Krauthammer’s Take
NRO Staff
The Corner
From last night’s “All-Stars.”
On Obama’s unannounced stop in Baghdad:
<<< He is Commander in Chief, and he knows he's responsible, and he will be held responsible for the future of Iraq.
I think what he did was necessary, but in a way it was a way to undo what he did in Europe, where he referred to Iraq in one of his speeches as a distraction. If you have a loved one who died in Iraq or who is now risking a life in Iraq, and your commander in chief is calling the effort a distraction, it's a bit of a blow.
And I think overall he did increase his own popularity in Europe, but that's easy to do if you do it at the expense of your country.
To various degrees of directness or obliqueness, he held America guilty for a range of offenses, a partial list of which includes arrogance, having caused the financial crisis, torture, genocide, racism, Hiroshima — he didn't even leave that one out — Guantanamo, of course, an insufficient respect for the Muslim world.
And as we say, what did he get in return? On Afghanistan troops, nothing. On stimulus in Europe, nothing. And on Guantanamo, what did he get? The French offered to take one prisoner. Now, you'd think that is an attempt at Gallic humor. It was a serious offer. I guess the guy that comes out of Guantanamo will have to leave his swim buddy behind. >>>
On the Obama administration’s approach to climate change:
<<< The difference is the Bush administration wanted to impose unilateral limits on what we do as we decide as a sovereign country.
The problem is the Obama administration wants to engage in negotiations now in Munich that are going to end up in Copenhagen at the end of the year, where the countries of the third world, over 120 of them, are demanding huge reductions in carbon emission by the rich countries, almost up to 50 percent, which would constitute the largest transfer of wealth from rich to poor countries in history.
It still doesn't include China and India. And it would impose enormous costs on the American consumer.
That's why I think it doesn't have a chance. Even if adopted in Copenhagen, it will not pass the U.S. Congress by any means. The same way that Kyoto was rejected unanimously in the late 1990s in the Senate, it would happen again, although it wouldn't be unanimous. >>>
corner.nationalreview.com |
