Off to a Kristol-esque start

January 14, 2008

It’s hardly fair to condemn a newspaper columnist after publishing just two op-eds. Maybe the columnist is just getting warmed up. Perhaps he or she needs a few pieces to get comfortable.

Or, in the case of Bill Kristol, maybe the New York Times just made a ridiculous decision that the paper is likely to regret.

Kristol’s inaugural column, published last week, went a long way in reinforcing critics’ concerns. It was filled with predictable Republican Party talking points; it attributed a quote to the wrong person; and it heralded Hillary Clinton’s demise as a presidential candidate — just one day before she won the New Hampshire primary. I’m obviously not privy to the internal discussions of NYT editors, but I’d like to think they sat in a room, looked at each other, and asked, “Whose idea was this again?”

Today, we see Kristol’s second column, which — get this — criticizes Democrats for not supporting Bush’s “surge” policy.

The Democrats were wrong in their assessments of the surge. Attacks per week on American troops are now down about 60 percent from June. Civilian deaths are down approximately 75 percent from a year ago. December 2007 saw the second-lowest number of U.S. troops killed in action since March 2003. And according to Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, commander of day-to-day military operations in Iraq, last month’s overall number of deaths, which includes Iraqi security forces and civilian casualties as well as U.S. and coalition losses, may well have been the lowest since the war began.

Do Obama and Clinton and Reid now acknowledge that they were wrong? Are they willing to say the surge worked?

No. It’s apparently impermissible for leading Democrats to acknowledge — let alone celebrate — progress in Iraq.

Well, it was impossible to see this one coming. It’s not as if Weekly Standard readers haven’t read this exact same column, practically word-for-word, in almost every issue for several years now. Way to be provocative and thought-provoking there, Bill.

As Kevin put it, “This week, in an apparent effort to make phoning it in look good, freshman New York Times columnist Bill Kristol tells us that the surge is teh awesome. Now that’s fresh copy.”

Clark Hoyt, the NYT’s public editor, explored Kristol’s hire in his column yesterday, which was published before the Fox News contributor’s latest banal tripe. Hoyt acknowledged that the decision has been deeply controversial among Times readers, and while he believes the “reaction is beyond reason,” Hoyt also argues that bringing Kristol on was a “mistake.”

Rosenthal said: “Some people have said we shouldn’t have hired him because he supports the war in Iraq. That’s absurd.”

That is not why I think Sulzberger and Rosenthal made a mistake, and I agree with their effort to address an Op-Ed lineup that, until Kristol came aboard, was at least six liberals against one conservative who isn’t always all that conservative. I’ve heard all the arguments against Kristol — he is “wrong” on Iraq, he is overexposed as editor of The Weekly Standard and a regular commentator on Fox News with nothing new to say, he is an activist with the potential to embarrass The Times with his outside involvements — and one of them sticks with me:

On Fox News Sunday on June 25, 2006, Kristol said, “I think the attorney general has an absolute obligation to consider prosecution” of The New York Times for publishing an article that revealed a classified government program to sift the international banking transactions of thousands of Americans in a search for terrorists.

Publication of the article was controversial — my predecessor as public editor first supported it and then changed his mind — but Kristol’s leap to prosecution smacked of intimidation and disregard for both the First Amendment and the role of a free press in monitoring a government that has a long history of throwing the cloak of national security and classification over its activities. This is not a person I would have rewarded with a regular spot in front of arguably the most elite audience in the nation.

Kristol refused to talk with me about this issue, or an earlier statement that The Times was “irredeemable,” or the reaction to his appointment — an odd stance for someone who presumably will want others to talk to him for his column.

Interesting. A New York Times columnist is refusing to discuss his public comments with the New York Times’ public editor.

The NYT’s editors, if they’re paying attention, should realize by now that offering a sloppy, predictable demagogue one of the most prestigious opportunities in American media was a mistake. If they don’t, one assumes another column or two ought to do the trick.

Hoyt acknowledged that the decision has been deeply controversial among Times readers,

The disheartening part is that it wasn’t controversial among the Times publisher, editors and staff.

  • Kristol is the Rush Limbaugh of print media – dishing unreasoned arguments, but unwilling to engage in open debate. His ilk possess a one-way intellect, unable to take in matters of difference without applying divinely inspired predisposed prejudice. Just one more reason not to read the NYT at this juncture! -Kevo

  • You think this Kristol piece is bad, check out what Fred Barnes latest piece says:

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/weeklystandard/20080112/cm_weeklystandard/thesurgeeffect

    Barnes and Kristol have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Weekly Standard is the most hackneyed, pathetic piece of Neo-con propaganda ever produced. Neither one has ever come close to writing an article based on reality. Like all surge supporters, regards of the outcome, these guys were going to write that the surge was a sucess; in fact, I’m sure both these guys wrote these articles a year ago, and kept them until now because, hey, why wouldn’t they.

  • Take a look at the graph describing U.S. Military Deaths in Bush’s Iraq Quagmire.

    Unfortunately, no one agrees about the starting date of the “surge”, but it doesn’t matter anyway since it apparently had no visible effects.

    Now look at the most recent dotted event, the one labeled “8/29/07 – Sadr cease-fire”. See any change in the curve? In the linked article he promises that the decrease rate of death will last though February 2008 (when he will have completed whatever part of his education is needed for his eventual rise to the rank of Ayatollah).

  • The Times has not been behaving as though it thinks its readers are “the most elite in the nation.” It has hardly even treated them as adults in its Presidential coverage. Maureen Dowd seems convinced that she’s writing about an election for Junior High School Prom Queen, and Thomas Friedman is still the wide-eyed kid who believes in Santa Claus. Now they’ve got another junior high school kewl kid to join Mowdy Doody’s little snark-fest. Get your news and commentary elsewhere, folks.

  • I guess sales must be down, and they have to let one lunatic write pro-war columns so that the wingnuts will buy a copy of the NYT every now and then.

    And of course now that he’s there, it’ll cause a category five hissy fit if they ask him to take his crayons and go home. But here’s a suggestion: send Kristol to Iraq, and have him do a tour of the place so we can get a better picture of how good things are over there. Maybe he’ll like it so much he won’t come back.

  • Cutting American deaths by 60% is considered success eh?

    How about cutting American deaths in Iraq by 100%? Will that be successful enough for you Billy?

    It’s not hard. All we have to do is leave.

    There is no reason the Democrats should give BGII any credit for changing his war from a bloodbath to 40% of a bloodbath. Every dead American soldier/marine/sailor/airman is an infinitily precious value lost (even the contractors are worth something) and nothing in Iraq is worth the cost.

  • If it rained frogs in Baghdad, Kristol, et al, would hold that up as proof that the surge is working. He and his neocon buds are simply too invested in this mess to admit that the loss of billions of dollars, thousands of lives and our credibility in the world has resulted in two states whose governments don’t even control their capitol cities – let alone their respective nations.

  • Uhm, last time I checked, benchmarks were the be all end all. Now I realize that what success meant has changed on a weekly basis but that we reduced American deaths is now THE measurement for success?

    Can a dem please grow enough of a spine to show why the surge wasn’t a success? That what, one of the 11 benchmarks was met. That the line of success changed weekly and what those changes were. (Wouldn’t that be like playing a game of telephone??)

    And if you repeat it enough, it sticks. The rightwingers are talking up the success. WHAT FUCKING SUCCESS??? Since winning the war never had a line. Since success never had a definition. None of this is true. And those people who still step in line have no clue (or do and are those doing the manipulating).

  • Kristol’s constant whining that no one will acknowledge the progress of the “surge” reminds me of somebody who’s been in 9th grade going on five years getting angry that no one pats him on the back for getting a C on a test.

    The argument should go back to the “Korean model”. If that is considered success, then how could Iraq, with violence on a daily basis, be considered similar?

    It’s not similar, it’s a perfect contrast of success and failure.

  • We shouldn’t expect the Iraqis to actually pass that idiot “Chicago School of Economics” Oil law we are pushing. Give Exxon 74% of the profit? Please.

  • This entire blog seems to be a fairy tale. I wonder what planet you people live on. Heaven forbid you people ever have to read anything that might jar the echo chamber you live in. Gosh! Perhaps your Utopia would just be the continual regurgitation of the lies of Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton and the rest of the left that has been wrong throughout the course of modern history.
    What I notice however, is that your complaints are only adjectives. I seldom see anyone that can refute the facts. How about refuting the 60% reduction in violence?

    You people get up everyday thinking that history started yesterday. It’s hard finding an agenda like global warming where rain, drought, hot, cold, sunny, cloudy ALL are global warming. Sometimes FACTS actually matter. But not in YOUR world.

  • C’mon. If they had creativity or imagination, would they be conservatives? But, no. The right wing echo chamber is a radio in an otherwise empty head.

  • #12 – Your assumption that we’re all Reid or Clinton quoters shows how little you know about us. FWIW, Democrats know far better than Republicans that you don’t “refute” facts. It does make a difference who you interpret them, however. I gave one interpretation above (#4). Refute that.

  • dw butler –
    How does all that blood feel on your hands?

    We are not the ones ignoring reality, you supporter of war-criminals/looters of our national treasury, you are!

    Hey, can you wash that blood off?

    It pains me as to how many psychotic idiots we have in our county.

  • How about refuting the 60% reduction in violence?

    How about attributing it to the fact that ethnic cleansing is pretty much complete? Ethnic cleansing in Iraq is a fact (I’ll eschew capitalizing the word). For the sake of argument, let’s say that the decrease in some types of violence is a result of the increased number of American troops. What happens when they leave as they must this Spring? What happens when Sadr’s self-imposed cease-fire runs out?

    Today it was announced that twelve Sunni, Shiite and secular parties (Including the Sadr Movement) have come together in an alliance to oppose the annexation of Kirkuk by the Kurdistan Regional Authority and the creation of a Shiite confederacy in southern Iraq. What effect will that have on the level of violence in the country? Wait, you didn’t know about this development, did you? Because you really know nothing about Iraq, do you?

    What you know of Iraq in particular and of history in general is what you’re told by the people who have turned the one into a failed state and left a stain on the other. For you, history doesn’t begin yesterday, it begins with the next White House press release.

  • Iraq? There is no such thing as Iraq anymore. We destroyed it. All that’s left are local war chiefs, an army of occupation and a pretentious, totally ineffectual government.

  • if clark hoyt thinks the ny times has 6 liberal columnists, he’s as much of an idiot as dw butler, a person who talks about “facts” without knowing any.

    in fact, i’d suggest that the times hire dw butler to join kristol! why not two morons?

  • Can we call him “Baghdad Bill” now?

    Of course, the difference is that Saddam’s flunky was actually in some physical danger as a result of his endless lies and spin. The only danger Baghdad Bill faces is that some guy on The Daily Show’s picket line might risk kicking him where his balls would he, had he any.

  • Come on now, Steve. You were wrong in your assessment of Kristol’s columns. It’s apparently impermissible for bloggers to acknowledge — let alone celebrate — the glory Kristol brings to the NYT editorial page.

    p.s. Yes, I’m joking.

  • The Times has been infiltrated before — Judith Miller when she was on staff as a “journalist” served the Bush administration well. But to actually invite the viper into the nest is extraordinary. Who made this decision and how do they think it’s going to benefit the Times’ brand? Do they think it will give previously critical readers an opportunity to take a fresh look at the publication? As readers saw in the first column, Kristol of all people will choke before he deviates from the play book. His columns will be nothing new or fresh, will not take the dialogue in a meaningful or even a new direction. They will simply rehash rhetoric that the American people moved on from when the 2000th soldier died in Iraq for what will only be a Phyrric victory.

  • Kristol and his friend dw can point to body counts and see a pony but whether the troop escalation, the Sadr truce, the up-arming of Sunni militias or the war factions pulling back until troop levels decline, as they must with our over-stretched military, is to take credit for the decline but not elimination of the horrors in Iraq is still very open to debate.

    But the fact is the government of Iraq is still a partisan disaster and deep-seated hatreds and divisions are only festering under the weight of the surge. The problem has not gone away and the band-aid covering the bullet wound is soon to have outlived it usefulness. The US is still far from being able to declare victory in Iraq and the Iraqis themselves are still further from being at peace with each other. Kristol blindly advocates for a militarized fist to hold down the endemic problems stemming from the restive religious and ethnic factions, but this approach leaves only the option of greater repression to solve new problems as they arise. We’re painted into a corner the more we follow Kristol’s advice.

    Kristol should break some new ground with his discussions of the “surge” and finally talk about how we’re supposed to pay for his crazy militarized holiday in Iraq. But that’s reality and Kristol doesn’t acknowledge anything real.

  • “The Surge” is nothing but a red herring. You can spray perfume on a pile of crap, but even though it might smell a little better, it’s still a pile of crap! It doesn’t matter how well the surge is going, since we should never have been in Iraq to begin with.

  • The surge worked? But I thought:

    A successful strategy for Iraq goes beyond military operations. Ordinary Iraqi citizens must see that military operations are accompanied by visible improvements in their neighborhoods and communities. So America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced.

    To establish its authority, the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq’s provinces by November.

    To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country’s economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis.

    To show that it is committed to delivering a better life, the Iraqi government will spend 10 billion dollars of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects that will create new jobs.

    To empower local leaders, Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year.

    And to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation’s political life, the government will reform de-Baathification laws and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq’s constitution.

    So, Mr. Kristol, how about that stuff? You mention the de-Baathification law which was, by the way, just passed. How about the other stuff?

    Oh, and btw, have you read that new law? What a horror show. Did you know the Sunnis who were supposed to benefit from such a law were opposed to the thing that passed? Oh, never mind. Bill Kristol never cared about being right, just being ON the Right.

  • “To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country’s economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis.”

    Yep, 15% for Shia, 5% for Sunnis, 5% for Kurds….

    … 75% for Exxon.

    That’s sharing alright 😉

  • As to comments here: The interpreation given to Kristol is wrong. There has not been a 60% reduction in violence. Only a 60% reduction in U.S. service fatalities. This is a good thing but overstates the general improvement in Iraq.

    As to Kristol’s column today:

    The military/security situation in Iraq has improved since late summer 2007. As stated on this blog, much of the improvement is attributable to completed ethnic cleansing and a “time-out” al-Sadr took (probably at the request of al-Sistani in order to preserve the Maliki government). Kristol says that the situation improved in Anbar before the surge began but does not acknowledge the significance of the timing.

    It must also be said that during the period usually associated with the “surge,” conditions got worse before they got better.

    It appears likely that the al-Sadr’s militia will resume operations in this coming Spring. It also appears likely that the improvement in Anbar is leading to a deterioration in neighboring Dialou as a few ultra-militant groups shift location.

    In fact, despite Kristol’s claim, Democrats have acknowledged the improvement. It is true though that they (we) also point to the failure of concomitant improvement in the political situation; and that without political progress whatever has been gained will be short lived. Kristol’s thesis is simply false.

    Kristol fails to address the whether the Iraqi invasion and occupation will ultimately prove worth the loss of blood, credibility, prestige, and treasure, along with the increase of mid-east instability, Iranian prestige, and domestic energy prices.. Etc.

    As to Kristol at the NY Times generally:

    His first two columns were little more than restatements of current talking points from the neo-con wing of the GOP. They were poorly researched, factually inaccurate and either based upon or advanced false premises. Worse, they were not well written. In the Times defense, a colorable argument may be advanced that Kristol is better than Jonah Goldberg.

  • If I were writing my first columns I would write the best piece of my life.It would be original, slightly humorous, and somewhat of a show off. This was such a ho-hum piece.

  • It’s afternoon now and I still have yet to see any facts from you people. It must feel good to post a comment and have every nut agree with you. You must just love to see the words on the screen; but it matters not if there is any truth to what you say. Obviously on this blog the Bush Derangement Syndrome reigns eternal. Boy, get a life! One would at least think people with some intelligence would be able to research something and come away with some facts that would support their position. Not here!!

    The nutroots facists! “Don’t make me read something I don’t want to hear! Whaaa Whaaa! Please! I don’t want to see it! Please!!!! just let me see the things I want or it will spoil my day? Whaaa….Whaaa, Whaa!”. I know, I think all should march on the Times building in NY and demand you have editorial say so on who gets to grace the pages of the worst paper in the nation. But, of course, it tells you what you want t to hear. “Burn the editorials” is what I say. Yes, start a big fire and maybe burn all the conservative books. Yeh, and maybe burn down the Symon and Shuster building while your at it! Yes, Yes, Yes…….!!!! “PURGE THIS NATION OF ALL THINGS WE DON’T WANT TO SEE OR HEAR!”

    Freedom and liberty??? What’s that? Heil Hitler!!!!

    You people are nuts!!!

  • awwww, poor widdle dw – diddums we meanie Bush haters hurt your widdle neo-con feewings?

    Amazing how all of sudden the neo-cons syphocants are screaming for “facts” – funny how “facts” are suddenly in style with you folks.

  • There’s only one reason to read the NYT online (expressed without typographical emphasis): Krugman.

    Paul Krugman’s columns are a source of envy from the the informative topics to the economical writing style.

  • Kristol and Bush claiming that the surge is causing fewer deaths in Iraq is like saying the rooster crow makes the sun rise. Deaths are down because of 1) ethnic cleansing has eliminated sources of fighting; 2) about 2 million Iraqis have left the country. Surge has little to do with it. But as Jon Stewart says, most people base decisions on facts. Bush and his sycophants base facts on decisions.

  • dw butler, you are offensive! And yet I would welcome any well-founded observations you’d like to make. Got something? Got anything? Got Nothing? I await your enlightened, civil discourse. Why not show disdain toward a man who was born on third base and keeps telling us he’d hit a triple? Kristol comes from privilege. What service has he ever done for our nation and its men and women in uniform who are in harm’s way because of his hawkish proclivity? -Kevo

  • ***dw butler*** What does 60% reduction in deaths win us. They are not killing as many US soldiers as they were killing so that’s a success? Are you an idiot or just purely closed minded against dems in general. What did we win? The point of the surge was to gain room for political reconciliation between Sunnis and Shiites. No reconciliation and the situation is worse. ” I sent have my family out to fight and only 40% got killed this time. Hell they were killing them all. I call that success.”

    “Why did you send them out there?” Get it butler. Maybe if we talk to you like the 5yr old name caller you act like you just might get it. Other factors occurring before the surge began brought the violence down, not the surge. All the surge accomplished was sectarian cleansing. It did not accomplish anything it was designed to accomplish. Less violence is great, but it did not have anything to do with the surge, and it did not bring about anything it was designed to accomplish. Try using your brain to read and understand rather than just condemn and name call our of ignorance…You sound like Archie Bunker.

    • Comments are closed.