Krauthammer: playing out his contract

More and more frequently people are asking, why should we continue to be subjected to the forcasts of those who were so wrong in their prognostications about the war in Iraq?

A good question, for which I can offer only a hypothesis, they're still under contract.

Such is the only explanation I can give as to why the Washington Post continues to publish the blatherings of folks like Charles Krauthammer.

Today he excoriates those who oppose the war in Iraq for their lack of strategic vision.

The Democratic insistence on the primacy of Afghanistan makes no strategic sense. Instead, it reflects a sensibility. They would rather support the Afghan war because its origins are cleaner, the casus belli clearer, the moral texture of the enterprise more comfortable. Afghanistan is a war of righteous revenge and restitution, law enforcement on the grandest of scales. As senator and presidential candidate Joe Biden put it, "If there was a totally just war since World War II, it is the war in Afghanistan."

And why, pray tell, would Democrats favor a war with a clear casus belli over one which the great strategic thinker Charles Krauthammer favors?

Perhaps it's because the American public, in all their foolishness, thinks that wars should only be fought when we are provoked, that wars are so terrible they should only be fought when our lives are truly threatened, that wars should be fought, not against those who might wish us harm, but against those who have actually caused us harm.

But then, Krauthammer clearly disdains the wisdom of democratic government, clearly preferring that such decisions be left to the philosopher kings, such as himself, who know the truth, regardless of how frequently and how badly they've been wrong in the past.

Anyway.

I could spend much more time reviling the likes of Krauthammer, but instead I'll just post a link to the comments he's garnered. Sad that so many of us fail to bow to the superior mind.