Bloody Kristol not only wrong but dishonest

It was not surprising to me that in his column today in the New York Times, William Kristol is completely and thoroughly wrong. Everything he says is totally and demonstrably false. What surprised me was how thoroughly dishonest the column is, especially the following excerpt:

In synagogue, right after the prayer for our country, there is a prayer for the state of Israel, asking the “rock and redeemer of the people Israel” to “spread over it the shelter of your peace.” As we recited this on Saturday, I couldn’t help but reflect that a distressingly small number of my fellow Jews seem to have given much thought at all to the fact that President Bush is one of the greatest friends the state of Israel — and, yes, the Jewish people — have had in quite a while. Bush stood with Israel when he had no political incentive to do so and received no political benefit from doing so. He was criticized by much of the world. He did it because he thought it the right thing to do.

Read the entire column

As William Kristol knows very well polls show that the vast majority of America's Jews have great misgivings about the wisdom of the sort of military solutions to Israel's disputes with the Palestinians that Kristol and his fellow neocons, including President Bush, support. It is not through some oversight or lack of thought that most American Jews are not celbrating President Bush as a savior of Israel.

Equally dishonest is Mr. Kristol's amazing claim that it is of no political benefit to an American politician to be a strong supporter of Israel's government, and therefore the politician must be doing it because of a personal conviction that it is the right thing to do. After the injury of AIPAC having hijacked our political process on this issue so that almost all our politicians are forced to blindly support Israel's every policy mistake this insult is almost too much to bear. Kristol's assertion that Bush is acting against his political interests in supporting Israel is chutzpah of the highest order.

Regrets, I’ve had a few, but then again, too few to mention

Reuters reports from London:

President George W Bush admitted on Wednesday that his tough rhetoric had given the world the impression was a "guy really anxious for war" and said he now wished he had used a different tone on the global stage

In an interview with The Times, Bush said his main aim in the seven months before his presidency ends was to leave his successor a diplomatic framework for tackling Iran.

Bush voiced regret at divisions in the international community created by the war in Iraq, adding: "I think that in retrospect I could have used a different tone, a different rhetoric."

He admitted that his use of phrases such as "bring them on" and "dead or alive" had "indicated to people that I was, you know, not a man of peace."

Read entire article.

Gee, ya think? But George, I think your actions gave them that impression also. After all you preemptively invaded and are occupying a country that posed no threat to the United States. I don't think a reputation as a "man of peace" was in the cards no matter how you explained it.

When I first read this article I was excited that Bush might be starting to admit that he had made some mistakes – a crack in the certainty of his own righteousness. But after reading it several times and thinking about it I don't think these are true regrets. I think he is just trying to tell the Europeans what they want to hear. Words, after all, are easier to withdraw than troops.

More militant than the government of Israel?

President Bush thinks that history will vindicate him. He thinks that in 20 years historians will look back on his presidency and proclaim that in retrospect he was right and his critics wrong. If he is right then the Middle East is doomed. An editorial in the New York Times this morning points out that Bush turns out to be much more militant than the hardline government of Israel.

Everybody knew President Bush was aiming at Senator Barack Obama last week when he likened those who endorse talks with "terrorists and radicals" to appeasers of the Nazis. But now we know what Mr. Bush knew then — that Israel is in indirect peace talks with Syria, a prominent member of Mr. Bush's list of shunned nations — and it seems as if the president was going for a two-for-one in his crack about appeasement.

If so, it was breathtakingly cynical to compare the leadership of the Jewish state with those who stood aside in the face of the Nazi onslaught, and irresponsible to try to restrain this American ally from pursuing a settlement that it judges as possibly being in its best interests.

Read the entire editorial

Think about what would have to happen in the Middle East in the next few months and years for the situation to be such that historians would later conclude that President Bush had been right and the government of Israel wrong about trying to negotiate with Syria. I would think that all Americans, except perhaps those desiring a world-wide conflagration for religious reasons, would be fervently hoping their president and vice-president are in fact the misguided fools who don't know what they are doing that so many Americans have been saying they are.

Republicans protest claim that President is "amused"

As reported by the Associated Press:

Congressman Pete Stark (D-Ca), who's in his 18th term representing the liberal East Bay near San Francisco, took to the floor to accuse Republicans of funding the Iraq war but not children's health.

"You don't have money to fund the war or children," Stark declared. "But you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the President's amusement."
….

The outburst from Rep. Pete Stark as the House debated a children's health bill drew immediate condemnation from Republicans who demanded he retract it.

I guess I share Pete Stark’s impression that the President is more amused than concerned by the consequences of his decisions. If that is a false impression then I think the President may want to consider changing the way he presents himself in public. His current emphasis on how at peace he is with his decisions and his smirking and smiling at seemingly inappropriate moments while speaking may be giving some Americans the wrong impression.

Does the War in Iraq make you feel safer?

The War in Iraq has been and continues to be extremely costly in terms of lives lost, dollars spent, prestige and reputation damaged. But we are told by sober, serious people in Washington that we cannot end it now because the “surge” is “working.”

According to Maureen Dowd in her New York Times column (requires a subscription) retiring Republican Senator John Warner asked General Petraeus during yesterday’s Senate testimony "Do you feel that the Surge is making America safer?"
"Sir, I don’t know actually,” General Petraeus replied. “I have not sat down and sorted out in my own mind."

President Bush’s goal is to keep the war going through the end of his administration. He recently admitted to his biographer that he was “playing” everyone and everything to that end. One has to presume that he, like General Petraeus, has other reasons for wanting to keep our military involvement at the present level than the "feeling" that this is making America safer.