Oh. My. God. William Kristol is beyond batshit crazy. He thinks wresting the nomination from Donald Trump at the Republican convention will result in a defeat of Hillary Clinton, when in fact it would (1) give her a landslide victory of historic proportions (because Trump's millions of supporters would stay home) and (2) allow her to reshape the Supreme Court of the United States for generations to come. (It would also give her a mandate to transform this country in ways only dreamt of by Barack Hussein Obama.) Somebody get this man professional help. He continues to embarrass himself, his family, and his associates.
Addendum: Here is a paragraph from Kristol's column:
Later that day, Donald Trump, the presumptive nominee of the other major political party, lavished praise on Saddam Hussein, a dictator who murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people, invaded neighboring countries, harbored and funded terrorists, and fought two wars against the country, the United States of America, that had sought, consistent with the principles of the Declaration, to constrain his aggression and limit his savagery. Trump had of course previously blamed President George W. Bush for lying us into war with Saddam and had condemned American soldiers who fought in Iraq as thieves.
This is either stupid or dishonest. What Trump said is that Saddam Hussein killed terrorists, which is a good thing. It doesn't follow from the fact that person P is good in one respect (or does one good thing) that P is good in any other respect (or does only good things), much less that P is good in all respects (or good, all things considered). Suppose Saddam Hussein had doted over his aged mother, or kept a promise to a friend, or funded an orphanage, or fed a starving beggar. Does Kristol think these are bad things? Surely they're good things done by an evil person (i.e., a person who, all things considered, is evil). Evil people can do good things and good people can do evil (bad) things. Either Kristol doesn't grasp this, in which case he's stupid, or he grasps it but pretends that he doesn't, in which case he's dishonest. I vote for dishonest.
Addendum 2: The best thing about Donald Trump's candidacy is that it allows me to see which conservatives are vile human beings and which are not. Kristol is as vile as they come. If you're wondering why I continue to read him, it's because I want to see just how vile he can get.
Addendum 3: In case you didn't see or hear it, here is what Trump said (according to CNN):
"He [viz., Saddam Hussein] was a bad guy—really bad guy. But you know what? He did well? [sic; this should obviously be "But you know what he did well?" Is CNN trying to distort Trump's words in order to make him seem to be saying something he didn't say?] He killed terrorists. He did that so good. They didn't read them the rights. They didn't talk. They were terrorists. Over. Today, Iraq is Harvard for terrorism," Trump said.
Now read what Kristol wrote and you'll see why I call him vile.
Addendum 4: The worst thing about Kristol's incessant attacks on Trump is that Kristol is using techniques developed and perfected by the Left. How many times have you heard a leftist say, or imply, that if you say anything even remotely laudatory about, say, Adolf Hitler, you are saying that Hitler was a good man? For the umpteenth time, nobody is perfectly good and nobody is perfectly evil. If Adolf Hitler returned a borrowed book, he did the right thing; and if he returned it because duty required it, then he did the right thing for the right reason. This makes his act morally worthy in the straightforwardly Kantian sense (and reflects well on him as a person).
It hardly follows from this that Hitler was a good person all things considered. What we would say is that an evil person (Hitler) acted out of character in doing a good thing. What Trump is saying is that Saddam Hussein, in spite of being an evil person, did a good thing in killing Muslim terrorists. He is exactly right about that. In general, leftists do whatever it takes to win: lie, cheat, steal, even kill. The end, in their view, justifies the means. Kristol appears to have adopted the same scorched-earth policy, which is ironic, given that he presents himself as a man of culture, refinement, manners, decency, and integrity. We now know that he is the opposite of these things.
