It is amazing the length conservative pundits will go to delude themselves that George W. Bush is the person they want him to be, rather than the person he actually is. William Kristol is the perfect example. (His mere involvement in Dan Quayle's campaigns would have to indicate an exceptional capacity for self-deception.)
In Saturday's Washington Post, Kritol spins Bush's Monday speech in Cincinnati thus: "So the president has succeeded in explaining why Hussein must go, why time is not on our side, why deterrence can't be counted on, and why war is necessary." Forget for the moment that those of us with even meager analytic skills are still waiting for a serious explanation, Bush's own statements prove Kristol is decribing an imaginary creation. In his speech, W said "Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable."
To be sure, some of us believe that nothing will keep Bush out of Iraq, but like Campaign 2000, what Bush is saying and what his intentions are are two completely different animals. I am of the school of thought that W believes time is not on our side, that he believes deterrence can't be counted on, and that he believes war is necessary. But his speech on Monday was clearly not an attemp to convince his doubters that he is right. That would require far greater powers of persuasion than he possesses, and a more convenient set of facts at his disposal, not to mention a disposition beyond "because I said so" diplomacy. No, the purposes of the speech were to reduce fears that the resolutions before Congress would grant him too much power and to placate more moderate voices.
Kristol immediately transforms the speech into a justification of what Bush is going to do anyway, Bush's actual speech be damned. But this is not the worst of Kristol's efforts. He goes on to say becoming a war leader "will require the president, at times, to mislead rather than to clarify, to deceive rather than to explain." Ignoring the flagrant immorality of Kristol's premise, this, of course, implies that W has somehow clarified or explained things in the past, and has never misled or deceived us. A cursory glance at some of my very own posts should lay that ridiculous argument to rest.
When the Emperor walks around naked, it is imperative for him to have a court of sycophants laboring to convince the populous that not only is he clothed, but his attire is fashion at its nadir. Kristol plays his role with great loyalty.
1:21:46 PM 
|
|
