ANONYMOUS LIB GUESTING FOR GLENN FINDS SOME EXAMPLES OF KRISTOL’S STUPID, FATUOUS WRITING
Bill Kristol: Pundit Superstar
On March 17, 2003, on the eve of our invasion of Iraq, Bill Kristol wrote the following:
We
are tempted to comment, in these last days before the war, on the U.N.,
and the French, and the Democrats. But the war itself will clarify who
was right and who was wrong about weapons of mass destruction. It will
reveal the aspirations of the people of Iraq, and expose the truth
about Saddam’s regime. It will produce whatever effects it will produce
on neighboring countries and on the broader war on terror. We would
note now that even the threat of war against Saddam seems to be
encouraging stirrings toward political reform in Iran and Saudi Arabia,
and a measure of cooperation in the war against al Qaeda from other
governments in the region. It turns out it really is better to be
respected and feared than to be thought to share, with exquisite
sensitivity, other people’s pain. History and reality are about to
weigh in, and we are inclined simply to let them render their verdicts.
Well,
it’s been almost four years since Kristol penned those smug, taunting
words, and I think it’s fair to say that history and reality have
indeed weighed in. There were no weapons of mass destruction. Our
invasion has destabilized the entire region (and not in a positive way)
and has actually exacerbated the overall terrorist threat our country
faces. We are no longer feared or respected, at least nowhere near the
degree we were before the invasion. Over 3000 American soldiers have
lost their lives (with many thousands more badly injured). Tens of
thousands of Iraqis (perhaps hundreds of thousands) have been killed
and millions more displaced. We’ve squandered billions of dollars, as
well as our national credibility and mystique. And our armed forces are
currently bogged down and stretched to the limit as they undertake the
thankless task of policing an escalating civil war.
Now, you
would think that being so incredibly wrong about such an important
subject might hurt your career prospects, and that would probably be
true in any other field. But in the world of Washington punditry, being
consistently and catastrophically wrong about everything is apparently
not an obstacle to advancement. As David Corn reports, TIME Magazine has invited Kristol to become one the magazine’s new “star” columnists.
I
can see why TIME wanted Kristol so badly. His track record over the
last few years is rather remarkable. Here’s a sampling of some of
Kristol’s most impressive contributions to our political discourse over
the last few years:
Reading
the Scowcroft/New York Times “arguments” against war, one is struck by
how laughably weak they are. European international-law wishfulness and
full-blown Pat Buchanan isolationism are the two intellectually honest
alternatives to the Bush Doctrine. Scowcroft and the Times wish to
embrace neither, so they pretend instead to be terribly “concerned”
with the administration’s alleged failure to “make the case.”
“There’s
been a certain amount of pop sociology in America … that the Shia
can’t get along with the Sunni and the Shia in Iraq just want to
establish some kind of Islamic fundamentalist regime. There’s almost no
evidence of that at all. Iraq’s always been very secular.”
The
United States committed itself to defeating terror around the world. We
committed ourselves to reshaping the Middle East, so the region would
no longer be a hotbed of terrorism, extremism, anti-Americanism, and
weapons of mass destruction. The first two battles of this new era are
now over. The battles of Afghanistan and Iraq have been won decisively
and honorably. But these are only two battles. We are only at the end
of the beginning in the war on terror and terrorist states.
[T]here
are hopeful signs that Iraqis of differing religious, ethnic, and
political persuasions can work together. This is a far cry from the
predictions made before the war by many, both here and in Europe, that
a liberated Iraq would fracture into feuding clans and unleash a
bloodbath. The perpetually sour American media focus on the tensions
between Shiites and Kurds that delayed the signing by three whole days.
But the difficult negotiations leading up to the signing, and the
continuing debates over the terms of a final constitution, have in fact
demonstrated something remarkable in Iraq: a willingness on the part of
the diverse ethnic and religious groups to disagree–peacefully–and
then to compromise. This willingness is the product of what appears to be a broad Iraqi consensus favoring the idea of pluralism.
What
the Bush administration did say–and what so many reporters seem to
have trouble understanding–is that Iraq and al Qaeda had a
relationship that, by its very existence, posed a potential threat to
the United States.
October 29, 2004 (column titled “Politicizing the bin Laden Tape”):
Is
there any development in the war on terror, however grave, that the
Kerry campaign won’t try to exploit for partisan advantage?
November 1, 2004: (column titled “Bin Laden v. Bush”)
Osama bin Laden’s videotape is an attempt to intimidate Americans into voting against President Bush.
Just
four weeks after the Iraqi election of January 30, 2005, it seems
increasingly likely that that date will turn out to have been a genuine
turning point. The fall of the Berlin Wall on November 9, 1989, ended
an era. September 11, 2001, ended an interregnum. In the new era in
which we now live, 1/30/05 could be a key moment–perhaps the key
moment so far–in vindicating the Bush Doctrine as the right response
to 9/11. And now there is the prospect of further and accelerating
progress.
April 4, 2005 (re: Terri Schiavo)
After
all, we are a “maturing society,” as the Supreme Court has told us.
Perhaps it is time, in mature reaction to this latest installment of
what Hugh Hewitt has called a “robed charade,” to rise up against our
robed masters, and choose to govern ourselves. Call it Terri’s
revolution.
Last week the Bush Administration’s second-term bear market bottomed out.
November 30, 2005 (column titled “Pelosi’s Disastrous Miscalculation”):
All
this made me think the 2006 elections could result in a Speaker Pelosi.
I now think that unlikely. Pelosi’s endorsement today of the withdrawal
of U.S. troops from Iraq makes the House Democrats the party of defeat,
the party of surrender. Bush’s strong speech today means the GOP is
likely to be–if Republican Congressmen just keep their nerve–the
party of victory. Now it is possible that the situation in Iraq will
worsen over the next year. If that happens, Bush and the GOP are in
deep trouble. They would have been if Pelosi had said nothing. But it
is much more likely that the situation in Iraq will stay more or less
the same, or improve. In either case, Republicans will benefit from
being the party of victory.
December 26, 2005 (column titled “Happy Days!”):
If
American and Iraqi troops continue to provide basic security, and if
Iraq’s different sects and political groups now begin to engage in
serious, peaceful bargaining, then we may just have witnessed the
beginning of Iraq’s future.
What
was striking, following the mosque bombing, was the evidence of Iraq’s
underlying stability in the face of attempts to undermine it. The
country’s vital institutions seem to have grown strong enough to
withstand even the provocation of the bombing of the golden mosque.
I
could go on and on, but you get the idea. If you want to succeed as a
conservative pundit in Washington, the key appears to be amassing a
mile-long track record of wildly inaccurate predictions and
disastrously bad advice. Congratulations, Bill Kristol. You truly are a
“star”.
posted by A.L.
The New York Herald Sun 