Hm. Interesting. Bush has at least conceded we aren’t winning in Iraq, though his subsequent sentiments are… less than encouraging.

In another turnaround, Bush said he has ordered Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates to develop a plan to increase the troop strength of the Army and Marine Corps, heeding warnings from the Pentagon and Capitol Hill that multiple deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan are stretching the armed forces toward the breaking point.

“We need to reset our military,” said Bush.

Now, I want you all to sit and think that over for a little while, because this is something I was actually unaware of until now. Bush hasn’t just been refusing withdrawal, he’s also been refusing increases of troops (hence the “turnaround”). Could he make it any more obvious this is a war of pride? Our president won’t even concede he didn’t use enough troops until he’s forced to. More…

In describing his decision, Bush tied it to the broader struggle against Islamic extremists around the world rather than to Iraq specifically. “It is an accurate reflection that this ideological war we’re in is going to last for a while and that we’re going to need a military that’s capable of being able to sustain our efforts and to help us achieve peace,” he said.

Ah. So we’re not winning now, but the war is still going to be incredibly long so everyone better buckle up and get ready for us to lose a lot more. Not to mention he’s still stuck telling us about the “ideological war”. Gah.

No little image, just words this time. I’m sorry I’m not on top of the news lately, I’m trying to get into the swing of things again. Anyway…

Tonight’s episode of The Daily Show had good old Bill Kristol, of The Weekly Standard. The debate was as typical as you could have expected, with Jon trying to make Kristol defend his opinions and Kristol himself alternately whining about Jon being mean and saying ridiculous things that were talking points in 2003 but don’t hold water any more.

And that’s what I’d like to get mad about. The conservative pundits in this country have staked out the most counterintuitive position possible, which is that everything that has happened was the right idea but the problem is SOMEONE screwed it up. Invading Iraq was a great idea, but some idiot muffed it.

It’s not a new position, it happens a lot. Every conservative (or neocon) IDEA is right, but the problem is that the people who try and get it done do it wrong. When things go terribly terribly wrong, even if all conservatives were in power, it doesn’t matter.

Now, on some level you have to admire the tenacity. The fact that when politicians betray your stance then you turn your backs on them (Kristol railed against Rumsfeld, for example), but that only counts when they actually betray the party/ideology. If you vote for someone so they do X, and after they do X it turns out X was a terrible idea, you can’t get mad at said politician for not doing X right.

People often say that the difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals are wishy washy pansies who think everyone can hold hands and everything will be awesome, while conservatives are tough-minded realists who want responsibility and realize reality. Now this isn’t just what the conservatives themselves say, it’s a fairly common opinion. Liberal is nearly a dirty word for that reason.

The problem is that it’s just plain backwards. I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again, it’s the right (this brand of the right) that has the optimism problem. Let’s ignore Iraq entirely. Consider most any stock standard conservative issue and I am going to do this in the fairest way I possibly can.
Social security: far-right neocons want to eliminate it in favor of private accounts. The optimism is the assumption that everyone will have adequate funds with which to retire. Apparently the people just barely scraping by will somehow squirrel away enough money to live off of post-retirement.

Affirmative action: again, get rid of it. Conservatives will point to the fact that it’s racism in a way, and this is correct. However, the optimism in this case is the idea that there is no racism and minorities will get fair treatment without government intervention.

Supply-side economics: Take this one however you like, from standard SSE to the whole Trickle-down theory. On the former, it’s the idea that people’s fates are their own responsibility (go back to social security) and on the latter that if you start the benefits at the top they’ll make their way down. Apparently business owners and the like are purely benevolent and won’t take their tax cuts and just pocket all the extra money.

School vouchers: Thank you Al Franken for tipping me off to this concept. Give people vouchers for tuition and they’ll choose the best schools, thus forcing schools to compete. The optimism? The notion that people won’t all flock to the best schools, thereby taking all of the money away from the already poor schools, and that this won’t lead to overcrowded schools forcing kids elsewhere that no longer has anything resembling a good budget and swiftly putting us back at square one.

Minimum wage: The right doesn’t want this to be raised, the far-right (libertarians) wants it abolished. This isn’t optimism per se, but it is a distortion of reality that forcing businesses to pay more means you’ll hire fewer people. The kind of businesses that pay minimum wage aren’t exactly free to start slicing the staff. I’ve had a few minimum wage jobs, and they generally aren’t charities. Internships, on the other hand…

Illegal immigration: I’m not even going to get into this. Yeah, we’re going to stop illegal immigration entirely. I’m sure.

Yeah, I’m on the rambly side right now, I apologize. The fact remains, what we have here is a track record of bizarre optimism, and that’s ignoring the nonstop blind optimism around the War on Terror and the Iraq War. Sure, no one will abuse wiretaping. Sure, the Iraqis will love us when we get there. Sure, the other countries will start their own democracies once they see how well Iraq worked out. Sure, by waging wars we’ll scare the terrorists and they’ll stop.

And then when someone attempts to act based on the optimism and reality comes up and so cruelly kicks them in the ass, do they acknowledge it was a bad idea? Nope, they blame the person who enacted it, and say they didn’t do it right. Imagine politics as, say, a stunt for a movie. I want someone on fire falling out of a building into a kiddie pool. The guy tries it, and despite landing in the pool itself he breaks his neck and is paralyzed. Do I acknowledge it was a stupid idea? No, I blame the stuntman and the coordinators for muffing up my awesome idea.

Fuck Bill Kristol.