepresentations that live in minds of the frightened old women who pretend to think the truth.
None of you could last 1 round in a head to head with Krauthammer.

Posted by victor Schiro | July 4, 2008 1:16 PM

Re margoharris

If Senator Obama was born in Hawaii as Ms. margoharris claims, then there will be a legitimate birth certificate, not the phonies published by DailyKos and on his website.

Re El Cid

Senator Obama can prove the Israelinsider wrong in a heartbeat by producing his real birth certificate instead of the forgeries that have so far been produced. The fact that he has failed so far to do so speaks volumes.

Posted by SLC | July 4, 2008 1:21 PM

I was going to comment (who, exactly, is going to be misled by Krauthammer?) but the bizarre spamming here is too much. Bye.

Posted by MattF | July 4, 2008 1:21 PM

Re El Cid

The article on snopes does not in any way, shape, form, or regard address the issue raised by the Israelinsider which questions whether, in fact, Senator Obama was born in Hawaii. That's the only issue that they have raised. All the stuff in the snopes article has nothing to do with it. As I have stated, Senator Obama can bury this issue in a heartbeat by producing a certified copy of his birth certificate, if in fact, it exists. He has thus far not done so but has instead endorsed fakes. I can guarantee Mr. El Cid that, in the event of an Obama election, the Rethuglicans will raise it in court if it has not been put to bed in the interim.

Posted by SLC | July 4, 2008 1:31 PM

It is great to read the distain for Charles Krauthammer. When ever there is a genuine threat to the house of cards that lefty loons construct, all the same adjectives and club house, washwomen like gossip comes outs in force to squash that threat. In this case it's the insights of Krauthammer.
It isn't ever worth the time and trouble to attempt to unweave the misrepresentations that live in minds of the frightened old women who pretend to think the truth.
None of you could last 1 round in a head to head with Krauthammer.

Posted by victor Schiro | July 4, 2008 1:32 PM

Yeah, SLC; it speaks volumes about how Obama need not pay attention to loony outlets like Israel Insider. Newsflash: Nothing Daily Kos requires any response from Obama. It's just a blog.

Thanks for hijacking what could have been a fairly informative thread.

Posted by Huntington | July 4, 2008 1:36 PM

100 years.

Meme dead.

Posted by Steve in Sacto | July 4, 2008 1:38 PM

SLC *is* a sock puppet for the Good Doctor.

Posted by ugh | July 4, 2008 1:43 PM

I would like to retract my previous rant. A life changing encounter with Mazola and a beautiful young man from Pittsburgh made me realize that I am wasting my time anonymously slandering Obama. Fortunately the money the McCain campaign paid me is enough to open a nice little leather bar.

Posted by SLC | July 4, 2008 1:52 PM

victor, baby, Krauthammer would never survive a head-to-head with anybody but a koolaid guzzling sellout like you. His column is one long lie, and that's a fact. You defend a raving lunatic liar, because you see the writing on the wall: Obama will free America from the ravages of the sociopathic right wing, and you can't stand it. Too bad. mcCain is toast, as you all are.

Posted by ronjazz | July 4, 2008 2:00 PM

spot on matt. The WaPo need not wonder why its circulation keeps declining. By keeping out of touch and/or horribly ideological clowns like krauthammer, broder, cohen, novak, gerson, hiatt, around and that sorry-ass excuse for an omnbudsman howell, the answer is right there nearly every day on their opinion pages.

Posted by bubba | July 4, 2008 2:01 PM

spot on matt. The WaPo need not wonder why its circulation keeps declining. By keeping out of touch and/or horribly ideological clowns like krauthammer, broder, cohen, novak, gerson, hiatt, around and that sorry-ass excuse for an omnbudsman howell, the answer is right there nearly every day on their opinion pages.

Posted by bubba | July 4, 2008 2:02 PM

"Anybody who has read the columns by Dr. Krauthammer knows that the only issue that interests him is Iran."

Actually, anyone who has read the columns by Dr. Krauthammer knows that the only issue that really interests him is Israel and, specifically, the electoral fortunes of the Likud Bloc. His current fixation on Iran is just a byproduct of those underlying priorities.

He is, for all intents and purposes, an agent of a foreign power -- although given current political realities maybe agent of the 51st state would be a more accurate description.

Posted by Peter Principle | July 4, 2008 2:10 PM

God damn you, Matt, is there no limit to the quantity of junk you let people post on your site?

SLC has earned deletion of all future posts, too. That was pure prefab Republican surrogate trollery on a meta-peripheral issue. He'll be talking about kerning next.

Even Crooked Timber and Kevin Drum finally realized that their comment thread were being ruined by idiots and trolls. You'd be better off permanently closing down your comments than letting the shitheads take over.

There's a formula: a moderate site with unmoderated comments draws shitheads. Don't ask me why -- it's a scientific fact.

Posted by John Emerson | July 4, 2008 2:12 PM

I delivered papers for the Washington Post.

My family bought the Washington Post their entire lives.

I was to be the one to continue this tradition, but when I started seeing the WaPo decline horribly from "Here are the facts, you draw your conclusions" journalism and into this slimy underbelly of "frame the debate", "bait your thinking" articles... I realized I would never buy the Washington Post again.

Sad.

BTW, Charles Krauthammer is ungodly, because he shows no respect for the other parts of God that are not in perfect lockstep with his rigid beliefs.

Posted by Disgusted | July 4, 2008 2:17 PM

Every psychologist and psychiatrist I've ever met turn out to have first become attracted to that field because of severe personal and emotional problems of their own. Usually they are able to master the problems and behave normally.

CK is an exception to the rule.

Posted by Stuart Eugene Thiel | July 4, 2008 2:17 PM

JMG: you may be right, but my own limited experience with small circulation papers says that they mostly carry Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, etc. The Townhall types. Probably cheaper than someone syndicated by the Post.

Posted by Davis | July 4, 2008 2:24 PM

"whereas John McCain thinks it's great for the CIA to torture people."

Are you serious??

Posted by Chris | July 4, 2008 2:30 PM

It seems to be a media theme to use folks like Krauthammer as *experts*. I saw Cliff May being taken as a seriously impartial *expert* on MSNBC the other night. I saw the same with Michael O'Hanlan on CNN the same night.

All of these guys are seriously biased and should be taken with that grain of salt. It will evidently be up to the new media to correctly identify these zealots the same way Michael Moore has been identified as a zealot so folks can take what they say with the proper grain(s) of salt.

Posted by G Davis | July 4, 2008 2:47 PM

"It is great to read the distain for Charles Krauthammer."--victor

I think you are going to find that distain is on diback of your underpants.

Posted by red@cted | July 4, 2008 3:42 PM

"Are you serious??"

I don't think McCain thinks it's "great" for the the CIA to torture people, but he apparently feels that they should have the latitude to interrogate people in ways that go beyond what's permitted in the Army Field Manual. While that might not mean that they can "torture", it almost certainly means that they can do things any decent person would call torture. That's how he voted earlier this year, and if it's not what he believes, he should have voted otherwise.

Posted by alex | July 4, 2008 3:45 PM

Opinion Columnists don't have to be right , in that I can have the opinion that ice is warm due to my total insanity, and if 20 people agree with me cause they are also insane I have a readership and can claim to speak for some constituency. Rethugs don't like objective fact cause , I mean , who would knowingly vote for McDonnell Douglas and Halliburton over childcare?

"A PERSONAL MOMENT WITH CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER....M.J. Rosenberg shares a Charles Krauthammer moment:

About three years ago, I saw Krauthammer flip out in synagogue on Yom Kippur. The rabbi had offered some timid endorsement of peace — peace essentially on Israel's terms — but peace anyway. Krauthammer went nuts. He actually started bellowing at the rabbi, from his wheel chair in the aisle. People tried to "shush" him. It was, after all, the holiest day of the year. But Krauthammer kept howling until the rabbi apologized. The man is as arrogant as he is thuggish. Who screams at the rabbi at services? For advocating peace?"

Who indeed.

Krauthammer is a pathological liar on many levels, or just out to lunch if he actually believes anything he writes.
All the more disturbing to me when I think there are people out there whom I call 'good people ' who aren't even that deeply engaged in daily politics and who still believe that venerable institutions like old school traditional papers magically adhere to some kind of essential automatic school of factual decency, and that in their age and maturity would never publish the agenda driven lies of the Krystols and the Krauthammers, and that by their very placement in these organs inherit some of the legitimacy of the institution. I didn't realise 60% of all print media was pro-business biased untill my late teens, and I strongly believe I was never supposed to notice at all .
Perhaps when the readership, shrinking as it does , makes it known that they simply don't buy the nonsense peddled by these charlatans the institutions who print them would realise they are nothing but vampires draining what remains of their credibility, they might jettison the parasites and move back toward ...reporting the news ...? Nahhh, never happen, they'd rather go bankrupt.
It's a corrupt System that feeds on it's own droppings, identifying the source and the nexus of these corrupt elements will be the bulwark of the next generation of bloggers.

Either that or sitting online calling the other side liars

Posted by A.Scott | July 4, 2008 3:51 PM

How about we talk SLC seriously when he/she proves he/she/it is a) an American; b) a Jew; c) a human being? Let him/her/it do so In whatever order he/she/it chooses...

I'd prefer that someone who deliberately uses 'Senator Osama' when spamming be deleted and banned, for reasons far more obvious than the ones SLC considers banworthy.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | July 4, 2008 3:55 PM

Matt, here's one more vote for DrKrauthammer being bat-shit-crazy mono-maniac. His truly sad condition of being wheelchair bound did not elevate his spirit, as suffering and misfortune sometimes do. You can sense the acid and venom that fills him when he speaks in person. I watched him on C-SPAN receiving some wing-nut award a year of two ago. The obvious hatred and anger of his persona was depressing to see.

Mr SLC, I admit to not reading much of the very long post. Did I understand that the 'birth certificate picture' was somehow back traced thru the 'net to it's source? If so why are we not back tracing the internet sites used by AlQaida and either bombing the shit out of their servers or posting false material on them anonymously or somehow subverting them? Seems like a better use of your time than smearing the rare decent politician.

Posted by JohnMcC | July 4, 2008 3:57 PM

Obviously Krauthammer is nothing but a tool, but it's just as deluded to claim that Obama hasn't spent the last two weeks narrowing the gap between himself and McCain by a considerable amount--funny how that never works in reverse--as it is to state that he's completely obliterated it. There may be no easy answers for liberals and progressive Democrats as to what may be done about this, but they surely won't find any by livng in denial about it.

Posted by Michael Hall | July 4, 2008 3:58 PM

I don't think McCain thinks it's "great" for the the CIA to torture people, but he apparently feels that they should have the latitude to interrogate people in ways that go beyond what's permitted in the Army Field Manual. While that might not mean that they can "torture", it almost certainly means that they can do things any decent person would call torture.

Ah, the "decent people" standard. Anti-torture fanatics like it precisely because it's so vague it can mean anything they want at any given time.

Posted by Mixner | July 4, 2008 4:01 PM

...oh, and someone go tell Larry Johnson Hillary is Out and actively supporting Barak Obama for President.

Is Hillary treating Hillary unfairly in the media , or is she just buckling to the electorate by no longer supporting her own candidacy? From what I can tell from the PUMA dipshits ,Hillary is like totally betraying ...Hillary...

it's all so confusing sometimes.

Slightly OT, just SLC's blathering reminded me of how freaky No Quarter has become.

Posted by A.Scott | July 4, 2008 4:04 PM

michael hall, don't be inane: obama sold out on FISA. that is not narrowing the gap between him and mccain by a "considerable amount" under any reckoning.

and mccain has worked it in the other way: don't you know he loves the environment now?

Posted by howard | July 4, 2008 4:09 PM

Ah, the idiot patrol ever leaping to the defense of torture using, in an ironic twist, a tortured definition of what torture is; in the person of one whose ideology demands that the indefensible be permitted by merely claiming that torture cannot be defined.

It can, it has been, being a moron doesn't change that.

Posted by Not as stupid as Mixner | July 4, 2008 4:10 PM

SLC *is* a sock puppet for the Good Doctor.

ugh--Nah. I vote for Victor Shiro.

(We could, of course, both be wrong. I don't suppose someone at the Atlantic could check the posting addresses?)

Posted by Molly, NYC | July 4, 2008 4:29 PM

Peter Principle is exactly right when he says the only thing Krauthammer is interested in is the Likud Party. Oh, and he's very interested in calling anyone who points out his loyalties to Likud an "antisemite".

The little dustup that goofy Joe Klein got involved in with the neocons recently demonstrated exactly what the folks that have taken over the GOP and the Right in America really have in mind. They want WAR WAR WAR in the middle east and they're willing to throw as many American bodies into that meat grinder as it takes. There are quite a few twisted religous fanatics over in the Middle East, and Krauthammer is willing to shed every drop of other peoples' blood in a religious war.

Posted by PopeRatzo | July 4, 2008 4:39 PM

How long may a prisoner be deprived of sleep before it becomes torture?
How long may a prisoner be deprived of food before it becomes torture?
How long may a prisoner be deprived of water before it becomes torture?
How long may a prisoner be subjected to solitary confinement before it becomes torture?
How long, and at what temperatures, may a prisoner be subjected to extreme heat or cold before it becomes torture?
How many times, and how hard, may a prioner be punched or beaten before it becomes torture?

Show me the definition of torture that answers these questions.

Posted by Not-as-stupid is insane | July 4, 2008 4:41 PM

Hey Not-as-stupd is insane - ask chairman Mao

Posted by DS | July 4, 2008 5:01 PM

Re Mixner

In a previous thread, Mr. fucktard Mixner denied that waterboarding was torture. Attached is a link to an article by Christopher Hitchens where, unlike Mr. Mixner, he decided to undergo the procedure himself before making such a proclamation. Needless to say, Mr. Hitchens' conclusion was that if waterboarding is not torture then nothing is. I suggest that Mr. Mixner either follow Mr. Hitchens example before making his claim or shut his fucking mouth.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/08/hitchens200808

Posted by SLC | July 4, 2008 5:03 PM

SLC,

Needless to say, Mr. Hitchens' conclusion was that if waterboarding is not torture then nothing is.

Ah, right. That settles it, then. May we assume you agree with Mr Hitchens on all other matters too?

I suggest that Mr. Mixner either follow Mr. Hitchens example before making his claim or shut his fucking mouth.

I suggest you go fuck yourself with a spatula.

Posted by Mixner | July 4, 2008 5:14 PM

Poor Mixner, he wants so desperately to defend torture, but he can't just say the obvious "I, Mixner support the brutalization of my fellow human beings," so he pretends it is unquantifiable and presents insane arguments premised on the notion that "a law with any variation isn't a law."

Those of you who aren't massive fucking retards know that this is not the case. Irreconcilable differences aren't spelled out in divorce law. A thickwitted moron like Mixner, on the other hand, would demand to know if "holding hands with a man not your husband" is grounds, and if it could be, how many times do you have to do it before it becomes "irreconcilable." That this is stupid is obvious to even the densest of human beings - leaving out our friend Mixner.

But in all honesty, there is no point in arguing with a torture supporter like Mixner because he's so wrapped-up in a love of torture that no examples, no logic, nothing short of the application of one one or more of his favorite techniques - repeatedly, will get him to say otherwise. Which would be fun for some Mixner like character that enjoys torture, but wouldn't actually change Mixner's mind - there's not much there to change, but it has fixated on this idiotic idea and has all the flexibility of intellect of a stone.

Posted by Not as stupid as Mixner | July 4, 2008 5:18 PM

Re Mixner

I suggest that Mr. Mixner fucks his mother.

Posted by SLC | July 4, 2008 5:19 PM

Until Not as stupid as Mixner describes what counts as "the brutalization of my fellow human beings" and what doesn't, his claim is meaningless.

Posted by Not-as-stupid is insane | July 4, 2008 5:23 PM

Irreconcilable Differences:

Differences between spouses that are considered sufficiently severe to make married life together more or less impossible. In a number of states, irreconcilable differences is the accepted ground for a no-fault divorce. As a practical matter, courts seldom, if ever, inquire into what the differences actually are, and routinely grant a divorce as long as the party seeking the divorce says the couple has irreconcilable differences.

Posted by Divorce Lawyer | July 4, 2008 5:27 PM

Mixner--Isn't the "decent person" pretty much the same as the "reasonable man" standard which is used in law, at least for the purpose of demonstrating that the non-specification of "exactly" what something means is a legitmate form of argument?

Could you please sepcify exactly what activities, if any, you would consider torure and why?

Posted by shawn214 | July 4, 2008 5:38 PM

Simple.

WaPo is afraid that, if they can the Kraut, he'll sue under the ADA. Because, you know, he's got "principled conservatism" and all.

Posted by Hemlock for Gadflies | July 4, 2008 5:41 PM

Let's remember Mixner Rules:

1. Whatever Mixner says is beyond refutation, regardless of evidence to the contrary.
2. Whatever you say is intrinsically lacking proof.
3. People are icky.

The silly glibertarian boy's sociopathic solipsism makes everything permissible, as long as it doesn't muss his precious little closed mind.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | July 4, 2008 5:44 PM

No Mixner, what's meaningless is engagement with you. I'll be honest here for a moment, you aren't really stupid - you are deliberately obtuse. Which is actually far worse.

I've already defeated your argument in support of the brutalization of actual human beings (you're right about one thing - your support for torture puts you outside the class of human beings, you don't qualify). That you can't see it is good enough reason to keep the handle:

Posted by Not as stupid as Mixner | July 4, 2008 5:48 PM

Mixner--Isn't the "decent person" pretty much the same as the "reasonable man" standard which is used in law, at least for the purpose of demonstrating that the non-specification of "exactly" what something means is a legitmate form of argument?

No, it's not the same at all. We don't define crimes as whatever a "reasonable man" considers them to be.

Could you please sepcify exactly what activities, if any, you would consider torure and why?

I'm not defining torture. I'm saying that you can't effectively ban it unless you define it. If you believe the ban on torture is effective, please specify exactly what activities, if any, you think it bans, and why. You could start with the list of questions I gave earlier, which include some pretty common interrogation techniques.

Posted by Mixner | July 4, 2008 5:53 PM

I am very confused. I can't follow all the stuff that is put here by people making comments.Not sure what most of it means. I know but one thing:

Congress is going to go heavily to the Democrats. Whoever is the next president is going to have to appoint (probably) at least 2 supreme court justices.

If I do not vote for Obama, I won't vote at all. If lots of people don't vote for Obama and the election is close, the McCain will be the guy to appt the two justices. Do I want not to vote and assume that many others bright people will do as I do and do not vote? And through our bright decision help McCain get the chance to appoint the next justices?

I think I will vote for Obama dn urge othes also to do so. I am sure what McCain and his justices will do for our nation: complete the Bush legacy.

Posted by fred lapides | July 4, 2008 5:56 PM

I've already defeated your argument in support of the brutalization of actual human beings

Since you haven't even described what you think counts as "the brutalization of actual human beings" and what doesn't, your "argument" is meaningless.

Posted by Not-as-stupid is insane | July 4, 2008 5:56 PM

Hey Not-as-stupd is insane - ask chairman Mao

Posted by DS | July 4, 2008 5:57 PM

Hey Not-as-stupd is insane - ask chairman Mao

Posted by DS | July 4, 2008 6:00 PM

DS,

Why?

Posted by Not-as-stupid is insane | July 4, 2008 6:03 PM

Mixner,

"No, it's not the same at all. We don't define crimes as whatever a "reasonable man" considers them to be."

What about criminal negligence?

"I'm not defining torture. I'm saying that you can't effectively ban it unless you define it."

Does this mean that torture cannot exist, since you appear to believe that it cannot be defined?

Posted by shawn214us | July 4, 2008 6:23 PM

Mixner isn't defining torture because to do so would violate his solipsistic argument "I don't want to see torture so it doesn't exist."

That this is fundamentally stupid is self-evident. Were Mixner not in love with supporting torture for ideological reasons even he would regard such an argument as fatuous. But then he's insane as well as stupid.

Posted by Not as stupid as Mixner | July 4, 2008 6:23 PM

Mixner,

"No, it's not the same at all. We don't define crimes as whatever a "reasonable man" considers them to be."

What about criminal negligence?

"I'm not defining torture. I'm saying that you can't effectively ban it unless you define it."

Does this mean that torture cannot exist, since you appear to believe that it cannot be defined?

Posted by shawn214us | July 4, 2008 6:24 PM

Sadly shawn214us, that is exactly what Mixner is saying. It's not because of an actual belief, it is because to allow a definition of torture, any definition of torture, is to admit that the Bush administration engaged in it. He's too ideologically committed to supporting Bush to ever allow that.

Posted by Not as stupid as Mixner | July 4, 2008 6:33 PM

shawn,

What about criminal negligence?

I don't know. What about it?

Does this mean that torture cannot exist, since you appear to believe that it cannot be defined?

I never said either that torture cannot "exist" or that torture "cannot" be defined. I said that torture can't effectively be banned unless it is defined. If you think torture is effectively banned, please specify exactly what activities you think that ban applies to, and why. Is depriving someone of sleep for 24 hours torture? How about 2 days? A week? See the list of questions I gave above for some more examples of common interrogation techniques.

Posted by Mixner | July 4, 2008 6:33 PM

Mixner,

Criminal Negligence uses the reasonable person which claim cannot define a crime.

Could you go ahead and maybe tell us what specific acts, or duration/intensity of those acts that you think would constitute torture? No need to play coy.

Posted by shawn214us | July 4, 2008 6:39 PM

That should have been "which you claim cannot define a crime."

Posted by shawn214 | July 4, 2008 6:42 PM

I have a few interesting things to do, so I will just say to shawn214us, trust me, the reason why I don't actually engage this moron Mixner is because he has no interest in a rational discussion. He will dance around and play word games, but he will never come out and admit the obvious:

Mixner supports torture.

That's really all there is. All his sophistry, all his idiocy, all of that is merely his way of saying "I, Mixner, am a huge fan of torture, which is why I keep contending it is legal."

Posted by Not as stupid as Mixner | July 4, 2008 6:47 PM

shawn,

Criminal Negligence uses the reasonable person which claim cannot define a crime.

Show me where criminal negligence is defined as what a reasonable person believes it to be.

Could you go ahead and maybe tell us what specific acts, or duration/intensity of those acts that you think would constitute torture?

As I already explained, I'm not defining torture. Do you think the ban on torture is effective, or don't you? If you do, explain how long you think a prisoner may be deprived of sleep before it qualifies as torture. Or deprived of food or water. Or how long and how hard a prisoner may be punched or beaten before it qualifies as torture. And so on.

Or do you think that none of these interrogation methods can ever qualify as torture, no matter how severe or long-lasting, and that the ban on torture simply doesn't apply to them at all?

Posted by Mixner | July 4, 2008 6:52 PM

Shorter Mixner: because it is impossible to define every possible permutation of sexual assault, rape cannot effectively be criminalised.

That kind of sophistry is the kind of thing you expect from egocentric adolescents like the silly glibertarian boy.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | July 4, 2008 6:54 PM

Shorter Mixner: because it is impossible to define every possible permutation of sexual assault, rape cannot effectively be criminalised.

Shorter pseudo: I can't answer what Mixner actually wrote, so I'll just pretend he wrote something else.

How many times can you beat your prisoner before you've committed torture, pseudo?

Posted by Mixner | July 4, 2008 7:01 PM

Mixner, the entire line of discussion you want to pursue is pointless.

Senator McCain personally engineered the passage of a "compromise" version of the Military Commissions Act after Bush's bill had foundered.

McCain's "compromise" allows the President to define torture essentially at will, and also saw to it that all US personnel who had engaged in torture prior to the bill's passage were immunized for it.

On that basis, I don't care how many long sighs McCain gave us on the subject of torture during the Republican primary debates, and I also no longer care about the man's personal history in enemy detention - he's a friend of torturers, an enabler of torturers, an immunizer of torturers, and everything else you can be in connection with torture that doesn't involve actually torturing some guy with your own two hands. He's scum. Anyone who defends or supports him is scum.

Posted by Brian | July 4, 2008 7:05 PM

Type "Criminal Negligence reasonable person" in to the Google. It undermines your "specific acts must be enumerated to be a crime" rhetorical strategy.

I can understand why you aren't willing to define torture, that would make you defend specific claims, and given the way that you have set up the rules, that is a mugs game--Again, I totally understand why you won't play it, it is stupid and rigged. I don't think that I want to participate anymore, either.

Posted by shawn214us | July 4, 2008 7:09 PM

Brian:

Here Here .

Me

Posted by A.Scott | July 4, 2008 7:09 PM

Mixner, the entire line of discussion you want to pursue is pointless.

Right. That must be why no one here arguing for a ban on torture seems to have any clear idea of what they think torture even means.

[McCain] is scum. Anyone who defends or supports him is scum.

Good one. Send that to the Obama headquarters and suggest they use it in their campaign. Let us know how they respond.

Posted by Mixner | July 4, 2008 7:13 PM

shawn,

Type "Criminal Negligence reasonable person" in to the Google.

Sorry, it's not my responsibility to look for evidence to support your claims. That's your job. Do you have any evidence or don't you?

Have you figured out yet what you think torture means? Or do you think CIA interrogators should be able to beat their prisoners indefinitely, or deprive them of food or water or sleep indefinitely, without being liable for conviction for the crime of torture?

Posted by Mixner | July 4, 2008 7:19 PM

You will note that the Geneva Convention does use the "stress position for 15 minutes is fine, but 16 minutes is torture" language. Does this mean that even the finest legal minds of the time did not know the "true" meaning of torture either. Maybe the way that you have framed the debate is just ridiculous; an example of Wittgenstein's fly-bottle. Or else you are just trolling.

Check out a sample from Art 13, you should pay special attention to the language/rhetorical style employed.

Article 13

Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. An