Katrina vanden Heuvel Tells Bill Kristol To Join Iraq Army

Katrina vanden Heuvel call Bill Kristol out on being constantly wrong on Iraq. Vanden Heuvel tells Kristol that if he feels so strongly about sending troops to Iraq then he should join the Iraqi Army. Kristol did not take kindly to being called out on his chickenhawk ways. Imagine that.

Bill Kristol Flips On Taxes

First it was Sean Hannity flipping on immigration. Now Bill Kristol supports raising taxes on the rich.

"It won't kill the country if we raise taxes a little bit on millionaires," he said on "Fox News Sunday." "It really won't, I don't think. I don't really understand why Republicans don't take Obama's offer."

"Really? The Republican Party is going to fall on its sword to defend a bunch of millionaires, half of whom voted Democratic and half of whom live in Hollywood and are hostile?" he asked.

Republicans don't have a lot of leverage. President Obama can decide to let the Bush tax cuts expire and tell Congress to vote on keeping the middle class tax cuts in place. The question is will he cave? That is very likely.

The truth is Republican policy positions suck. Hispanics were tuned into the racist overtones on immigration during the Republican primaries and voted for Democrats. The American people heard how the Bush tax cuts were suppose to increase the Clinton surplus. We then had a deficit. Mitch McConnell said we should increase taxes on "job creators." Never mind that unemployment has fell from the Clinton levels during the years the Bush tax cuts were in place. This is a party that isn't serious about sound policy. That is why the laughable Paul Ryan is elevated to the level of policy wonk. The Republican Party doesn't do policy. They pander to their base and lobbyists.

Triangulation Man: Libya

In 2007, Boston Globe reporter Charlie Savage asked candidate Triangulation Man when the president has the authority to call for military action against Iran. Our fearless hero made it clear any military action must be approved by Congress.

SAVAGE: In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)

OBAMA: The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.

As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J. Res. 23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.” The recent NIE tells us that Iran in 2003 halted its effort to design a nuclear weapon. While this does not mean that Iran is no longer a threat to the United States or its allies, it does give us time to conduct aggressive and principled personal diplomacy aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

If there is one thing we learned about Triangulation Man is that he would never take the Republican Party position on domestic or foreign policy.

Bill Kristol

"No, we cannot leave Gaddafi in power," Kristol agreed. "And we won't leave Gaddafi in power."

"The immediate military mission, Admiral Mullen correctly described but the political goal is to remove Gaddafi and ultimately military assets will serve that political goal."

John McCain

“We can't risk allowing Qaddafi to massacre people from the air, both by helicopter and fixed-wing [aircraft]."

Our hero quickly moved to the right of center to please Republicans. Triangulation Man's efforts led to House Speaker John Boehner to publicly criticize the Libya policy.

“All of these concerns point to a fundamental question,” Mr. Boehner writes, “What is your benchmark for success in Libya?”

Mr. Boehner, who issued a short statement on Libya over the weekend, ratcheted up his criticism of Mr. Obama’s handling of operation as Democrats and Republicans continue to voice concerns about the cost of the mission and the president’s decision not to pursue approval from Congress before authorizing military force.

In his letter, Mr. Boehner writes that he is “troubled that U.S. military resources were committed to war without clearly defining for the American people, the Congress, and our troops what the mission in Libya is and what America’s role is in achieving that mission.”

Obama ordered the no-fly zones over Libya. Republicans now refuse to support the policy. Boehner is willing to sound like a peace activist to garner political points against Obama. Another sore point for Congress is Obama ordered the air-strikes without congressional approval. Polititifact ruled that Obama did a full flip flop from his 2007 position.

The use of military force against Libya should be argued on the merits of the operation. However, Obama's flip flop smacks as a president attempting to appear tough on foreign policy. Either Obama was telling voters what he thought they wanted to hear in 2007 or he has developed a contempt of Congress since becoming president. The politically smart thing would have been to force Congress to vote on the use of military force against Qaddafi. This would have forced Republicans and Democrats to take a position and own it. Apparently, Obama had little confidence that his powers of persuasion and military strategy would be approved. That does not inspire confidence.

Update: John Bolton was in Palm Beach, Florida today. Bolton was highly critical of Obama's handling of Libya. Anyone want to place bets on Bolton would have still criticized Obama, if the President didn't order the no-fly zones.

Quote of the Day

"Because Roberts was replacing Rehnquist. And Alito will move the court a click back in the conservative or constitutional direction. And let's have a referendum on that. Let's have a referendum on that in 2006 and 2008. Do they want a liberal Supreme Court, or do they want a moderately conservative Supreme Court?"

Bill Kristol, January 29, 2006.

Kristol's predictions of success for conservative causes continues to be atrocious.

Bill Kristol and New York Times Part

Former New York Times columnist John Tierney was a source of great entertainment to me. Tierney urged Americans to buy more foreign oil and not recycle.

After you fill up your tank, twist the rear-view mirror so you can gaze at yourself. Repeat these words: ''I'm good enough, I'm rich enough, and doggone it, people in the Middle East like my money.''

Doggone it, I miss Tierney. I know the New York Times felt Tierney's column destroyed the newspaper's credibility. In Tierney's defense, the wordsmith penned comedy classics. The humor in Tierney's column was unintended. That only makes the reading experience more rewarding.

Parting Is Such Sweet Sorrow

The New York Times feared being labeled part of the so-called liberal media. The newspaper hired Times Bill Kristol. Members of the newsroom wondered why the Times would hire a writer that accused the publication of treason.

Kristol's columns were one disaster after another. The pundit wrongly attributed a Michael Medved quote to Michelle Malkin. Kristol cited a Newsmax bogus story of Barack Obama attending Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright's " "white arrogance" sermon." Obama was in Miami, at the time. Kristol printed a retraction.

In this column, I cite a report that Sen. Obama had attended services at Trinity Church on July 22, 2007. The Obama campaign has provided information showing that Senator Obama did not attend Trinity that day. I regret the error.

The most troubling aspect is a Times columnist using Newsmax and Michelle Malkin as source material. A college professor would laugh at this garbage in a research paper. The New York Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. rewarded these faulty research skills with a contract.

Less than a month left in the presidential campaign, Kristol urges John McCain "fire his campaign." Sarah Palin negative polling numbers hurt McCain. Kristol publicly lobbied for Palin and predicted Palin will make gas prices plummet. Kristol wrote a Times column "A Star Is Born?"

I spent an afternoon with Palin a little over a year ago in Juneau, and have followed her career pretty closely ever since. I think she can pull it off. I’m not the only one. The day after the V.P. announcement, I spoke with an old friend, James Muller, chairman of the political science department at the University of Alaska, Anchorage. He said that Palin “has been underestimated over and over again. She took on the party and state establishments here in Alaska, and left them reeling. She’s a very good campaigner, a quick study and a fighter.”

Palin swung and missed badly. Kristol did too by incorrectly predicting Republican strategist Mike Murphy would rejoin the McCain campaign. Kristol's Times tenure is marked by poor fact-checking and wildly off-the-mark predictions. The Times did not renew Kristol's contract. At least Tierney was funny.

The training ground for conservative commentary is the Weekly Standard and National Review. The majority of these pundits have no prior journalism experience and previously worked as GOP strategists. (Kristol was Dan Quayle's Chief of Staff.) These pundits don't have investigative reporting skills or informed policy knowledge. They came through the GOP political machine and write for the GOP political machine. The kicker is Republicans have created their own media empire and have the audacity to accuse other media organizations of bias. Kristol failed as a Times columnist because he wasn't a columnist. Kristol was a press secretary for the RNC.

Civil Rights Is Not A Laughing Matter

Karl Rove and Bill Kristol literally laugh off serious claims that the Bush administration profiled and violated the civil rights of American Muslims. Even if you agree with the Bush administration's detainment policy (which I don't), Kristol and Rove show a childish lack of sensitivity.

KRISTOL: What have we done to Muslims in America? What has happened?

JENKINS: Arrested them.

KRISTOL: We’ve arrested Muslims in America? [LAUGHTER]

JENKINS: Incarcerated them without trial.

KRISTOL: We’ve incarcerated Muslims in America without trial?

ROVE: Rounded them up? Rounded, rounded them up? Name one?

KRISTOL: Nonsense.

ROVE: Name one instance.

JENKINS: The, [UNCLEAR] belabor me all day with lists of people who have vanished. Vanished.

ROVE: You know-

KRISTOL: Well, that-

ROVE: This is on the border of lunacy, with all due respect.

JENKINS: But you didn’t need to do it, you didn’t need to do it-

ROVE: We didn’t do it!

The United States just aren't detaining American citizens. Canadian Maher Arar was detained during a JFK International Airport layover. He was rendition to Syria and tortured. The Canadian government has cleared Arar. The Bush administration will not talk publicly about Arar's case.

"The information is also significant because it shows that the CIA was involved, and that two days after Maher was jetted out of the U.S., before anyone knew where he was, CSIS (Canadian Security Intelligence Service) officials thought the U.S. wanted to send him to a country that 'could have their way with him' -- confirming that the U.S. officials who sent Maher to Syria did so to have him interrogated under torture," she said.

"The revelations from last week about complicity and torture confirm our worst suspicions of the dangers of unchecked executive power in a democracy," Jason Gratl, president of the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, told IPS in an interview.

"The willingness of the RCMP (Royal Canadian Mounted Police) to mislead the judiciary with respect to the origins of the information derived from torture demonstrates once again that balance of power must be rectified."

Kristol and Rove are delusional. They are less scary than torture architects Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. The latter felt the United States was too timid and wanted even harsher torture.

Bill Kristol's Political Acumen

Bill Kristol is an advisor to the McCain campaign. Kristol urged John McCain to pick Sarah Palin. Kristol advocated for negative attacks against Barack Obama. Palin and the negative ads have helped more than hurt Obama. Now Kristol is jumping ship.

It’s time for John McCain to fire his campaign.

That statement is hysterical for more reasons than can be mentioned in a post. That is entirely unrealistic in the final days of the campaign. Then again, Kristol was urging The United States to invade Iraq in the nineties. Kristol doesn't let such silly things as reality concern him. Even if Kristol used to be a Democratic and Repubican campaign advisor. McCain campaign spokeswoman Nancy Pfotenhauer is publicly attacking Kristol. This thrills me to no end.

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.

My question is why does anyone in the Republican Party still listen to Bill Kristol? His political acumen sucks.

Why does the New York Times employ an unpaid McCain advisor as a columnist? There are conservatives that don't have Kristol's conflicts of interest. The Times went with Kristol, after the pundit advocated for the Justice Department to prosecute the publication. Which brings into ethical question why Kristol would work for a newspaper he accused of endangering national security? As I wrote before, it is only a matter of time before the Times fires Bill Kristol.

Bill Kristol Cites Newsmax & Gets Punked

Bill Kristol once again embarrasses himself on the New York Times op-ed pages. Kristol used a Newsmax article as gospel truth. The Jim Davis piece claimed that Obama was in the congregation the the day Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. made his controversial "white arrogance" sermon. The problem is that Obama was in Miami that day. Obama was campaigning in Miami that day. AOL has a video of Obama speaking in Miami on July 22, 2007.

Newsmax's Ronald Kessler is sticking to his story. He is claiming that Obama was in Chicago and Miami at the same time. I'm really not making this up.

While both the early morning and evening service allowed Sen. Obama to attend the service and still give a speech in Miami, Mr. Davis stands by his story that during one of the services he attended during the month of July, Senator Obama was present and sat through the sermon given by Rev. Wright as described in the story.

Kristol was forced to print a retraction.

In this column, I cite a report that Sen. Obama had attended services at Trinity Church on July 22, 2007. The Obama campaign has provided information showing that Senator Obama did not attend Trinity that day. I regret the error.

Kristol is making mistakes constantly in his column. The neocon pundit wrongly attributed a Michael Medved quote to Michelle Malkin. The man's sloppliness is staggering.

What kills me people people like Kristol and Glenn Reynolds is how they lament about inaccuracy in the so-called liberal media. The Weekly Standard and Instapundit are conservative giants of factually inaccurate information. These people have an allergic retraction to truth that is pathological.

Bill Kristol and the New York Times

The New York Times's hiring of Bill Kristol didn't reach the point of outrage with me. The Times Jayson Blair and Judy Miller embarrassments have shown the Paper of Record is not infallible. The op-ed pages have been on a painful downward spiral for years. Kristol's hiring makes perfect sense.

Gabriel Sherman's New Republic article provides insights into Arthur Sulzberger Jr. hiring Kristol. The short version is he is scared to death of The Wall Street Journal. What Sulzberger fails to understand is the least successful section of the WSJ is the op-ed page. The Wall Street Journal is one of the few newspapers that makes money off of paid subscriptions. The op-ed pages are free on Opinion Journal. Peggy Noonan's prose about magical dolphins saving Elian Gonzales is one of the worst op-eds ever written. Sulzberger should be more concerned about competing with the WSJ's reporting. Conservatives will always hate The New York Times.

It is widely known that Kristol wrongly attributed a Michael Medved quote to Michelle Malkin. That is a hell of a way to make a debut on Murderers' Row.

"He doesn't know what it's like to write for The New York Times," one staffer said. "So, welcome to the NFL."

Kristol is William Safire's replacement. John Tierney wisely abandoned The Times op-ed pages after producing many comedy masterpieces. Sulzberger brought Kristol in to make a splash. Unfortunately, the result was a splat. Safire agreed with public editor Clark Hoyt's harsh assessment of Kristol.

The Times' public editor, Clark Hoyt, acknowledged the Kristol kerfuffle in his column on Sunday, January 13, writing of Kristol's hiring: "This is a decision I would not have made." When reached by phone, Safire told me: "I saw the excellent piece that the public editor wrote the other day, and that pretty much tells the story."

Ouch.

At least Kristol has Judy Miller publicly backing him.

Eventually, The Times will fire Kristol either because of a scandal or the neoconservative pundit can not meet the increasingly lowering standards of the op-eds pages. The Times should have gone after George Will. I suspect Will is smart enough not to get near Murderers; Row.

The Disaster That is the NY Times Op-Ed Page

I always wondered how Thomas Friedman could get away with declaring the world is flat and that a scholarship named after Osama bin Laden is a good idea. Does Friedman's New York Times editors read his op-eds? Turns out The Times doesn't care how bad their op-ed columnist are.

Bill Kristol was caught wrongly attributing a quote to Michelle Malkin. The quote came from Michael Medved column.

Kristol:

Still, as the conservative writer Michelle Malkin put it, “For the work-hard-to-get-ahead strivers who represent the heart and soul of the G.O.P., there are obvious, powerful points of identification.”

Medved:

It’s not just Christian zealots who recognize Huckabee as “one of us”; I’ve spoken to non-religious Russian immigrant Jews who love him because he’s down-to-earth, plain-spoken and unpretentious non-celebrity. For the work-hard-to-get-ahead strivers who represent the heart and soul of the GOP, there are obvious, powerful points of identification.

Not to be outdone, David Brooks confuses Ward Churchill with Ward Connoly. It must be their striking physical resemblance.


Ward Churchill


Ward Connerly

Churchill is a neo-Nazi and Connerly is a black Republican. See how easy it is to confuse the two.

Update: Tas correctly takes me to task for calling Ward Churchill a neo-Nazi. I should say that Churchill is a radical nut. Churchill sees racism where there is none. He was also a member of the American terrorist group the Weather Underground.

Quote of the Day

"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."

Bill Kristol, on President Bush's veto of the the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.

The Weekly Standard Has No Shame

Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard maintains the fiction that American soldier Scott Thomas Beauchamp is the creation of New Republic editors. Kristol's reasoning is that TNR hates America and the military. This op-ed is shameless in so many ways.

But what is revealing about this mistake is that the editors must have wanted to suspend their disbelief in tales of gross misconduct by American troops. How else could they have published such a farrago of dubious tales?

Spencer Ackerman is a noted TNR basher. He was fired from the magazine. Ackerman writes that Kristol's anti-soldier assertion doesn't pass the laugh test.

Whatever disagreements I've had with Frank (Foer), I know from experience that he does not assign, approve or edit stories to cast aspersions on the military. Even subconsciously, he would not express any eagerness to publish Thomas's story for anything remotely approaching that reason. Kristol is wrapping himself in the mantle of people much braver and nobler than himself (and myself) to disguise his enormous strategic misjudgment. He's crying a river of crocodile tears. And he knows that the motives he's ascribed to TNR's editors are complete bullshit.

Beauchamp is real. He is with the 1/18 Infantry, Second Brigade Combat Team, First Infantry Division. The Pentagon has taken away his laptop. He is also married to a TNR staffer. All of this can be easily confimed. Which makes this passage in Kristol's op-ed all the more vile.

Since the Nation has held this view of every American war (except when we were fighting side-by-side with Stalin's Soviet Union), and loves nothing more than accounts of American war crimes, its story is no surprise. At least they interviewed real soldiers on the record. The New Republic, in its July 23 issue, takes a different tack. Its slander of American soldiers appears to be fiction presented as fact, behind a convenient screen of anonymity.

Kristol then has the audacity to talk about journalism ethics.

We at THE WEEKLY STANDARD are well aware that editors make mistakes. We have made our share.

The Weekly Standard was so wrong on this story. They never bothered to fact-check the existence of Scott Thomas. They were only interested in discrediting the Thomas Scott articles because it hindered their neoconservative support of the Iraq war. That's all this was ever about.