In today's NY Times, William Kristol delivers more of the doltish commentary we've grown accustomed to hearing from him over the last 6 years. Here, he disparages Obama's warning that we must be wary of perpetrating evil in the name of fighting evil:
"It's nice to see a liberal aware of the limits of good intentions--indeed, that the road to hell is paved with them. But here as elsewhere, Obama stayed at a high level of abstraction. It would have been interesting if Warren had asked a follow-up question: Where in particular has the United States in recent years--at home or especially abroad--perpetrated evil in the name of confronting evil?"
um... ever hear of Abu Ghraib and Gitmo? (Click the Abu Ghraib link if you need a quick refresher on what evil looks like and how evil can be perpetrated in the name of fighting evil.)
And check out this astonishing display of condensed foolishness:
Obama claimed that all of us must be metaphorical "soldiers" against evil; McCain paid tribute to actual American soldiers. And McCain couldn’t resist saying again Saturday night that if he has to follow Osama bin Laden to the gates of hell to get him and bring him to justice, he’ll do so.
Is Kristol kidding? In back-to-back sentences he derides Obama's use of a metaphor, then trumpets McCain's apocalyptic promise to follow bin Laden to the "gates of hell." Would that be non-metaphorical hell? And if Kristol admires McCain's hard realist commitment to follow bin Laden to the gates of hell, can we assume that McCain intends to personally go into Pakistan to get bin Laden? If he doesn't plan to go in himself, does he intend to send American troops into Pakistan? Just how are we supposed to interpret McCain's promise to follow bin Laden to the gates of hell?
This sort of fuzzy slop is typical of what we've always gotten from Neocons. It's as if they don't even try to think critically. In recent months, I've hesitated to fisk the nonsense coming from the Neocon fantasy machine because I have little interest in using my blog to shoot ducks in a barrel. But I do feel that every once in a while we need a reminder that Neocons are still talking apocalyptic nonsense in support of their pet cause--a hyper-aggressive Middle East policy.
More on the Kristol piece: Kristol edits column for online edition;