Muddle-Headed, Fear-Mongering, BushCo Shills Still Have a Right to Shout "Fire" in a Crowded Theater
Next week, I am really going to miss The New York Times. For years now, I have spent at least part of every morning reading the Times, and I love its variety. In addition, I have had a long and enjoyable writer's relationship with the Times. I've written for the magazine, the Travel Section, the Book Review, and the Op-Ed page (once I wrote in favor of divorce, and they received a gratifying hail of shocked, shocked SHOCKED! letters in response). On the day I heard the first rumor about my Pulitzer Prize, I was working with one of the Book Review editors. In a state of disbelief, I asked her if she had heard anything. She said "No, but here at the New York Times, we have a saying that eighty percent of rumors are true." I liked that. It agreed with my experience as a gossip. Just a couple of months ago, I wrote a sidebar for the magazine. The piece was fun, the editor was fun, and they embedded me in an article about Daniel Day-Lewis. Who could ask for more?
Given my attachment to the Times over the years, I have to say that I even forgave them for Judith Miller, difficult as that was. But after the advent of Bill Kristol on the editorial page next week, that's it for the Times and me.
I cannot imagine why the Times has hired Kristol. Kristol is not merely some rightwing loose cannon like David Brooks or even William Safire, and his hiring by the Times is not a free-speech issue. Kristol has plenty of opportunities to speak, and if he didn't he could blog, like the rest of us. Kristol is a war-monger and a hate-monger, and his lies have been exposed over and over in the last four years. If you think that the Iraq War is a crime, as I do, it is bad enough that he was one of the primary cheerleaders for it, even after every single one of the reasons that the Cheney/Bush/right wing gave for the attack was exposed. But he is worse than that. Until the NIE report, he was actively advocating bombing Iran, preferably with nuclear weapons, even though the civilians in Iran who would be bombed have nothing at all to do with whatever the Iranian government is doing, or as it turns out, not doing to develop nuclear weapons. In Iraq alone, Kristol has the blood of hundreds of thousands on his hands. He is unrepentant and eager for more.
William Kristol is a man whose time has come and gone. There was a moment, in, say 2002, when some of his arguments sounded prudent, if not reasonable. Now, he only sounds crazy. NOTHING has turned out as Kristol said it would, and the process of finding this out has cost the American people a great deal, and not only money and lives. Why the New York Times would hire such a person boggles the mind to think of. The announcement even made no sense, pointing out, as it did, that "Mr. Kristol, 55, has been a fierce critic of the Times. In 2006, he said that the government should consider prosecuting the Times for disclosing a secret government program to track international banking transactions. In a 2003 column on the turmoil within the Times that led to the downfall of the top two editors, he wrote that it was not 'a first-rate newspaper of record,' adding, 'the Times is irredeemable.'" Why would the Times hire such a person? Stockholm Syndrome? Some kind if inside-the-beltway joke? An attempt to lure that bloc of American newspaper readers who listen to Rush Limbaugh? Earth to Times! Maybe they can't read!
Day after day, I read the letters to the editor column. After almost every column by David Brooks, I am struck by how few readers agree with a single thing he says, how many cogently disagree with him. Judging by the letters column, readers of the Times are liberal to moderate, and, most importantly, they have a well-developed sense of decency and responsibility. Has the Times now decided just to stick it to us, willy nilly, by giving Kristol a platform and a paycheck? Who's next, A--- C---, who suggested that the Times building be bombed? Even the Times editors themselves, in an editorial printed yesterday, lament that the U.S. has become unrecognisably lawless and inhumane. Earth to Times! William Kristol is as much to blame for this as anyone on the planet!
So, as of next Monday, the Times feed disappears from my home page, and when I get that 1-111-111-1111 number on my caller I.D., the one that reveals how the Times really thinks of itself, I won't pick up. When they send me the money they owe me for my piece, I will divide it between a charity that benefits Iraq veterans and one that benefits displaced Iraqis. You would have thought that remorse for the Judith Miller debacle would have taught them something, but clearly not. Sadly not.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
If you are not reading the New York Times, how can we get your reaction to the recent op-eds by Gloria Steinem & Maureen Dowd on Hillary Clinton? Can someone e-mail them to you? You won't be buying the NYT that way and I would love to hear what you have to say.
Now the rest of us have a section to read in the Times.
Neocons, Republicans and conservatives are all, neocons now, hell, even former liberals and Democrats are neocons now, since the invasion of Iraq started. Look at Joe Lieberman. Neocons are a dime a dozen in D.C. There are dozens of tax-exempt neocon foundations, think tanks and AEI (Kristol's) type organizations and foundations funded by unspeakably wealthy right-wing, always Republican, idealogical zealots. No need to have any more neocons or conservatives on the NYTimes opinion pages, Freidman and Brooks are Krugman and Herbert's political opposites.
Think about it, the WSJ doesn't have any liberals do they, and no one complains.
The NYTimes is really conservative, Republican establishment at heart, they supported the war and the shenanigans Judith Miller was up to all along. They did all they could to bring Clinton down. And, they have never, ever called Bush to account for his crimes against humanity and his lying invasion. NEVER, EVER!
Seeing as we're apparently at war with the muslim world, why not have an muslim/Arab columnist to present his views on the M.E., instead of just T. Freidman's, who was for the unilateral invasion that has killed thousands of people.
We are sad that 3,000 innocent Americans were anihilated on 9-11, just think how Iraqis must feel about our invasion of their country that has anihilated hundreds of thousands.
Let's hold her to it! As for the NYT's regular readers, they can still opt to cut right to the puzzle or the theater section!
My LTTE to the Times:
Dear Sirs:
How truly emblematic -- and characteristic -- that Mr. Kristol commences his tenure as a NYTimes opinion-monger with a glaring inaccuracy. Most politically aware Americans have been well aware of his deficiencies as pundit and prognosticator for years, but apparently he feels his lofty new environs entitle him to completely blow the facts, also. Hey, Bill: Michael Medved, not Michelle Malkin, is responsible for the quote you attributed to the latter wackadoodle right-wing luminary. Please try to keep your neocon(genitally crazy) cohort straight.
All due respect,
Ron Barth, Jr.
Ms. Smiley:
If you have written for the Times, you are most likely familiar with their Journalism Ethics Handbook-the one that say that Times employees cannot advise political campaigns. As far as I can determine, William Kristol has been, and still is, an advisor to John McCain's campaign. So I wrote to the Public Editor about this, and I am awaiting his response. I'm still hoping there is a way of getting rid of Kristol. I'd love to get your feedback on whether you think this is a viable strategy.
THANK YOU, JANE FOR WRITING IT AS I SHOULD HAVE. Thank you.
MUSIC TO MY EARS, Jane! "William Kristol is a WAR-MONGER and A HATE-MONGE
BUT! against that, Jane does mention A__ C______, who of course wished death and destruction on all those in the Times building. Jane, the bottom line is Arthur Sulzberger and his Times are fully wedded to the AIPAC/PNAC
http://www
http://www
Perhaps the stars are finally shifting, and we can all start to call "a spade a spade" without being accused of "being with the terrarists"!
So, the Times is perceived as left and moderate, and to balance the scale they added Bill Kristol, because Dave Brooks et al apparently were not enough. Which shows so glaringly, that to move from moderate to the right you need to start telling lies. The left and moderate don't tell lies, just opinions on how to make this country better. Good or bad opinions, that's up to you, but they are only opinions, not lies. Once you start moving towards the right, lies pile up. The more lies you say, the more to the right you are. Doesn't this tell you something about the right's way of thinking? And the so-called "fair and balanced" is a balance between opinions and lies. Have we really sunk that low as a country?
It's Kristol clear that Kristol is
a has-been neo-con-POOP.
It appears the Times is choosing what they think is marketebility over credibility. Kristol has absolutely no credibility whatsoever. Hopefully, your and others withstaining from contributing any longer to the Times will wake them up!
That Kristol drives most people up a wall, myself included, is understandable, but why the hatred of David Brooks? Sure, he's a Republican, sometimes maddenly so, but he's also a thoughtful, decent guy, not a hater or wing nut like Kristol or Safire. He's even pro gay marriage.
Since every reputable newspaper, tries to balance their opinion section with opposing views, so it's no surprise that the times would hire a conservative columnist. But it's mind boggling that they would give the most prestigious slots in their paper to Kristol, who, as many have pointed out, is simply nuts and a lying nut at that.
Excellent Post Jane:
I think that the NY Times is rethinking their stupidity with the thumping of everyone by Obama. Change has come to America and the lying neocon's will be thrown in the trash, where they should be. It is a NEW DAY IN AMERICA.
Not content just to wrap the fishes, the NYT now seems determined to sleep with them.
So long, Times.
As Digby so aptly details in a recent post, Kristol was intimately involved in thwarting Hillary's health reform plan back in 1993, in large part just to prevent the Clintons and the Democrats from succeeding at anything.
Party before country is the GOP motto.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
