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.

Comments

[MGhamma]

If this doesn't prove that "liberal media bias" is a myth, nothing does.

[gro]

Big Media can hire all the wingnuts they please, but they will still lose readership and viewers. Sure, it's instructive to know what the mouthpieces of empire want you to believe. Not everyone has a strong stomach however.
I am hoping that 'muddle-headed, fear-mongering Bu$hCo shills' will be desperate for good paying jobs soon... At least until the next Sturm un Drang, or Shock and Awe opportunity.

[ultomatt]

Just one thing to say about the redoubtable Kristol. He reminds me of John Ehrlichman of Watergate infame. More specifically, how Ehrlichman, in attempting to always look like he was in control, would smile at the most inopportune times, like when Sam Irvin was raking him over the coals for his crimes, during the Watergate Hearings. Kristol does the exact same thing, and it's creeped me out since the first time I saw him do it...much like Ehrlichman did the first time I saw him do that. Only difference being, Kristol is even more of a bloodthirsty sociopath than Ehrlichman was.

[kobe8lal]

After Rosenthal and Safire left the editorial page had no staunch Israel defender. Friedman is unreliable. Kristol was hired to fill that hole. Of course the guy is a putz. He's a lousy writer, a shallow mind and will be an embarrassment to the paper. Let them live with him, I'm keeping my subscription. Their editorials, the columns of Krugman, Herbert and Dowd are worth it. As for Kristol, he'll he the cartoon.

[cheforacle]

I too find it completely bewildering that the Times would add Kristol to their op-ed page lineup. During the buildup to the Iraq war, Kristol commented that the whole notion of a dangerous division between Shiites and Sunnis in the secular country of Iraq was pop psychology. This comment was either a knowing fabrication by someone who was prepared to make any comment, no matter how preposterous, to advance the cause for invasion, or it demonstrates that he lacks any realistic comprehension of the nature of the Middle East, the motivations and thinking of terrorists in the region, the fact that it was only Saddam Hussein's iron fist which kept the lid on the underlying sectarian tensions of the 2 groups - just as Tito's authoritarian regime did vis-a-vis the different ethnic and religious groups comprising the former Yugoslavia - and the glaring reality that Hussein, as horrible as he was, considered his interests as being counter to those of Al Qaeda and its affiliates or other jihadist terrorist groups. The notion that someone who is supposed to have some authority on subjects about which he proffers opinions is undermined by giving him such a prestigious forum. It is no less absurd than having a writer in Tuesday's Science Times section write a piece claiming that belief in creationism is forcing a genuine debate in the medical community about whether natural selection influences or causes genetic mutations. Someone whose opinions have been discredited to such an extent forfeit the privilege of receiving such widespread exposure in a publication whose readers demand meaningful inquiry into important subjects not propaganda and prejudice.

[MikeMidCity]

This crap storm over the NYT hiring a blind rightwing profit is funny.

The paper hasn't been left leaning for years people.

Not a MSM outlet in the country is liberal.

[Stanley]

I agree that this is as much a reaction to Rupert's monopoly on Conservative zealotry and his $5 Billion to buy the WSJ in their own home town. If you can't beat'em, join'em. Having Kristol window dress the editorial page makes the paper seem less vulnerable to wholesale evacuation from the liberal voice.

All conservative ideas are not bad. One can surely count on the Democratic President in 2008 along with a corrupt Democratic Congress to have much to right about. Having a pet pitbull can come in handy as Rupert goes after their home turf with a vengeance. It's just insurance and survival as the wind blows so goes the NYT.

[Rog49Thomas]

I have two questions tangentially related to this article.

In much of the discussion about Brother Bill, he is called a liar (among other things).

First, it’s not clear to me is the basis on which that judgment is made.

As I understand it, lying requires a conscious effort to deceive. If for example, I were to ask you directions to the Meadowlands so I could see one of New Jersey’s two fine professional football teams compete and you deliberately gave me the wrong answer, you would be lying. If you were mistaken and gave me the wrong directions but thought you were giving me correct information, you would not be lying. In either case you would be “wrong” but your intent would make all the difference between a “lie” and a “mistake”.

While we all may be able to say that Brother Bill was wrong on this or that issue, how are some able to know his intent is to deliberately mislead?

Or is there another basis for determining he is lying that I’ve overlooked?

Second, are the subjects of his lies “facts” or “opinions”? An example of the former would be that Saddam had WMD. An example of the latter that the Jets were a better team than the Giants. Or that President Pan was the “best” or “worst” President.

To those who might wonder: I vehemently disagree with Brother Bill.

[jesthefaxman]

Krugman, Kristol two whacked egotistical pundits no matter their credentials still make pontifications as facts that never come true....birds of a feather I say.

Same fishwrap, same shit wrapped up in it. Kristol will no more make the NYTimes seem fair and balanced than Alan Colmes.

How would Sharpton put this? Kristol is a token's token.

eF the NYT's

[Dunnage]

The problem is not Bill Kristol. The problem is that people such as yourself thought he might be prudent and reasonable at any time. God, it was like the plague.

[TheIndependenceParty]

Freedom of Speech it seems, is something that the conservative right preserves only for itself. FCC Chairman Martin shephered through a change in publishing regulations a la broadcasting regulation Christmas Gift to the right wing that allows these media to overlap in ownership. Now the Times willingly joins the Fourth Reich in its full assault upon reason by hiring William Kristol to write upon its pages. What lunacy!

When these last reserves of rational thinking, such as the New York Times, have all fallen prey to the Reich, one by one, ... I am thankful for bloggers here and at other sites who have no financial stake whatsoever in what was once known as journalism. "Professional Journalism"? An oxymoron more every day.

In the end it will be the Fourth Estate that fails America most, and causes her demise. They were supposed to be our last and best defense in support of freedom. When they were last sold, they deserted the people forever.

[MrJoyboy]

Why isn't anyone seeing the obvious? These fanatics of the right are being hired because they are rabidly pro-Israel (at the expense of America), as are the owners of the publications hiring them.

[realitytrumpsbull]

I'm not a Kristol fan, but review the record,
SOMEbody did a dirty on 9/11. There's the
official version, the unofficial version,
the tinfoil hat version, the not-ready-for-CNN
version, the CNN version, the outsider version,
but suffice it to say that it did, in fact
happen, and getting to the bottom of the WHY
is paramount.

I don't think that George flies Osama around
in his plane, but I think that our national
history, which DOES include George, and DOES
include Saudi Arabia, and DOES include
several hundred billion dollars' worth, if
not trillions of dollars worth of oil-related
revenue, needs to be examined Very Closely.
Foreign patronage, friends, buddies, cousins,
and in-laws, 'hawks' banging shoes and other
articles of clothing on tables and waving their
appendages around in hitler-like fashion and
speaking vehemently on topics global and
sundry, if 'peace' is the object, here, then
maybe they need to apply a little political
kara-te, not so much in the sense of putting
the smack down on helpless pine boards, but
rather in the sense of approaching problems with
empty hands rather than loaded rifles and
billy clubs and tear gas and pitchforks and
whatever else happens to be available.
The 21st century will contain some unique
and novel problems, as WELL as painfully familiar and heretofore seemingly intractable problems. I think the field of journalism can
best assist in the effort to solve and come to
grips with same will best be effected by leaving
a lot of the sentimentalism and political jingoism OUT of their work, and just give us the facts, man...resist the urge to write
screeds just 'cause the appliance company tells
you to...

[StreetBeat]

Isn't the reason for bringing Kristol on board obvious?

In the world of "fair and balanced" news, the Wall Street Journal begins 2008 with editorial courtesy of Murdock and his master, Satan. NYT simply did not have enough neocon blackhearts to begin the new year in the "right" direction. Someone had to produce fearmongering drivel to compete with that which will no doubt oose off the editorial pages of the WSJ in 2008.

It's all too exciting, itsn't it?

[Opus007]

I pulled the plug on the NYT after the details of Judith Miller shilling for BushCo came to light. I can't understand why the NYT would want to embrace the master of misinformaion? Well- it's their funeral. As Maya Angelou said- "People will show you who they are- BELEIVE THEM."

I guess the "liberal media" is more Republican Doublespeak like "Republican are fiscally responsible", or "Republicans will restore honor to the White House" or the biggest joke of all "Republican will keep us safe'!

We have to preserve the free internet before they try to control that also. MSM would more accurately be called CCM - Corporate Controlled Media. Naomi Klein is on to something with the "Shock Doctrine".