Support indie blogging--and keep it ad-free--by purchasing a G.M. book, below right.

Sunday, December 30, 2007

Bill Kristol and 'Original Sin'

For more blog (left and right) reaction to the hiring of Bill Kristol by The New York Times, here's a Blogrunner link, and a memorable video of his latest appearance on "The Daily Show," this past August, when Kristol says invading Iran is "not a bad idea." Stewart reminds him, referring to his 2003 statement on Iraq, "You said Shia and Sunni would get along." Kristol admits: "I've been wrong about plenty of things." Stewart later notes, hinting broadly that this refers to Kristol's key role in promoting the invasion of Iraq, that even if things are improving in Iraq he "can't get past the concept of Original Sin." http://www.blogrunner.com//snapshot/D/0/3/the_times_adds_an_oped_columnist/

8 comments:

Ian said...

Enough complaining. If people can launch a movement to get a tv show another season, then we sure as hell can organize enough to stop the Times from giving Kristol space.

I'm not good at setting this stuff up, but here's what I recommend:

we get as many people as possible to print out a picture of a soldier or Iraqi killed from our war. They print out the picture, and then on either side, add one of Kristol's many ridiculous, incorrect comments regarding the war, how great and easy it would be, how good it's going, how we should attack another country...
and we mail thousands of them to the Times.

Anyone in? Anyone have any better ideas?

I already called and wrote my emails and letters to them, but this is making me sick to my stomach. We have to do something.

Vigilante said...

All Bill Kristol has to offer is an unadulterated flavor of Kool-Aid.

low-tech cyclist said...

“The idea that The New York Times is giving voice to a guy who is a serious, respected conservative intellectual — and somehow that’s a bad thing,” Rosenthal added. “How intolerant is that?”

I'd love to ask Andy Rosenthal to explain to an ignoramus like me just what Kristol has written that is 'respected' and is the basise for his being considered a 'serious intellectual'? 'Cos that's the part that has me scratching my head.

As far as I can tell, he's a total idiot with good clothing, manners, and grammar. But maybe I'm missing something, and the Wise NYT Editorial Page Editor could enlighten a bumpkin such as me.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for posting the Daily Show video, which I think proves the opposite of the larger argument the various bloggers on this site are making against Bill Kristol. Here last August, before an anti-war audience and with an anti-war host, Kristol reports that the surge is working -- and now, four months later, it looks as though he got it right, and was one of the first to get it right. Acknowledging his mistake about Sunni and Shia graciously is more than others here seem willing to do about their own views of Gen. Petraeus' strategy. Stewart, to his credit, appreciates Kristol's very funny and good-humored joke at the close of the interview. Kristol is sharp, witty, and disarmingly modest; the TIMES obviously knows he'll revive interest in their op-ed page.

Anonymous said...

If Kristol is so "sharp and witty", why does The Weekly Standard lose money and has to be propped up by Murdoch?

Anonymous said...

Presumably the NYT is clearing the decks for Hilary's election!

Funky P said...

Here's how I see it. The N.Y. Times is finally dropping any pretense about being an objective voice in the media, The Times has championed the Iraq invasion from the start by letting the Bush administration use the paper for its' propaganda (remember Judith Miller?).
The Murdoch connection is also interesting, because with the purchase of the WSJ, the Times faces some serious competition in N.Y. (where Murdoch also owns the Post) and the hiring of the voice of the PNAC indicates that they are no longer pretending to be an objective news source. In fact, anyone who thinks journalistic integrity still exists in the MSM deserves the N.Y. Times and other spewers of government propaganda.
It's not like I considered the Times to be a reputable source (except maybe Krugman) of objective news PRIOR to the hiring of Kristol.
Do you want to show the Times how badly they have erred in choosing Kristol? Then ignore them (it). It's not like we have to cancel our subscriptions; we don't have any. Let the Times die the quiet death that all the print media is experiencing. You won't find the truth there anyway!

Anonymous said...

The problem is that Kristol doesn't shill in the best interests of this country. He has other allegiances that he insists should be ours; so much so that he holds ours in disdain. That's what Mr. Rosenthal needs to understand.