Wrong. He's criticising one person, Obama, for politicizing the issue the very day that it happened, while the blood was still fresh and the smoke still hung in the air. That is worlds apart from discussing it two days later. Glenn makes it sound like CK is saying no one should ever discuss this event and then calls him a hypocrite because he had already discussed it. That's ludicrous; Glenn's point hinges on a fallacy.

It's honestly hard to believe that people saying things like this even read the Krauthammer column. Do you think you can come here and just distort what he said so you can defend him and that nobody will realize you're doing that?

This is what he said:

* What can be said about the Virginia Tech massacre? Very little. What should be said? Even less.

* Unfortunately, in today's supercharged political atmosphere, there is the inevitable rush to get ideological mileage out of the carnage.

* Perhaps in the spirit of Obama's much-heralded post-ideological politics we can agree to observe a decent interval of respectful silence before turning ineffable evil and unfathomable grief into political fodder.

Krauthammer went on Fox LESS THAN 48 HOURS AFTER THE SHOOTINGS to heap blame for these attacks -- perpetrated by a Korean spouting Christ references -- on Arabs and Muslims and other assorted enemies of Israel. Anyone who wants to claim that his behavior is consistent with his lecture is as dishonest as he is.

See also -- Arne's comment above (which I read after I composed this response)

Just to be clear, this is what I said about Krauthammer:

Among our media stars, few pundits command as much respect and admiration as Charles Krauthammer does.

Now, I will concede (as I already have) that I can't produce confirming evidence that proves that statement with mathematical certainty. It might even be an overstatement.

But you keep insisting that it is clearly, unequivocally wrong but do nothing but insist on that conclusion over and over, with nothing to support it.

I do think that in the eyes of many media stars, those who are featured columnists at Time and the WP are respectable pundits based solely on that. The fact that he is on television every day, and has a medical degree, bolsters that view for them, as does the fact that he does occasionally exhibit more rationality than his brethern on some issues (such as his unequivocal condemnations of creationism as a "science").

All of that is anecdotal and more inferential than conclusive. But at least it's something. You just keep insisting with increasing fervor that nobody respects Krauthammer as though it's the most obvious thing in the world, but that's not a convicing way to make a case.

Sorry, Glenn. I really can't stand these guys. They are the worst!

No need to apologize. My comment section is always open to those bearing evidentiary gifts for exposing the corruption and deceit of neoconservatives. There is always a welcome mat out for that.

Glenn, if you're going to make your prose so thick, cut us a break and at least make complete sentences. So, when I read it for the third time, it will make sense.

You read the first draft and the two sentences you so smartly singled out were -- self-evidently -- both marred with typos, and they were fixed long before you dispensed your great advice.

When I first saw Colbert's performance last year, I couldn't believe my eyes/ears. It was easily the most amazing, true, and exquisitely brutal thing I'd witnessed in a long, long time.

Exactly - it was so unrelenting and unsparing, and he never backtracked or diluted for even one minute, so none of them could read into it a "just kidding" or some other good-natured indication that he really didn't mean any of it.

And, as you say, the reactions it provoked were as revealing as the speech itself.

We still have some excellent reporters and reporting in this country, but they are the ones not seeking popularity but trying to do their job.

I think it's quite revealing that the political journalist who just won a Pulitzer for doing real reporting - Charlie Savage - is an almost completely anonymous reporter who I doubt has ever been on television outside of Boston, has never been to a DC glamour press party, and is completely unknown outside of the the liberal blogosphere and some Boston political junkies.

I honestly doubt that Tim Russert and Chris Matthews and Katie Couric and Maureen Down have any idea who or what "Charlie Savage" is.

Compare that to all of the Most Famous "Journalists" we have and how far away they are - universes and universes - from any conduct that has anything to do with a Pulitzer Prize or investigative journalism.

Or compare the pre-fame Bob Woodward to the post-fame Bob Woodward - totally different creatures.

It sounds overly simplistic, and I never thought about it this way before, but that is why, I presume, Halberstam told the Columbia journalism students: "By and large, the more famous you are, the less of a journalist you are."

I have been heartened by jessica lynch's willingness to speak the truth here. She did so fairly early, as I recall, when she spoke out against the fact that she was treated much better than the others from her unit who had been injured. She doesn't speak to the big picture, but she has been pretty insistent about telling her piece of the truth.

Exactly. She was quite uncomfortable and increasingly vocal -- very early on -- about how all the reports being circulated by the Pentagon were false. I actually recall that being the first sign that suggested these stories were false -- the fact that she basically said they were. That was actually heroic.