Elephant Dung #13: Beck and Kristol trade insults over Egypt

Tracking the GOP Civil War

By Michael J.W. Stickings

(For an explanation of this ongoing series, see here. For previous entries, see here.)

The right has had a hard time figuring out where to stand on the situation in Egypt.

Or, rather, it has had a hard time coming up with a unified position, simply because there isn't one, what with some conservatives backing Mubarak (and U.S.-friendly dictatorships generally), some of them because they support Israel no matter what and Israel backs Mubarak, others lashing out against Islam as the great threat to America and asserting, without a shred of convincing evidence (the Muslim Brotherhood is not evidence), that the pro-democracy movement in Egypt is basically Iran-style Islamism, others, on the other side, still buying into Bush's democracy-promotion agenda and approving the prospect of change in Cairo.

Conservatives like to stick together. You know, like with "taxes are bad," "abortion is wrong," etc. The Iraq War ultimately exposed huge fault lines on the right. And now, with Egypt, conservatives are actually coming to blows, including two of the most prominent, Krazy Bill Kristol and even crazier Glenn Beck:

Fox News's Glenn Beck lashed out at Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol on his radio show this morning, accusing Kristol of betraying conservatism and missing the significance of what Beck sees as an alliance between Islamism and socialism.

"I don't even know if you understand what conservatives are anymore, Billy," Beck said in his extended, sarcastic attack on Kristol. "People like Bill Kristol, I don't think they stand for anything any more. All they stand for is power. They'll do anything to keep their little fiefdom together, and they'll do anything to keep the Republican power entrenched."

Kristol this weekend took Beck to task for the latter's skepticism of the Egyptian uprising:

When Glenn Beck rants about the caliphate taking over the Middle East from Morocco to the Philippines, and lists (invents?) the connections between caliphate-promoters and the American left, he brings to mind no one so much as Robert Welch and the John Birch Society. He's marginalizing himself, just as his predecessors did back in the early 1960s.

Kristol's words drew an approving nod from National Review's Rich Lowry, a rare public repudiation of the influential Fox host from a conservative elite that quietly dislikes him. 

And all this at the time of the Reagan birth centennial. What was that about some 11th commandment?

Now, there's really no contest between Kristol and Beck. Kristol's a smart guy who often knows what he's talking about, while Beck is paranoid and insane. And Kristol is right that Beck is "marginalizing himself" with this conspiracy-theory nonsense. It's good to see that Kristol, a vicious Republican operative who has never shied away from spewing nonsensical and utterly ridiculous talking points, isn't even pretending to play along with Beck.

But, you know, Beck is sort of right, too, isn't he? I mean, Kristol may talk principle but he's really all about power, about getting Republicans elected and keeping them there. Think back to the '90s, when he was the source of the Republican opposition to "Hillarycare," all because he didn't want Bill Clinton to have a victory on a key, and historic, social policy issue.

And yet Kristol isn't necessary all about power. He isolated himself in 2000, for example, with his support for the renegade John McCain and he has certainly spent much of his career in Washington, and inside Republican circles, pushing a specific neocon agenda, specifically around a neocon view of American global hegemony. That's about power, too, but national rather than personal, and I suppose Kristol has at times been willing to run counter to the prevailing winds in the Republican Party, even if, in public at least, he is generally a good team player.

Anyway, it's fun to see these two go after each other. And yet it's not just about two prominent conservatives trading insults, it's about a serious divide on the right, with Republicans unable to land on a coherent message, let alone one they can all agree with.

The situation in Egypt will slowly drift away from American consciousness and will likely have no play at all in next year's Republican primaries, but this divide and others will remain, and deepen, and Republicans, divided against themselves, might just unravel into all-out civil war.

Enjoy.

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:

[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.)

Irving Kristol (1920-2009)

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Irving Kristol, father of Bill and one of the founders of neoconservatism, has died at the age of 89. You can find obituaries, among other places, at the Times and the Post, as well as from Robert Kagan (a close friend of Bill and a leading neocon) and John Podhoretz (son of Norman, another founding neocon, at Commentary, one of the key neocon publications).

I usually find myself in opposition to neoconservatism, and hence I usually found myself in opposition to almost everything Kristol stood for. Indeed, I consider neoconservatism a reckless, insensitive, and at times, as during the Bush II presidency, insane ideology. It was the ideology behind the Iraq War and Occupation (through not just Bill Kristol but, more directly, Paul Wolfowitz), after all, not to mention behind the promotion of American global hegemony (through PNAC, the Bill Kristol- and Kagan-founded think tank). It has also been one of the leading ideologies behind regressive right-wing social policy in reaction to LBJ's Great Society initiatives of the '60s, as well as to the civil rights movement. It is more open, to be sure, than more traditional conservatism -- such as the paleo-conservatism of William Buckley and National Review -- not least with respect to its strong support for Israel, an area where I find some common cause with the neocons (even if I'm hardly as extremist in this regard), but, whatever its initially more radical origins (it grew out of the leftist politics of the City College of New York, for the most part), and however much it offered, early on, a useful critique of liberal public policy, it ultimately devolved into a core plank of the Republican coalition. In this respect, while Irving was a Republican, he was nothing like his son, who has spent his post-academic career as a partisan hack (and not nearly enough as an intellectual), and as an extremist who seems to lack the skepticism and flexibility of the earlier generation (even though, in supporting McCain, he has occasionally found himself in opposition to the Republican establishment).

I have not always been so opposed, however. Back in high school and college, when I was fairly conservative, I came to admire Kristol and the early neocons a great deal. Some of them, of course, didn't veer off to the right and embrace Republican politics, but, regardless, what I admired was their ardent intellectualism, their respect, so much at odds with so much of contemporary conservatism, for ideas. And I respected Kristol, in particular, for his adherence to the political philosophy of Leo Strauss (I studied with Straussians and still consider myself a Straussian, albeit a liberal one -- see here and here) and his admiration for Matthew Arnold, the 19th-century British poet and literary critic who is a hero of mine and on whom I focused my studies in graduate school. I moved away from Kristol -- and from neoconservatism, and from conservatism generally -- many years ago, but I suppose some of that early respect has remained ever since. Even in disagreement, usually strong, I have taken him seriously as a thinker, he and the first generation of neocons. (I've also always admired his wife, the historian Gertrude Himmelfarb, who has written extensively on the Victorian period.)

I highly recommend Kristol's Reflections of a Neoconservative: Looking Back, Looking Ahead (1983), which I first read as an undergraduate at Tufts in a research seminar on post-war American political thought. It's not easy to find, but it's worth the effort. I also recommend Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea (1995). If you want to know more about neoconservatism, why not go back to the source?

Irving Kristol was one of the giants of American conservatism, a true man of ideas who contributed a great deal to enlightened political discourse. Our thoughts go out to his friends and family, including to those with whom we disagree, on the other side of the partisan divide.

A few words on Bill Kristol

By Heraclitus

No, not that guy. Bill Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, neo-con talking head, Bush suck-up. Our excellent new co-blogger Libby Spencer wrote a post about Kristol recently, and in the comments Michael reminded me that he and I both saw Kristol speak in Toronto a few years ago, and asked my opinion of him. I responded rather tartly, as is my wont, and Michael recommended I put my acid-tongued reflections up here as a post. And, since he's the Editor and Founder around these parts, I will of course comply. So here they are (though I have softened my initial conclusion, which really wasn't very nice at all).

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 being none too bright, and the jokes about the not-so-obvious fact that the Bushies were still holding it against Kristol that he and TWS supported McCain early in the Republican primaries in 2000, which is presumably why poor little Kristol was still 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 precisely because he is so 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 acknowledged that the Iraq War is a thoroughly botched debacle, and accordingly to abandon it, 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 wiretapping!" ("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 the war in Iraq. Feh.

Krazy Bill Kristol heads to WaPo

By Michael J.W. Stickings

If you haven't yet, make sure to check out Mustang Bobby's great post from this morning on Krazy Bill Kristol and the occasion of his last column for The New York Times. The Times, like Time before it, dumped Kristol following a relatively brief op-ed tenure writing what Steve Benen rightly calls "misguided, predictable, and dull columns" -- not to mention blooper-filled.

But it looks like we'll still have Kristol to kick around -- and not just because he still has The Weekly Standard and his regular gig on Fox News, platforms of right-wing prominence that allow him to spew his misguided and predictable, not to mention dull, views. No, Kristol, it seems, is taking his neocon delusions to the Post -- The Washington Post, that is -- where he'll be an "occasional contributor," perhaps even a monthly columnist.

Benen: "In what universe does the nation's second most prominent newspaper decide it wants to pay and publish the failed cast-off of its chief rival? In most careers, falling up isn't this easy. If you keep getting fired for poor performance, it's usually difficult to find new companies willing to pay you to do the same job."

Not so for Kristol, who has not just right-wing media outlets but some of the country's (and the world's) most prominent publications lining up for his services (and providing a safety net time and time again).

But, then, should we be surprised by his latest career development? No. After all, while the Post is without doubt one of America's leading newspapers, its op-ed page is hardly a bastion of balance, let alone of liberalism, and its editorial content has shown a similar, if less blatant, tilt to the right. Even in a more minor role, Kristol joins two of the right's leading commentators, George Will (twice-weekly) and Charles Krauthammer (weekly), as well as ex-Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson (twice-weekly). Another giant of the conservative punditocracy, Bob Novak, was a prominent figure at the Post until his recent illness, Kristol's fellow neocon Robert Kagan was a sometime contributor, Editorial Page Editor Fred Hiatt has been an establishmentarian Bush apologist (and is a pretty awful pundit generally), David Broder (twice-weekly), the so-called "dean" of the Washington press corps, is a GOP-friendly centrist, if not right-leaning altogether, David Ignatius (twice-weekly) is an establishmentarian insider, and Robert Samuelson (weekly) is a right-leaning economist.

And who do the liberals have? Richard Cohen (weekly), a blithering idiot? Anne Applebaum (weekly), a sober analyst who writes about foreign affairs? Okay, there's E.J. Dionne (twice-weekly), who's pretty good, if very much a centrist (the Dems need to expand their appeal to the right), and Eugene Robinson (twice-weekly), a solid liberal and frequent MSNBC talking head, as well as Fareed Zakaria, the CNN host/commentator, who runs the Post's PostGlobal with Ignatius and who is somewhat liberal in foreign policy terms, but that's about it. Michael Kinsley doesn't even write there anymore.

The problem with the Post is not just that it tilts right editorially but that, editorially, it is part of -- and, indeed, at the very center of -- the Beltway media machine. And, contrary to the right's rhetoric of victimization, that media machine is driven not by liberal bias, which is a myth, but by conservative spin (and the almighty dollar, that is, by the twin interests of media conglomerates who run the machine and the well-paid, sometimes millionaire members of the machine, the celebrity hosts and journalists and commentators and analysts who populate the major outlets, print and TV alike). And that spin, that aggressive push for "fairness" and "balance," pulls the media machine ever more to the right, so that what we end up with, or at least what we have now, for it seems to be getting worse, is what we find at the Post -- and that is, a major newspaper with an abundance of conservatives and conservative-leaning voices, a few centrists who pass for liberals in a right-leaning climate, and a couple of genuine liberals who aren't nearly as prominent as their conservative counterparts (nothing against Robinson, but he's hardly a Will or a Krauthammer, or a Kristol, in terms of stature).

And now, as if to drive the point home, the Post has hired Kristol, the fired failure of Time and the Times, for no other purpose at all, it would seem, other than to do what he does best, which is to spew Republican partisanship and neocon delusions and to pollute our minds with more misguided, predictable, and dull columns.

(Photos: The New York Observer and Hoffmania.)

Krazy Kavalier Kristol

By Michael J.W. Stickings

From TP: Yesterday on Fox News -- where else? -- Krazy Kristol argued that "the surge clearly is working" and that it should continue, with current troop levels, for "another six months," perhaps even "another year or so" (note the "or so" -- it could mean anything, but what it certainly means is open-ended war, a war with no end in sight).

In so arguing, and in maintaining a degree of hawkishness that is truly insane, Kristol finds himself in opposition not just to many in his own party, not just to the overwhelming majority of the American people, but to the intelligence community (the NIE asserts that the surge is clearly not working) and the military (which recognizes, and worries about, the strain that comes from overextension).

As TP reminds us, "Kristol has never served in the military and was one of the most cocksure voices pushing for the current escalation strategy" -- he was pushing war with Iraq, and American hegemony generally, long before Bush embarked on this disaster of a war in the Middle East. It is awfully cavalier of someone who has never gone to war to be such a warmongers -- and particularly at this stage of such a disastrous war. It is easy enough to go on TV, the friendly confines of Fox News, and call for war and more war, endless war -- what is the risk, that he could further damage his credibility? It is much more difficult, one imagines, to call for war when you yourself, or your loved ones, would be put in harm's way. Which is why I have a great deal more respect for John McCain than for Bill Kristol.

Kristol wants six more months or another year, or more, of this war, of this occupation. But what of the lives he so cavalierly puts at risk? What of those troops, those men and women with loved ones back home, those men and women who are living with the daily strain of war and who have seen their tours of duty extended?

What of them, and what of the Iraqis? No matter, Kristol is hardly in a position to understand the human cost of war.

He might as well be playing Stratego -- the object: American (and Republican) hegemony.

Does this mean that no one who hasn't been to war, or whose loved ones haven't, should support war? No. What it means is that one shouldn't be so cavalier about it.

But that is precisely what Krazy Kristol has become. He has been wrong about this war all along -- just as he has been wrong about American foreign and military policy for even longer. And he wants more of it. He will continue to be wrong, but he will continue to flourish on Fox News, where being wrong comes with the territory.

Which, on its own, wouldn't be so bad: a lot of people are wrong about a lot of things. But what is so bad about this is that this war isn't a game -- the troops, the civilians, the "enemy," however defined, aren't pieces on a board to be moved around and put in harm's way, and sacrificed, for the sake of the larger goal of winning the game, no matter what.

(And if you don't win, so what, you just start over -- Iran?)

Bill Kristol has become one of the war's most appalling advocates. And he is only getting worse.

The failures of Krazy Kristol; or, why he should be fired from the NYT

By Michael J.W. Stickings

At The New Yorker, George Packer makes a strong case for firing Krazy Bill Kristol from the Op-Ed page of The New York Times:

It's time for the newspaper to move on. For Pinch Sulzberger and Andy Rosenthal to renew Kristol's one-year contract, in 2009, would be for the Times to reward failure -- and look where that got Wall Street and General Motors. It's not just that Kristol isn't another Safire (although an absence of verbal playfulness and wit is a consistent hallmark of the Kristol prose style). It's not just that his views are utterly predictable (if that were firing grounds, close to half the Times columnists would lose their jobs). It's not just that he was fundamentally wrong at least every other week throughout the year (misattributing a quote in his first column, counting Clinton out after Iowa, placing Obama at a Jeremiah Wright sermon that Obama didn't attend, predicting the imminent return of a McCain adviser named Mike Murphy who ended up staying off the campaign, all but predicting a McCain victory, sort of predicting that McCain would oppose the bailout, praising McCain's "suspension" of his campaign as a smart move, preferring fake populism to professional excellence and Joe the Plumber to Horace the Poet, urging Ayers-Wright attack tactics as the way for McCain to win, basically telling McCain to ignore all the advice Kristol had given him throughout the year, but above all, vouching again and again and again, privately and publicly, for Palin as an excellent Vice-Presidential choice). What the hell -- it was an unpredictable year.

The real grounds for firing Kristol are that he didn't take his column seriously. In his year on the Op-Ed page, not one memorable sentence, not one provocative thought, not one valuable piece of information appeared under his name. The prose was so limp ("Who, inquiring minds want to know, is going to spare us a first Obama term?") that you had the sense Kristol wrote his column during the commercial breaks of his gig on Fox News Sunday and gave it about the same amount of thought.

For what it's worth, I could not agree more. Most of my opposition to Kristol is political and philosophical, but, those differences aside, I have found his Times columns -- to the extent that I even bother to read them -- to be consistently poor. Simply put, he has been an embarrassment. If the Times really wants another conservative to pontificate alongside David Brooks, I'm sure there are far worthier choices out there. At least they can pick one who isn't a partisan hack.

The transparent insincerity of Krazy Bill Kristol, partisan hack

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I've met Krazy Bill Kristol a couple of times. I've even spoken to him about my academic work (long story -- one of my teachers at the Univ. of Toronto was one of his teachers at Harvard). He's not a stupid man. Sure, he's a partisan hack with a whole lot of neocon fervor, and I think he's wrong about just about everything, but I'm not about to ridicule him for lack of intellectual capacity, even if he deserves a whole lot of ridicule for just about everything he says and writes and, well, is.

And I've been deeply critical of him here at The Reaction. In fact, I think we all have.

And sometimes, or a lot of the time, it's just so transparently obvious what he's up to, as he spews arguments that are just plain stupid. Like, for example, this, from earlier today:

There's a really big snowstorm coming to D.C.tonight. It would be unsafe to ask all the staffers and Hill employees who'd be needed at the Capitol if Congress stays open all hours this weekend, as Harry Reid intends, to drive to and from work -- especially since many will have to do so at night, and they won't be well-rested. So from the point of view of public safety and personal well-being, Ben Nelson can do everyone a favor, announce today he won't vote for cloture, and let everyone stay home this weekend.

Furthermore, Harry Reid is maniacally insisting on a Christmas Eve vote on a bill whose final text no one has seen yet. So from a good government point of view, Nelson can say that he feels he has to be against cloture.

And of course there's no need to vote in December rather than January or February -- it's just that Reid fears the already unpopular bill can't stand up to more public examination and debate. So from the point of view of respecting democracy and the American people, Nelson can insist that he needs time -- once we have Reid's text -- to go back to Nebraska and have some town meetings to let his constituents' voices be heard.

Two things:

1) Kristol has nothing positive to add to the health-care reform debate. He's just against it. And, to that end, the end of killing it altogether, he's all for obstructing and delaying as much as possible. So if there's no need to vote in December, there's no need to vote in January or February, or perhaps at all next year, and so on and so on. The "argument" is absurd. At some point a vote needs to be held. Why not this month? Oh, right, because the bill will likely pass and there will be actual reform. That's what Kristol knows and fears. There's still work to be done, not least winning the support of Nelson and Lieberman, but we're almost there. Unlike last time, with Hillarycare, Kristol has lost, and he knows it.

2) Kristol likely doesn't give a shit about the welfare of Hill staffers, or at least not much of one. So his deep concern for their safety at this time of impending snowstorm is obviously insincere. He just wants any excuse to delay the vote, which is why he's pushing Nelson to make a decision now. As Jon Chait notes sarcastically, "Kristol is a man of ideas, not some hack who marshals any available argument that serves his political ends." And as Chait correctly points out, if the roles were reversed, Kristol wouldn't be pushing for everyone to be sent home ahead of a key vote. Kristol's "argument" is so stupid and so insincere, and so obviously so, it isn't possible to take him at all seriously. Yeah, yeah, we know he's against reform, and we know he badly wants Nelson to side with the Republicans. So then just say it and don't bullshit us with "the point of view of public safety and personal well-being."

No, he's not a stupid man. He knows full well what he's doing and what's going on. But he really does write and say some appalling stupid things. In fact, he's made a highly lucrative career of it.

An excuse for war: Neocons and the Iranian hostage crisis

By Michael J.W. Stickings

As Libby mentioned yesterday, neocon leader Bill Kristol has argued that Iran should have been threatened with war over its capture of 15 British sailors and marines. Although he talks about avoiding war -- the only way to avoid war is to be tough, he suggests -- what he actually supports is a policy of threat-based engagement with Iran that could, and perhaps should, lead to war. Does Kristol think the U.S. should go to war with Iran? How could such reckless engagement not be taken to be a prelude to war? If he supports being tough, he must support following through on the threats and going to war.

Regardless, Kristol thinks that the hostage crisis, including apparently its diplomatic resolution, was "a real humiliation for the British" that also "strengthened the worst forces in Iran by making them think they can push the West around". And he's not alone. Others on the right, the neocon right, have made that very same point. One of them is noted Kristol cause célèbre John Bolton.

In a piece in the Financial Times, also published at the AEI website -- I will mention a few points here, but do check it out for further insight into the neocon mind -- Bolton argues that the release of the hostages, Iran's "gift," was "a political victory" for Iranian President Ahmadinejad and other Iranian hardliners: "Against all odds, Iran emerged with a win-win from the crisis: winning by its provocation in seizing the hostages in the first place and winning again by its unilateral decision to release them." He claims that "the incident was deliberate and strategic," "a low-cost way of testing British and allied resolve".

In Bolton's view, the British and the allies failed that test. Bolton blames the British for "surrender[ing] without a shot fired in self-defence". He blames Prime Minister Blair for not being confrontational and for pursuing "discussions" with Tehran. He blames the United Nations and the European Union for doing nothing. And he blames the U.S. for remaining silent, though it did so, as he acknowledges, "at Britain's behest".

The result is an "emboldened" Iran -- "it probed and found weakness." And "[t]he world will be a more dangerous place as a result". After all, "it is even less likely there will be a negotiated solution to the nuclear weapons issue," and Iran now "has every incentive to ratchet up its nuclear weapons programme, increase its support to Hamas, Hizbollah and others and perpetrate even more serious terrorism in Iraq".

Let me make two points in response:

1) Iran may or may not feel "emboldened," but the fact remains that the 15 sailors and marines were returned safely to Britain. Either diplomacy ("discussions") worked or Iran realized it couldn't hold them indefinitely without suffering the consequences of what could be deemed an act of war. Either way, Britain achieved its desired outcome without resorting to the threat of war and consequentially to an escalation in its already tense relationship with Iran, or to another act, such as the threat of further sanctions, that could have contributed to escalation.

Kristol and Bolton, inter alia, may argue that Britain (and, with it, the U.S.) should have been tougher with Tehran, but what would this have meant? Aside from risking the lives of the 15 sailors and marines, a tougher response would have contributed to an escalation of the situation. Yes, Iran started it -- the capture of the sailors and marines was a blatant act of escalation -- but it hardly follows that a reckless act should be followed by a reckless response. If that's the game, then war is inevitable. And, indeed, that seems to be precisely what Kristol, Bolton, et al. want. But, again, what should Blair have done? Should he have threatened a military strike on Iran? Should he have made the first move? It's one thing to threaten -- and it ought to be remembered that many of those pushing for war have never actually been to war, hence the term "chickenhawk" -- it's quite another to follow through on threats. What if Iran hadn't blinked in response to a threat? Or what if Iran had responded to a threat with yet more escalation?

And yet I have no doubt that Britain considered all options, including the ones that would have appealed to Kristol, Bolton, and their ilk, before choosing to pursue "discussions" and asking the U.S. to back off. It presumably chose a course of action that it deemed to be most likely of success (the release of the hostages and the peaceful resolution to the crisis). It may be easy to second-guess world leaders like Blair from the cozy confines of the AEI or PNAC, but the real world, which neocons tend to see as some sort of lab experiment for the realization of their armchair ideology, is rather more complex than their worldview can handle.

2) Bolton argues that Iran will now be less likely to accept "a negotiated solution to the nuclear weapons issue". He qualifies this, however: "not that there was ever much chance of one." This is revealing.

Kristol, Bolton, and their warmongering allies do not think that a diplomatic resolution to the Iranian nuclear crisis is possible. They may talk about peace, but they envision a future, a near-future, of war. The U.S. "came closer to war with Iran this week," as Kristol put it, but they do not lament that fact -- if indeed it is a fact. They see war with Iran as inevitable and they desire war sooner rather than later. Which is to say, they have every interest in promoting escalation. They wanted Britain and the U.S. to be tough on Iran in response to the hostage crisis not because such toughness would prevent war in the long-run but because it would accelerate the escalation to war in the short-run.

In short, they want an excuse for war. This is why they played up those unsubstantiated allegations that Iran was arming Iraqi insurgents and militias. This is why they play up the threat of Iran's nuclear program. And this is why they find such fault with how the Iranian hostage crisis was handled and resolved. It was just the sort of excuse they were looking for.

Krazy Kristol -- a new series

By Michael J.W. Stickings

One of our favourite targets here at The Reaction is neocon extraordinaire Bill Kristol, son of Irving. (Even though Heraclitus and I are just two degrees of separation away from him academically. But let's not go there.)

You can find our myriad posts on the K-man here, but, if I may, I would direct your attention specifically to this one by Heraclitus, this one by Libby, and this one by me.

Anyway, I'll turn this installment of Krazy Kristol -- surely a new and ongoing series here, now with a catchy name of its own -- over to Isaac Chotiner, who wrote this on Monday at The Plank under the transparently facetious title "Kristol's Wisdom":

Bill Kristol, who has lately been intent on proving you can make a lucrative career out of being right less often than a broken clock, valiantly defended Lewis Libby on Fox News Sunday yesterday. According to Kristol, Patrick Fitzgerald decided to go after "Scooter" instead of other members of the administration (like Ari Fleischer) because of the former aide's hawkish stance on Iraq. During the discussion Kristol made this remarkably inane point:

Ari Fleischer is the president's personal press secretary. He's at the same level in the White House as Scooter Libby. They're both assistants to the president. Ari Fleischer, in some ways, is closer to the president than the vice president's chief of staff. I was a vice presidential chief of staff and I sure wasn't as close as Marlin Fitzwater was to President Bush.

Ah yes, Kristol's time as Dan Quayle's "brain" is a good analogy to Libby's role in the current White House. Quayle and Cheney had approximately the same influence with their respective presidents, after all.

One should not be surprised that the founder of a think tank pompously and self-aggrandizingly called the Project for the New American Century, as well as one of the Iraq War's most ardent cheerleaders, would have such a sizeable ego. Even being wrong so often isn't enough to deflate it.

Kristol the Killer: Inside the right-wing agenda to destroy health-care reform

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Back in the early '90s, Bill "Krazy" Kristol helped coordinate the Republican effort to kill what the right-wing smear machine called "Hillarycare." He's back at it in 2009, leading the crusade against "Obamacare," and, in The Weekly Standard today, he lays out his strategy bluntly:

With Obamacare on the ropes, there will be a temptation for opponents to let up on their criticism, and to try to appear constructive, or at least responsible. There will be a tendency to want to let the Democrats' plans sink of their own weight, to emphasize that the critics have been pushing sound reform ideas all along and suggest it's not too late for a bipartisan compromise over the next couple of weeks or months.

My advice, for what it's worth: Resist the temptation. This is no time to pull punches. Go for the kill.

The Obama White House and the Democratic congressional leadership shouldn't be underestimated. They're tough. They'll cut deals and twist arms to try to keep their priority legislation alive. They'll certainly attack their opponents, whether their opponents' tone is conciliatory or confrontational.

So this is not the time to let them off the ropes. This is the week to highlight every problem, every terrible provision, in the Democratic bills: from taxes and spending to government control and rationing to federal funding for abortion and government-required death-with-dignity counseling sessions for the elderly. Throw the kitchen sink at the legislation now on the table, drive a stake through its heart (I apologize for the mixed metaphors), and kill it.

Then opponents can say, of course we do want to pass sensible health reform. But to do so, we need to start over.

So the constructive part of the message would be: Start Over. We're not giving up on health reform...

And so on. The title of his post says it all: "Kill It, and Start Over."

Kristol doesn't pull any punches here. Writing at his neocon homebase, he's free to let it all hang out -- and it does. And it's helpful for us, who oppose Kristol and his ilk, to be able to see right into the dark core of their moral and ideological extremism.

The key message is "Kill It," not "Start Over." Do we honestly believe that Kristol wants to start over, that he genuinely wants to see meaningful health-care reform passed? The only reform he wants is more of the same, reform that further supports the private interests -- HMOs, Big Pharma, etc. -- that control America's sinking health-care system, profiting grossly while millions and millions remain uninsured or otherwise unable to access the care they need, including for their children.

And do we honestly believe that Kristol wants to work on "sensible and targeted health reform in a bipartisan way"? Sure, if "sensible and targeted" means keeping the status quo (making it even more difficult for low- and middle-income Americans to access quality care, making the system even more profitable for private interests), and only if "bipartisan" means "Republican."

What this post reveals is just now partisan, in both political and ideological terms, the right is. And this ought to be a warning to those in the pro-reform camp, including moderate Democrats, who think that bipartisanship is a possibility. However desirable it may be to secure Republican support for a meaningful reform bill, after all, one that includes a robust public option, the fact is, Republicans, led by the likes of Bill Kristol, aren't serious about, and aren't soon about to get serious about, working constructively with Democrats. They are obstructionists, it's that simple, and their delay tactics aren't about pushing some viable alternative to "Obamacare" but about killing reform altogether.

That is their goal, and they are adamant about it. It will take all of our strength to fight back against them, and to achieve our goal, a genuinely American goal, of quality health care for all Americans, not just for the lucky few -- like Kristol himself -- who can afford it.

Krazy Kristol and the Powell distraction

By Michael J.W. Stickings

On Fox News yesterday -- where else? -- Krazy Bill Kristol announced that Bush I loyalist and former Bush II secretary of state Colin Powell is going to endorse Obama at no less a venue than the Democratic convention in Denver later this month.

In response -- or, rather, in refutation -- Powell himself announced that he was not even going to the convention and that Krazy Kristol's announcement was simply wrong: "I do not have time to waste on Bill Kristol's musings. I am not going to the convention. I have made this clear."

In general, I think we should all avoid wasting time on Krazy Kristol's musings. He's a cynical partisan hack -- a propaganda-spewing bullshitter -- a walking, talking, living, breathing ulterior motive. Unfortunately, though, he's rather influential, a prominent neocon voice that speaks from prominent media platforms, including the NY Times, and cannot so easily be ignored.

So what's he up to here, given that it's wise not to take anything he says at face value?

Of course, Powell could be the one misleading us here. It's possible. It's not like he's ever been the most straight up guy in Washington. Maybe he intends on making a surprise appearance at the convention, an appearance that would genuinely wow the media. Maybe he intends on endorsing Obama after all, a very damaging endorsement for McCain. Hey, maybe he'll be Obama's running mate. It's possible.

But not likely. Powell is an egotistical opportunist, but he's also exceedingly cautious (except, presumably, when he's at the U.N. making fabricated cases for war) and exceedingly loyal (it's not like he's been harshly critical of Bush II and the conduct of the Iraq War and Occupation). And it just wouldn't be like him to break ranks, both with his party and with his former superiors, and endorse Obama at such a prominent event. Afterwards, maybe, once the campaign is underway in earnest, but not at the convention.

On this, I tend to think that Andrew Sullivan may be right:

It's too ballsy a move for Powell. I'm also inherently suspicious of Kristol's motives. If Powell were considering such an endorsement, Kristol would do all he can to derail it. Prematurely leaking it, creating a fire-storm and forcing Powell to deny is one way to pre-empt such a move. It's vital for the neocons to prevent Obama gaining traction with serious foreign policy machers.

I also agree with Andrew that a Powell endorsement of Obama would make sense: "Powell understands how deep a hole the US is in internationally, and how only Obama truly has a chance to get the country back on its feet. It's the impulse of a patriot. And maybe the smears have made him mad."

Maybe, but Powell has already had ample opportunity to express whatever anger and frustration he is feeling. And we haven't heard much from him. I doubt that "the smears" have finally pushed him over the edge. Also, I just don't think he's such a determined patriot. His primary impulse is military-style loyalty, not patriotism. Why else would he have done the Bushies' bidding for so long? He may have reasoned that he was doing right by his country all along, but he must have known, at least at some level, that what was right for the Bushies was hardly right for the country. Either that or he was delusional all along.

Regardless, I would welcome a Powell endorsement of Obama -- mainly because he was with the Bushies for so long and because he remains, undeservedly, an immensely credible figure in American politics -- I just don't see it happening. Or, at least, certainly not at the convention.

Which leaves us with Krazy Kristol and his ulterior motives. He has set his propagandistic sights on Powell, and there is fear behind his kraziness.

Yes, Virginia, even sadder, Little Billy Kristol is going to the NYT

By J. Thomas Duffy

Boy, our poor little Christmas girl can't catch a break.

First, we have to confirm to her that Yes, Virginia, There Is, Sadly, A William Kristol ..., and now this drops on her.

The Huffington Post is reporting that Little Billy Kristol will be taking his craziness to the pages of the New York Times (Bill Kristol To Become New York Times Columnist In 2008), only a week after Time Magazine gave him the boot.

I suppose this was inevitable.

A great deal of Bush Grindhouse water has pooled up since Judy Miller left, so the NYT had a need for another water carrier, someone with a big bucket, someone with "Big Lying" credentials.

Apparently, David Brooks wasn't up to snuff, or that his "body language" thing has even creeped-out his co-workers.

Jonah Goldberg is currently unavailable, too busy sticking his head up his own ass.

They probably could have reached out and pulled in Coltergeist, but why risk seeing the building explode into flames?

Someone should go check on Arthur Schulzberger Jr., just to make sure he didn't hit his head on a SUV sunroof lever.


Bonus Bad News Billy Links

Anonymous Liberal: Kristol's Secret to Success

Anonymous Liberal: Bill Kristol: Pundit Superstar

Creature/State of The Day: The post in which my head explodes

Crooks and Liars: Bill Kristol is rewarded for being “wrong” on everything: NY Times gig is a comin’

Crooks and Liars: Bonus Bill Kristol Highlight Reel

It Takes A Neocon To Raise A Legacy ... They're Drinking The Kool-Aid Again ...

Of Legacy Maintenance - And Corrections! ... David Corn's "REBUTTAL - Why Bush Is A Loser"










(Cross Posted at The Garlic)

Krazy Kristol and the Dominatrix: The neocon extraordinaire swoons before Sarah Palin

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I'm still feeling unwell today, and my fragile states of mind and body weren't helped when I made the mistake of reading Krazy Kristol's "column" in the Times this morning. I put quotation marks around column because it isn't really a column at all but rather, like so much of his blather, a self-serving, self-aggrandizing tripe. Kristol may or may not be an intelligent man -- I've met him a couple of times and spoken to him briefly on one occasion, and I would say he is, but he has let partisanship and self-advancement get the better of him -- but what he churns out for America's paper of record is embarrassingly bad (which is to say, the Times should be embarrassed to have him on their pages).

Today's "column" -- "The Wright Stuff" -- is about Palin, or rather his own infatuation with Palin, and the "advice" he gives her. What it reveals about him, with respect to her, is that he is both her teacher and her obedient slave. As is the case with other right-wing males, like Sean Hannity and Rich Lowry, the attraction is deeply sexual. He longs for her, or at least places her on a pedestal, acting the lustful sycophant eager to please. As Tom Perrotta wrote in Slate recently, Palin is "the sexy puritan," "a powerful new christian right archetype." She's an ideal, and Kristol, a Jew who supports a party that espouses Christian theocracy, is at her feet.

But of course he also has advice to impart, and his advice fits with where the McCain campaign is right now: Go negative, go nasty, smear Obama, now! Over the weekend, Palin herself accused Obama of "palling around with terrorists," specifically William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn of the Weather Underground. Needless to day, it's a false charge, but it's one she's continuing to make. This isn't enough for Kristol, though, who, in his "hard-hitting" phone conversation with Palin -- yes, this is what passes for the "new" Sarah Palin's engagement with the media -- suggests that she go after Obama over Rev. Jeremiah Wright. (Hence the title of the column. This is what it's all about.) And Palin bites: "To tell you the truth, Bill, I don't know why that association isn't discussed more."

Why? Because it's done, over. Because Hillary exhausted the issue during the primaries. Because Obama gave a brilliant speech back in March distancing himself from and denouncing his former pastor -- and pointing the way forward on race. Because in April McCain himself criticized the North Carolina GOP over an ad linking Obama to Wright.

But times have changed. Obama is well ahead in the polls, the focus is on the economy, McCain's desperate, and Palin's playing the attack dog. What does she know about Wright or Ayers? Nothing. She's being fed smears and eagerly lapping them up and regurgitating them at every possible opportunity.

This is what the McCain campaign wants, to shift the race away from the economy, to turn it into a culture war in microcosm, a character clash, with McCain the war hero and POW (as we are constantly reminded, because he really does exploit his past for personal gain), along with Palin the all-American hockey mom, up against Obama the dangerous, uppity black guy with the imposing black wife and the Muslim middle name who hangs out with terrorists and hates America, along with Biden the consummate Washington insider. And, of course, the likes of Krazy Kristol are all-too-eager to help out.

No matter that Palin has her own problems, not least with the Alaska Independence Party and Thomas Muthee, not to mention with her long record of corruption and cronyism in Wasilla and Juneau. The facts don't count here, just the smears, and, with McCain clearly unable to win the election on the issues (because the people are against him on the issues), there will a concerted effort over the next four weeks to tear down Obama.

Expect much more of the same from Sarah Palin. And from Krazy Kristol.

Nothing new here

By Mustang Bobby

I used to think that when William Kristol wrote for the New York Times, the pressure of turning out a weekly column explained his carelessness and inanity. But now that he's writing monthly for the Washington Post, it's apparent that it wasn't the tight deadline that was to blame; his vapidness and silliness are timeless.

Take for example his column today in which he lists the ways to play "D" -- as in defense -- against President Obama (isn't that cute; he's learning basketball lingo to show he's tragically hip). He lists five areas of attack -- all starting with "D": debt, defense, diplomacy, detention, and docs (health care) -- that he thinks the Republicans can use to win back seats in Congress and the hearts and minds of the public, and he admits it won't be easy.

No, the payoff from a policy confrontation with Obama won't be immediate. The economy appears to be set for a short-term uptick. Obama remains popular. Many of his proposals look superficially attractive. But we haven't yet had a thorough airing of their implications, to say nothing of their real-world consequences if they are enacted.

So one should assume Obama will stay strong through the summer and perhaps even the fall. But 2009-10 could be the winter of Obama's discontent. Republicans should be making the case against Obama's policies now so that citizens know whom to blame next year.

Apparently Mr. Kristol hasn't been paying much attention since January; the Republicans have blamed Mr. Obama for everything from winter weather to the flat tires on their golf carts, and all they've done is make themselves look petty and childish in the process. As for Mr. Kristol's checklist, the Republicans have so far been unable to come up with a plan for any of his "vulnerable" spots other than to say No. The GOP leadership acts as if the massive debt and economic slide was caused by somebody other than eight years of profligacy under the Bush administration, and the defense budget was stretched to the limit by trying to fight two wars, one of which was started on lies and demagoguery. Mr. Kristol's idea of diplomacy seems to be that anything short of a polite "Bite Me" to the world is appeasement, and that keeping Gitmo open is a shining example of American justice that even the North Koreans are leery of. As for health care, Mr. Kristol's biggest worry is that the Obama administration will have learned something from the Clinton administration's failure in 1993-1994 and actually get something passed. Mr. Kristol, you'll recall, led the fight against those reforms not because he was concerned about the health care system but because he was afraid that if it actually worked and millions of Americans stopped worrying about their skyrocketing medical bills and how to pay for them, it would be bad news for the Republicans at the polls.

That's the crux of Mr. Kristol's arguments for his fellow Republicans: don't bother to come up with any new ideas; just oppose all the ones the president puts out there. He may think that will work politically -- as if he's been so right in the past -- but if he's going to use the basketball metaphor, then he should remember that you don't score the most points while you're on defense; you do it on offense. I'm surprised he doesn't know that; he and the GOP have been really offensive lately.

(Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Why does anyone listen to Bill Kristol?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Politico:

Once again, Bill Kristol gets his way — and once again, watch out.

For two consecutive presidential cycles now, the founding editor of the Weekly Standard has successfully led the conservative media drumbeat for a bold vice presidential pick: In 2008, he fervently supported and promoted Sarah Palin for months before the country even knew her name. In 2012, he urged Mitt Romney to "go for the gold" with Paul Ryan.

Obviously, it wasn't just Krazy Kristol. Ryan was being promoted by any number of conservatives, most of whom were uncomfortable with Romney to begin with and had gotten worried because of recent polls showing Romney falling back.

Ryan's the right-wing ideologue of their wildest fantasies, a devotee of Ayn Rand who hopes to turn the federal government into a thing of the past. The only thing that could make Kristol ejaculate even harder would be for him to advocate the immediate carpet-bombing of Iran.

But Kristol swung and missed and tore every ligament in his body with Palin in '08. Ryan may not be another Palin, not quite, but there's no way the American people are buying his far-right agenda, and conservatives like Kristol are delusional if they think they have the electorate on their side. (Which is why they try to keep the devilish details of their plan secret. Get elected on a platform of vagueness, then unleash the revolution. That's their key to success.)

It seems to me that when Kristol recommends someone, you should run as fast as possible the other way.

Mitt Romney, needless to say, didn't get the message.

Yes, Virginia, there is, sadly, a William Kristol ...

By J. Thomas Duffy

Oh, boy ... Like you couldn't see this one coming down the turnpike, pedal-to-the-metal and the high beams on ...

Christ, even a young toddler, that still believes in Santa Clause, knew, instinctively, this would be coming.

Gen. David Petraeus, Man of the Year; Time magazine got it wrong

Little Billy Kristol is all plump-in-the-crotch with this one.

"We are now winning the war. To say this was not inevitable is an understatement ..."

"Petraeus pulled it off. The war is not over, of course. Too quick and deep a drawdown--which some in the Pentagon and elsewhere in the Bush administration are, appallingly, pushing for--could throw away the amazing success that has been achieved. Still: It is as clear as anything can be in this world, where we judge through a glass darkly, that General David H. Petraeus is, in fact, America's man of the year.

What, exactly, has Petraeus, or us, won?

There's a lull in the action and OMG!, the surge worked.

Pardon me, if we wait and let all the sand fall through the hourglass.

There's still a pretty huge shoe - and we're talking gargantuan-sized clown shoes here - that will "inevitably" drop, namely, what happens to all those former insurgents that Petraeus armed - intentionally (and the ones he armed unintentionally) - when they decide to switch back to be regular old insurgents again?

Or they don't like a certain Iraqi politician? Or they don't like what's being served for lunch at the local deli?

Sounds like Little Billy Kristol is pushing for a Mission Accomplished II (which I suppose we get both Bush and Cheney in flightsuits) and a Wall Street-Ticker-Tape parade for the Golden Boy General.

I'm sure this will be a heavily-buzzed topic of conversation on the next Weekly Standard cruise (the Ad hanging over Little Billy's love note) and, who knows, maybe the victorious General will be on-board as well.

Can't you just see The General pulling some aging neocon out of the audience, one poured into the tuxedo bought thirty-years ago, to give some razzle-dazzle demonstration of "the surge"?

The neocons, freakshow and dittoheads on board will eat it up like happy soup. There'll be shouts from the crowd for Petraeus to run for the Senate, run for President. Surely, if he can "win Iraq", he can easily knock some sense into Washington.

Quickly, the crowd will begin foaming, delirious that are in the same room with the Golden Boy General, and it won't be long before the catcalls come for a "surge into Iran".

And Little Billy Kristol crashes through the swinging doors, all dolled up in his little cheerleading uniform and ... Well, let's not go there ... It would take us into a Russ Meyer-Meets-Tim Burton-Meets-David Lynch-Meets-John Waters-thing and that is too sick and twisted to conjure up, even for a satire piece ...

Suffice it to say Little Billy Kristol will have boatloads of more columns calling for war and destruction.

It is, he will argue, the American way.

Cleaning Up Little Billy Kristol Droppings

Think Progress: Time drops Kristol, Krauthammer

Juan Cole: A surge of phony spin on Iraq - Bush's backers are peddling a sunny view of the president's strategy -- despite Iraq's political chaos and soaring death counts

The PetraeusReportpalooza ... Ready For Your Close-Up, General?

Of Legacy Maintenance - And Corrections! ... David Corn's "REBUTTAL - Why Bush Is A Loser"

Where's Ernest Borgnine when you need him?
















(Cross-posted at The Garlic.)

A krazy pardon

By Michael J.W. Stickings

More from Krazy Kristol:

In a piece in The Weekly Standard, the neocon rag of which he is the editor, Bill Kristol argues that Bush should pardon Libby... now.

The trial "should not have been brought in the first place," and Libby (like "any Bush-Cheney official") never stood a chance in a D.C. court. Moreover: "There was no underlying crime and Libby was not responsible for the appearance of Valerie Plame's name in Robert Novak's column." Therefore:

And now is the time for it. If the president does intend to pardon Libby, there is no reason to wait. The president will learn nothing important about the case during the appeals process that he doesn't already know... The argument for continuing to stay out of it is presumably that the verdict could be overturned on appeal, and Bush wouldn't have to make a tough decision. But the core of the injustice -- that the case was brought at all -- was produced by a dereliction of duty by the executive branch. Bush is the head of the executive branch. He should rectify that earlier mistake -- not hope some judges take him off the hook.

And" "Bush won't be able to 'stay out of it.' Others will continue to place his White House at the very heart of it, as the Libby appeals move forward." A pardon would thus be good both for Bush and for the country (and presumably also for Libby):

Bush has an interest in being as strong an executive as possible for the remainder of his presidency. So does the country. This argues for an immediate pardon. Everyone who would be outraged by a pardon now would in any event spend the next year and a half being outraged at the prospect of a postelection pardon. But many of those who are demoralized now by Libby's conviction, and by the administration's passivity in defense of its people and policies, would be reinvigorated by a pardon.

Okay, this is all predictable -- but is it krazy?

Perhaps not. If Bush is intent on pardoning Libby, he might as well do it now -- why wait? Although there is something to be said for letting the case run its course through the justice system. And I don't quite see how a pardon would allow Bush to be the "strong" executive Kristol desires him to be "for the remainder of his presidency". A pardon would only be defensible if Bush, like Kristol, considers the entire case to be a sham (or if Bush decides not to let Libby take the fall). If so, however, a pardon would require Bush to explain why he considers the entire case to be a sham. Is he prepared to do that? I suspect not. Of course, Bush could pardon Libby and refuse to defend the pardon regardless of whether or not he considers the entire case to be a sham. He and his spinmeisters could claim that Libby has been the victim of a witch hunt, for example, or somehow that justice has not been served by the guilty verdict. I suspect, however, that Bush would be widely criticized for pardoning Libby regardless of the reason for doing so, regardless of the spin. The "demoralized" on the right would celebrate a pardon, perhaps, and some may even be "reinvigorated" by a pardon, but with Bush's popularity so low and the media finally doing their job and subjecting his decisions to intense scrutiny (on occasion, at least), I suspect that the outrage at a pardon, which would be seen as yet another example of Bush's refusal to take responsibility for his administration and to hold accountable both himself and those who work for him, would be significantly greater than Kristol assumes.

To be sure, a pardon would provoke outrage beyond the ranks of the "demoralized" no matter when it was issued. A pardon after the 2008 election, or on Bush's way out of office in January 2009, would arouse a good deal of cynicism. But, for Bush, I don't see how pardoning Libby now is the slam dunk Kristol makes it out to be. (For more, see Michael Isikoff and Richard Wolffe at Newsweek -- a pardon may not come soon.)

I go back and forth on this. I think Libby is being scapegoated and that his conviction serves to distract attention away from the crime that preceded the covering up. The focus needs to be on the crime -- and particularly on who knew what and when and who did what and when (that is, it would seem, on Dick Cheney). It could be argued that a pardon, particularly a premature one, would re-focus attention on the crime -- a pardon would not bring about closure, it would only beg further investigation. But it could also be argued that allowing the case to run its course through the justice system would prompt an investigation regardless.

Either way, it does seem to me that the case against a pardon is much stronger than the case for one. Libby broke and law and was found guilty. That ought to take priority over partisan political considerations on both the left (pardon so as to expose the wretchedness of Bush's presidency once more) and the right (pardon because there never was a crime or to free Bush from this cloud over his presidency or to reinvigorate the demoralized).

(For an excellent articulation of the case against a pardon (and against the case for a pardon on the right), see The Anonymous Liberal.)

Did I say "cloud"? Yes -- and that's what Kristol said on Fox yesterday morning: "I mean, it’s going to be hanging out there. Not to pardon him and to go into a defensive crouch, which is where the White House is now, is to leave that cloud hanging over his White House and over the war." (From Think Progress, which has the video.)

That really is krazy, and Juan Williams put it well in response: "But don’t you think -- I mean, look. The cloud exists. And if he were to pardon, he would exacerbate all those tensions. In fact, I think he would -- it would be more than a cloud. It would be a veil at that point, because people would say there is no accountability in this administration for their actions and they excuse their friends."

Kristol is krazy if he thinks a pardon would remove the cloud. It wouldn't. It would only be more of the same from a president who thinks he is right about everything and yet doesn't want to be accountable for anything at all.

McCain campaign slams Krazy Kristol. Seriously.

By Michael J.W. Stickings

You know what's hilarious? The McCain campaign slamming Krazy Bill Kristol, long of McCain's most ardent cheerleaders (think back to 2000) for daring to criticize it.

"A pathetic campaign" is what Kristol called it on Sunday, and, in response, McCain campaign spokeswoman Nancy Pfotenhauer said this yesterday:

Well, you know Bill is entitled to his perspective. And I used to work for Bill. And I can tell you personally sometimes he's brilliant and sometimes he's not. And this is one where it's the latter category. You know, I think unfortunately he has bought into the Obama campaign's party line.

I guess brilliance is all in the eyes of the partisan beholder. What Kristol said wasn't anything close to brilliant, of course, but, for once, he was right. It doesn't take a Nobel-Prize-winning economist from Princeton to figure out that the McCain campaign has been embarrassingly pathetic And what makes it even more so is that it clearly has no interest in accepting constructive criticism even from its most supportive friends.

Indeed, it not only dismissed the constructive criticism of a long-time friend and ally, it went straight on the attack, suggesting that Kristol is now some sort of mouthpiece for Obama.

Which pretty much just reinforces Kristol's point, does it not?