Charles Krauthammer
The Washington Post

Dear Mr. Krauthammer:

I left a comment that your May 21 column Washington Post article, “The fruits of weakness,” could be summed up as, “How’s that Neville Chamberlain policy working for you, Mr. Obama?” You narrated President Obama’s policy of appeasement of our enemies and betrayal of our allies and friends with frankness, exactitude, and obvious controlled outrage. The president’s record to date in his foreign policy reads like a police charge sheet or grand jury indictment of a criminal.

Indeed, you wrote that:

This is not just an America in decline. This is an America in retreat -- accepting, ratifying and declaring its decline, and inviting rising powers to fill the vacuum. Nor is this retreat by inadvertence. This is retreat by design and, indeed, on principle. It's the perfect fulfillment of Obama's adopted Third World narrative of American misdeeds, disrespect and domination from which he has come to redeem us and the world.

I emphasized “by design and, indeed, on principle.” In my mind, and in violent abuse of my commitment to freedom and American liberty, not to mention its good name, Obama’s policies and actions in the foreign policy realm constitute a deliberate, conscious policy of defeating America for her enemies, because her enemies cannot defeat her individually or collectively. This is indeed by “design and on principle.” The logical conclusion is that he has embarked on a policy of destroying this country, of seeing it in ruins. His domestic policy, vis-à-vis that end, is obvious. His every word and action as president is calculated to achieve that end, and include his legislative agenda, his cabinet and regulatory appointees, and his choices for the Supreme Court.

Yet, you write as though Obama were as naïve and foolish as Neville Chamberlain. For all the British prime minister’s weaknesses and flaws, a suicidal pacifism so evident and predictable in his compromising “approach” to Adolf Hitler, Chamberlain actually thought he was saving Britain and Europe from a disastrous war. But he did not also make speeches in Parliament that denigrated his own country, that attacked and mocked the liberties of its citizens, and allow dictators and despots to address Parliament on their own terms. In the latter instance, I am referring to Obama’s alliance with President of Mexico Calderon, who attacked an American state, Arizona, and implicitly called for an end to the sovereignty of the United States, to the applause of the Democratic majority in Congress, an applause that was not mere courtesy shown the chief executive of another country. It was an applause of agreement that comported with Obama's own anti-American stance.

You are a step away from concluding that Obama is a wannabe tyrant who means his own country no good. Something, perhaps the syntax of the accusation, or the sound of it echoing in the chamber of moral judgment, is preventing you from calling him treasonous and evil. You seem to be reluctant to make that final and damning judgment. But, power-lusters in the past as a rule preached the “greatness” of their countries and how that status could be achieved or restored. Can you name me one dictator or emperor from the past who deliberately set out to nettle and deprecate his own country? Obama’s actions are unprecedented in the history of American politics, or in any nation’s politics.

Obama is the vengeance dream of every anti-American “radical” who ever demonstrated against this country over the last half century, a dream come to life as the nightmare it must be. Examine more closely the root motive of his policies, actions, designs, and principles. Obama is neither naïve nor foolish or misguided. His means and ends are conscious, deliberate, and calculated to destroy. He has built a super car bomb in his fiscal policies and his foreign policy, with every hope of seeing them explode with the maximum collateral damage. He is a home-grown terrorist in slow-motion.

Obama is perilously and vastly worse than Woodrow Wilson, Jimmy Carter, or Bill Clinton. It requires honesty and moral integrity, based on the mounting evidence open to all, to reach that conclusion.