Kristol Meth not Responsible
Below I miss the most blatant absurdity in the Op-ed which won't stop giving.
William Kristol notes that Orwell warned that, because the opposition is not responsible in the technical sense of being required to respond to questions, it risks becoming irresponsible in the ordinary meaning of the word.
Kristol concludes that Orwell argued that the opposition is always irresponsible (no doubt he is preparing for his own irresponsibility next year) and argues that the Democrats are irresponsible noting their position on FISA reform. I noted that Orwell is not widely considered an enthusiast for the surveillance state, but I forgot to mention that, in his paean to responsibility, Kristol says that the Democrats are irredemiable opponents of responsibility because they refuse to vote for an amnesty for law breakers. Ah yes, those who love holding people responsible must hate any attempt to impose any consequences for lawbreaking.
Oh and the technical meaning of "responsible" in English is a reference to the obligation of the executive to respond to questions in parliament. And, on the same day that they irresponsibly refused to make sure that telecom companies never need to respond in court for their illegal acts, those irresponsible Democrats voted to hold Miers and Bolton in contempt for ... refusing to respond to questions in congress.
The advantage of not being in opposition, according to Orwell, is that the constitutional restrictions on a responsible government tend to make its supporters relatively responsible. Given that Kristol is a strong supporter of the principle of irresponsible government, he could not possibly have chosen to draw attention to this point. I conclude that either the New York Times has been hacked or that Bill was high on Chrystal.