With increased desperation comes increased recklessness. William Kristol, unable to defend the war in Iraq with any kind of substance, seems to have bought a one-way ticket to Limbaugh Land, where reason, facts, and common decency have lost all meaning.<\/p>\n
A few weeks ago, it was Kristol rejecting the idea of dissent, insisting that critics of the war should just “be quiet for six or nine months<\/a>.” Last week, Kristol lashed out at members of Congress — of both parties — for their consideration of an anti-escalation, non-binding resolution, labeling them “anti-troops<\/a>.” (Kristol has never worn a uniform, many of those he attacked are decorated veterans.)<\/p>\n Yesterday, Kristol gave up completely<\/a> on making sense.<\/p>\n [Saturday], Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) announced his candidacy for president in Springfield, IL, where Abraham Lincoln delivered his famous “House Divided” address. In his speech, Obama reiterated his call to redeploy U.S. forces out of Iraq by March 2008.<\/p>\n [Yesterday] morning on Fox News Sunday, Weekly Standard editor William Kristol attacked Obama’s Iraq policy, saying he wants to appease terrorists like pro-slavery politician Stephen Douglas tried to appease slave-owners. Kristol said, “Obama’s speech is a ‘can’t we get along’ speech — sort of the opposite of Lincoln. He would have been with Stephen Douglas in 1858.”<\/p>\n Stephen Douglas supported the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision of 1857, and took the pro-slavery position that each territory should decide whether or not to allow slave-owning.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n It was literally breathtaking. My friend Michael J.W. Stickings’ reaction<\/a> was spot-on: “This is not just disingenuous and unfair. It’s vile…. However complex his identity, [Obama] is seen as a black man not just in the U.S. but around the world. To suggest that he would have essentially supported slavery is simply outrageous and disgusting.”<\/p>\n