New York Times Confirms Hiring Bill Kristol As Op-Ed Columnist

William Kristol, one of the nation's leading conservative writers and a vigorous supporter of the Iraq war, will become an Op-Ed page columnist for The New York Times, the newspaper announced Saturday.

Mr. Kristol will write a weekly column for The Times beginning Jan. 7, the newspaper said. He is editor and co-founder of The Weekly Standard, an influential conservative political magazine, and appears regularly on Fox News Sunday and the Fox News Channel. He was a columnist for Time magazine until that relationship was severed this month.

Keep reading here.

Comments

[rem]

Let us never forget Kristol's prescient statement to Terry Gross on NPR:
"I think there's been a certain amount of, frankly, Terry, a kind of pop sociology in America, that, you know, somehow the Shia can't get along with the Sunni, or the Shia in Iraq just want to establish some kind of fundamentalist regime. There's almost no evidence of that at all. Iraq has always been very secular."

[armondarg]

Put Kristol on the front pages,where most of conseratives are,leave the editorials on the rear pages,where most of the liberals reside.The front pages are viewed more,in this so called liberal paper.

[Zenobius]

NY Times readers across the country tend to be well off, and probably conservative. These are people who tend to vote Republican, and read Kristol.

Hiring Bill Kristol as a commentator will probably reduce their "liberal" reputation among this group. So it is probably a good move for them.

Of course, for people like me, it is maddening as hell to see the proponents of the war retiring to think tanks, and the NY Times, while the people who actually had to fight the war are suffering from PTSD, have lost limbs, etc; and most of us are stuck with a trillion dollar debt, etc.

But the NY Times is just acting like a corporation catering to its market, which I have concluded does not include me.

[DavidMG]

Who cares? He's a looser and will continue to make a fool of himself.

[justanotherbushhater]

Rhetorical question:

David Brooks and Bill Kristol: Intellectual heavyweights?

[justanotherbushhater]

Is an Ad Hominem attack vs. Kristol acceptable, o venerable HuffPo moderator?

Because I and many others consider Bill Kristol a traitor to this country, am I allowed to say that?

My reasoning is that he was an original signatory to th PNAC document and has been a tireless lobbyist for war war and more war, a foppish cheerleader [like W] urging the U.S. to establish its own mega-caliphate over the entire Middle East. And this [expletive deleted] still thinks a third front in Iran's "a good thing" --- a regular Martha Stewart of bad-bad-bad-strategy foreign policy concoctions.

That such a lunatico is given an NYT venue to spout his Dan Quayle-like wisdom verges on total insanity. Is HE paying THEM to publish his columns?

Perhaps the Times could print his column in Esperanto thus sharply limiting the number of people exposed to his toxic "thoughts."

[jrutle]

The NY Times is going the same direction with poor quality political journalism as has the LA Times. Its remarkable that any major daily would give William Kristol a forum since he is so frequently incorrect in his analysis and out of touch with the vast majority of Americans. Basically, he's nothing more than a propagandist for neo-conservatism.

[hazmaq]

This reminds me so much of the Congressional Democrats.

Why, Why, Why is it that the Left always backs down, while the Right moves farther to the right and remains steadfast to it's principles.
The whole of the Republican party embraces their mavericks like Ron Paul or Walter Rodgers, or even Ted Poe and the old McCain.
While the Democrats shun theirs. Feingold and Murtha, Webb and Tester, Lamont and Hackett; all silenced or shut out.

But unlike the Times, who need to make some unpleasant decisions to assure their continued viability -while retaining their credibility and principles- the Democrats do their dirty work knowing full well the party membership and moral has been in a steep decline while continually throwing out every principle core belief of what the party stands for.

And those core party beliefs stands in direct opposition to everything Kristol stands for.
At least it did.

For the sake of our future and your holiday reading pleasure -and to start the New Year off better than it ended, I link to this article:
http://leftword.blogdig.net/archives/articles/September2007/06/HOW_BADLY_DID_RAHM_EMANUEL_S_ILLICIT_TACTICS_AT_THE_DCCC_HURT_THE_DEMOCRATS__ABILITY_TO_END_THE_WAR_AND_PUT_FORWARD_PROGRESSIVE_POLICIES_.html

In 2008 if we ever hope to stop more Kristols from taking over our party and our media, we need to take the keys to power away from not only George W. Bush, but from Bush's cronies, who sold out the troops, the Democratic party, the country and the world.
And the worst Democrats of the year are:
Rahm Emanuel, the Dems Tom Delay -only worse.
Chuck Schumer, owned uses the DSCC purse to threaten.
Steny Hoyer, owned by special interests.
Nancy Pelosi, weak, owned by special interests.
Tom Lantos, owned by special interests.
Harry Reid, weak and clinging to power.
Hillary Clinton, friend to the neocon and owned by special interests.

[wadenelson1]

An incredible blunder by the NYTimes.

Times readers across the country are educated, informed people. People who don't buy Mr. Kristol's rhetoric.

I don't know how many will actually dump their subscriptions as a result, but I'm sure it will be more than ADD a subscription as a result of this bone-headed move.

Alas, the Gray Lady, like the Titanic, appears to be sinking. Judith Miller carved the hole, and weak bulkheads (like management) allow bilge-water like Kristol to pour in.

[Norge]

It does not matter if they are left,right or center. Those such as Kristol, write with murder
in their pens.
Their level is on par with the propaganda pushed by the 3rd. reich.

[Pippilin]

Gag me with a spoon.

[arvo]

Kristol is a hell of a lot worse than a right wing zealot. He's a bottle-fed psychological warfare baby. He is a mockingbird singing dissonant songs to the burning forest.

[tommybones]

Meanwhile, Noam Chomsky couldn't get an op-ed on the domestic NY Times if his life depended on it. I love how the Times rips those who find this decision appalling by calling us "intolerant." It's not about intolerance, it's about fairness and accuracy. Kristol is a right wing zealot. So is Mr. Brooks. The only true "leftist" voice at the Times is Krugman, and he's barely to the left. The rest are center or center/right. There isn't a true far left member of the group. Let's see some Chomsky op-eds, then we'll believe the Times when it talks of "tolerance."