The ‘Kristol Ball’ plots Palin’s long-shot path to the White House.
This morning on Fox News Sunday, Weekly Standard Editor Bill Kristol reaffirmed his “contrarian” take on Gov. Sarah Palin’s (R-AK) recent decision to quit. The “Kristol Ball” argued that Palin is now “all in” for a “high risk” presidential run. Depending on her “talents and abilities” Kristol used a strained comparison to President Obama to lay out Palin’s winding road to the White House:
KRISTOL: Everyone said [Obama couldn't] compete with people with these long records. … He seems to have gotten President. I don’t think it is foolish for Palin to think, “You know what, if that’s the world we live in now where people don’t value — maybe correctly — experience in years of experience in Washington, or two terms counts more than two and half years as Governor of Alaska. Maybe she thinks she gets out there and becomes a leader of the conservative movement, and then a leader of the Republican Party, and then conceivably a nominee of the Republican Party, and then conceivably a president just as Obama did.
Watch it:
Kristol has been particularly unreliable as of late, and has been extremely poor in predicting the likely success of would-be presidential candidates. In 2006, he declared that “Barack Obama is not going to beat Hillary Clinton in a single democratic primary.” Earlier in the program, Karl Rove expressed a less charitable view than that of Kristol, saying, “[E]ffective strategies in politics are ones that are so clear and obvious that people can grasp it. It is not clear what her strategy is.”
- Comments
- 41
GOP Operative Schmidt Blasts Bill Kristol: ‘He’s In The Business Of Ad Hominem Insults And Criticism’
GOP Operative Schmidt Blasts Bill Kristol: ‘He’s In The Business Of Ad Hominem Insults And Criticism’
Yesterday, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol — a long-time aggressive public advocate of Sarah Palin — took great exception to a new article in Vanity Fair by Todd Purdum which quoted McCain campaign officials disparaging Palin’s performance as a vice presidential candidate.
Kristol fingered one particular McCain official for blame: chief strategist Steve Schmidt. Kristol claimed that Schmidt trashed “Palin’s mental state to others in the McCain-Palin campaign.” And now Schmidt is firing back by unloading some very candid rhetorical bombs against Kristol. Politico’s Jonathan Martin reports:
Asked about the accusation, Schmidt fired back in an e-mail: “I’m sure John McCain would be president today if only Bill Kristol had been in charge of the campaign.”
“After all, his management of [former Vice President] Dan Quayle’s public image as his chief of staff is still something that takes your breath away,” Schmidt continued. “His attack on me is categorically false.”
Schmidt then offered more colorful perspective of Kristol’s character:
“Bill Kristol, going back to the time of the campaign, has taken a lot of cheap shots at the campaign without ever offering a plausible path to victory,” Schmidt said. “He’s in the business of ad hominem insults and criticism.” […]
As for the charges of being a sunshine soldier with regard to Palin, Schmidt said: “Nonsense. I’m a team player. That’s a reflection of [Kristol’s] values. He’s the Washington, D.C., talking head and glitterati. I live in Northern California and I really don’t give a s— about that stuff.”
Kristol responded by claiming that “John McCain deserved better” than Schmidt. And Kristol’s chief McCain campaign ally — Randy Scheunemann — likened Schmidt to the “Iranian secret police.”
During the presidential campaign, neoconservatives Kristol and Scheunemann had made Palin their “project,” seizing upon her cluelessness to shape her foreign policy views. As Matt Duss observed at the time, Palin’s “simplistic presentation of the Russia-Georgia conflict, her mindless threat of war with Russia, asserting that America shouldn’t ‘second guess’ Israeli policy, and her tiresome and dishonest conflation of 9/11 and Iraq,” all confirmed that she was getting the neocon talking points. And now the neoconservative camp is returning the favor by rushing to defend her.
Kristol and Hume call for ‘targeted air strikes’ against North Korea.
Kristol and Hume call for ‘targeted air strikes’ against North Korea.
On Fox News Sunday yesterday, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol said that it would be “wise” for the Obama administration to “knock out a few” of North Korea’s missile sites. “You know, it might be worth doing some targeted air strikes to show the North Koreans — instead of always talking about, Gee, there could be consequences, to show that they can’t simply keep down the — keep going down this path,” said Kristol. Asked if he would “consider” “brother Kristol’s” idea, Fox’s Brit Hume, replied, “I would.” Watch it:
Yglesias notes that “Kristol doesn’t even attempt to say what he thinks this will accomplish.” “He just kind of tosses it out there for no reason because arguing that the United States should start wars is what he does.” Nonproliferation expert Joe Cirincione, the president of the Ploughshares Fund, tells ThinkProgress that “Kristol may sound authoritative on the Fox News set, but following his advice would be a disaster on the battlefield.” “A strike on North Korea would be the beginning of a war, not the end of a crisis,” said Cirincione.
Read Cirincione’s full statement: More »
Kristol Ball fails: Predicted on Sunday that Granholm would be Supreme Court nominee.
Kristol Ball fails: Predicted on Sunday that Granholm would be Supreme Court nominee.
Today, President Obama picked Judge Sonia Sotomayor as his Supreme Court nominee. On Fox News Sunday this past week, right-wing pundit Bill Kristol (ie “Kristol Ball”) confidently predicted that Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D) would be the next Supreme Court nominee:
KRISTOL: I think he has made up his mind, and I think it’s going to be Jennifer Granholm, the governor of Michigan, for this reason. Obama gave that interview Friday which we saw the snippet from. In that interview, he uses the term practical seven times — I want someone with a practical sense of how the world works, I want someone with practical experience. Obama knows what he’s doing, and I think he wants to say, I’m putting on someone who went to Harvard Law School, clerked at an appellate level, was attorney general of Michigan, has good quotes from Republicans and Democrats about their conduct of that legal office, but who really understands the effect on real-world decisions.
Watch it:
Bill Kristol has also wrongly predicted that Ted Stevens would “hang on” in Alaska, that McCain would conquer “the path to the presidency,” and that Colin Powell would endorse President Obama at the 2008 DNC.
Kristol: ‘Dick Cheney, Most Valuable Republican.’
Kristol: ‘Dick Cheney, Most Valuable Republican.’
While many Republicans are trying to ditch the legacy of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, one pundit is still clinging to the previous administration. In a column today titled “Don’t Wince. Fight!,” Bill Kristol offers a full-throated defense of Cheney, writing that Republicans cringing at the re-emergence of the former vice president have a “juvenile understanding of political dynamics.” Kristol then prescribes that to regain power, the GOP needs to embrace Bush’s policies and listen to Cheney:
The real question any Republican strategist should ask himself is this: What will Republican chances be in 2012 if voters don’t remember the Bush administration–however problematic in other areas–as successful in defending the country after 9/11? To give this issue away would be to accept a post-Herbert-Hoover-like-fate for today’s GOP. That’s why Republicans should listen carefully when Cheney gives a speech this week in which he’ll lay out the case for the surveillance, detention, and interrogation policies of the Bush administration in the war against terror.
Kristol concludes, “Dick Cheney probably won’t be the glamour quarterback of the Republican comeback. But he’s proving to be a heck of a middle linebacker.” Those considering taking the advice of the Kristol Ball should check out his July 2007 op-ed on “Why Bush Will Be A Winner.”
Kristol Issues Another Correction: I Was Wrong To Blame Obama For Stock Market Declines
Kristol Issues Another Correction: I Was Wrong To Blame Obama For Stock Market Declines
In discussing the state of the economy this morning on Fox News Sunday, conservative commentator Bill Kristol noted that the stock market has performed reasonably well over the last several months. “The market’s up 35 percent in the last two months, which is pretty amazing,” Kristol said. He then noted that those Republicans — including himself — who were “chortling” about the stock market’s significant decline just after President Obama’s inauguration would now be forced to admit that they were wrong:
Republicans who were chortling over that 20 percent drop in the stock market the first month or two of [Obama's] administration are going to be, fairly enough, hoist on our own petard by the fact that now Obama’s getting this big stock market rally. … I — no one should base anything on this forecast — but in my view the short term is surprisingly bullish, but medium-long term very worrisome.
Watch it:
Indeed, a key talking point of the right-wing in late 2008 and the early part of 2009 was that the significant decline in the stock market was evidence that Obama’s approach to economic recovery was already failing. Kristol himself penned a column in the Weekly Standard entitled “Don’t Worry, Be Happy: Obama gives the markets the back of his hand.” In it, Kristol argued that Obama’s failure to base his entire economic agenda on ensuring day-to-day gains in the markets on Wall Street demonstrated he had already failed at governing:
So the stock market drops over 25 percent since Election Day, almost 20 percent since Inauguration — and Barack Obama tells the American people at his press conference Tuesday not to “spend all your time worrying about that.” [...]
The stock market is about real money, about the real livelihoods of real. … I’m told almost every theme in Obama’s speech last Tuesday night was focus-group tested–and the speech played pretty well politically. But the markets weren’t impressed. Isn’t it time for Obama and his team to get up the nerve to stop playing politics and to govern?
Kristol, of course, was not alone in making this argument. Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Republicans in Congress all got on board. The question now is whether or not Kristol’s conservative brethren will follow his lead and issue a correction.
Kristol: ‘Literally, On Substance, There Is Now No Argument For Closing Guantanamo’
Kristol: ‘Literally, On Substance, There Is Now No Argument For Closing Guantanamo’
In recent days, Republicans in Congress, desperate for some political traction, have for some unknown reason latched onto the idea that criticizing the Obama administration for wanting to close Guantanamo Bay is a good one. Last night on Fox News, right-wing super-hawk Bill Kristol came on board.
Kristol criticized Rep. Adam Schiff’s (D-CA) argument that detainees should be given “the same due process we give our own troops,” saying it is a political “gift” to Republicans (nevermind the fact that GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham made a similar argument the previous day). “Why not keep Guantanamo open?” Kristol asked, claiming that there is no longer any reason to close it:
KRISTOL: Literally, on substance, there is now no argument for closing Guantanamo. It is entirely symbolic. Obama has shown he symbolically would like to. The Europeans love him. They can’t love him anymore, you know. He should reverse himself.
And the Republican position should now be not just to embarrass the Democrats. Republicans should say it is a ridiculous waste of money, and a little dangerous, incidentally, to now close what has turned out to be an extremely effective, well-run facility.
Watch it:
What Kristol doesn’t understand is that symbolism actually creates substance and the Guantanamo Bay prison serves as a symbol that harms U.S. national security. Indeed, “16 highly-respected intelligence and counterterror officials” told the U.S. Supreme Court last January that holding detainees without due process provides “a powerful recruitment tool for violent extremists…and greater risk to the security of the Nation.” Other experts agree:
– Center for Strategic and International Studies: “In the view of many around the world, Guantanamo represents indefinite detention, torture, and abuse…Guantanamo does serve as a recruitment tool for al Qaeda.”
– Council on Foreign Relations expert Daniel Prieto: Gitmo has “direct effects on our counterterrorism policies, making them brittle and making the United States less safe in the world, in terms of serving as propaganda and an active recruitment tool for terrorists and really inflaming public opinion around the world.”
Even Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), whom Kristol fervently supported to become the nation’s next president, has said “Guantanamo has become a symbol around the world that is not good.”
Indeed, as the Wonk Room’s Matt Duss noted, Gitmo “remains a potent symbol of American lawlessness, and a driver of anti-American sentiment” and “raises the political costs for potential American allies and partners.” Addressing Kristol’s claim that Gitmo has been “effective,” Duss notes that it “has been a significant radicalizing force for Islamic militants” and adds, “So yes, it’s been effective — at getting American soldiers killed.”
Kristol Now Thinks Torture Debate Is ‘Healthy’ If Democrats Are Also The Focus
Kristol Now Thinks Torture Debate Is ‘Healthy’ If Democrats Are Also The Focus
Many conservatives have expressed outrage that President Obama earlier this month released four-Bush era Office of Legal Counsel memos that detail the Bush administration’s legal justification for torture. Not only has the right criticized Obama for releasing the memos, but it has succumbed to defending the use of torture and argued vigorously that no official investigations should ensue.
The Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol has been leading the charge lately on Fox News:
– “[Releasing the memos] is a pander to the left. I think it’s really pathetic for an American president to do that, and to disavow, in effect, the good faith efforts of a previous administration to protect us in ways that I think were entirely appropriate.” [4/16/09, Special Report]
– “To release these memos and to create what’s now going to be weeks, months, years of lawsuits and investigations — I mean, it’s really a disgrace.” [4/19/09, Fox News Sunday]
– “The idea that we’re going back and even raising the possibility of criminal prosecution is so appalling that it renders me almost speechless.” [4/21/09, Special Report]
However, last night on Fox, Kristol pulled an about face, saying that any debate into the matter would be “healthy.” Why? Because he wants to include the Clinton administration:
KRISTOL: I hope that debate goes to the whole, not just the last eight year, but the last 16 years. Let’s discuss the Clinton administration, which had renditions, sent people they captured to places where they were treated. [...] But let’s have a big debate about whether the Bush administration acted properly or not, and whether the Clinton administration acted properly or not, and how to act going forward in fighting this war on terror. I think it’s a healthy debate.
Watch a video compilation of Kristol’s evolution:
Later in the segment, when Brett Baier appeared to recognize his change of heart, Kristol was forced to revert back to his old self. “You think it’s good for the country to shine the light?” Baier asked. “No. …I would much prefer that we fight this war the way we fight usual wars, with keeping secrets secret,” Kristol replied.
Kristol Uses Pirate Crisis To Argue For More Defense Spending
Kristol Uses Pirate Crisis To Argue For More Defense Spending
Earlier this month, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced a plan to reorient defense spending away from lucrative boondoggles for contractors and toward systems that are proven to work and are needed in present-day military situations. Conservatives immediately cried foul; Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) went so far as to claim that the Obama administration “is willing to sacrifice the lives of American military men and women for the sake of domestic programs.”
Right-wing pundit Bill Kristol was among the conservatives fearmongering about the supposed “cuts.” Following North Korea’s test launch of a missile, Kristol declared that “it is scary to have a president” talk about cutting the defense budget. “It is a very dangerous moment,” he said. Today on Bill Bennett’s radio show, Kristol said he hoped that the pirate crisis would make President Obama think twice before following through on the proposed budget reforms:
KRISTOL: Unfortunately, given the world we live in, this [military funding] is not something we can skimp. And that’s another thing I hope the president realizes —
BENNETT: Budget cuts. The defense budget cuts, right?
KRISTOL: Well I hope he thinks about that. I mean, a lot of things that don’t look necessary — who needs the a big destroyer, the U.S.S. Bainbridge? Who needs Seals getting hours, weeks, months of training being snipers, isn’t that something that went out of fashion 70 years go? You can imagine people making these arguments. And it turns out, a lot of these things turn out to be important. … And I do hope it makes him sort of understand that there’s no substitute for having a strong and large military, honestly.
Listen here:
Kristol cites the pirate crisis — and the use of the U.S.S. Bainbridge — as some sort of proof that the plan to shift resources away from costly Naval destroyers is misguided. However, there was no need for a massive naval destroyer; in fact, it took “several hours” for the 8,000-ton ship to arrive at the scene. Indeed, as Matthew Yglesias noted, Gates himself mocked the idea that such ships could defend against pirates:
Gates is holding on to the Littoral Combat System project for the Navy even though the program has had a lot of cost overruns and so forth. Gates said that despite the problems, “I think it has a capability we just have to have.” Specifically, the promise of a ship that’s not only agile, but relative cheap on a per-ship basis is large. “You don’t need a $5 billion ship to go after pirates,” Gates said.
A greater number of less expensive ships would be arguably more effective than fewer, expensive naval destroyers like the Bainbridge and its even more expensive successors, the DDG-1000, which Gates is seeking to cut. Indeed, the defense budget reforms reflect the type of “reshaping,” Gates said, “that the combatant commanders are asking for.”
Kristol is not alone is seeking to use the pirate crisis to shill for increased defense spending. Last week, Fox military analyst Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney said on air that he would deploy the massively expensive and unproved F-22 to combat pirates. Conveniently, McInerney is a consultant for one of the F-22’s major contractors.
Right Wing Hysterical Over Obama’s ‘Not At War With Islam’ Remarks: ‘We Have Nothing To Apologize For’
Right Wing Hysterical Over Obama’s ‘Not At War With Islam’ Remarks: ‘We Have Nothing To Apologize For’
President Obama’s outreach to the Muslim world has been a welcome development after eight years of President Bush’s “us vs. them” approach. “Let me say this as clearly as I can,” he told the Turkish parliament yesterday. “The United States is not and will never be at war with Islam.” He told Turkish students today, “You will find a partner and a supporter and a friend in the United States of America.” Middle Eastern leaders are embracing Obama’s outreach already.
But apparently, the conservative establishment finds such outreach objectionable. On Fox News yesterday, John Bolton, Bill Kristol, and Sean Hannity all derided Obama’s comments to the Turkish parliament. They argued that in fact, the Iraq war served as evidence of America’s concern for Muslims. CNN’s Lou Dobbs also decried Obama’s praise for the “great civilization of Iran”:
BOLTON:There are an enormous amount of things we’ve done to benefit Muslims in countries all over the world. We have nothing to apologize for.
KRISTOL: But could Barack Obama say something that would be mildly unpopular to an audience which he was speaking? No. Could he say that the war in Afghanistan or the war in Iraq are just and that we have fought for Muslims, incidentally under President Clinton we fought for Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo?
HANNITY: It seemed to me…that this was an attempt to apologize for toppling Saddam Hussein and the war on terror.
DOBBS: In his efforts to charm our allies, President Obama noted that Islam helped shape the world for the better, including the United States. He even declared Iran to be a great civilization.
Charles Krauthammer said Obama’s parliament speech was “not original and not terribly important.” Kristol responded that Krauthammer was being “too nice.” Watch a compilation:
In his first trip abroad, Obama also extended a hand towards Europe, saying that America had “shown arrogance” and had “been dismissive, even derisive” towards Europeans in the past. Again, the right wing saw this as evidence of Obama’s anti-Americanism.
The outreach is desperately needed. Over “70 percent of Egyptians, Pakistanis, Indonesians and Moroccans believe the United States is trying to weaken and divide the Islamic world,” an April 2007 WorldPublicOpinion poll said. It seems that for the far right, however, the best outreach is always through bullets and bombs.
Duss discusses neocon gathering with Maddow: The highlight was Scooter Libby showing up.
Duss discusses neocon gathering with Maddow: The highlight was Scooter Libby showing up.
Last night, The Wonk Room’s Matt Duss appeared as a guest on The Rachel Maddow show to discuss the emergence of the Foreign Policy Initiative, the neo-neocon think tank (aka PNAC 2.0). Yesterday, Duss attended FPI’s inaugural conference on Afghanistan, commenting that he was “struck by how very little that was said was controversial.” Last night, Maddow noted that Bill Kristol, one of the FPI’s founders, famously declared in Nov. 2001 that the “end game seems to be in sight” in Afghanistan. Duss revealed that yesterday’s neocon gathering was highlighted by one particular attendee:
MADDOW: Did you have any neocon celebrity sightings today?
DUSS: Oh yeah. It was kind of a reunion of John McCain’s presidential campaign. But I also saw Scooter Libby.
MADDOW: Oh, no way!
DUSS: Yeah, he came out for that to shake hands and see the people.
MADDOW: Yeah, I forget he’s not in prison.
Watch it:
Goldfarb: ‘PNAC=Mission Accomplished; New mission begins’ with Foreign Policy Initiative.
Goldfarb: ‘PNAC=Mission Accomplished; New mission begins’ with Foreign Policy Initiative.
Last November, Weekly Standard super hawk Bill Kristol hinted that he would be starting up a new “think-tank” modeled after the neoconservative Project for a New American Century (PNAC). PNAC provided much of the ideological framework for the invasion of Iraq and many of its members and sympathizers lobbied heavily for it. Today, Kristol is officially launching PNAC 2.0 — or as it is now called, “The Foreign Policy Initiative” (started with fellow neocons Robert Kagan and Dan Senor) with an event in Washington D.C. on the future of the Afghanistan war. The Wonk Room’s Matt Duss recently observed of FPI:
What do you do if your previous organization — and the ideology behind it — has become inextricably bound in the public’s imagination to one of the worst foreign policy blunders in American history? Obviously, shut it down, and start a new organization with a new name.
However, Michael Goldfarb — Project for a New American Century alum, former McCain campaign spokesman and current Weekly Standard editor — sees it differently. Writing on Twitter yesterday, Goldfard claimed: “PNAC=Mission Accomplished; New mission begins tomorrow morning with the launch of FPI.”
Kristol on whether he owes the American public an apology for hyping Iraq WMD claims: ‘No.’
Kristol on whether he owes the American public an apology for hyping Iraq WMD claims: ‘No.’
On Friday, the Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol appeared on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal. A caller criticized his publication for hyping President Bush’s pre-invasion lies about WMD in Iraq, and asked him to apologize to the American public. Kristol refused, saying that the war has been a smashing success:
CALLER: All of y’all hyped that to a degree that was just unimaginable. Even President Bush admitted there were no weapons of mass destruction there. In lieu of that fact — being the fact that there are 4,500 American lives lost there — will you personally apologize to those folks right now? Simple yes or no. Thank you.
KRISTOL: No. I think the war was right, and I think we’ve succeeded in the war. And I think those lives — we should honor those soldiers who gave their lives and who fought so hard, and also were wounded for what they did.
Kristol then tried to switch the topic, saying, “And also in Afghanistan, incidentally, it’s President Obama who’s announcing the increase in troops today. It’s not something he was forced into by the Weekly Standard or anyone else.” (As ThinkProgress noted this morning, Obama’s strategy for Afghanistan-Pakistan is not the same as Bush’s surge in Iraq.) Watch it:
Wonk Room’s Matt Duss discusses new neocon think tank on Rachel Maddow Show.
Wonk Room’s Matt Duss discusses new neocon think tank on Rachel Maddow Show.
Last night on Rachel Maddow’s show, the Wonk Room’s Matt Duss discussed the emergence of the Foreign Policy Institute, the seeming new shelter for disgraced neoconservative foreign policy “experts.” Maddow asked Duss how is it that the architects of the Iraq failure are able to reconstitute themselves:
MADDOW: Here’s the thing I don’t understand about DC and national security policy: Why is it that people who are catastrophically wrong about big important things like foreign policy and war never, like, flunk out of that as a subject? It doesn’t affect our judgment of them apparently at all for the next things they want to do.
DUSS: I think that’s a great question, Rachel. I ask myself that question all the time. There seems to be this special dispensation in American foreign policy that, as long as you are wrong on the side of more military force, then all is forgiven. … As long as you make these errors in favor of more military action, then eventually you’re forgiven and allowed back in the conversation. And everyone just forgets about it.
Watch it:
Addressing the failure of accountability over Iraq war architects, Paul Krugman wrote in 2007: “The Bushies, it seems, like starting fights, but they don’t believe in paying any of the cost of those fights or bearing any of the risks. Above all, they don’t believe that they or their friends should face any personal or professional penalties for trivial sins like distorting intelligence to get America into an unnecessary war, or totally botching that war’s execution.”
Foreign Policy Initiative’s Kagan And Kristol Already At Odds On Engaging Iran
Foreign Policy Initiative’s Kagan And Kristol Already At Odds On Engaging Iran
Earlier this week, super-hawk neoconservatives Bill Kristol, Robert Kagan, and Dan Senor officially launched their new war incubator — “The Foreign Policy Initiative” — with the unveiling of its first policy event on Afghanistan. (The Wonk Room’s Matt Duss tentatively titled the event — “Afghanistan: Dealing With The Huge Problems Created By Many Of The People On This Very Stage”).
Senor, the former Coalition Provisional Authority spokesman under Paul Bremer, told Foreign Policy magazine yesterday that part of the group’s mission is to build “consensus” on major international issues that challenge the current thinking of those who currently hold power in the U.S. government. “We think there needs to be consensus on the other side of these issues,” he said.
But alas it doesn’t appear that FPI is off to a very good start building that “consensus.” Here is Kristol reacting to President Obama’s “historic” message to Iran on Fox News Sunday last week:
KRISTOL: [I]t’s an embarrassment. [...] No, it’s a weak and embarrassing statement by a president of the United States. [...] Appeasement begets appeasement. Appeasement does not — appeasement does not lay the groundwork for toughness among your allies who already are weaker.
Kristol continued to whine about Obama’s message in two separate columns, calling it a “message of weakness” and claiming Obama has “no sense of urgency about Iran’s nuclear program” and is “kowtowing” to its leaders.
And here is Kagan driving a dagger through any potential FPI “consensus” on dealing with Iran in a Washington Post column on Wednesday titled “What’s the Harm in Obama’s Approach?“:
But there is logic to the administration’s approach. After all, if the White House is going to give diplomacy and engagement a chance, it might as well do so thoroughly and aggressively. [...] Draw the starkest contrast between the present benevolent U.S. administration and the evil Bush administration. [...] I honestly can’t see the harm in the Obama administration’s efforts. I hope they succeed.
Matt Yglesias notes Senor’s inclusion in the project “is especially interesting since neocons of the Kristol/Kagan ilk ostensibly now believe that the early years of the war were catastrophically mismanaged. And yet here they are with the public face of the mismanagement as their partner in warmongering.” Maybe then the “consensus” Senor refers to is that they’ll all just agree to disagree.
Kristol Launches Project For A New American Century 2.0: ‘The Foreign Policy Initiative’
Kristol Launches Project For A New American Century 2.0: ‘The Foreign Policy Initiative’
In November, after Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and his neoconservative foreign policy were soundly defeated at the polls, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol told right-wing talker Hugh Hewitt that he was considering putting together a refashioned version of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC). “A little bit of a political organization” for “the Fred Kagans and Bob Kagans and Reuel Gerechts of the world” wouldn’t “be bad,” said Kristol.
Kristol’s new “political organization” for neoconservatives is now a reality:
A newly-formed and still obscure neo-conservative foreign policy organisation is giving some observers flashbacks to the 1990s, when its predecessor staked out the aggressively unilateralist foreign policy that came to fruition under the George W. Bush administration.
The blandly-named Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI) - the brainchild of Weekly Standard editor William Kristol, neo-conservative foreign policy guru Robert Kagan, and former Bush administration official Dan Senor - has thus far kept a low profile; its only activity to this point has been to sponsor a conference pushing for a U.S. “surge” in Afghanistan.
Though it’s not mentioned on their Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI) bio page, Kristol and Kagan were co-founders of PNAC in 1997. Matt Duss writes at the Wonk Room that Kristol and Kagan seem to be re-naming their old organization because it became “inextricably bound in the public’s imagination to one of the worst foreign policy blunders in American history,” the invasion of Iraq.
Noting that FPI’s first public event next week, Afghanistan: Planning For Success, features a heavy representation of Iraq war advocates, Duss suggests that a far better title for the event would be Afghanistan: Dealing With The Huge Problems Created By Many Of The People On This Very Stage.
Kristol Complains That Obama’s Iran Message Is ‘Weak’ And ‘Embarrassing’
Kristol Complains That Obama’s Iran Message Is ‘Weak’ And ‘Embarrassing’
In his latest column for the Weekly Standard, super-hawk Bill Kristol addresses President Obama’s recent Persian New Year message to the Iran’s leaders and its people, calling it a “message of weakness.” He is upset that Obama didn’t use the words “liberty,” “freedom,” “democracy,” or “human rights” and chastises Obama for referring to Iran as the “Islamic Republic of Iran,” claiming that doing so means that Obama is “kowtowing” to Iran’s leaders.
On Fox News Sunday this morning, Kristol picked up where he left off in his column and continued to whine about Obama’s move, calling it “a weak and embarrassing statement by the President of the United States.” Fox News’s Brit Hume piled on, complaining that it “appears” that the U.S. has now “joined the rest of the world and practicing the diplomacy of talk.” Watch it:
It is sad to see that Kristol hasn’t learned from any of the Bush administration’s foreign policy mistakes. He still appears to be happily wedded to neoconservatism, the results of which are on full display, most notably in Iraq, where after six years of war, Americans and Iraqis are still dying because of the most disastrous foreign policy blunder in American history.
But also, Kristol’s vision is what has contributed to where we are with Iran today — a bigger, more powerful player in the region that is closer to a nuclear weapons program. Yet as Triti Parsi, the president of the National Iranian American Council, points out, rhetoric preferred by Kristol actually served to help Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and that Obama’s “historic” approach “now may ‘un-help‘” him. Carnegie Endowment expert Karim Sadjadpour agrees:
“What this message does is, it puts the hard-liners in a difficult position, because where the Bush administration united disparate Iranian political leaders against a common threat, what Obama is doing is accentuating the cleavages in Iran,” Mr. Sadjadpour said. “It makes the hard-liners look increasingly like they are the impediment.”
Other experts have “applauded” Obama’s move, and called it “very significant.” The European Union’s foreign policy chief, Javier Solana said it was “very constructive.” Thus, the only thing that is “embarrassing” in this instance is the fact that Bill Kristol keeps trying to play 2002 all over again.
Kristol Takes On Limbaugh: We ‘Should’ Hope For Obama To ‘Succeed’
Kristol Takes On Limbaugh: We ‘Should’ Hope For Obama To ‘Succeed’
In recent weeks, a growing number of conservatives have hopped on the Rush Limbaugh bandwagon, saying they agree with his repeated statements that he hopes President Obama fails. Michelle Malkin, Tom Delay, Rick Santorum, Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN), Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) have all said they want Obama’s policies to fail.
The Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol, however, seems to disagree with this sentiment. In an interview with Fox and Friends yesterday, Kristol broke with the Limbaugh line. Discussing Obama’s recent actions to fix the economy with progressive blogger David Sirota, Kristol said that Americans “should” “hope” that Obama’s policies “succeed”:
Q: Are people still holding on to [their hope] thinking he will be able to change the problems we are now facing?
KRISTOL: Look, Americans wish a new president well. They hope his policies succeed, as they should.
Watch it:
Is Kristol, one of the most influential conservative pundits, going toe-to-toe with Rush Limbaugh, also one of the most influential conservative pundits? Thus far, those who dared to challenge the mighty Limbaugh have quickly kneeled before him (see e.g., Michael Steele, Rep. Phil Gingrey, and Gov. Mark Sanford).
Will Kristol resist the pressure, or will he fall in line like all the others?
Hiatt: NYT readers didn’t want Kristol because he ’supported the Iraq war.’
Hiatt: NYT readers didn’t want Kristol because he ’supported the Iraq war.’
Yesterday, after Weekly Standard editor William Kristol announced that his New York Times column was ending, his soon-to-be new boss, Washington Post editorial page editor Fred Hiatt, praised him as “a very smart, plugged-in guy” who “wrote a good column.” In the Washington Post’s article today on Kristol’s departure from the Times, Hiatt mused that NYT readers didn’t like Kristol because they didn’t want the paper to “hire someone who supported the Iraq war“:
Post Editorial Page Editor Fred Hiatt called Kristol “very smart and very plugged in,” saying Kristol would be an influential voice in the coming debate over redefining the Republican Party. “It seems to me there were a lot of Times readers who felt the Times shouldn’t hire someone who supported the Iraq war,” said Hiatt, adding that he wants “a diverse range of opinions” on his page.
As Matthew Yglesias points out, “it’s hardly as if Iraq war supporters have been purged from the NYT,” considering that Iraq war supporter David Brooks and Iraq war supporter Thomas Friedman are still on the op-ed page. Yglesias notes that the Post’s opinion section isn’t lacking Iraq war supporters either.
Fred Hiatt on Kristol: ‘I thought he wrote a good column.’
Fred Hiatt on Kristol: ‘I thought he wrote a good column.’
Today, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol wrote his final column for the New York Times and — despite a dismal record with the facts — will soon take up residence at the op-ed pages of The Washington Post. Noting that “[i]t’s extraordinary to see the job security someone like Kristol enjoys,” Steve Benen asked, “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?” Perhaps a universe in which Fred Hiatt is boss. The Post’s editorial page editor explained the decision:
“I think he’s a very smart, plugged-in guy,” Hiatt told Politico, “and the question of how and whether the conservative movement and the Republican party are going to right themselves, and redefine themselves, will be one of the really interesting subtexts of the Obama era.” [...]
“I thought he wrote a good column,” Hiatt said, of Kristol’s work at the Times.
It does seem fitting that Hiatt — whom Forbes magazine has said is the nation’s third most influential liberal — would think highly of Kristol. After all, both fervently advocated and continue to support the Iraq war, both defended the Bush administration’s leak of Valerie Plame’s CIA identity, and both seem to have trouble making sure their editorials are 100 percent truthful.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll