Liberal Joe Klein is trying to backtrack from a quote he gave the Politico, in which he said, of conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer,
“He became ground zero among the neo-cons, but he’s vastly smarter than most of them,” said Time’s Joe Klein, an admirer and critic who praised Krauthammer’s “writing skills and polemical skills” as “so far above almost anybody writing columns today.”
“There’s something tragic about him, too,” Klein said, referring to Krauthammer’s confinement to a wheelchair, the result of a diving accident during his first year of medical school. “His work would have a lot more nuance if he were able to see the situations he’s writing about.”
Plenty of friends and fellow conservatives have taken Klein to task for the callous comment, and Allahpundit has the best lines:
If he did mean it the way it sounds, then it looks like a derivative of the chickenhawk smear. He can’t rightly accuse a hawkish pundit who’s handicapped of being too gutless to lace up the boots, so instead he turns it into faux sympathy for how poor Charles can’t help but be blinkered as a prisoner of his condition.
Klein is now backpedaling as quickly as possible away from the comment, arguing, not that he was taken out of context exactly, but that, well, someone might construe his remarks as insensitive, and he apologizes for offending that someone.
Really? That’s the best he can do?
Well, I suppose if you are Joe Klein, it really is the best you can do. After all, Klein goes back to reiterate the point that you have to see the war to understand the war. Even though he doesn’t think it hampered FDR in any way, not seeing the war and all.
See, because the truth is that Klein isn’t concerned if he offended disabled people–and their loved ones–or not. That’s just another casualty in the smear war the Left plays against anyone who has the temerity to agree with our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Those with disabilities live with these backhands all the time. You’re pretty smart…for a guy in a wheelchair. You do good work but it’s not the neatest…because of your handicap. You have done a brilliant job…for someone who can’t walk/see/hear.
Most people aren’t as stupid as Klein, though. They leave out the part I italicized. It’s just implied. The best is the guy on hand crutches whose wife is pregnant, and all the people who act amazed that he can have children. The old fashioned way. Who knew?!
I suspect Allahpundit was correct when he said Klein was attempting a slight spin on the chickenhawk smear. After all, it would be unseemly to attack someone because of an immutable characteristic, right?
UPDATE: Donald Douglas has a wonderful post about this topic.
we have a granddaughter who is deaf. She is three. What she has learned so far is to be a problem solver. When she is presented with a challenge, instead of standing there because she isn’t hearing someone say this or that to solve it, she solves it.For a three year old, she is not handicapped in any way by not hearing. In some ways she is not distracted from learning what to do.
Now for a laugh, I turned my scooter into a front end loader the other day. I needed some dirt moved. So, I got a shovel, then scoop up a shovel full and move it to where I wanted it. I didn’t need someone to do it for me.
As far as Krauthammer is concerned, he uses different senses to arrive at his conclusion. I would say his handicap is an asset, not a detriment.
For all the altogether people out there, walk a block with crutches and one foot and don’t use your armpits to support yourself, but use your arms to lift yourself with each step. If you use your armpits, you will damage the nerves in your arms.
Krauthammer made it from laying flat on his back in a hospital bed with a broken neck to finishing medical school on his way to becoming one of the great thinkers of his generation. He gets around good I would say for a cripple.
I doubt what some little popinjay like Klein has to say bothered Charles very much.
We all have things to overcome, some a little more, some a little less.
Your granddaughter sounds cute York.
pgwarner:
Your granddaughter sounds cute York.
Aren’t all grand children cute???
Sharon, in my view you are exaggerating Klein’s statement beyond his intent, as I read it.
Firstly he started with a compliment, which you chose to overlook.
Secondly, disabled or not, I think most would agree that a reporter or commentator would have a wider context for one’s writing on war, on poverty, on Wall Street, on the White House, were one to have some experience on site.
It certainly is not Krauthammer’s fault that he cannot be on site, but it does detract somewhat from his perspective.
How is that an insult? I fail to understand your point.
My goodness are you that myopic? Krauthammer is extremely wealthy. He has the means to go anywhere he chooses. Look around and you might notice things like curb cut outs. Your tax dollars at work through the ADA provide accessibility.
I hate to say it but you managed to offend me. When I broke my neck I did not cease to have appreciation for things because I can no longer walk or climb stairs.
Us cripples do things like travel. They let us ride up front in planes like big kids even. We drive cars. We eat out, go to movies. Some of us rock climb. Power hand bikes up Pikes Peak. We camp out. Getting the picture?
Quite a few of know about poverty. Poor neighborhoods are accessible too. See a number of us are poor because narrow minded people won’t give some of us jobs. I am sure Krauthammer knows what poverty looks like.
Wall Street is extremely accessible. Do you honestly believe he has never been?
What can I say about your Chickenhawk statement? My-o-my, well at least he can appreciate a catastrophic injury don’t ya know?
Krauthammer has been out to dinner with Obama. He has been to the White House many times. He is not a pool reporter, he is a columnist.
Truer words.
Secondly, disabled or not, I think most would agree that a reporter or commentator would have a wider context for one’s writing on war, on poverty, on Wall Street, on the White House, were one to have some experience on site.
So, liberal journalists who bashed President George W. Bush should have had experience running the country?
Does this mean that any writings from journalists and/or columnists reporting are only viable if they’ve been on the site and experienced their subject firsthand? How many wrote about Katrina, 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq without having seen it up close? I suppose these then would have been the more vapid articles sans nuance, eh?
And what about soldiers returning to combat with artificial limbs and still getting in the thick of it. There is a lot of neanderthal thinking of the handicapped. Just put us on the shelves and water us like potted plants is the thinking of some.
There is no virtue in suffering. Sorry, guys, but not being able to stand on your own two feet is a handicap. If it happens to me, I promise not to ask you to cut me any slack, either.
nk:
There is no virtue in suffering. Sorry, guys, but not being able to stand on your own two feet is a handicap. If it happens to me, I promise not to ask you to cut me any slack, either.
But so many things happened when I lost the leg. I tried working food service but could only get a job at I-Hop. That didn’t work out, so I tried stand up comedy, well that was cut short because I didn’t have a leg to stand on. Then I thought about politics. The Libs didn’t want me since the right leg was gone and I leaned too far to the right.
I need a new shoe. Shoe shopping should be fun. I will go to a “shoe” store and see what happens. Bet they sell pairs only, then I’ll say why isn’t it a “shoes” store? Anyway, at work we think we finally figured out what to do. We’re thinking of a good spun aluminum artifical leg with a container on the inside to hold the beer, and between the shell and the container, a coolant and insulation. We’re thinking of calling it “Keg-Leg” I got a massage the other day. Asked for a 25% discount. No go.
Anyway, this is to say there are two ways to approach this. It’s called laugh or cry. For those who cry, you will not make it, or it will be hard. All it is, is just another way of doing things. Maybe next winter I’ll try skiing. (And any one legged jokes are always sought. I need new material.)
There is no virtue in suffering. Sorry, guys, but not being able to stand on your own two feet is a handicap. If it happens to me, I promise not to ask you to cut me any slack, either.
Actually, there is virtue in suffering, but that’s not really the point. Those who are handicapped really do want to be treated like everyone else, and that includes not being belittled for the things they can’t do. You don’t think a person who can’t walk isn’t fully aware of his limitations? But not visiting a war zone doesn’t make Krauthammer less capable of analyzing governmental policies. If it weren’t a smackdown, why would Klein have phrased his comment as he did?
And any one legged jokes are always sought.
Not exactly but the best I could come up with:
A lady places an ad: “Woman seeking man. Must be great lover”. The next day the doorbell rings. She opens the door and she sees a guy without arms or legs on the front porch. He says, “I am here in answer to the ad.” She says, “But the ad specified that you must be a great lover. How is that possible when you don’t have either arms or legs?” And he says, “How do you think I rang the bell?”
I did not ask you for any slack. I promise not to hold it against you that you can’t read. I will gladly jolly you as I do with all mentally challenged people.
The point my obtuse friend is that a physical handicap does not effect your ability to think. You breeze in and change the subject. What, are you pissed off about handicapped parking places?
BTW – You have no idea what you would do.
You might be right. However mankind’s experience has been different from yours. But we already know you are special don’t we?
CHEERS
I will gladly jolly you as I do with all mentally challenged people.
I wish you would not do that. Please just appreciate me for being “special”.
The point my obtuse friend is that a physical handicap does not effect your ability to think.
I agree. But think in one hand and do something else with the other hand and see which one comes true.
Was I being nasty? Or merely less than kind? Or just realistic? We live in a competitive, material world.
And any one legged jokes are always sought.
Not exactly but the best I could come up with:
“How do you think I rang the bell?”
Good one. Had a good laugh.
No you were off topic and imperceptive. You missed the point. But – Hey! To make up for it you restated it again. No kindness, quarter or assistance was asked for. I am being nasty by-the-way!
I could give a shit about how heartless or kind you might be or if you think you are being realistic. I just wish you could understand the point. Reading and comprehending are not your strong suit apparently.
One thing you do prove is that a physically intact person is fully capable of being dull witted. THE POINT IS THAT JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE A PHYSICAL HANDICAP DOES NOT MEAN YOUR VIEWS ON A PARTICULAR SUBJECT ARE LACKING.
Now I do not know what major malfunction you have that prevents you from grasping that and instead volunteering how it’s a cruel world; but I will say it is fun making fun of you while you do it.
Mine was a statement of fact that stands alone. It was not a plea for compassion. It was not a request for understanding. Your response was asinine and meaningless.
Look nk, for the most part I know you to be a good guy; but charging in and missing the point and trying boorish snarkiness to makeup for it is not your strong suit.
CHEERS
At age nineteen, I came back from a vacation in Spain looking to start college. Instead, I spent the next six months in bed because every joint from the waist down was inflamed by some weird rheumatoid disease. I would wake up in the morning and could not step on my own two feet to go to the bathroom because it just hurt too much. I would take three pills and wait an hour for them to take effect. My baby brother, one time, picked me up off the floor after I collapsed coming out of the bathroom. I went to college limping. I insisted on studying fencing, and wiggled my hips like a girl to compensate, leading to a derisive comment from a girl.
I don’t even know why I posted this, but I did. Live long and prosper pg.
Dana, I have a comment in moderation on this thread probably because I took too long typing it.
Krauhammer is a liar. He handicaps people who listen to him, assuming he’s honest. Here’s a page of some of the myths he’s been called out on, by researchers whose whole job is to investigate media:
http://mediamatters.org/search/index?qstring=misinformation+Krauthammer
Blu, Media Matters is a disreputable and unscrupulous organization whose sole purpose is to lie about conservatives. Their purpose is not to “investigate the media,” but to provide cover for the Left.
I’ve documented on my own site various examples of Media Matters lies and obfuscations, both explicit and implicit.
And even if you dislike or disagree with Charles Krauthammer’s political views, in what universe does that make it acceptable to smear him for being a quadraplegic? Ann Coulter was excoriated for calling John Edwards a “fag.” But you’re arguing that Klein’s childish behavior is permissible? Ecch.
Ha, Sharon, I’m not going to give Krauthammer a pass, because he is handicapped. As you mentioned, he and other handicapped folks do not want to be treated differently because of their circumstance.
And Media Matters is NOT disreputable. The Conservatives try to diminish their credibility among Conservative circles, because they lay out for all to see the LIES that have dominated Conservative talk. Sadly 9o% of of talk radio is Conservative, since the era of Reagan, in which, laws prohibiting mass ownership of networks was lifted.
I don’t care about Klein. Maybe he was lacking finnesse in his dealings with Krauthammer, but Krauthammer is still proven as a liar. And why should anyone take liars’ word that Media Matters is lacking credibility? Their entire operation is uncovering untruths. They pick on Dems too.
Blu, Media Matters distorts and twists statements by conservatives to leave the impression they want. As I stated, I’ve written about the outrageous tactics MM uses, including pulling quotes out of context, cutting off audio and outright lying about what someone says. But it only makes sense that you consider them to be a reputable source, and that you don’t care about the sort of disgusting comments you would excoriate conservatives for.
Sharon, I don’t know about MM, but what you describe is exactly what the Karl Rove driven GOP propaganda machine has been doing for eight years! And Dick/Liz Cheney continue in the same mold!! You also should include in your criticism Limbaugh, Hannity, O’Rielly, Beck, Savage, and Coulter. The use of this tactic is heavily weighted on your side, in my view.
Perry, I think the DNC has your check ready.
In the meantime, I’ll leave you with a few links to the crap Media Matters engages in (see here, here, here, and here for just a few examples of the malarky Media Matters peddles and numbnuts lap up.
LOL, Sharon, you think I trust a Right wing rag? Right wing media lies, and you just tried hooking me up to one, so I can see where this conversation is going, where it tends to go, the usual merry-go-round, while attempting to use logic, and objectivity, with Sharon, when you enter into a conversation with cartoons, not worth the waste of words. It’s like trying to teach a reptile to fly. Aint happenin. I suppose I should be honored though, because you didn’t ban me, as my last attempts to have conversations while you had an essay. Evidence usually holds no water for you, just the words of cartoon characters like Rush Limbaugh. You are a comedy act yourself, Sharon.
Yet, oddly enough, you trust Media Matters which has repeatedly been shown to lie and obfuscate. It is a propaganda shill and you open wide, like the little bird you are, waiting for MM to vomit whatever atrocious worm they’ve digested for you.
As for comedy, no one forces you to come here or comment on my posts, Blu. You talk about using logic and objectivity, then launch in to the same old tired pejoratives. Do they pay you a bonus for saying “Rush Limbaugh” in every sentence?
You are a weird and pathetic soul, blu. You offer nothing in argumentation that isn’t easily shut down, then you resort to schoolyard taunts (and not even very good ones, at that). As for not banning you, it’s not my site and that’s not my call to make. You’ve violated every written and implied rule of good commenting, yet Dana still allows you to comment here, trying to take over every thread with your tripe.
So do us all a favor and peddle your conspiracies somewhere else. We’re not buying it.
Good old reliable Sharon, always at hand with invective & unsourced “repeatedly been shown to lie” claims – you know you’ve defeated Sharon when she resorts to the style in the post above. I think Blu is pretty insane better than half the time, but Blu wins this round easy.
Good old reliable Sharon, always at hand with invective & unsourced “repeatedly been shown to lie” claims – you know you’ve defeated Sharon when she resorts
Because linking to articles and posts with examples of Media Matters spin and lies don’t count as sourcing.
Yet, Rush Limbaugh is who is being defended, by the “source” she conjures up. Astonishing. Rush Limbaugh, for example, will say absolutely anything, and any one who has any sense at all, knows he’s a hot air BUFfoon. Easily popped open, to show the foul misinformation he’s full of.
LOL Blu just got another payment, I see.
Yeah, right, Sharon. Paid to acknowledge the absurdity of Rush Limbaugh. I think a multitude of folks would gladly express their disgust with the Rush Limbaugh, for free, and I will gladly, freely state that something foul is in the air when it is, as I generally do. Too bad I don’t get paid. I’d make alot of money. I am obliged to call out a liar, when I learn of the facts contrary to the BS.
Because linking to articles and posts with examples of Media Matters spin and lies don’t count as sourcing.
I don’t know how to break this to you but Newsbusters isn’t much of a source
oh wow it gets better, Sharon’s linked article, written by a guy from Stop the ACLU, links from within itself only & exclusively to articles posted on…wait for it…Stop the ACLU
keep those reputable sources comin’ S
I don’t know how to break this to you but Newsbusters isn’t much of a source
It’s as much as Media Matters.
I am obliged to call out a liar, when I learn of the facts contrary to the BS.
Says the woman who constantly links to 9/11 Truthers.
Ha! you forever bring up 911, forcing me to defend it, trying to discredit me, do NOT look at my links, (even though I look at yours, out of fairness of debate, despite their worthlessness) then accuse me of hijacking the thread. I’m not going further than this info, here on this thread.
While you are accusing me of being a nut, accuse this guy:
Hugo Bachmann, PhD – Professor Emeritus and former Chairman of the Department of Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Author and co-author of Erdbebenbemessung von Stahlbetonhochbauten (Seismic Analysis of Concrete Reinforced Structures) (1990), Vibration Problems in Structures: Practical Guidelines (1995), Biege- und Schubversuche an teilweise vorgespannten Leichtbetonbalken (Structural Analysis of Linked Concrete Beams) (1998), Hochbau für Ingenieure. Eine Einführung (Structural Construction for Engineers. An introduction) (2001), Erdbebensicherung von Bauwerken (Earthquake-proofing Buildings) (2002).
Tages Anzeiger Article 9/9/06: “In my opinion the building WTC 7 was, with great probability, professionally demolished,” says Hugo Bachmann, Emeritus ETH [Swiss Federal Institute of Technology] – Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction. And also Jörg Schneider, likewise emeritus ETH – Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction, interprets the few available video recordings as evidence that “the building WTC 7 was with great probability demolished.”
English translation: http://www.danieleganser.ch
Original in German: http://www.danieleganser.ch
Editor’s note: WTC Building 7 was 610 feet tall, 47 stories. It would have been the tallest building in 33 states. Although it was not hit by an airplane, it completely collapsed into a pile of rubble in less than 7 seconds at 5:20 p.m. on 9/11, seven hours after the collapses of the Twin Towers. However, no mention of its collapse appears in the 9/11 Commission’s “full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.” Watch the collapse video here. And six years after 9/11, the Federal government has yet to publish its promised final report that explains the cause of its collapse.
Book 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA: “As Bachmann told the Neue Züricher Zeitung Online on September 13, 2001, at first glance there seemed to be two possibilities in the fall of the towers. The first was the fire and its effect on the steel supports. But Bachmann had an alternative: “In the second scenario, an additional terrorist action would have caused the collapse of the buildings. In this way, according to Bachmann, buildings like the World Trade center can be destroyed without great logistical exertion.” The article went on to say that “Bachmann could imagine that the perpetrators had installed explosives on key supports in a lower floor before the attack.” If the perpetrators had rented office space, then these “explosive tenants” could have calmly placed explosive charges on the vulnerable parts of the building “without having anyone notice.” http://www.reopen911.org/Tarpley_ch_6.pdf
Bio: http://www.ibk.ethz.ch/emeritus/Bachmann
Jörg Schneider, Dr hc
It’s called baiting, and you rise to it every time. It’s rather amusing.
I don’t mind that. It’s the hypocrisy of accusing me of changing the subject matter on the thread, when YOU changed the gears, not me.
I suppose you think the above fellow is another “whacko”.
Here’s another “whacko.”
Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Former Political-Military Affairs Officer in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Also served on the staff of the Director of the National Security Agency. 20-year Air Force career. Member adjunct faculty, Political Science Department, James Madison University. Instructor, University of Maryland University College and American Public University System. Author of African Crisis Response Initiative: Past Present and Future (2000) and Expeditionary Air Operations in Africa: Challenges and Solutions (2001).
Contributor to 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out 8/23/06: Account of Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, Pentagon employee and eyewitness to the events at the Pentagon on 9/11. “I believe the Commission failed to deeply examine the topic at hand, failed to apply scientific rigor to its assessment of events leading up to and including 9/11, failed to produce a believable and unbiased summary of what happened, failed to fully examine why it happened, and even failed to include a set of unanswered questions for future research. …
It is as a scientist that I have the most trouble with the official government conspiracy theory, mainly because it does not satisfy the rules of probability or physics. The collapses of the World Trade Center buildings clearly violate the laws of probability and physics. …
There was a dearth of visible debris on the relatively unmarked [Pentagon] lawn, where I stood only minutes after the impact. Beyond this strange absence of airliner debris, there was no sign of the kind of damage to the Pentagon structure one would expect from the impact of a large airliner. This visible evidence or lack thereof may also have been apparent to the secretary of defense [Donald Rumsfeld], who in an unfortunate slip of the tongue referred to the aircraft that slammed into the Pentagon as a “missile”. …
I saw nothing of significance at the point of impact – no airplane metal or cargo debris was blowing on the lawn in front of the damaged building as smoke billowed from within the Pentagon. … all of us staring at the Pentagon that morning were indeed looking for such debris, but what we expected to see was not evident.
The same is true with regard to the kind of damage we expected. … But I did not see this kind of damage. Rather, the facade had a rather small hole, no larger than 20 feet in diameter. Although this facade later collapsed, it remained standing for 30 or 40 minutes, with the roof line remaining relatively straight.
The scene, in short, was not what I would have expected from a strike by a large jetliner. It was, however, exactly what one would expect if a missile had struck the Pentagon. …
More information is certainly needed regarding the events of 9/11 and the events leading up to that terrible day.”
Editor’s note: For more information on the impact at the Pentagon, see General Stubblebine, Colonel Nelson, Commander Muga, Lt. Col. Latas, Major Rokke, Capt. Wittenberg, Capt. Davis, Barbara Honegger, April Gallop, Colonel Bunel, and Steve DeChiaro.
Member: Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven Association Statement: “We have found solid scientific grounds on which to question the interpretation put upon the events of September 11, 2001 by the Office of the President of the United States of America and subsequently propagated by the major media of western nations.”
Bio: http://militaryweek.com/
It’s the hypocrisy of accusing me of changing the subject matter on the thread, when YOU changed the gears, not me.
Where on this thread did I accuse you of changing the subject? And guess what, blu? It’s my thread. I get to decide what is thread jacking and what isn’t.
You should be ashamed and embarrassed of making such an ass of yourself in every thread by spreading your 9/11 slime around. It’s stupid. It’s distracting. It’s irritating. And it isn’t persuading anyone. The only conceivable reason you keep doing it is that you like making an ass of yourself. Or you’re nuts. Take your pick.
I’m closing the comments on this thread because we’ve reached the point in any thread where Blu tries to hijack it with her 9/11 nonsense. I’m not obliged to give her a forum.