Kristol to war critics -- just shut up
By Libby Spencer
Bill Kristol is feeling the heat from the multitude of critics holding his feet to the fire over his ill-advised escalation cheerleading. He whined on Fox News yesterday morning that the critics of his scholarly thought are "irresponsible," which perhaps is destined to become his new catchword now that his usual slur of "unserious" has been flogged to near-death:
I would go on a long rant about how nearly everyone with a large forum has been quietly, or loudly, supporting the occupation for the last four years and about how only the most deluded, or those with the most face to lose over being completely wrong, are unwilling to admit things aren't going as well as promised. And not even the strongest critics have ever expressed a wish that we would lose in Iraq. Critics of the policy have merely been asking, for a very long time, for a reasonable definition of what would be considered winning. However, Mr. Williams has kindly put Mr. Kristol in his place for us:
Indeed, that bogus and unfair claim has been repeated endlessly these many, many months to deflect the very serious questions from the critics about the failed policies that Kristol and his ilk have tirelessly promoted. Why bother to answer the questions when you can smear the critic and simply move on to the next meaningless platitude about freedom on the march and a turning point just around the next corner?
Kristol was wrong from the beginning and he continues to compound his errors by refusing to admit the flaws in his theories. If it was only Kristol's reputation on the line, perhaps one wouldn't bother to even respond, but this man has the president's ear and his words don't only affect his paycheck, they put the lives of thousands of troops in danger. If anyone is being irresponsible, it's Kristol for putting his own self-interest above the greater good for our troops and our nation.
But what more can one expect of a man who has been coddled since birth and shielded from the consequences of his actions. As Glenn Greenwald points out in an illuminating post, Kristol and others in his cabal like Fred Kagan have been led by the hand throughout their entire lives by their parents.
They've never had to make it on their own merits, nor worry about their future or whether they'll have enough money in the bank to pay their bills this month. Like any child, they grew up wanting to be exactly like Daddy (or Mommy). In a five-year old, that's really cute. For grown men to become mirror images of their parents, it not only implies a lack of imagination and initiative, it's a little creepy.
But as long as men like Kristol are given credibility and a forum by our MSM on account of their parents' connections, they will continue to "lead" our policy. And that's just plain frightening.
(Cross-posted at The Impolitic.)
Bill Kristol is feeling the heat from the multitude of critics holding his feet to the fire over his ill-advised escalation cheerleading. He whined on Fox News yesterday morning that the critics of his scholarly thought are "irresponsible," which perhaps is destined to become his new catchword now that his usual slur of "unserious" has been flogged to near-death:
[Yesterday] morning on Fox News, Weekly Standard editor William Kristol said that opponents of escalation in Congress are “leap-frogging each other in the degrees of irresponsibility they’re willing to advocate.” Kristol said, “It’s just unbelievable... It’s so irresponsible that they can’t be quiet for six or nine months,” adding, “You really wonder, do they want it to work or not? I really wonder that.”
I would go on a long rant about how nearly everyone with a large forum has been quietly, or loudly, supporting the occupation for the last four years and about how only the most deluded, or those with the most face to lose over being completely wrong, are unwilling to admit things aren't going as well as promised. And not even the strongest critics have ever expressed a wish that we would lose in Iraq. Critics of the policy have merely been asking, for a very long time, for a reasonable definition of what would be considered winning. However, Mr. Williams has kindly put Mr. Kristol in his place for us:
NPR’s Juan Williams told Kristol his analysis was “totally ahistorical,” and pointed out that yesterday was the deadliest day for U.S forces in Iraq in two years. “There’s something going on here you might pay attention to as opposed to just the politics of, ‘If you don’t support this president, you don’t really want us to win.’”
Indeed, that bogus and unfair claim has been repeated endlessly these many, many months to deflect the very serious questions from the critics about the failed policies that Kristol and his ilk have tirelessly promoted. Why bother to answer the questions when you can smear the critic and simply move on to the next meaningless platitude about freedom on the march and a turning point just around the next corner?
Kristol was wrong from the beginning and he continues to compound his errors by refusing to admit the flaws in his theories. If it was only Kristol's reputation on the line, perhaps one wouldn't bother to even respond, but this man has the president's ear and his words don't only affect his paycheck, they put the lives of thousands of troops in danger. If anyone is being irresponsible, it's Kristol for putting his own self-interest above the greater good for our troops and our nation.
But what more can one expect of a man who has been coddled since birth and shielded from the consequences of his actions. As Glenn Greenwald points out in an illuminating post, Kristol and others in his cabal like Fred Kagan have been led by the hand throughout their entire lives by their parents.
They've never had to make it on their own merits, nor worry about their future or whether they'll have enough money in the bank to pay their bills this month. Like any child, they grew up wanting to be exactly like Daddy (or Mommy). In a five-year old, that's really cute. For grown men to become mirror images of their parents, it not only implies a lack of imagination and initiative, it's a little creepy.
But as long as men like Kristol are given credibility and a forum by our MSM on account of their parents' connections, they will continue to "lead" our policy. And that's just plain frightening.
(Cross-posted at The Impolitic.)
posted by Libby Spencer at
9:22 AM
5 Comments:
Perhaps too, as long as we think we can counter the damage done by the right wing media by explaining their misstatements, correcting their errors and expressing our outrage, we are doomed to the domination of the reactionaries.
It's no secret that the Republicans opened the door to monopolistic practices and have been fighting to open it wider. Unless we control the ability of wealthy special interests to own the news and increase the ability to call the media to account for spreading outright slander and libel without any attempt at fairness, we will only get more and more
By
Capt. Fogg, at 9:38 AM
Libby: thanks for the post, good read.
Also, I'd like to repeat my congratulations: congrats for becoming a co-blogger at The Reaction. I always enjoy your posts, even though our political views might differ on quite some occasions ;)
Congrats and keep it up.
By
Anonymous, at 2:40 PM
Another excellent post, Libby. I think this is the last time I'll leave a comment to that effect, because at this point, I think it clearly just goes without saying. And that Glenn Greenwald post you linked to is interesting reading.
By
., at 10:21 PM
And what do you think of Mr. Kristol, Heraclitus? If I'm not mistaken, you and I have both had the opportunity to see him close up.
By
Michael J.W. Stickings, at 11:46 PM
Yes, I remember seeing and listening to Mr. Kristol. At the time, I thought more highly of him, and was somewaht impressed/relieved to find that he wasn't as ideological as I had expected, and even used most of his direct references to Bush to mock him. There were the obvious jokes about Bush not being to bright, and the jokes about the not-so-obvious fact that the Bushies were still holding it against him that he and TWS supported McCain early in the Republican primaries in 2000, which is presumably why poor little Kristol was stilling languishing at TWS, rather than having another great job like chief of staff to Dan Quayle.
Since then, though, I've come to despise Kristol completely, and all the more so because he is cynical and his incessant cheerleading for Bush is simply lying for personal and professional gain. He's one of the few neocons, in or out of government, not to have abandoned the Iraq War as a thoroughly botched debacle, which says more about his own ego and narrow and grasping ambitions than anything else. If Wolfowitz and Perle can say mea culpa, you'd think Kristol could.
Last year, the office I worked in had a subscription to TWS. Every week, their cover story was just mindless and slavish fellating of whatever power grab the Bushies were attempting. I remember the cover I found most annoying -- a black and white picture of a man listening to an old-timey wall phone, with the headline "Let's hear it for wire tapping!" ("hear it"-- get it?). They're stuck in that late-90s, Patio Man, we're the outsider frat boys speaking truth to power tone of flippancy and glibness. And, supposedly, everything changed on September 11th. In fact, they're maybe the only ones who haven't changed, and Kristol's one of the most callous and feckless in his attitudes towards teh war in Iraq. A plague on his house.
By
., at 4:51 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home