MORE ON KRISTOL'S PINK SPECTACLES. I wonder where I could buy some of those. Opinion pieces are usually dim and pessimistic musings, but Bill Kristol has found a way round that problem. As Dana pointed out earlier, he did it by donning the pink glasses and by hugely ignoring any and all evidence which would argue against his point of view. Hugely.
Now, why would he do that? The piece reminded me of a 2003 article by Richard Perle, titled "Relax, Celebrate Victory", which included delicious tidbits such as this one on the Iraq war:
From start to finish, President Bush has led the United States and its coalition partners to the most important military victory since World War II. And like the allied victory over the axis powers, the liberation of Iraq is more than the end of a brutal dictatorship: It is the foundation for a decent, humane government that will represent all the people of Iraq.
This was a war worth fighting. It ended quickly with few civilian casualties and with little damage to Iraq's cities, towns or infrastructure. It ended without the Arab world rising up against us, as the war's critics feared, without the quagmire they predicted, without the heavy losses in house-to-house fighting they warned us to expect. It was conducted with immense skill and selfless courage by men and women who will remain until Iraqis are safe, and who will return home as heroes.
It could be that opinion pieces such as these two are offered to us because they inject a much needed dose of humor into political discussions. But I think Kristol's motives are a little deeper than that: He wants to move the goal posts in the public debate about how bad a president George Bush might be. If Kristol thinks Bush is actually a pretty smashing guy, then everybody must address those ideas and slowly his evaluations might start creeping upwards.
-- J. Goodrich
You need to be logged in to comment.
(If there's one thing we know about comment trolls, it's that they're lazy)