Due for an Apology

Remember when Andrew Sullivan laced into Bill Kristol for having “utter contempt of the rule of law” because Kristol thought Ft. Hood terrorist Nidal Malik Hasan will be found guilty, and that he should face the death penalty?

“Let us be clear: this is a fascist statement,” wrote Sullivan.

Funny that Sullivan to my knowledge never accused Barack Obama of making a fascist statement and having utter contempt of the rule of law when Obama essentially said the same thing. Obama said of Hasan, “I don’t think it will be offensive when he’s convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him.” (He later claimed he meant “if” not “when.” But believe me – Obama meant “when” at the time he said it.)

Let us be clear: Sullivan owes Kristol an apology.

Evoking Alinsky’s Rule #12

In keeping with his practice picking his target, freezing it, personalizing it, and polarizing it, Andrew Sullivan comically accuses William Kristol of making a “fascist statement” and having “utter contempt for the rule of law”.

Kristol’s alleged transgression? That he thinks Ft. Hood terrorist Nidal Malik Hasan is going to be brought to justice and found guilty, and that, in Kristol’s opinion, he should face the death penalty. Click here to read Sullivan’s post.

Sullivan is under the impression Kristol is advocating denying Hasan a fair trial and sending him directly to death, as they do in fascist societies. No Andrew. Kristol is merely saying that Hasan is so obviously guilty that he will be easily convicted during his fair trial.

Either Sullivan thinks that Kristol actually advocates bypassing the rule of law, in which case Sullivan’s contempt for Kristol is so powerful that it impairs his ability to think clearly, or Sullivan realizes that Kristol is not advocating bypassing the rule of law, but his contempt for Kristol is so powerful that he’s grasping at any straw he can get in order to demonize him.