Here's where he really hits his hypocritical stride:
"Here is contemporary liberalism in a nutshell: No need to consider costs as well as benefits. No acknowledgment of competing goods or coexisting rights. No appreciation of the constraints of public sentiment or the challenges of organizational complexity. No sense that not every part of society can be treated dogmatically according to certain simple propositions. Just the assertion that something must be done because it is in some abstract way “the right thing."
After reading this, I'd love to hear Kristol's justification for the ongoing war in Iraq again...
Like this article from 2007 in which he touts an opinion poll showing that a slightly larger minority of Americans think the Iraq in invasion was the "right thing to do."
Or this 2003 interview in which he says "...they really found there was an opportunity to do the right thing in Iraq" and "The danger is not that we're going to do too much. The danger is that we're going to do too little."
It's astonishing that this is his description of "contemporary liberalism in a nutshell." Really? I mean, REALLY?! He's accusing liberals of not taking into account "organizational complexity" after saying of the Iraq war, "Very few wars in American history were prepared better or more thoroughly than this one by this president."
Hmm, will a cursory look around the internet find any other instances of Kristol ignoring the "contraints of public sentiment" or not considering "costs as well as benefits?"
Oh yea, that's right. This is the man who stood up and cheered every time Bush did something on conservative principle against public approval. He argued that doing so made Bush look strong and would rally the base.
How long have these amazing selective amnesia pills been available? (and where can I get some to forget 2009?)
No comments:
Post a Comment