The New York Times and Mr. Kristol

I certainly wouldn't hazard a guess as to why the powers that be at the New York Times chose this moment in U.S. history (on the cusp of the most important election in years) to hire an extreme right-wing ideolog to write a bi-weekly column. Well maybe I would but for the moment I would rather take them at their word.

Ernest Partridge quotes Op-Ed page Editor Andrew Rosenthal's explanation of why they hired William Kristol:

Mr. Kristol ... is a columnist and magazine editor, with views that clearly bother you. I disagree with many of his views, as well as many of the other views expressed on our Op-Ed page. It is not my job to print only those with whom I agree. It is my job to give readers [as] broad a spectrum of views to read as we can manage.

So Mr. Rosenthal opens up the question of how we can broaden the spectrum of views the New York Times can manage. Let's start a canpaign to persuade the paper of record to hire a columnist who would balance Kristol. Well perhaps there is no one not institutionalized who can actually balance Kristol but right off the top of my head I can suggest several very good journalists who would broaden the political spectrum of views available to Times readers (that would be "fit to print"). How about Democracy Now's Amy Goodman? Or perhaps Air America's Rachel Maddow (who often appears on Countdown with Keith Olbermann)? Other possibilities are Media Beat author Norman Solomon or independen journalist Greg Palast. I haven't spoken to any of these people and have no idea if they would even be interested in a Times' column. But they only scratch the surface of "broadening the Times spectrum of views" unless Mr. Rosenthal doesn't really mean it and "broadening the spectrum" is just an excuse to extend the Times spectrum as far to the right as is humanly possible.

But the problem with Kristol isn't that he is on the extreme right, but that he was one of the key neo-con artists who constructed the ideological justification for the Bush Doctrine. Now he is using the column to attack all critics of Bush foreign policy and justify the fantasies of the neo-con led Bush foreign policy. So what does Kristol actually say about our occupation of Iraq and his sworn enemy the Democratic Party.

Obama has been pretty consistent in his opposition to the war. But Bill Clinton is right [I can just feel the pain in Kristol's face as he wrote out those four words]...:Obama's view of the current situation in Iraq is out of touch with reality. In this, however, Obama is at one with Hillary Clinton and the entire leadership of the Democratic Party.

Would that that were true. If it was, I would register as a Democrat tommorow.

What is Kristol's version of reality with which Obama is "out of touch?" The Democrats refuse

to admit real success because that success has been achieved under the leadership of...George W. Bush.

But what is this success the Democrats won't admit?

The Democrats were wrong in their assessments of the surge. Attacks per week on American troops are now down about 60 percent from June. Civilian deaths are down approximately 75 percent from a year ago. December 2007 saw the second lowest number of U.S. troops killed in action since March 2003.

So we've gone from "Mission Accomplished" to measuring "real success" in Iraq in terms of less of our troops being killed.

Kristol has one more piece of evidence for Bush success:

...Now Iraq's Parliament has passed a de-Baathification law - one of the so-called benchmarks Congress established for political reconciliation. For much of 2007, Democrats were able to deprecate the military progress and political reconciliation taking place on the ground [less U.S. forces being killed] by harping on the failure of the Iraqui government to pass the benchmark legislation. They are being deprived of even that talking point.

Kristol's desperate rush to judgement of the Democrats is unfortunately undermined by the Times "harping on the failure of the Iraqi government to pass the benchmark legislation" in the very same issue in which Kristol's column appeared. Here's Solomon Moore's analysis:

...the legislation is at once confusing and controversial, a document riddled with loopholes and caveats to the point that some Sunni and Shiite officials say it could actually exclude more former Baaathists than it lets back in, particularly in the crucial security ministries.

I don't think this is actually what Congress had in mind. It's not that Kristol could have seen this article when he wrote his column, but it demonstrates his premature self-justification and rush to attack his enemies.

It would seem to me that New York Times' readers deserve better than William Kristol's self-serving screed, but, if Rosenthal really wants to broaden the spectrum of views available on the op-ed page, there are many excellent ant real journalists avilable.