For Charles Krauthammer, no point of attack on Obama is too small for him to advance. In last week's editorial, he even tries to use grammar to make a point that Obama is less severe in his criticism of others than he is of us. Thus, he notes parenthetically that a fault by the two Islamic sects Obama expresses in the passive voice but a fault by the US he expresses in the active voice. However, what Krauthammer calls passive voice--"have led"--is, in fact, active voice (in the present perfect tense) Since Krauthammer's grammatical analysis is wrong, the point which he bases on it is equally wrong.
Krauthammer goes on to moralize about Obama's false equivalences of different historical events. Thus, Krauthammer pooh-pooh's the CIA 1953 overthrow of the Iranian government as bearing any comparison to the abuse of embassy personnel and others when the present regime overthrew the Shah. But he omits what he knows (or should know) and what most Iranians know: for all his friendliness to us, the Shah's quarter-century regime was a repressive one which tortured and killed dissidents, often at the direction of or with the acquiescence or assistance of CIA personnel. Pictures and descriptions of torture devices and victims graced the pages of the public media at the time of the ousting of the Shah's regime in 1979.
If you want to trace the intellectual and ethical descent of American conservatism, you could begin with the Krauthammer's decline from this Pulitzer Prize winner to this nattering mouthpiece of "Nobama" negativism.