That Wacky, Wacky Kristol Posted by Michael Cohen

It has almost reached a point where it is simply too painful to continue reading the weekly musings of Bill Kristol that pollute the Monday morning New York Times. But alas, I am a masochist.

In today's piece de resistance, Kristol argues that Democrats are not serious about governing, because a) they opposed the surge and argue that it is not working (it isn't) and b) they opposed retroactive immunity for telecom companies. Of course, Democrats have not taken the latter position on any sort of substantive grounds, such as believing the rule of law is important. Instead, "for the House Democrats, sticking it to the phone companies — and to the Bush administration — seemed to outweigh erring on the side of safety in defending the country."

So when President Bush made the statement below he was acting in the responsible manner that we've come to expect from our 43rd President.

There is a big part of the Democrat (sic) Party that is against giving our intelligence officers the tools necessary to protect America.

Thank god, responsible truth-tellers like George Bush are running this country.

There really is something precious about watching a man who has so breathlessly defended the Bush Administration preach about "responsibility" in government. After all this is the same Administration that brought us the bungled response to Hurricane Katrina and of course the Iraq War, which is now running into its fifth year of ever so competent and responsible management.

But thanks to Jonathan Chait over at TNR's Plank we have an even more resonant example of Bill Kristol's mendacity.

Does Kristol not remember his role in defeating health care reform in 1994, in which he told Republicans:

"At bottom this debate is now a political one," he wrote in a strategy memo on July 26. "Sight unseen, Republicans should oppose [the new Democratic bills]."

and in which he warned that successful passage of reform would "revive the reputation of the party that spends and regulates, the Democrats, as the generous protector of middle-class interests"? Please, Mr. Kristol, tell us more about how liberals should make highbrow intellectual arguments and take responsibility for responsible governance in opposition.

It's bad enough that the Times gave a weekly column to a partisan operator and thoroughly mediocre writer instead of the many competent conservative writers who would have jumped at the role. But does this hack also have to lecture the rest of us on our responsibilities as intellectuals? Were no members of the Gambino family available to write the ethics column?

Yup, that pretty much sums it up.

Comments

[Dave]

Your summary of his oped, which certainly does not even begin to cover what he wrote, just proves his point.

Can Democrats govern? Of course not.

Every major city has had a Democrat council since WW2. Point to one - just one - that is better off.

Every major city school district has, since WW2, had a Democrat Board. Point to one - just one - that is better.

Everyone knows Democrats can't govern. It's like gravity - your belief (or not) in the fact is irrelevant.

[Walid]

From Kristol's well written editorial : "The director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Gen. Michael Hayden, the director of national intelligence, the retired Vice Admiral Mike McConnell, and the attorney general, the former federal judge Michael Mukasey, are highly respected and nonpolitical officials with little in the way of partisanship or ideology in their backgrounds. They have all testified, under oath, that in their judgments, certain legal arrangements regarding surveillance abilities are important to our national security.""

In other words "Just trust us" which the Bush Administration has been saying for years while it proceeds to make the Judicial Branch an arm of the Republican Party, operate as far as possible from judicial review, operate in secrecy even in regard to trivial matters, all the while meeting opposition with constant and repetitive appeals to fear or "this is going to make it easier for terrorists to attack us". If a trusted president wants this immunity fine but if an imperial one wants it for his own personal aggrandizement having already collected other exceptions to the rule of law, then the answer's no.

[Steve Nesich]

Yes, once again the absolutely brilliant Billy Kristol (as opposed to the funny one who pronounces his name the same way) comes up with a complete gem!

You're right, Billy---it's easy for "outsiders" to criticize those who attacked and now occupy Iraq. It's also a breeze for the critics to speak out against Bush's violations of constitutional rights and civil liberties. The critics don't have to bear the heavy weight of responsibility, like we "adults" do.

Just like those pesky 19th Century abolitionists. It was so easy for them to criticize slavery. Meanwhile the clear-headed "adult" slaveholders and their defenders had to bear the gruesome weight of this awesome responsibility. So easy then for those extremist elements to say "Just end it."

I'm so glad that "adults" like Bush---and his enablers like Kristol---have demonstrated such responsibility, skill, judgment and leadership with their power. How easy for all of us to think that other choices might have been better for our country.

[masmanz]

If you really believe in the 'White Man's Burden' and the myth that the lesser races are 'half devil and half child' then of course you will agree with Bill Kristol. But, if you are a decent human being you will have to listen to others, treat them as equals, and stop dropping bombs to 'shock and awe' them into submission. A better governance does not mean using brute force.

[Bruce Schaper]

Bill Kristol claiming Dems can't govern? Did IQ's just get thrown out the window. Until two years ago, Republicans controlled the House and Senate and the Presidency. Under their governing. This nations finances are in the red, at war, and the middle class is shrinking. This is success?

[Walid]

From Kristol's well written editorial : "The director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Gen. Michael Hayden, the director of national intelligence, the retired Vice Admiral Mike McConnell, and the attorney general, the former federal judge Michael Mukasey, are highly respected and nonpolitical officials with little in the way of partisanship or ideology in their backgrounds. They have all testified, under oath, that in their judgments, certain legal arrangements regarding surveillance abilities are important to our national security.""

In other words "Just trust us" which the Bush Administration has been saying for years while it proceeds to make the Judicial Branch an arm of the Republican Party, operate as far as possible from judicial review, operate in secrecy even in regard to trivial matters, all the while meeting opposition with constant and repetitive appeals to fear or "this is going to make it easier for terrorists to attack us". If a trusted president wants this immunity fine but if an imperial one wants it for his own personal aggrandizement having already collected other exceptions to the rule of law, then the answer's no.