The Orwellian logic of William Kristol

In a world of straw-man arguments, where winning means loosing and failure means success, William Kristol’s editorial, The Left’s Cruelest Month, must seem rational.

For anyone else however, it was a silly attempt first to misrepresent what “the left” wants, and then to argue that things are going splendidly for Bush!

According to Kristol, “the left” was supposed to want the following things to happen in October:

• The meltdown of the loathed Bush presidency
  
• Iraq to fail
  
• Gas prices to rise
  
• A weak Supreme Court nominee to be under assault,
  
• The White House was under siege from a special prosecutor.
  

What more, he asked, could a Bush-hater want? Of the 5 items listed above, the first is probably what liberals most want, not because we hate Bush (although many do), but primarily because to the extent that virtually every policy that comes out of this White House is bad for this country, a so-called “meltdown” (whatever that means) would likely force Bush to either reverse course to more sensible policies or actually (GASP!) compromise with the half of the country who disagrees with him. In fairness, of course, we also really want the last one as well but again not because liberals want to embarrass Bush (although again, some want to). Liberals however, mainstream one's anyway, do not frequently behave like conservatives. Remember that when Clinton was impeached, Republicans seemed less concerned about finding the truth than about publishing every lurid disgusting sexual detail that had nothing to do with perjury and everything to do with degrading the President.

No, liberals are eager to see the White House “under siege from a special prosecutor” because as far as this liberal is concerned, the administration broke the law and have gotten away with it because of a partisan Congress. As for Iraq failing and gas prices increasing, no liberal who actually knows what the word means wants those things to happen. They are happening, and to the extent that it is because of something the administration has done or has not done, liberals are going to point it out. So, Mr. Kristol, do not confuse pointing out the failures of this administration for the sake of democratic accountability with actually desiring those failures. For 8 years, Republicans lamented Clinton’s policies and pointing out every failing and yet I cannot any prominant liberal accusing them of actually wanting us to fail in Kosovo or Bosnia for example, or in the Middle East (they may have been out there mirroring Kristol current charges but I am not familiar with any- by all means correct me if I am mistaken).

Kristol than goes on to note how great things are doing for Bush and for Iraq. “On October 15, the Iraqi people voted for the second time this year, and progress--slow and difficult--gradually became visible on the ground. The economy, it turned out, was chugging along at a 3.8 percent growth rate. Harriet Miers withdrew--and President Bush followed that foul ball with a home run in the impressive person of Judge Samuel Alito. And the special prosecutor produced only one indictment, and one that will lead no further than a trial focused on what Scooter Libby said or didn't say to three journalists."

How odd it is that the Associated Press titled their headline only a few days ago, “Bush Looks to Bounce Back from Bad News.” From the AP: “The week that was: conservatives in the president's own party hounded him into withdrawing Harriet Miers' Supreme Court nomination; the U.S. death toll in Iraq surpassed 2,000; and Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff was indicted by a federal grand jury.”

According to polls, 62% of Americans do believe that someone in the White House leaked the name of a CIA agent, and what’s more, an astounding 86% of Americans believe that it has some or great importance (only 62% believed the same of the Clinton scandal and 81% thought that of Iran-Contra). And not that it should be much of a comfort for liberals, but if the 2004 presidential election were held today, Kerry would beat Bush by 5 points (with 13% saying that they would vote for someone else). To top it off, Bush’s approval rating is now 35% and falling (don’t worry though, the Republican Congress rated even lower). Only Nixon’s numbers were lower, and not by THAT much. By the way, did anyone notice that Democrats won both gubernatorial campaigns last night, despite (or perhaps because of) Bush’s last-minute campaign stops for the Republican candidate in VA? According to those like Kristol however, this is all part of the master plan and that Bush has those nasty liberals right where he wants them! Right.

In 2003, pundits and observers noted with laughter the statements of “Baghdad Bob,” whose press statements were so divorced from reality ("There is no presence of American infidels in the city of Baghdad” he said in April after the US occupation of the city had already been broadcast on CNN) he became a figure of mockery. We have our own versions of Baghdad Bob, true believers in the infallibility of Bush and it seems pretty clear that one of them is an editor for the Weekly Standard.