Bill Kristol Gets New York Times Op-Ed Slot

Just shoot me. First, it was Sam Tanenhaus, conservative editor of the New York Times Book Review being put in charge of the News of the Week in Review section. That means one conservative will determine how politics,culture and ideas are covered in TWO of the most important sections of the supposedly liberal newspaper of record. Now, says the Huffington Post, the Times is set to announce that Bill Kristol will be writing a weekly op-ed column. That's Bill Kristol ,Fox commentator , editor of the the Murdochian agitprop factory Weekly Standard, George W. Bush's propagandist in chief, co-founder of the Project for a New American Century, relentless promoter of the war in Iraq , ideological bully and thug. This is the man who blamed american liberals for the Khmer Rouge and the Ayatollah Khomeini (!), who will say just about anything, however bizarre or illogical or wild or (I'm guessing) cynical, to push the only ideas in his head: everything bad is the fault of Democrats and never mind the question, war is the answer.

On Iran: The right response is renewed strength--in supporting the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan, in standing with Israel, and in pursuing regime change in Syria and Iran. For that matter, we might consider countering this act of Iranian aggression with a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. Why wait? Does anyone think a nuclear Iran can be contained? That the current regime will negotiate in good faith? It would be easier to act sooner rather than later. Yes, there would be repercussions--and they would be healthy ones, showing a strong America that has rejected further appeasement.

On morning-after contraception: "I don't know, I came into Fox this morning and one of our younger colleagues who works here, a guy just out of college a couple of years, said all his friends in who are still college are very happy about this -- all his guy friends, his male friends who are still in college are happy about this. They have a wild night. Precautions aren't taken. The burden is now totally off them. They tell their girlfriend to go out and get this drug and no problems at all. And I don't think that's a very good thing for the the country."

On Sunni-Shiite hostility in Iraq and desire of shiites to set up a religious state:"pop sociology"

On Terri Schiavo: "After all, we are a 'maturing society,' as the Supreme Court has told us. Perhaps it is time, in mature reaction to this latest installment of what Hugh Hewitt has called a 'robed charade,' to rise up against our robed masters, and choose to govern ourselves. Call it Terri's revolution."

On John Kerry and the Osama videotape: "But the fact remains that Osama bin Laden is not neutral in our election. He is trying to intimidate Americans into voting against George W. Bush."

What ever happened to meritocracy? For Kristol to get a Times column--after being fired from Time magazine no less -- is as meritocratic as, um, George W. Bush becoming the leader of the free world. A pundit, even a highly ideological one like Kristol, has to be (or seem) right at least some of the time. But what's striking about Kristol is that he's has been wrong about everything! or did I miss the sound of democratic dominoes falling neatly into place all over the Middle East? And it's not as if he's a great prose stylist, either. At least David Brooks can occasionally turn a phrase. Kristol just churns out whatever the argument of the moment happens to be, adds jeers, and knocks off for lunch.

What this hire demonstrates is how successfully the right has intimidated the mainstream media. Their constant demonizing of the New York Times as the tool of the liberal elite worked. (Maybe it also demonstrates that the people in charge of the decision aren't so liberal.) I'm sure we'll hear a lot about the need for balance at the paper -- funny how the Wall Street Journal doesn't feel the need to have even one resident liberal, but fine, let's have balance. Let's have a true leftist on the oped page--someone as far to the left as Kristol is to the right. Noam Chomsky, anyone? (and why does he seem just totally out of bounds but Kristol does not?) Barbara Ehrenreich? Naomi Klein? Susan Faludi? Gary Younge? me?

Why do I think those phone calls will not be coming any time soon?

Comments (154)

1. Establishment pundits who were wrong about Iraq have been rewarded. Thinkers on the left are excluded from the mainstream media, with rare exceptions: For about a decade, the Wall Street Journal ran a column by Alexander Cockburn.

   Noam Chomsky is too radical for the New York Times. The New York Review of Books ran some of its most famous pieces by Chomsky in the 1960's and early 1970's, but for the last three decades, Chomsky has been excluded from the pages of the NYRB.

   Posted by NevadaNed at 12/29/2007 @ 3:50pm

2. Let's see.....

   Ari Melbar thinks Kos' showing up on Sunday talk shows and writing for Newsweek is a sign of "critical mass" (more like Critical Ass, IMO).

   Now, Katha opines (or is that whines ;-)that Sam Tanenhaus as the conservative who "will determine how politics,culture and ideas are covered in TWO of the most important sections of the supposedly liberal newspaper of record....". Maybe, conservatives are ?finally? reaching critical mass & `crashing' the gate of that bastion of anti-Americanism that is mostly indistinguishable from modern Liberalism!

   For my money, the NYT's linkup w/Kristol is a part of its defensive strategy against the Murdoch-owned Dow Jones. Today's WSJ has a lengthy article by Paul Steiger--scheduled to retire next week after a 16-yr stint as WSJ's Managing Editor--who predicts that as the (now even mightier) WSJ mounts attack on the Times, it may even find it necessary to link up with Bloomberg. Who knows? Perhaps the NYT won't learn much from the even sorrier Boston Globe and has to undergo its own near-death experience.

   Anti-Americanism doesn't sell.....as Hollywood's string of Holiday (or is it Christmas) bombs prove, once again!

   Bit of a ramble, hehehe!

   Posted by Happy at 12/29/2007 @ 3:55pm

3. "the gate of that bastion of anti-Americanism that is mostly indistinguishable from modern Liberalism!"

   HAPPY, that is soooooooooo cliché.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 12/29/2007 @ 4:23pm

4. Anti-Americanism doesn't sell.....as Hollywood's string of Holiday (or is it Christmas) bombs prove, once again!

   Posted by HAPPY 12/29/2007 @ 3:55pm

   wow. let's celebrate the CRAPIFICATION of america.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 12/29/2007 @ 4:25pm

5. this is like giving pat robertson the editor's job at Nature.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 12/29/2007 @ 4:34pm

6. Kristol is a snake, an oleaginous shill for war and Bushism. the failure of which has discredited him and many others. my question is will that be instead of that creep Brooks or in addition?

   Posted by brannigan at 12/29/2007 @ 5:35pm

7. KP Posted 12/29/2007 @ 2:57pm – in part:

   "But the fact remains that Osama bin Laden is not neutral in our election."

   Like the bumper sticker said: "Who would Osama vote for?"

   Posted by Econ Major at 12/29/2007 @ 6:11pm

8. Like the bumper sticker said: "Who would Osama vote for?"

   Huh???

   Either NOTA, or one of the fundies. You know what they say about birds of a feather...

   Posted by jorcheim at 12/29/2007 @ 6:17pm

9. I don't read the Times, would be just too much. But have read Mr. Bristol in Time magazine several times. Comparing him to say Joe Klein, well he is not even 1% of provocative thinking, intellect, culture and balanced opinion. Reading Bristol is just like hearing Hannity or O'Reilly, basically a propagandist from FOX. I think the NY Times will regret this decision in the far run.

   The greatest of his masterpieces - that Ms. Pollitt has kindly reminded us - was : " Osama bin-Laden is not neutral in this election. He is trying to intimidate Americans into voting for George W Bush." Well, eight years of Bush are almost over and OBL is still in the loose.

   Why do Kristol in particular, and Reps in general want always to confuse the public that being patriotic should equate being a warmonger? Why do so many people buy on that? We are collectively sick on that issue. Reform public school education to speak more of: pacifism, understanding, acceptance, multiculturalism, civilized ways, humanism, consequences of wars, etc,etc....It is needed urgently at least to diminish violence there. We have surely thrown away religion from classrooms but have not balanced that by introducing Ethics & Humanism from 101 to 105. Or will neo cons oppose it as a "bad replacement of sacred beliefs"?

   Posted by Frank42 at 12/29/2007 @ 7:16pm

10. Like the bumper sticker said: "Who would Osama vote for?"

    I am 100% certain Osama would vote for George Bush if he had a chance, as Bush has been "completely ineffective" in bringing Bin Laden to justice. Bin Laden knows that Bush needs him, because with Osama on the loose Bush can continue to scare Americans into voting for the Republicans.

    Posted by Metteyya at 12/29/2007 @ 7:58pm

11. I suppose there is just a chance that the NYT wants to be seen with a winner on the Iraq war. Perhaps it will re-run all those early articles in which it supported Bush and the war and in classical revisionism mode shred all its in between, articles of apostasy.

    Sacking those like Paul Krugman and Bob Herbert who tried to lead us astray on Iraq would be a sign of genuine repentance.

    While they're at it a facelift for old sourpuss, Maureen Dowd, wouldn't go astray and may help improve her male readership numbers.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 12/29/2007 @ 8:01pm

12. a winner on the Iraq war.

    and when will this victory come? before or after we withdraw troops.

    Posted by brannigan at 12/29/2007 @ 8:08pm

13. a winner on the Iraq war.

    and when will this victory come? before or after we withdraw troops.

    Posted by BRANNIGAN 12/29/2007 @ 8:08pm

    Yeah I noticed Bush (GW that is) was the Most Admired American in 2007. Which is probably the second sound reason NYT wanted to get with a winner. I'm sure there are many more good reasons but that is a reasonable start.

    BTW Brannigan what planet are you come from? Anyway welcome to planet earth, friend (or alien).

    Posted by lrjones4 at 12/29/2007 @ 8:31pm

14. look, the NYT's decision to hire this guy does not mean that they support kristol's views. in fact, i would even go so far as to comment the NYT for making such a bold move, in light of the fact that most of its readers probably detest kristol. and isn't this the point? to hire someone whose views are controversial? so that their readership goes up?

    kristol has been dead wrong on so many issues. but that doesn't mean he should be excluded from the discourse. in fact, i love reading/listening to this guy, just because he's so easy to debate/dislodge.

    Posted by darladoon at 12/29/2007 @ 8:52pm

15. a guy with below 30% appro ratings a winner? I know what planet you're from, Oz and you are in a fantasy, just by wishing it so. not gonna happen.

    Posted by brannigan at 12/29/2007 @ 10:04pm

16. are in a fantasy, just by wishing it so. not gonna happen.

    Posted by BRANNIGAN 12/29/2007 @ 10:04pm

    OK, OK Brannigan even if you have been following the affairs of earth from a distant galaxy you still will need to brush up on your tenses.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 12/29/2007 @ 10:57pm

17. The New York Times has been officially deleted from my web-browser bookmarks and they will not see one thin dime of my money. Giving this fact-challenged lunatic a slot is like Stars & Stripes giving Goebbels or Tokyo Rose an Op-Ed during WWII. Not an overstatement in my mind.

    Posted by NoPCZone at 12/29/2007 @ 11:08pm

18. First Murdoch takes over the Wall St. Journal, and now this. RIP, NY Times. You will be missed.

    Posted by pizzmoe at 12/30/2007 @ 12:27am

19. KATHA: ....how successfully the right has intimidated the mainstream media........funny how the Wall Street Journal doesn't feel the need to have even one resident liberal....

    Examples, please, of the right intimidations? Glad I asked :)

    Via profit! See ratings of radio heads Rush, Hannity, Savage, Ingram, etc....book sales of Coulter, Rush (again),......TV ratings of FOX vs. CNN/CBS......

    The WSJ has no need for any "resident liberal", why? What does "Wall Street" stand for? Capitalism! For those that still don't get it....the WSJ is the paper of record of capitalism worldwide.

    The WSJ succeeds because it makes no pretense to being anything but pro-capitalism and pro-America...and there are enough folks like me willing to pay a healthy sum for it....so much so that only USA Today and the NYT are its peers, but USA Today is mostly free for any travelers not staying at Motel 6!

    Posted by Happy at 12/30/2007 @ 01:14am

20. Posted by DARLADOON 12/29/2007 @ 8:52pm

    Just having a bit of fun with the intellectually challenged (can't they really get by without being spoon fed a liberal diet?) Ms D and I agree with you that one's best thinking is invariably prompted by challenges to one's own philosophy, ideas, arguments and even self awareness.

    I do not think Kristol is the best expositor of his political and social position(s) but he is one of the more controversial conservative figures. One can only assume that the NYT thinks his articles will help improve its bottom line. Perhaps by trying to get some of its conservative readers back. Or some of those who are not essentially one party sycophants. Playing the same note all the time makes for very boring music and likewise for political commentary.

    Of course some of us on the other side of the aisle read its political commentary voraciously to improve our own thinking, about various left-right issues, just because it is perceived to be liberal.

    That, apart from the friendly people, is a major reason some of us like coming here.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 12/30/2007 @ 01:23am

21. "I admit it: the liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures." - Bill Kristol

    (Norman Solomon, "Politics: What is Disinformation?" San Francisco Bay Guardian, August 8, 1996.)

    Posted by bookmanjb at 12/30/2007 @ 02:05am

22. Sorry, I got the attribution wrong. Bill Kristol's inexplicable lapse into truth about the Liberal Media was reported by the New Yorker, 5/22/95

    Posted by bookmanjb at 12/30/2007 @ 02:08am

23. "Yeah I noticed Bush (GW that is) was the Most Admired American in 2007. Which is probably the second sound reason NYT wanted to get with a winner. I'm sure there are many more good reasons but that is a reasonable start."

    Posted by LRJONES4 12/29/2007 @ 8:31pm | ignore this person

    What "silly putty" would type, if it could grow fingers, press keys ... With reason being a work still early in process. Sophistry at its best, mimics insanity.

    Thank you for the insight.

    Posted by V at 12/30/2007 @ 05:31am

24. What "silly putty" would type, if it could grow fingers, press keys ... With reason being a work still early in process. Sophistry at its best, mimics insanity.

    Thank you for the insight.

    Posted by V 12/30/2007 @ 05:31am

    Now that's a lot better V. Almost intelligible. Just because you are an engineer doesn't mean you have to pretend you are illiterate or encode your posts. See what you can do when you try. You've almost restored my faith in the US branch of the engineering fraternity.

    I think you are saying you really like me. Right?

    Posted by lrjones4 at 12/30/2007 @ 05:51am

25. Reform public school education to speak more of: pacifism, understanding, acceptance, multiculturalism, civilized ways, humanism, consequences of wars, etc,etc....It is needed urgently at least to diminish violence there. We have surely thrown away religion from classrooms but have not balanced that by introducing Ethics & Humanism from 101 to 105. Or will neo cons oppose it as a "bad replacement of sacred beliefs"?

    Posted by FRANK42 12/29/2007 @ 7:16pm | ignore this person

    FRANK, excellent post. I thought the above line needed repeating. :)

    Posted by FritztheCat at 12/30/2007 @ 08:53am

26. First, there was Karl Rove at Newsweek. Now, Bill Kristol at The New York Times. Who's next? John Bolton at the Christian Science Monitor? Douglas Feith at The Washington Post? Richard Perle at Vanity Fair? Donald Rumsfeld at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University? Oh, I forgot, he has already been appointed a Visiting Fellow, there! Who's next?

    Posted by porzelH at 12/30/2007 @ 09:39am

27. First, there was Karl Rove at Newsweek. Now, Bill Kristol at The New York Times. Who's next? John Bolton at the Christian Science Monitor? Douglas Feith at The Washington Post? Richard Perle at Vanity Fair? Scooter Libby at TIME Magazine? Donald Rumsfeld at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University? Oh, I forgot, he has already been appointed a Visiting Fellow, there! And, disgraced Paul Wolfowitz has been reassigned to the State Department. Where does that leave Norman Podhoretz, Elliot Abrams, Robert Kagan and the other Neo-conartists with their grandiose ideas of world domination? Stay tuned!

    Posted by porzelH at 12/30/2007 @ 09:51am

28. "Who would Osama vote for?"

    Posted by ECON MAJOR 12/29/2007 @ 6:11pm

    the guy that helped Usama achieve some of his goals, Gorge W. Bush.

    I suppose there is just a chance that the NYT wants to be seen with a winner on the Iraq war. -LEEROYJONES/aka Qagmirejones.

    hahaha. Good one, LeeRoy.

    The Nation, 01/02/07, David Corn-Foremost among this band is William Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard and former chief of staff for Vice President Dan Quayle. Kristol, a Fox News regular, has not seen his standing as a go-to conservative pundit suffered. Moreover, he has been rewarded with a plum posting. Time magazine's new managing editor, Richard Stengel, has invited Kristol to become what Stengel calls a "star" columnist for the magazine.

    whoops, take that plum away, remove the star from the walk of fame, and put it in the Walk of Shame.

    On September 11, 2002, as the Bush administration began its sales campaign for the coming war, Kristol suggested that Saddam Hussein could do more harm to the United States than al Qaeda had: "we cannot afford to let Saddam Hussein inflict a worse 9/11 on us in the future."

    On September 15, 2002, he claimed that inspection and containment could not work with Saddam: "No one believes the inspections can work." Actually, UN inspectors believed they could work. So, too, did about half of congressional Democrats. They were right.

    On September 18, 2002, Kristol opined that a war in Iraq "could have terrifically good effects throughout the Middle East."

    On September 19, 2002, he once again pooh-poohed inspections: "We should not fool ourselves by believing that inspections could make any difference at all." During a debate with me on Fox News Channel, after I David Corn, I miss him!-crab) noted that the goal of inspections was to prevent Saddam from reaching "the finish line" in developing nuclear weapons, Kristol exclaimed, "He's past that finish line. He's past the finish line."

    On November 21, 2002, he maintained, "we can remove Saddam because that could start a chain reaction in the Arab world that would be very healthy."

    On February 2, 2003, he claimed that Secretary of State Colin Powell at an upcoming UN speech would "show that there are loaded guns throughout Iraq" regarding weapons of mass destruction. As it turned out, everything in Powell's speech was wrong. Kristol was uncritically echoing misleading information handed him by friends and allies within the Bush administration.

    On February 20, 2003, he summed up the argument for war against Saddam: "He's got weapons of mass destruction. At some point he will use them or give them to a terrorist group to use...Look, if we free the people of Iraq we will be respected in the Arab world.

    On March 1, 2003, Kristol dismissed concerns that sectarian conflict might arise following a US invasion of Iraq: "We talk here about Shiites and Sunnis as if they've never lived together. Most Arab countries have Shiites and Sunnis, and a lot of them live perfectly well together." He also said, "Very few wars in American history were prepared better or more thoroughly than this one by this president." And he maintained that the war would be a bargain at $100 to $200 billion. The running tab is now nearing half a trillion dollars.

    On March 5, 2003, Kristol said, "I think we'll be vindicated when we discover the weapons of mass destruction and when we liberate the people of Iraq."

    In an effectively functioning market of opinion-trading, Kristol's views would be relegated to the bargain basement.

    The War in Iraq Costs

    $481,439,204,982

    $275 million per day

    $4,100 per household

    Almost 4,000 U.S. soldiers killed and more than 60,000 wounded

    Are we safer from terrorism? Is the opposition leader in Pakistan safer from terrorism? Is Europe safer?

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/30/2007 @ 09:55am

29. "Who would Osama vote for?"

    Posted by ECON MAJOR 12/29/2007 @ 6:11pm

    this time around he might go for Huckleberry.

    "It is now difficult to keep track of the vast array of publicly endorsed and institutionally supported aberrations--from homosexuality and pedophilia to sadomasochism and necrophilia."- Tax Hike Mike channeling the thoughts of the Mullahs.

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/30/2007 @ 10:00am

30. In 1997, Huckabee requested an amendment to a state Senate bill stating "that it is Arkansas public policy to prohibit sodomy to protect the traditional family structure." [Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 1/23/1997]

    In 1998, Huckabee supported banning gay men and women from acting as foster parents because "it is not in the best interest of children." [Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 7/29/1998]

    In a 1992 questionnaire for the Associated Press, Huckabee claimed that "homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle, and we now know it can pose a dangerous public health risk."

    Change one word to Islam..."I hope we answer the alarm clock and take this nation back for Christ."

    And we have Usamas candidate for 2008. Huck supports Usamas war in Iraq and will continue it to the bitter stalemate with Muqtada in charge. A Shia dictator is better than a secular dictator for UBL.

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/30/2007 @ 10:05am

31. Posted by CRABWALK 12/30/2007 @ 10:05am | ignore this person

    Osama would definitely go for Huckabee, he seems to be rather forward thinking, when he's not dead ... as was recently reported.

    Posted by V at 12/30/2007 @ 10:31am

32. Is the opposition leader in Pakistan safer from terrorism?

    Posted by CRABWALK 12/30/2007 @ 09:55am

    She is now Crabs.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 12/30/2007 @ 11:10am

33. Katha, You omitted the most incisive and critical possible voice as a Left alternative to Kristol and the man who is arguably the best prose stylist writing about politics in the English language. By now you know I am speaking Alexander Cockburn the only voice on the pages of The Nation that does not kiss the *ss of the Dem establishment and without whom I am afraid The Nation's well-being might deteriorate even further. john walsh

    Posted by jvwalshmd1 at 12/30/2007 @ 1:32pm

34. The minute I saw the notice at NYTimes website last night that Bill Kristol had been hired, I sent them an email cancelling my home delivery. That's $30 more a month I can donate to Kucinich/Edwards or to a tax-deductible charity. The latter is just so much more I don't have to pay to support war war endless war; the former brings us closer to an administration I can respect.

    Posted by evesegal at 12/30/2007 @ 3:40pm

35. Been thinking on this one, and it...really doesn't make much sense.

    The NY Times isn't going to win over any Righties (See HAPP, JOMAMMA, etc.) by bringing in Bill "The Never Right Right-Winger" Kristol (they've hated it since before Nixon)...and the Lefties are going to hate the paper for doing it.

    So...what does it gain them?!?!?!?

    Posted by Mask at 12/30/2007 @ 4:19pm

36. I can donate to Kucinich/Edwards....----Posted by EVESEGAL 12/30/2007 @ 3:40pm

    You aren't suggesting that John Edwards would be Veep to Kucinich...are you?!?!?

    Posted by Mask at 12/30/2007 @ 4:20pm

37. New York Times badly needs a conservative voice---it has long been a newspaper that has neither been fair or balanced and here recently it has been just plain wrong.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 12/30/2007 @ 5:01pm

38. The minute I saw the notice at NYTimes website last night that Bill Kristol had been hired, I sent them an email cancelling my home delivery....

    Posted by EVESEGAL 12/30/2007 @ 3:40pm

    Congrats, you just won the knee-jerk award for today! Now, I have a few post-award interview questions:

    1) The NYT's giving Kristol a voice in its pages is so egregious that you canceled your subscription.....Can we draw parallels to the numerous instances where liberal college campuses NOT allowing Conservative speakers on campuses?

    2) If so, how does this square with the concept of being a `Liberal'?

    3) According to many Libs/Progressives, and your own post, the NYT was complicit in the Iraq War....yet, you have had five years to cancel your subscription. Why Cut-n-Run now for the NYT's adding just one more Right-wing pundit to its admittedly slim roster of Op-Ed writers?

    Posted by Happy at 12/30/2007 @ 6:52pm

39. Ah so at least I'm not the only one who thinks his posts are a mish mash of punctuation and words too big for his britches.

    Posted by MADLIB 12/30/2007 @ 2:36pm

    I think, ML, there are a few more non earthling aliens now inhabiting this forum. Lets hope they don't take over. They are not hard to identify. You'll find their internal wiring doesn't conform with the standard earthling issue.

    Naturally of course.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 12/30/2007 @ 6:54pm

40. Posted by FRANK42 12/29/2007 @ 7:16pm

    Public school education is about socializing human beings into the dominate culture. It is not and never has been about "pacifism, understanding, acceptance, multiculturalism, civilized ways, humanism, consequences of wars, etc.". It's about learning who the boss is, doing what you are told and trasmitting as much learning as you need to count the boss's receipts and dictate his memos. Critical thinking about other cultures and militarism? Not on the government's dime, hippy.

    Posted by srjenkins at 12/30/2007 @ 7:58pm

41. As far as I am concerned, this man is a criminal and a scum and should not be given an aura of respectability by the NYTimes. It does nothing to elevate the paper. In fact, it only serves to discredit the paper.

    Posted by kevin99999 at 12/30/2007 @ 8:05pm

42. Posted by LRJONES4 12/30/2007 @ 05:51am | ignore this person

    Nope ... as last time I checked, sophist is not a term of endearment. Would feel better if you got some therapy though. What branch of engineering do you, ummm, mangle?

    Posted by V at 12/30/2007 @ 8:23pm

43. Kristol did not blame American liberals for the Khmer Rouge and the Ayatollah Khomeini. He correctly pointed out their complete lack of critical thinking in their collective response to the Khmer Rouge and the Ayatollah Khomeini. Americans are still paying for the liberal response to these two situations.

    Posted by Shutuphippie at 12/30/2007 @ 8:47pm

44. So are the AQ and their merry little hords in Wiziristan safer from justice...for now...

    maybe this will wake Mushareef up and he will let Nato and US forces in there to clean out the shit house of terrorism with high resolve and very lethal force.

    Posted by JOMAMMA 12/30/2007

    My take on it JM, is that Pakistan is a little more complex than just al Qaeda type organisations and the Taliban. The central war against bin Laden is in Iraq and that's where its reputation and ultimate standing, in the Arab world, will be made or irrevocably damaged. Bin Laden, if the last tape is genuine, is implicitly acknowledging that al Qaeda is losing or has lost the "hearts and minds" of many if not most Iraqi Sunnis.

    That they should make common cause against al Qaeda with the Shia and the "great Satan" is devastating to his cause for it sweeps away one foundation or part of the rationale for its existence. Brannigan asked when will the US win in Iraq. That's in the future tense. The present tense is that the Iraq/US forces under the strategic leadership of Petraeus are in the process of winning.

    A lot has been made of the instability in Pakistan and the likelihood of an Islamist take over of the country. It should be becoming quite obvious by now that the so-called Bhutto "democratic" supporters are as much an irrational lawless force as the Taliban or any other Islamist force operating there.

    The death and senseless destruction they have wrought is an adequate measure of that proposition, particularly when there was a police and army presence trying to counter it.

    The reason that America is a great democracy is not primarily because it has a superb constitution but because its people are committed to the rule of law. This in turn has laid the foundation for a prosperous society. It is the combination of those things that has made it a great world power.

    The problem with Pakistan is not its Constitution or even its democratic institutions, but unlike the US, its problem is its people who, largely, do not respect or accept the rule of law. Thus it is quite naive and foolish to imagine, as many around the world do, that installing a Bhutto, who pays lip service to democracy but lived like a feudal lord, would have made one iota of change.

    The problem in that country is its desperate poverty. It has close to the lowest rate of employment in the world. That is because 40% of its population consists of children. Also women, because of religious restrictions, are denied work opportunities that are available to men. So the first thing Pakistan needs is a government that will foster the massive foreign investment in industries that will produce jobs. Jobs that pay more than the pittance the poor now eke out their existence on.

    If you do a bit of googling you will find that Musharraf is aware of this and has attracted industry and capital to the country as well as trying to improve the education system (less religion and more maths/science etc). He has also been trying to improve the lot of women through workplace reform.

    So it should be pretty obvious that "democracy" Pakistan or Bhutto style is not the first priority for Pakistan but rather a radical improvement in its living standards.

    India and China are showing how to do it by embracing the open market, competitive, globalised economic model. Musharraf has taken steps in that direction and given the continued backing of the army is the person most likely to help his people rise out of grinding poverty.

    The "democratic" path has nothing to offer to a people who are yet to learn that democracy is not about the idolisation of a Bhutto but rather begins with their respect for the law of the land. (Real democracy, one would think, would come easier to those with a full stomach and a better standard of living).

    As far as the Islamist groups that would put finish to a future democratic Pakistan or even of the dictator lead "democracy" that is now in existence, the Army, albeit with a few Islamist sympathisers in its ISI, is still the best vehicle to deal with that threat. Whether it backs Musharraf, as a civilian president or some other proxy.

    If Musharraf gets elected he may give the US/NATO forces on the Afghanistan side the OK to go after some of the Islamist groups on the Pakistan side. It's not as though he hasn't been trying as about 1000 Pakistani soldiers have been killed trying to get into that area. A wild area that the Brits were never able to tame.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 12/30/2007 @ 8:54pm

45. "Comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable" are generally not seen as conservative pastimes. Reporters _should_ be liberal. Editors and Publishers, on the other hand, tend to be much, much more conservative. And they're the ones who do the hiring.

    Here's a thought - maybe he was hired as a distraction. Seems to be working so far :-)

    Posted by chimpunk at 12/30/2007 @ 9:22pm

46. This hire says more now - and will going forward with each column - about the paper of record than about any issue Kristol chooses to comment on. History Departments everywhere must laughing.

    Posted by Leitricaugh at 12/30/2007 @ 10:01pm

47. The only thing more gratifying than watching Hollywood's anti-American films tank miserably has been the ongoing train wreck of the NYT stock price. No wonder you liberals can't stand the free market - it sure can't stand you! Seldom has the draining of a private fortune like the Ochs/Sulzbergers correlated so strongly with an improvement in the public welfare!

    Here's hoping that Bill Kristol makes a few bucks, but that conservatives continue to stay away in droves from the lousy liberal catechism known as the NYT leading to its long overdue and well-deserved bankruptcy, with the coup-de-grace administered at close range by Rupert Murdoch.

    Posted by pontificus at 12/30/2007 @ 10:16pm

48. Reason found for hiring of conservative commentators at the New York Times [tinyurl.com]

    Posted by pontificus at 12/30/2007 @ 10:23pm

49. History Departments everywhere must be howling. Everyone should read "The Record Of The Paper" by Howard Friel and Richard Falk. The New York Times has become history's first laugh.

    Posted by Leitricaugh at 12/30/2007 @ 10:26pm

50. Posted by JOMAMMA 12/30/2007 @ 9:19pm

    You may well be right and she may have tried to keep her word but the power behind the president is the army and Musharraf has made all the same promises about going after the Islamists.

    It is likely Bhutto in power would have been even more restricted in a fight against the Islamists than he was. At least he would know how far the army would go in support of such a combined US/NATO/Pakistan effort, on his side of the border and who in the army was for the Islamists.

    If Musharraf gets elected then maybe the first thing for him to do will be to try and weed out the Taliban supporters in the ISI as a prelude to such an operation. It's unlikely that Benazir could have done that without incurring the wrath of and her possible overthrow by the army.

    You no doubt know that Benazir Bhutto was a bit of a fan of the Taliban in the past:

    "The Taliban took power in Kabul in September 1996. It was during Bhutto's rule that the Taliban gained prominence in Afghanistan. She, like many leaders at the time, viewed the Taliban as a group that could stabilize Afghanistan and enable trade access to the Central Asian republics, according to author Stephen Coll.[11] He claims that like the U.S., her government provided military and financial support for the Taliban, even sending a small unit of the Pakistani army into Afghanistan."

    "More recently, she took an anti-Taliban stance, and condemned terrorist acts allegedly committed by the Taliban and their supporters." wikipedia.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 12/30/2007 @ 10:52pm

51. The minute I saw the notice at NYTimes website last night that Bill Kristol had been hired, I sent them an email cancelling my home delivery. That's $30 more a month I can donate to Kucinich/Edwards or to a tax-deductible charity. The latter is just so much more I don't have to pay to support war war endless war; the former brings us closer to an administration I can respect.

    Posted by EVESEGAL 12/30/2007 @ 3:40pm

    CANCEL MY SUBSCRIPTION IMMEDIATELY!...

    Er, wait, no, I don't HAVE a subscription! No need to accumulate dead trees in my foyer (wait, no, I don't HAVE a foyer!) Because the NY TIMES is now COMPLETELY FREE ONLINE! The only thing worth reading in it anyway are the progressive columnists (read: Frank Rich, Maureen Down, Paul Krugman) and the occasional account of a new black hole being discovered, or some such. (Come to think of it, the Kristol hiring kind of belongs in that category too, don't you think?...)

    Posted by w_m_bear at 12/30/2007 @ 11:06pm

52. THAT SHOULD READ "MAUREEN ***DOWD***"

    Of course. (I always love to proofread AFTER I post!)

    Posted by w_m_bear at 12/30/2007 @ 11:07pm

53. Well he seems to have a problem with me because I'm not falling into step with the consistently PC-milquetoast-liberal version of things.

    Just remember, holding your women leaders accountable for their actions is sexist!

    Posted by MADLIB 12/30/2007 @ 9:35pm

    I don't know whether this helps or not but you are obviously a lot brighter than me. You seem to be able to work out what he is talking about.

    After the date and the time I must confess I get lost but I console myself with the thought that if he does detonate that thing around his waist, as he is directing those mysterious missives in my direction, I'm unlikely to join him (immediately) in paradise.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 12/30/2007 @ 11:31pm

54. "This is like giving Pat Robertson the editor's job at Nature." Or like making Mike Huckabee editor of Science. Way to go, New York Times! Strike one: Tom Freedman Strike two: David Brooks strike three: William Kristol Cancel this reader's longstanding subscription.

    Posted by MoonRiver at 12/31/2007 @ 12:42am

55. .

    "THE GREY LADY LURCHES RIGHT" huh!

    You can't lurch to a place you already occupy. This is the same paper that trumpeted the pack of lies needed to launch an invasion into countries that did not attack us. It's the same paper that has failed to report the real truth about how and why we were attacked on 911.

    Where were the headlines about the Downing Street memos? Or the 100's of other headlines that would have told the truth about this criminal president and vice president. No the NYT is not a liberal news paper if liberal means to tell the truth to power. I don't care what it may have been in the past her nickers are falling and her eggs are dried up.

    Today the "Grey Lady" is nothing but an old hag, long in the tooth and a siren for corporate greed and the banking elite who are waging resource wars and wars against our constitution.

    Forget the media if you are looking for real answers. It is too wrapped up in distortions and myth to actually report anything valuable. All of our institutions are failing us because they have become infiltrated by greedy elite corpses who want power above anything else and don't care about fact or truth or accountability.

    So let them put William Kristol on the payroll. The NYT's is the past.

    .

    Posted by atomic2 at 12/31/2007 @ 02:47am

56. Posted by ATOMIC2 12/31/2007 @ 02:47am | ignore this person

    True, but it happened long before now though. And as some did here, some will still ... try to spin it for other than what it is: The NYT's is what Kristal is.

    Former journalist Chris Noblet (emphasis mine), "I have read the Times for over three decades, have many times been a home subscriber, and have been a premium internet subscriber since you offered the service. Many times, I have emailed friends and associates with interesting Times articles. Many years, in many places, such as Connecticut, Manhattan and California, I subscribed to the paper edition of the Times. As a former journalist, I admired the Times immensely. As a corporate communications professional for many years, I worked with the Times on numerous occasions, and in the last 15 years have been very disappointed to see the slippage in the quality and objectivity of your reporters. I accepted, even occasionally admired, William Safire. I accepted David Brooks.

    All that said, if you hire William Kristol, it will be the final cut. You will have betrayed everything I have ever admired in the Times. I am serious about this. I will terminate my email and any premium subscription. I will no longer purchase the Times or the Herald Tribune at newsstands. My interest in the success of your publication will cease, and I will get all my news from elsewhere. Any regrets I may have will be assuaged by my knowledge that your hiring of that arrogant, blockheaded, smirking, war-mongering scumbag proves you have finally lost your way."

    Posted by V at 12/31/2007 @ 03:15am

57. Posted by MADLIB 12/30/2007 @ 9:35pm | ignore this person

    Lol ... whatever floats your boat. Spin it howsoever you need, I, understand. Punctuation aside, I seem to have had some little impact as here you are crawling up another, idiots, backside for communion.

    And, oh, you're not going to come up with anything new. So, I'm pretty much done with you.

    **Back to topic**

    Posted by V at 12/31/2007 @ 03:29am

58. Ms. Pollitt, In 2001, I had been a long-term subscriber to the Nation. I was a good little American lefty. It was your column,however, in the aftermath of 9/11 that shocked me into sense and reason...the one about not letting your daughter hang a flag in your window. I had just completed my MA in American History at UCLA and had been thoroughly indoctrinated by the academy to hate America, to blame America for all the ills on the globe. Thanks to your piece, I woke up. I ended my subscription to the Nation, and embarked on a new reading career. I am much wiser these days. When I read nonsense like this column, I can only thank you for you are the one who catalyzed me into recognizing sheer moonbattery when I read it. Kristol is a genius, an American icon. You are pathetic and I cannot help but wonder about your daughter who wanted to hang that flag after 9/11.

    Posted by noteman at 12/31/2007 @ 03:41am

59. Function of Kristol in NYT parallels that of Pollitt in Nation. Both serve to generate at least some thought on issues. I understand the importance of self-censorship: after all, no one should ever risk reading any opinion that contradicts already held opinion.

    Important for the security of the Republic: ensuring that these radicals can publish their views, and promptly ensuring that 90% of said views are dismissed.

    However, the parallels between these two are numerous: both are revolutionaries, with no consideration of the practical consequences of their ideologies; both represent views held by only a small minority of Americans; and both are, infrequently, correct in their opinions.

    Posted by Guardian at 12/31/2007 @ 05:24am

60. Posted by SRJENKINS 12/30/2007 @ 7:58pm

    Rare, SRJ, that you hear a liberal argue AGAINST public education!?!?!?!?

    Posted by Mask at 12/31/2007 @ 08:20am

61. Katha is another fairly provincial political thinker, like Nichols. Predictable. For her its either Lib or Con, Left or Right, Black or White. There's always more to it than that, as most of us know.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 12/31/2007 @ 08:33am

62. I'm just glad that the Times has done away with Times Select, for now it will be an active choice to avoid his column. I would gladly read conservative writers of substance and value, but not this stooge. Every time we writes something, and with every one of his utterances, he detracts from the sum total of human knowledge.

    Posted by Mike DePolo at 12/31/2007 @ 08:37am

63. a

    Posted by pontificus at 12/31/2007 @ 08:40am

64. Atomic2 seems to be the only one that recognizes that the NY Times (of which I am a subscriber btw) is yet another bastion of corporate USA. To consider it somehow "leftist" (with or without Kristol) is as silly as LVLiberty's attempt to claim the Wall Street Journal is left of center.

    Sure the NY Times is to the left of the WSJ but given that it is a corporation with corporate self interest it naturally reflects the issues from a position that the post 1950 pax Americana corporatist structure is beneficial to American society.

    American media and henceforth American discourse is now so centered around the narrow band of simply whether we should have a middling amount of corporate welfare (the Democrats position) or whether we should have large amounts of corporate welfare (the Republican's position) that it is suprising that any of the electorate actually buys into the myth that there is partisanship! Bickering for power, yes, but actually being partisan would imply that there were actually two PARTS to argue about!

    Posted by rushlimb at 12/31/2007 @ 09:51am

65. Sounds like the misguided fools are going to continue calling it "liberal."

    Posted by mtspence05 at 12/31/2007 @ 10:44am

66. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/30/2007 @ 10:41pm

    To compute our measure, we count the times that a media outlet cites various think tanks and other policy groups.[1] We compare this with the times that members of Congress cite the same think tanks in their speeches on the floor of the House and Senate. By comparing the citation patterns we can construct an ADA score for each media outlet.

    http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm

    Even if we lived in the fantasy world where elected Democrats are "liberals", there are obvious problems with such a measure used as a surrogate for bias.

    To claim that the Wall Street Journal is concerned with anything other than presenting the perspective of business is, at best, wishful thinking. I know that some right wing Christians sometimes forget that they share their party with right-wing business interests. And sometimes, it must be tempting to try to fool yourselves into thinking that where there is disagreement that they are being "liberal".

    Example: It is a simple fact that stopping abortions doesn't make anyone money. If you only care about money, why would you care about this issue?

    Which brings us to the main point, not caring about an Christian right wing issue like abortion doesn't make the other guy "liberal". Same rationale with the WSJ. Anyone that has even skimmed through the paper for a second can assess what it is all about - and promoting a liberal agenda ain't it. Sorry, that particular dog won't hunt.

    Posted by srjenkins at 12/31/2007 @ 12:37pm

67. Kristol is a genius, an American icon.

    Posted by NOTEMAN 12/31/2007 @ 03:41am

    yep. right next to hulk hogan.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/31/2007 @ 12:39pm

68. Posted by MASK 12/31/2007 @ 08:20am

    Rare, SRJ, that you hear a liberal argue AGAINST public education!?!?!?!?

    Do you think governments, being the principle agents of war, are in any position to impose a curriculum of pacifism? Perhaps government should walk the talk first.

    As for public education, I'm all for it - in so far as it occurs in public schools. The problem is that most public education is simply indoctrination and socialization. I don't support this focus, and I would rather have a diverse landscape of indoctrinating and socializing people differently - if we must have it be a focus.

    Posted by srjenkins at 12/31/2007 @ 12:51pm

69. STOP WITH THE LIBERAL VRS. CONSERVATIVE. IT'S THE ELITE VERS. YOU AND ME.

    I understand that many of you who call yourselves conservatives have come to think you have a grasp on what a liberal is or is not. It's enough for you to think that a liberal is at the root of all that is evil and wrong in the world. Let me point out that complaining about liberals is not the same thing as having an intellect. Most of us have qualities which are both liberal and conservative.

    The liberal vers. conservative axiom today is a false construct. It would be more accurate to say it's the ultra elite corporate interests vers. you and me. The elite, we'll call them, want you and me to accept what we are told to believe and shut up.

    Anyone who can not control themselves and must speak out against (the elite) will be labeled a "nasty weak liberal". For those of you who have stuck your tail between your legs and are compliant with everything the elite want you to think, you get to openly complain about the "nasty weak liberals" and never question yourselves.

    To the effect that the New York Times is owned by elite it's staff appointments are crucial as to the direction the paper takes. It's an illusion that the paper has ever been a total liberal point of view. It as always protected the agenda of the elite which is always a balancing act between exclusion and accountability. How far can we go without getting caught for being power hungry elite that feed on the many. The appointment of Kristol is an example where the vampires break their own rules and begin to feed openly even at the risk of being exposed.

    If there is a balance to be struck between the conservative/elite agenda vers. honesty, integrity, and truth, then hiring Kristol is a wake up call for readers. On the other hand Kristol is such a laughing stock and pathetic human being that nothing could be better than to emphasize this by giving him a column where he can hang himself in broad daylight.

    Posted by atomic2 at 12/31/2007 @ 3:20pm

70. The article and the majority of the comments represent all that is wrong with the level of political discourse today, on both the left and the right. I suspect most if not all of the correspondents have never even read anything Bill Kristol (not Bristol) has written, or seen him on the dreaded Fox News. I for one have always considered him to be a very reasonable person. As for the Times, its time its op-ed page carried another viewpoint, which has been lacking for way too long.

    Posted by robert_sp at 12/31/2007 @ 3:43pm

71. Thank God someone, V, finally mentioned William Safire, who's been a right-wing pundit at the Times for what, 30 or so years. So between Safire and Brooks, plus Nick Kristoff on some (most?) issues, Thomas Friedman on trade, economics and the war (i.e., almost everything he writes about), and Dowd on the Clintons and feminism (Bear, Maureen Dowd is no progressive; she is an equal opportunity punk, or do you forget her 8 years of writing about the Clintons, whom she hardly attacked from the left?), the Times Op-Ed page has hardly been the solid wall of hardcore liberalism, let alone leftism, with nary a conservative voice allowed, that it's right-wing critics like to claim.

    Now, I don't think too many folks on the left here would have objected quite so vociferously if the Times had given a weekly column to Pat Buchanan or some other conservative columnist who opposed the party line on (a) the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and (b) free trade, even if most of us object to his positions on reproductive rights, gay rights, civil rights and immigration. Hell, there are a number of regulars at The American Conservative that I could have recommended to the Times that have a better track record of describing the world and predicting the outcome of U.S. policy than Kristol, and would actually offer a broader perspective on the Op-Ed page compared to their resident conservative, centrist and liberal columnists (on social issues, for instance, as much as I might disagree with them). But no, they went out and got someone who wouldn't stir the pot with the GOP and conservative establishment - the way Huckabee is doing in the presidential primaries, for instance - and instead hired a neo-conservative, Weekly Standard ideologue who just takes what Brooks, Safire and Friedman are already saying to their logical (illogical?) and fantastical conclusions.

    Pathetic, truly pathetic, whether from a journalistic, intellectual or even a corporate point of view.

    Posted by cka2nd at 12/31/2007 @ 4:11pm

72. Posted by SRJENKINS 12/31/2007 @ 12:51pm

    What the HELL are you talking about? The fact that YOUR political viewpoint isn't the dominant one and therefore "everybody is indoctrinated!!!!!"?

    Posted by Mask at 12/31/2007 @ 4:41pm

73. The only thing more gratifying than watching Hollywood's anti-American films tank miserably has been the ongoing train wreck of the NYT stock price. No wonder you liberals can't stand the free market - it sure can't stand you!

    I'm getting a good laugh picturing you checking your stocks and wringing your hands Mr. Burns style...any self respecting "liberal" doesn't give a sh*t if the times goes belly up.

    The times and the rest of the MSM is today what it always has been, corporate advertising delivered as news, and the more Americans turn against this colonial war in Iraq, the more the corporate interest needs a blowhard like kristol in the times op-ed column to tell us why we're wrong.

    Posted by rzs at 12/31/2007 @ 7:58pm

74. "The article and the majority of the comments represent all that is wrong with the level of political discourse today, on both the left and the right."

    "I for one have always considered him to be a very reasonable person."

    Posted by ROBERT_SP 12/31/2007 @ 3:43pm | ignore this person

    All that you now see as wrong with the "level of political discourse today," can be made to go away, all you need do is become capable of rational thought. Truly, no deprecation is involved, or intended. Are you off your meds? The view you just espoused cannot be held by a fully functional human being.

    Or, there is what Lazare Carnot said of Talleyrand: ``There is in the obsequiousness of that man something beneath even a beast.'' Take your pick.

    Posted by V at 01/01/2008 @ 01:39am

75. i sorry to get personal mr. kristol, but your an idiot.

    you should go back to comedy.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/01/2008 @ 04:15am

76. "you're"

    damn! (karma strikes again)

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/01/2008 @ 04:15am

77. I think it is so cute that the neo-con mongers don't care that Kristol is just wrong a lot, as long as he is a perceived "conservative voice". No comments about his prognostications on Iraq? The prognostications you neo-cons bought hook line and sinker.

    Posted by crabwalk at 01/01/2008 @ 08:25am

78. If Musharraf gets electedLEEROYJONES

    "If", Do you think that an election with almost no opposition candidates in a pseudo military dictatorship is going to produce something other than the pre-determined outcome?

    ---Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/30/2007 @ 10:41pm and other neo-cons

    You people do realize that most Americans "lean liberal" don't you?

    Most of us non Taliban support the right to abortion, basic health care coverage at least for kids, clean air and water, work place safety etc etc etc.

    Posted by crabwalk at 01/01/2008 @ 08:31am

79. Kristol is a genius, an American icon NOTEMAN

    HAHAHA. Thats funny! Good one!

    On the Iraq July 2007 "Kristol: We're not in a civil war. This is just not true…."

    Posted by CKA2ND 12/31/2007 @ 4:11pm

    Good analysis.

    If the Times wants another conservative voice why not pick one that has a better record? Does it have anything to do with their whole hearted support for the invasion of Iraq to get UBL, who was not in Iraq?

    KRISTOL: We are fighting Al Qaida. Have you talked to a single person who's fought over there? Have you looked at one of their -- what do they do each day?

    WILLIAMS: Yes?

    KRISTOL: Do you think they just drive around aimlessly to get blown up randomly by Shia and Sunni? They are fighting Al Qaida in Iraq. What is happening in Anbar province? What is happening in Fallujah? What are the Marines doing in Ramadi? They're fighting Al Qaida.

    WILLIAMS: They're trying to stabilize the environment.

    KRISTOL: They're fighting Al Qaida.

    WILLIAMS: No. They're trying to stabilize an environment so that political progress can take place, and…

    KRISTOL: And who is killing them? Whose bullets are killing these…

    WILLIAMS: Both sides are -- everybody's.

    KRISTOL: That's not true. Mostly it is Al Qaida.

    WILLIAMS: Oh, you don't believe that there are Sunnis involved, there are Shiites involved in killing Americans?

    KRISTOL: There are some Shiites involved in killing Americans.

    WILLIAMS: OK. I'm just saying…

    KRISTOL: But Al Qaida is the main enemy.

    Not to put too fine a point on this, but Kristol's just wrong. Even estimates from the Bush administration suggest that al Qaeda is a small part of the insurgency, perhaps as little as 3% to 5% of a broader Sunni-Shia civil war.

    (See why the sheep love him? AlQaida, AL qaida, Al Qaida. 3000 members in 2001, 5000 captured....still around blowing people up. Almost makes me think Chimpy wants to keep them around for a while longer)

    Kristol-""There's been a certain amount of pop sociology in America that the Shia can't get along with the Sunni and the Shia in Iraq want to establish some kind of Islamic fundamentalist regime. There's been almost no evidence of that at all. Iraq's always been very secular."

    On November 21, 2002, he maintained, "we can remove Saddam because that could start a chain reaction in the Arab world that would be very healthy."

    On February 20, 2003, he summed up the argument for war against Saddam: "He's got weapons of mass destruction. At some point he will use them or give them to a terrorist group to use...Look, if we free the people of Iraq we will be respected in the Arab world....

    March 1, 2003: "Very few wars in American history were prepared better or more thoroughly than this one by this president."

    March 5, 2003: "I think we'll be vindicated when we discover the weapons of mass destruction and when we liberate the people of Iraq."

    In anticipation of the [SCHIP] veto, William Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard, had this to say: "First of all, whenever I hear anything described as a heartless assault on our children, I tend to think it's a good idea. I'm happy that the president's willing to do something bad for the kids."

    " Scooter Libby or Karl Rove are going to be judged criminals for perhaps acknowledging her name, perhaps knowing, though there's no evidence they did, that she was a covert operative

    Bill Kristol emails to clarify that he was on the Enron advisory board for two years "I believe," for what would be a total of $100,000. That makes Kristol the biggest Enron pundit beneficiary so far

    A true con hero, ain't he?

    Posted by crabwalk at 01/01/2008 @ 08:55am

80. The larger issue is that many have accepted the conservative "Fair and Balanced" frame. This frame claims that to be fair, the media should simply report equally on what each side says and not provide any analysis.

    In this world, it makes sense to hire equal amounts of conservative and liberal pundits and ignores any sort of search for truth.

    The real fight comes down to what should the role of the media be. It should be to search for the truth to serve the public. [thereckoner.com]

    The real problem is not that the NYT is hiring Bill Kristol, but that the media is NOT doing their job in terms of trying to report the truth. Lately, it seems they just parrot back what each side says.

    Posted by dvdb at 01/01/2008 @ 1:33pm

81. Describing the New York Times or any "mainstream" newspaper as "Liberal" is always a stretch, and exists mainly in the minds of conservatives.

    Posted by P. J. Casey at 01/01/2008 @ 2:15pm

82. "If", Do you think that an election with almost no opposition candidates in a pseudo military dictatorship is going to produce something other than the pre-determined outcome?

    Posted by CRABWALK 01/01/2008 @ 08:31am

    Yeah I was giving all the possibilities a go, without specifying the probabilities Crabs, such as the x general poking his head up out of a tank in the wrong place-wrong time etc. That's the trouble with us scientific types in contrast to you artie farties we can't help thinking of all the possibilities. Happy new year anyway.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 01/01/2008 @ 5:46pm

83. The real problem is not that the NYT is hiring Bill Kristol, but that the media is NOT doing their job in terms of trying to report the truth. Lately, it seems they just parrot back what each side says.

    Posted by DVDB 01/01/2008 @ 1:33pm

    The problem with the "truth" is that often it has very little to do with the facts but, as your reference suggests, is a subjective quantity. That of course is saying that their variety of "truth" is nothing less than a propaganda tool.

    The push for a "democracy by / of the people" is not much more than a cynical ploy by ideologues and fanatics to manipulate public opinion. The beauty of representative government is that most of the voters lead enjoyable, satisfying, peaceful, lives between elections. This despite the media's obsession with thrusting politics into the faces of a largely disinterested public 24/7/365(6).

    The same cannot be said about those who would like to boost the opinions of their miniscule band of proto-fanatics by things like people led "democracy". Which sort of lovely outcomes it produces in places like Pakistan and Kenya.

    What's wrong with the media reporting the facts and leaving the development of "truth" to each person? I think the obvious answer is that the "truth" is essential to manipulate a generally politically apathetic electorate.

    In the end perhaps the safest way to accommodate those of us who tend to political fanaticism is in playgrounds like this forum.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 01/01/2008 @ 6:40pm

84. Posted by MASK 12/31/2007 @ 4:41pm

    If I had a choice between 10 public schools as they are run now and 3 schools run by someone like LVL, 3 schools run by someone like CKA2ND and four like they are run now, I'd take the latter.

    I'm not making an argument for a particular form of socialization. I'm making an argument for diversity in socialization. Not a terribly complex idea - and strangely, your own post assumes the very point I am making about the dominate culture. You should really make an effort to understand where people are coming from rather than make erroneous assumptions in your efforts to be clever.

    You probably should just ignore my comments. I don't fit into any nice stereotypes that you like to employ and given your customary framework, you would need to do a little work to understand where I am coming from - and you prefer to jump to half-baked conclusions instead.

    Posted by srjenkins at 01/01/2008 @ 10:51pm

85. Posted by LRJONES4 01/01/2008 @ 6:40pm | ignore this person

    So, gravity, is how you, float ... I presume? And the reasoning I use (to a high degree of certainty I might add), to reason you earth bound like the rest of us, or better, all non-relativistic mass in a locally curved space-time, in general, is purely ... subjective? And suffers from the vagaries of opinion, as same in regards to lets us say, American Idol?

    Either the answer is an unequivocal yes (which renders you not quite, sane), or, what you've written regarding truth, is shown to be the intellectually non-rigorous, ridiculous, dilettante, sophistry that it is. And therefore, one can take, if wise, the latter absurdity, and extrapolate to the rest of your words. Conservatism is a disease. Whose cure is some parts (perhaps equal, perhaps not ...) humanity, and character. A disease, the terminal phase of which, the end product of the malediction as it were, is you, and those like you. Poster children of what happens when opinion is allowed to run amok, so as to rule.

    In other words, and stated simply, when ignorance willful or not, becomes confused with truth, you're what happens.

    Posted by V at 01/01/2008 @ 11:50pm

86. Posted by V 01/01/2008 @ 11:50pm

    I perceive part of your problem, V, is that you have little contact with the large masses of earthlings that vote in representative democracies and hence have no idea how they think or perhaps more accurately don't think.

    I notice you were thinking in terms of what truth is in philosophical or even mathematical terms or categories. Or perhaps you were thinking more specifically of quantum mechanics or perhaps something like modal logic and you have that sort of "truth" in mind.

    The aspect of truth I was limiting myself to was factual truth. In philosophy I think you will find that it is dealt with in the "correspondence theory of truth" and though that has its limitations, for all practical purposes and for most of us, including engineers, fact-truth (in what appears to most of us as mainly an objective world) is our pre-eminent truth.

    When we come to journalism we need not be esoteric at all but think in more basic terms such as brews of facts, bullshit and lies. Today I think you will find journalistic objectivity is defined as "presenting both sides" of a particular issue, often when the journalists know there are lies, inaccuracies and BS in each side's presentation but publish on regardless Thus no one expects fact-truth from any politician today simply because journalists on the left and right are not interested in that aspect of truth. And refuse to challenge anyone on their own side of politics. Simple as that.

    ps We engineers strive for elegance and simplicity in our mathematical solutions so why don't you adopt that approach to English? Perhaps something like " Simple English Expression for American Engineers Trapped In Jargon" would be a good place to start.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 01/02/2008 @ 02:18am

87. Posted by LRJONES4 01/02/2008 @ 02:18am | ignore this person

    Thank you ... once again, this time for the roadmap of the trail you took on the way to your mind fuck. I'll leave the concept of a truth, any truth, not supported, and not reproducible from a generative system of "facts" (interesting that you choose facts and not principles, as it would be more coherent, and show a greater grasp of the subject-concept: for what its worth ...) for another time.

    What I responded to, in regards to "truth as a prism," (ignoring truth with a small "t," and narrow usage, sophistry) was indeed, and in point of fact, from the political part of said spectrum. It was a regurgitation of the Fascist propaganda, and policy, of the denial of objective truth, that caught my attention. Seemingly for one who gets out and about amongst people, you missed it's use during the Third Reich. Well, from (I could go back earlier but the point is made) Rome all the way through Napoleon (to wherever you pick it up), actually.

    Must be why you fell for, and subsequently internalized it. Perhaps it's you who should get out more?

    Posted by V at 01/02/2008 @ 10:41am

88. I thought the NYT was considered a "lefty" newspaper because it lets writers slip in their opinions into news articles not because of the op-ed pieces. When you state in a news article that Bush is a flailing piece of crap when talking about the budget that is wrong. I'll decide on my own if he is a flailing piece of crap. (P.S. The NYT never said he was a F.P.O.C. I just used it as an example)

    Posted by abell12ct at 01/02/2008 @ 10:43am

89. milquetoast-liberal version of things.

    Just remember, holding your women leaders accountable for their actions is sexist!

    Posted by MADLIB 12/30/2007 @ 9:35pm | ignore this person

    got masculinity issues, eh?

    Posted by brannigan at 01/02/2008 @ 12:17pm

90. The problem is that most public education is simply indoctrination and socialization.

    this is an assertion. unsupported by, well, anything.

    you got a dog in the race? kid in public school? spouse who is a teacher?

    my guess is you are just parroting, and haven't been near a school in some time.

    Posted by brannigan at 01/02/2008 @ 12:22pm

91. Posted by BRANNIGAN 01/02/2008 @ 12:22pm

    Let's see.

    1. Take a look at any of the public school arguments against home schooling, and you always see a conversation about socialization.

    2. Do a search in the ERIC (Education Resources Information Center) database for socialization and elementary and you will see articles with abstracts like this one:

    "The rationale for public schools has been divergently articulated around various broad themes integrated with a democratic society: economic production, socialization, integration, stability, and equality."

    http://www.eric.ed.gov/

    My guess is that your desire for me to regale you with some PTA anecdote and your questioning of something that is part of many people's justification for public school indicates an ignorance of the arguments around this issue. Having a spouse who is a teacher or a child in public school, may mean you might have more motivation to inform yourself - but then again, it very well may not.

    Oh, by the way, since you want supported assertions, care to put any facts of your own on the table? Or do you prefer to engage in guesswork about other people's motivations rather than contribute to the discussion in a meaningful way?

    Posted by srjenkins at 01/02/2008 @ 3:04pm

92. so you read one article. it's still an unsupported assertion. practical experience with students and schools would seem to be an asset in this discussion.

    it is you who has to support your assertion. the challenger gets a free ride.

    Posted by brannigan at 01/02/2008 @ 3:10pm

93. Posted by BRANNIGAN 01/02/2008 @ 3:10pm

    ...the challenger gets a free ride.

    In other words, you've got nothing. You want to sit back and take pot shots. When I point out that there is a whole database of articles and this point about socialization is a central argument in support of public schools, you want to pretend I've read one article, just like you want to pretend I have no connection to public schools.

    Apparantly, as a "challenger", you get to make all kinds of baseless claims and assertions. In other words, you want to waste my time. I'll pass, thanks.

    Posted by srjenkins at 01/02/2008 @ 5:56pm

94. Posted by SRJENKINS

    oner goddamn citation and you act like it's the old testament? get a grip. you have made an assertion, a stupid one, that's all you got.

    Posted by brannigan at 01/02/2008 @ 6:25pm

95. The problem is that most public education is simply indoctrination and socialization.

    this pretty broad and comprehensive, and bullshit.in all the schools in this country it's all indoctrination and socialization? did Maasch tell you that? whatta jerk.

    Posted by brannigan at 01/02/2008 @ 6:28pm

96. Posted by BRANNIGAN 01/02/2008 @ 6:28pm

    Have a citation for your claim that it is bullshit? I hear the challenger gets to ask the questions.

    See if you can spot the difference in these two statements.

    I said: "The problem is that most public education is simply indoctrination and socialization."

    You want me to say: "[A]ll the schools in this country it's all indoctrination and socialization?"

    It is too bad you are so quick to label people as "jerks", come-up with fantasy scenarios about their lives and misrepresent what they say because it is more difficult to actually make a cogent comment rather than sling insults. If you made an effort to articulate a point of view or offer an argument, you might learn something or teach me something. As it is, you have nothing to offer - which is rather unfortunate.

    Posted by srjenkins at 01/02/2008 @ 7:23pm

97. Dear Happy, Your jingoistic and unimaginative comments sound like the parlance of a parrot. After reading several of your posts and catching a glimpse of your politics, I have come to the conclusion that you must be either extremely wealthy, or a colossal tool! Regardless of your personal condition, remember this: regurgitation is the lowest form of intelligence buddy!

    Posted by ADHD at 01/02/2008 @ 9:00pm

98. Dear Happy, Your jingoistic and unimaginative comments sound like the parlance of a parrot. After reading several of your posts and catching a glimpse of your politics, I have come to the conclusion that you must be either extremely wealthy, or a colossal tool! Regardless of your personal condition, remember this: regurgitation is the lowest form of intelligence buddy.

    Posted by ADHD at 01/02/2008 @ 9:02pm

99. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=srjenkins

    backpedaling, are we? no wonder. that statement was pure bullshit.

    I don't know about you but I do have a kid in public school. let's see now, my kid has been earning tons of college credits while in high school.

    you do not know what you are talking about.

    Posted by brannigan at 01/02/2008 @ 10:20pm

100. you must be either extremely wealthy, or a colossal tool! Regardless of your personal condition, remember this: regurgitation is the lowest form of intelligence buddy.

     Posted by ADHD 01/02/2008 @ 9:02pm | ignore this person

     he's a wannabe, as phony as they come.

     Posted by brannigan at 01/02/2008 @ 10:25pm

101. Posted by ADHD 01/02/2008 @ 9:00pm

     Posted by ADHD 01/02/2008 @ 9:02pm

     Is your ADHD condition contagious? Shouldn't you be on Ritalin or something?

     Guess you like to regurgitate your own vomit....."Regardless of your personal condition, remember this: regurgitation is the lowest form of intelligence buddy!"

     BTW, my sympathies to you and all other afflicted w/ADHD!

     Posted by Happy at 01/02/2008 @ 10:39pm

102. he's a wannabe, as phony as they come.

     Posted by BRANNIGAN 01/02/2008 @ 10:25pm

     You're right, I am NOT yet "extremely"!

     Posted by Happy at 01/02/2008 @ 10:40pm

103. Posted by P. J. CASEY 01/01/2008 @ 2:15pm

     Describing the New York Times or any "mainstream" newspaper as "Liberal" is always a stretch, and exists mainly in the minds of conservatives.

     Uh huh. One day all us 'conservatives' just all woke up and had the same irrational decition independently and unanimously that we would call a middle of the road newspaper 'liberal' even if it really isn't. Comments like yours make no sense unless the views of those making them are so far left on the American political spectrum that 'liberal' looks right.

     Posted by pontificus at 01/03/2008 @ 12:37am

104. Posted by ABELL12CT 01/02/2008 @ 10:43am

     I thought the NYT was considered a "lefty" newspaper because it lets writers slip in their opinions into news articles not because of the op-ed pieces.

     That's certainly a big part of it, but there are other reasons. One being slanting, or emphasizing out of all proportion certain types of news (those most damaging to US interests in general, or Republicans in particular) and soft-peddling or ignoring news that redounds to their credit (e.g., success of the surge). The types of people who read the Nation, e.g., intellectual shut-ins, are very susceptible to this sort of manipulation, to the point where their views on current events rarely correspond to actual events (e.g., impeachment, outing of 'covert' agents, etc.). There are many people here who, for example, cannot understand why Bush hasn't been impeached. Pointing out to them that people do not get impeached for imaginary crimes seems to do no good, because these people are certain they read it in the NYT.

     Posted by pontificus at 01/03/2008 @ 12:45am

105. Posted by CHIP THORNTON 12/31/2007 @ 08:33am

     Katha is another fairly provincial political thinker, like Nichols. Predictable. For her its either Lib or Con, Left or Right, Black or White. There's always more to it than that, as most of us know.

     All leftist thinking is essentially provincial. It's reflected here in a myriad of ways, from the knee-jerk statism to the laughable and oft-expressed presumption that anyone who rejects liberalism is 'stoopid'.

     Posted by pontificus at 01/03/2008 @ 01:06am

106. Posted by RZS 12/31/2007 @ 7:58pm

     I'm getting a good laugh picturing you checking your stocks and wringing your hands Mr. Burns style...

     Well, thanks for the thought, but I've actually been mostly short the market for the last 3 days.

     any self respecting "liberal" doesn't give a sh*t if the times goes belly up. The times and the rest of the MSM is today what it always has been, corporate advertising delivered as news, and the more Americans turn against this colonial war in Iraq, the more the corporate interest needs a blowhard like kristol in the times op-ed column to tell us why we're wrong.

     Well, that's an interesting take on things, and based on that, I would gather that your only acceptable newspaper would be something on the order of the Socialist Worker's Daily. Hey, good luck with that.

     But actually, if you're poll following, Americans are not 'turning against' the war, they are, for lack of a better phrase, 'turning towards' it. Has something to do with the fact that we're winning it, but I guess that's news to you if all you read is the NYT and stuff to the left of it.

     Posted by pontificus at 01/03/2008 @ 01:13am

107. Posted by PONTIFICUS 01/03/2008 @ 12:37am

     One day you will wake up, I hope.

     All leftist thinking is essentially provincial.

     Pretty broad statement from a guy (?) that is wrong much of the time he shows up around here. Is that why you like Kristol, part of the Wrong Club?

     Kristol, echoed by PONTIFLOGIC whenever given the chance " "He's got weapons of mass destruction. At some point he will use them or give them to a terrorist group to use...Look, if we free the people of Iraq we will be respected in the Arab world."

     Has something to do with the fact that we're winning it

     Which is it PONTIFLOGIC, winning or won? Last month you claimed the war was won, but were still against bringing the troops home, which is the normal route a country takes after winning a war. Are you going to support Muqtada Al Sadr when he takes control of Iraq? Does the ethnic cleansing of Iraqs burroughs make you feel safer?

     And tell us again why you choose to eschew service in the battle of your generation. To afraid of fratricide? Or can't find Iraq on a map?

     Posted by crabwalk at 01/03/2008 @ 07:48am

108. What is wrong with the school system being used to teach socialization skills?

     Maybe if the fossils didn't still think the 3 "R's" actually started with R...

     Readin'

     "R-itin'

     "R=ithmatic"

     Theses are the clowns that want us to privatize everything, profit above all else, even if it means teaching that math is spelled rithmatic.

     Posted by crabwalk at 01/03/2008 @ 07:51am

109. Same clowns that think the teachers are the only problem in public schools, and don't want to pay good wages to attract good teachers.

     Posted by crabwalk at 01/03/2008 @ 07:53am

110. he's a wannabe, as phony as they come.

     Posted by BRANNIGAN 01/02/2008 @

     Spot on about HAPPYCOWARD. Ask him the same question I asked PONTIFLOGIC, why won't he go to Iraq and help them rebuild their economy, as they H and P know all about that subject.

     Posted by crabwalk at 01/03/2008 @ 07:54am

111. P. has declared the Iraq war over. what a relief. I guess John Lennon was right when he said "war is over, if you want it".

     this will come as a great balm to the soldiers who will be killed in Iraq this year.

     Posted by brannigan at 01/03/2008 @ 09:14am

112. Posted by CRABWALK 01/03/2008 @ 07:48am

     Which is it PONTIFLOGIC, winning or won? Last month you claimed the war was won,

     I realize that due to your intellectual inadequacies you require someone to actually hold up a sign that the war is 'won'. However, the world is often more complex than a NASCAR race. We have mostly won the war, it's all over but the crying from the lefties and Al Quaida. Iraq is mostly pacified, but as long as there are terrorists left in that country, no-one can say definitively that it has been 'won'. I realize that you reflexively close your ears when Bush speaks, but if you opened them, you would realize that this will go on for years.

     but were still against bringing the troops home, which is the normal route a country takes after winning a war.

     Oh really. When did we bring our troops home from Germany and Japan?

     Are you going to support Muqtada Al Sadr when he takes control of Iraq? Does the ethnic cleansing of Iraqs burroughs make you feel safer?

     So, again, you adopt the pose that because Iraq is not perfect, the whole enterprise was a failure? We should have left a psychotic mass murderer in power? Boy, you liberals sure have become less ambitious these days. I thought you folks were the 'compassionate' people?

     And tell us again why you choose to eschew service in the battle of your generation. To afraid of fratricide? Or can't find Iraq on a map?

     First, you tell me why you haven't signed up as a terrorist to put your ass where your America-hatred is?

     Posted by pontificus at 01/03/2008 @ 09:45am

113. Posted by BRANNIGAN 01/02/2008 @ 10:20pm

     I don't know about you but I do have a kid in public school. let's see now, my kid has been earning tons of college credits while in high school.

     In your child's anecdotal example has a bearing on the discussion of socialization in what way? I don't know how anything I've said could be construed as backpeddling, but I do want to thank you for putting me on ignore. You'll waste less of my time that way.

     Posted by CRABWALK 01/03/2008 @ 07:51am

     Socialization is a problem when it is done in the context of a monoculture. Ninety percent of students go to a public school. You only have to look to policies like teaching creationism, abstinence only sex education, deemphasis on topics such as geography, the recitation of the Pledge of Allegience that is just one example among many of the teaching of nationalism in public schools, etc. to see that more centralized control (such as the No Child Left Behind) added to what already spans a supposedly decentralized system in a system that reaches 90% of students, is rife with problems.

     Example: How do these children react when they see someone that has immigrated from another culture - one that is markedly different from their community? That's a function of monoculture.

     Posted by srjenkins at 01/03/2008 @ 09:52am

114. Posted by CRABWALK 01/03/2008 @ 07:53am

     Same clowns that think the teachers are the only problem in public schools, and don't want to pay good wages to attract good teachers.

     The DC Public School System absorbs over $15,000 per student from the taxpayers. They also have the worst performance in the country. Why is it you liberals can't see that spending more money isn't the answer, that your panaceas may have fundamental issues? Can't you folks see that you're blinded by your own propaganda?

     Posted by pontificus at 01/03/2008 @ 11:12am

115. Posted by SRJENKINS 01/03/2008 @ 09:52am | ignore this person

     you don't even have an anecdote. you are a fool to make such a blanket statement. period.

     Posted by brannigan at 01/03/2008 @ 11:30am

116. Posted by BRANNIGAN 01/03/2008 @ 11:30am

     I'm making an argument. Generally, refuting an argument involves casting doubt on the truth of the premises using facts or refuting the validity of the argument, i.e., asserting the conclusion does not follow from the facts.

     So far, you have wondered whether I am somehow involved in public schools (which I have ignored because it is irrelevant), offered an anecdote that has no clear relationship to the topic under discussion, socialization (also irrelevant), and proceeded to engage in name calling (again, irrelevant).

     You could have done any number of things differently. You could make this argument, which is my charitable rendering of your anecdote:

     1. My child is earning college credit in public school.

     C. My child is learning a great deal in public school.

     But you haven't addressed the socialization question. You have only asserted that learning does occur in a public school setting - which I don't even contest.

     I do contest that learning to critically think or educate (as defined as: to train by formal instruction and supervised practice especially in a skill, trade, or profession) is the primary point. I'd say there is more going on in the saying of the Pledge of Allegience, responding to bells, authoritative teacher-student relationships, standardized testing and so forth that has very little to do with "education" so defined. I'd say it has more to do with socialization, as defined as "to fit or train for a social environment".

     Now, you could argue this point. I'd be interested in seeing a good argument that says public education is focused on education. Unfortunately, you haven't bothered to offer one.

     Posted by srjenkins at 01/03/2008 @ 11:57am

117. f we could only find some conservatives to teach on college campii...

     Posted by JOMAMMA 12/30/2007 @ 10:11pm | ignore this person

     nah, conservatives are too stupid, and you're the poster child for that.

     Posted by brannigan at 01/03/2008 @ 12:00pm

118. folks, ya gotta distinguish between the Times and its op ed page. they are not the same. the paper discredited itself with Judith Miller's war jingoism, and sloppy dishonest reporting.

     Posted by brannigan at 01/03/2008 @ 12:03pm

119. as with any opinion there is the question where is it coming from.I have had a kid in public school for over a decade. in his schools there was and is far more educating than socialization.

     my question to you was do you have any personal experience with the subject: public education. or is it just an armchair opinion of one who has read one article.

     there is no pledge of allegiance in my schools, and the student body is so very diverse.

     for you to have the gall to state that in most schools there is mostly blah blah blah is just absurd. as if you know anything about most schools, perhaps not even anything about any school.

     Posted by brannigan at 01/03/2008 @ 12:28pm

120. PONTI: Iraq is mostly pacified, but as long as there are terrorists left in that country, no-one can say definitively that it has been 'won'. I realize that you reflexively close your ears when Bush speaks, but if you opened them, you would realize that this will go on for years.

     "pacified." thanks. you're right, it certainly does take years to overthrow and pacify a sovereign nation. Long live the Queen...I mean Bush.

     We'll be there until we've pumped all the oil we can out from under them...then it's back to whatever "psychotic mass murderer" happens to rise from the ashes, and we as a nation will collectively turn our backs and say that we tried (with Christian zeal) to help them, but those damn arabs are too unruly, they just can't fathom democracy.

     PONTI: Oh really. When did we bring our troops home from Germany and Japan?

     germany and japan launched wars of imperial expansion without military provocation...Iraq did not. The US; however, has done just that. This war is one of economic survival, as the most powerful nation of this century will be the one with the biggest stick in the middle east oil fields. Cheney knows this, and I suspect you do too. So please, for all of our sakes, spare us the righteous comparison to the greatest generation and call it what it is.

     Posted by rzs at 01/03/2008 @ 12:36pm

121. But actually, if you're poll following, Americans are not 'turning against' the war, they are, for lack of a better phrase, 'turning towards' it. Has something to do with the fact that we're winning it, but I guess that's news to you if all you read is the NYT and stuff to the left of it.

     an illegal (by UN standards anyway) war is still an illegal war. Does it make people who are sending their family members over there to fight feel better that the news coming back is less dire? sure. does that equal agreeing on the principle of the war? don't think so.

     Posted by rzs at 01/03/2008 @ 12:50pm

122. Posted by RZS 01/03/2008 @ 12:36pm

     germany and japan launched wars of imperial expansion without military provocation...Iraq did not.

     Iraq didn't? have you told the Iranians and Kuwaitis that?

     The US; however, has done just that.

     Done what? Annexed Iraq? When did that happen?

     This war is one of economic survival, as the most powerful nation of this century will be the one with the biggest stick in the middle east oil fields. Cheney knows this, and I suspect you do too. So please, for all of our sakes, spare us the righteous comparison to the greatest generation and call it what it is.

     Where do you learn this blather?

     Posted by pontificus at 01/03/2008 @ 1:10pm

123. Posted by RZS 01/03/2008 @ 12:36pm

     "pacified." thanks. you're right, it certainly does take years to overthrow and pacify a sovereign nation. Long live the Queen...I mean Bush.

     A 'sovereign nation'? Are you saying that Saddam Hussein is the legitimate ruler of Iraq?

     We'll be there until we've pumped all the oil we can out from under them...

     You mean they can't do it themselves?

     then it's back to whatever "psychotic mass murderer" happens to rise from the ashes, and we as a nation will collectively turn our backs and say that we tried (with Christian zeal) to help them, but those damn arabs are too unruly, they just can't fathom democracy.

     Pure speculation?

     Posted by pontificus at 01/03/2008 @ 1:13pm

124. Posted by RZS 01/03/2008 @ 12:50pm

     an illegal (by UN standards anyway) war is still an illegal war.

     So, you mean that we should subordinate our national security concerns and our electoral process to an organization that consists 90 percent of unelected thugs? Where did you come up with THAT brillinant idea? And if it's 'illegal', why don't you call the cops? Come on, admit you just made up that 'illegal' bit because it sounds good.

     Does it make people who are sending their family members over there to fight feel better that the news coming back is less dire? sure. does that equal agreeing on the principle of the war? don't think so.

     As far as I know, no-one can 'send' their family members into the military. Don't soldiers have to enslist themselves? What families do you know of that 'send' their sons and daughters to Iraq?

     Posted by pontificus at 01/03/2008 @ 1:16pm

125. Posted by RZS 01/03/2008 @ 12:50pm

     an illegal (by UN standards anyway) war is still an illegal war.

     We're supposed to be concerned about an organization that puts the worst human rights violators in the world in charge of the UN Human Rights Commission? Geez, you lefties sure are funny people. Not too bright, but funny, and not in a good way.

     Posted by pontificus at 01/03/2008 @ 1:29pm

126. Posted by RZS 01/03/2008 @ 12:36pm

     We'll be there until we've pumped all the oil we can out from under them...

     This statement is just SO FUNNY it deserves further comment. I have no idea what you mean to imply by this absurd statement. Are you saying that without the US, the Iraqis would hoard all that precious oil for themselves, keeping it off the world markets so that they can remain poor but virtuous desert nomads, thus preserving the view from Berkeley and similar precincts? That now that the US has invaded Iraq, every barrel of oil that comes out of Iraqi ground will now be stamped with 'US OIL - HANDS OFF!', making it unsuitable for use by any other nation? Really, the stupid provincial naivete seasoned with mindless anti-capitalistic jingoism of you guys just cracks me up to no end.

     Posted by pontificus at 01/03/2008 @ 1:41pm

127. Posted by BRANNIGAN 01/03/2008 @ 12:28pm

     You have experience with one child in your local school district. Can you state a percentage of schools, nationwide or in your state, that do say the Pledge of Allegience? How about standard diversity levels, nationwide or in your state?

     If we want to focus on your school district, want to venture a guess at how much time is spent in preparation for standardized testing? What's the typical class size? Amount spent per student? Drop-out rates? How do these compare to the average both for the state and the nation?

     See, we are talking about public education - in general. Not public education in your school district. Fine to offer it as a counter-example - particularly if you can indicate that you live in a typical public school district, with no special funding, but it's small support for what little argument you are offering.

     I'm not going to engage in swapping anecdotes with you about your school district versus mine. Both are irrelevant in this discussion.

     My argument is clear. You are not bothering to offer much beyond a vague ad hominum, so I'm going to move on. Have a good day.

     Posted by srjenkins at 01/03/2008 @ 1:50pm

128. See, we are talking about public education - in general.

     you have offered nothing except one article. wow. get lost you creep.

     Posted by brannigan at 01/03/2008 @ 2:16pm

129. Posted by PONTIFICUS 01/03/2008 @ 1:41pm

     so...why are we there?...nukes? maybe it was Operation Iraqi Freedom? or was it to stamp out terrorism? I get confused sometimes. Look, it is what is is, all I'm asking is for patriotic capitalist "democracy"-spreaders like you to drop the self-righteous raa-raa act and look in the mirror. What we want in the middle east is capitalism on an uneven playing ground backed up by military muscle if needed. So if we've apparently decided to form "coalitions of the willing" to start pre-emptive wars to this end, then we don't get to hold onto the notion that we are for the "rule of law" and "liberty." We are for tipping the scale in our favor for the next 50 years or so, that's it.

     Posted by rzs at 01/03/2008 @ 2:48pm

130. Posted by PONTIFICUS 01/03/2008 @ 1:41pm

     hey, ponti:

     here's something off topic, just to drive you crazy.

     http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119931092799363233.html

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/03/2008 @ 5:04pm

131. Posted by RZS 01/03/2008 @ 2:48pm

     so...why are we there?...nukes? maybe it was Operation Iraqi Freedom? or was it to stamp out terrorism? I get confused sometimes.

     We were there for a number of good reasons. First, Saddam violated his peace treaty, which he signed after we kicked him out of Kuwait, an event you seem to have forgotten. Second, there was the infamous WMD which everyone thought he had. Third, there was the fact that he was a mass-murdering psycho. Fourth, after 9/11, Bush and the American people who voted for him made the explicit policy decision that we could no longer allow people like Saddam to operate freely when we had the justification and the ready means to take him out easily, which we did. If you bothered to read anything on the pre-invasion debate, you would know all of these things instead of being confused, as so many posters here are.

     Look, it is what is is, all I'm asking is for patriotic capitalist "democracy"-spreaders like you to drop the self-righteous raa-raa act and look in the mirror. What we want in the middle east is capitalism on an uneven playing ground backed up by military muscle if needed. So if we've apparently decided to form "coalitions of the willing" to start pre-emptive wars to this end, then we don't get to hold onto the notion that we are for the "rule of law" and "liberty." We are for tipping the scale in our favor for the next 50 years or so, that's it.

     This is mostly nonsense. We are not there, and never were there, to 'spread capitalism' by putting together 'coalitions of the willing'. The reasons for the war were as outlined above. If people like myself were in favor of taking out ruthless dictators in order to spread liberty and the rule of law, we'd be in favor of taking over Cuba and North Korea. As worthy as those goals are, and as big an improvement in the world as it would make, it's not worth a single American soldier's life without a better reason.

     Posted by pontificus at 01/03/2008 @ 8:35pm

132. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/03/2008 @ 5:04pm

     Hey FROSTY, I'm sure you Canadians do lots of good things up there, my point was that most of the things you rely on, from the PC you use to write your anti-capitalist screeds to the screen you stare at, to the cell phone you use, the medical technology that keeps you alive...it was all invented by a profit-motivated capitalist. The fact that you fail to see that is one of the great mysteries about you and the left in general. Just as mysterious as the fact that you deplore America in so many ways because of the institution of slavery that was abolished here over 150 years ago, yet you have not a shred of similar outrage for slave societies in Cuba and North Korea that exist today. That's what I find so absurd about you my friend.

     Posted by pontificus at 01/03/2008 @ 8:39pm

133. Posted by PONTIFICUS 01/03/2008 @ 8:39pm

     dude,

     i don't deplore america. i make my living playing american music.

     and capitalism is o.k. (for now); it's greed that i find abhorrent. and greedy capitalists have hijacked u.s. foreign policy to the detriment of too many innocent people for too long.

     i don't agree that the cubans are enslaved. i've known many and not one ever mentioned anything of the sort.

     north korea is a different story.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/03/2008 @ 10:07pm

134. Posted by PONTIFICUS 01/03/2008 @ 8:39pm

     Drug makers spend more on marketing than research: study

     Thursday, January 3, 2008 | 10:15 AM ET

     CBC News

     U.S. drug companies spend almost twice as much on marketing and promoting medications than on research and development, a new Canadian study says.

     "These numbers clearly show how promotion predominates over R&D in the pharmaceutical industry, contrary to the industry's claim," the authors write in this week's peer-reviewed journal Public Library of Science Medicine.

     Using data from two market research companies, the University of Quebec's Marc-André Gagnon and York University's Joel Lexchin found U.S. drug companies spent $57.5 billion US on promotional activities in 2004 compared with $31.5 billion on research and development.

     ah, the benefits of capitalism (this is just pure greed)

     http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2008/01/03/drugs.html

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/03/2008 @ 10:48pm

135. north korea is a different story.

     Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/03/2008 @ 10:07pm | ignore this person

     they are not slaves. slavery has been well defined by many, many people over many centuries.

     Posted by brannigan at 01/03/2008 @ 11:38pm

136. When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."

     that's Pontwhatever, and his ilk.

     Posted by brannigan at 01/03/2008 @ 11:43pm

137. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/03/2008 @ 10:48pm | ignore this person

     this not exactly hot news down here in the US, but nice try.

     Posted by brannigan at 01/04/2008 @ 12:21am

138. Posted by BRANNIGAN 01/04/2008 @ 12:21am

     wow. you are a caricature.

     Posted by frosted zoom at 01/04/2008 @ 12:28am

139. First, you tell me why you haven't signed up as a terrorist to put your ass where your America-hatred is?

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 01/03/2008 @ 09:45am |

     Mooooron. Knee jerk reaction from an ideologue.

     The policies you support have lead to an increase of Islamic terrorism.

     Germany, Japan...sure ponti. Tell me how many US soldiers have died at the hands of the inhabitants of those two countries. What a leap in PONTIFLOGIC. But, I know, I know, it is just like WWII, isn't it. Except that WWII had an end.

     First, Saddam violated his peace treaty, which he signed after we kicked him out of Kuwait, an event you seem to have forgotten. Second, there was the infamous WMD which everyone thought he had. Third, there was the fact that he was a mass-murdering psycho. Fourth, after 9/11, Bush and the American people who voted for him made the explicit policy decision that we could no longer allow people like Saddam to operate freely when we had the justification and the ready means to take him out easily, which we did. If you bothered to read anything on the pre-invasion debate, you would know all of these things instead of being confused, as so many posters here are.

     I hardly know where to start, as most of this has been shown to be so much propaganda already.

     Saddam violated a treaty, so we violate our treaty to got "get" him. Sound logic. Is Kuwait now a democracy, did I miss something? Didn't they promise to become a democracy after they were freed from the yoke of a dictator? Shall we reinvade to free the slaves of Kuwait?

     Only frightened sheep were concerned about non-existant wmd's. Millions of people knew he did not have them.

     Mass murdering [psycho- Lots of those around, but are we invading Burma, Sudan, Kenya, Chad, the Congo, N. Korea? oh wait, here is the answer in PONTIFLOGIC-taking over Cuba and North Korea. As worthy as those goals are, and as big an improvement in the world as it would make, it's not worth a single American soldier's life without a better reason.

     We "took out Saddam easily", but that was not the whole deal, was it, PONTI? We have not provided the citizens of Iraq with a stable functioning guvt, after almost 5 years. The US instituted a policy that has lead to the deaths of between 700,000 and 1,000,000 Iraqis.

     Great Plan.

     Posted by crabwalk at 01/04/2008 @ 07:52am

140. PONTI, why don't you list the number of US soldiers that fought in the European and Asian Theaters during WWII, compared to the number of troops that have been kept in those countries since the armistices were signed.

     Compare that ratio to the number of troops in Iraq from 2003 till now.

     Get it?

     I doubt it.

     Also, Google "mukasey appoints prosecutor" and then tell us all about the newest "democratic witch hunt" going on in DC.

     osted by BRANNIGAN 01/03/2008 @ 11:43pm

     Thats pontiflogic, words mean what he wants them to, not generally accepted definitions.

     Posted by crabwalk at 01/04/2008 @ 07:59am

141. FZ, the neo-cons don't know the meaning of the word "greed".

     Again, in the neo-con world, competition is good, consolidation is better.

     Posted by crabwalk at 01/04/2008 @ 08:01am

142. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=crabwalk

     good posting all around. see my Alice in Wonderland quote in regards to Ponz and others

     Posted by brannigan at 01/04/2008 @ 08:03am

143. Pfizer laid off one of the chemists that invented Lipitor, but kept paying millions to the CEO. They got over a 50% tax abatement from the City of ann Arbor, refused to enter into a "draw back" agreement, which would have paid back some of the taxes if they withdrew from A2, then they withdrew from A2, still paying one CEO more than they pay in property taxes.

     Corporate welfare Queens.

     Posted by crabwalk at 01/04/2008 @ 08:21am

144. see my Alice in Wonderland quote in regards to Ponz and others

     Posted by BRANNIGAN 01/04/2008 @ 08:03am

     osted by BRANNIGAN 01/03/2008 @ 11:43pm

     Thats pontiflogic, words mean what he wants them to, not generally accepted definitions.

     Posted by CRABWALK 01/04/2008 @ 07:59am

     Posted by crabwalk at 01/04/2008 @ 08:23am

145. Great interview on Fresh Air yesterday, with the author of "Free Lunch". Tells how the "free market" has been jiggled to consolidate wealth at the top.

     Question to the neo-cons, if 1/2 the wealth in the country has been generated since Raygun left office, how come the distribution of that wealth has been one-sided?

     Posted by crabwalk at 01/04/2008 @ 08:28am

146. Posted by CRABWALK 01/04/2008 @ 08:28am

     Great interview on Fresh Air yesterday, with the author of "Free Lunch". Tells how the "free market" has been jiggled to consolidate wealth at the top.

     What's 'Free Lunch'; a gathering place for society's losers to commisserate and tell each other how they got screwed?

     Question to the neo-cons, if 1/2 the wealth in the country has been generated since Raygun left office, how come the distribution of that wealth has been one-sided?

     Because the bottom half of this country consists of whiny little losers like you, CRABBIE, who instead of learning how to make a good living, sits down and cries about how everybody else is making more than him and wants the government to do something about it.

     Posted by pontificus at 01/04/2008 @ 10:56am

147. Posted by CRABWALK 01/04/2008 @ 07:52am

     We have not provided the citizens of Iraq with a stable functioning guvt, after almost 5 years.

     Oh, waaah waaah waah. Shit, the Democrats haven't provided the District of Columbia with a stable functioning Public School system, either. So what? You'd rather have a mass-murderer in charge of Iraq, that's your standard? God your crying is getting tiresome.

     The US instituted a policy that has lead to the deaths of between 700,000 and 1,000,000 Iraqis.

     Horseshit. More imaginary, made-up numbers. Go screw yourself.

     Posted by pontificus at 01/04/2008 @ 11:26am

148. Posted by CRABWALK 01/04/2008 @ 08:21am

     Corporate welfare Queens.

     CRABBIE, I recommend that you and your lefty friends, if you have any, should institute a boycott of Lipitor, and any other drug, as a matter of principle, until they meet your arbitrary and shifting criteria for acceptable corporate behavior. Maybe you can confine yourself strictly to successful drugs created by Canada, England, and any other country with socialized medicine. Deal?

     Posted by pontificus at 01/04/2008 @ 11:43am

149. First, Saddam violated his peace treaty, which he signed after we kicked him out of Kuwait, an event you seem to have forgotten.

     did he invade another state? Did he have WMDs? Did he even harbor terrorists? Nope.

     Second, there was the infamous WMD which everyone thought he had.

     by "everyone" I assume you mean you and maybe riobravo? Not even Powell believed that load when he was selling it to the UN. come on.

     Third, there was the fact that he was a mass-murdering psycho.

     absolutely. there are mass-murdering psychos all over the globe, but for some reason (?) we just can't let Saddam get away with it...what on earth could it be that makes his special brand of psycho so abhorrent to the good-hearted people of this country? Some psychos we ignore, some we even endorse, it's all about the economic situation and the alternatives.

     Fourth, after 9/11, Bush and the American people who voted for him made the explicit policy decision that we could no longer allow people like Saddam to operate freely when we had the justification and the ready means to take him out easily, which we did.

     explicit policy decision. explicit policy decisions involving invasion and military occupation of another nation (as terrible as it may be) without military provocation is code for ulilateralism and imperial expansion.

     If people like myself were in favor of taking out ruthless dictators in order to spread liberty and the rule of law, we'd be in favor of taking over Cuba and North Korea. As worthy as those goals are, and as big an improvement in the world as it would make, it's not worth a single American soldier's life without a better reason.

     Let's see, North Korea: WMDs, check. Violations of peace treaties, check. Mass-murdering psycho leader, check. Non-renewable dwindling natural resource that fuels our economy...nope.

     Posted by rzs at 01/04/2008 @ 12:28pm

150. Posted by RZS 01/04/2008 @ 12:28pm

     by "everyone" I assume you mean you and maybe riobravo? Not even Powell believed that load when he was selling it to the UN. come on.

     By 'everyone' I mean every major Party leader on both sides of the aisle. How does Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, and every other major Democratic Party leader strike you? Want some pre-invasion quotes from them?

     absolutely. there are mass-murdering psychos all over the globe, but for some reason (?) we just can't let Saddam get away with it...what on earth could it be that makes his special brand of psycho so abhorrent to the good-hearted people of this country? Some psychos we ignore, some we even endorse, it's all about the economic situation and the alternatives.

     I told you the reasons before, you keep ignoring them. The fact that there is oil under Iraq may have something to do with it, but it is only one reason of many. You keep insisting that it's the ONLY reason. Your thinking in this regard is unbalanced.

     Posted by pontificus at 01/04/2008 @ 12:38pm

151. did he invade another state? Did he have WMDs? Did he even harbor terrorists? Nope.

     I'll ask you again, are you saying that the rightful leader of Iraq was unlawfully deposed by the US? Are you saying that in a just world, Saddam would still be ruling Iraq?

     Saddam invaded both Kuwait and Iran. He started a war with Kuwait that eventually involved the entire world. He used poison gas on his own people and the Iranians, and he stated his intention to build a nuclear bomb, and he violated on numerous occasions the inspection provisions contained in the post-war peace treaty. What else do you want?

     Posted by pontificus at 01/04/2008 @ 12:42pm

152. Should I also mention, for the nth time, that it is a mass-murderer and torturer you are defending? Does that even matter to you?

     Posted by pontificus at 01/04/2008 @ 12:44pm

153. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/03/2008 @ 10:48pm

     Drug makers spend more on marketing than research: study

     The lefty argument against advertising is as old as Das Kapital. And just as debunked. No one completely understands the function of advertising in society, FROSTY, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Most if not all the major drugs are created in profit-driven societies with free markets where money is 'wasted' on marketing efforts. Your socialized systems are just parasitic in terms of medical advances. If the whole world adopted socialized medicine, there wouldn't be a single major medical advance.

     Posted by pontificus at 01/04/2008 @ 12:49pm

154. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/03/2008 @ 10:48pm

     You know, FROSTY, you really ought to sit down and think about this. If the world depended on countries with socialized medicine to create medical advances (or any other technological advance, for that matter), the world would go begging. As I have tried to impart to you on so many occasions, the very things you hate most about capitalist societies are those that make them superior to yours. Rail against your favorite whipping boy, greed, all you want, but it is as much a part of human nature as any other vice including lust, gluttony, etc., and just as inherent.

     Posted by pontificus at 01/04/2008 @ 12:52pm