Bill Kristol on Obama: No Smoking Gun, But Plenty of Cheap Shots

Bill Kristol is desperate to find an ad hominem way to smear Barack Obama, and the New York Times continues to oblige this warmonger and professional propagandist with prominent print space.

Kristol's contortionist tactics have hit an all-time low: In today's column, Kristol faults Obama for "omitting" a specific reference to military service when Obama, in a rousing commencement address at Wesleyan University, encouraged graduates to go into public service. Kristol, deriding such a call to public service as "self-regarding" and "self-congratulatory" and then insinuating that the speech itself worked against public service, apparently believes a candidate can and should be lambasted for what he didn't say. Kristol, then, is free to fill in those blanks.

Gee, that opens up a whole new round of possibilities for criticism. "Today, Obama spoke about U.S. relations with Russia, but...wasn't it curious that he failed to mention--in fact, he omitted--any discussion about Rev. Wright's comments five years ago?"

I hope that Kristol fairly and consistently applies his newfound hermeneutic ability to read discursive absences into other candidates' statements. For instance: "Sen. McCain honored our nation's soldiers today and encouraged the American public to support our troops. Funny, wasn't it, how he omitted any mention that he himself failed to vote in favor of the recent G.I. Bill (the one that Obama explicitly supported)?"

Kristol's methods can be faulted on a number of grounds. First, his complaint is based on interpretive projection: How does he know that Obama didn't take it for granted that by "public service" he naturally meant to include and convey "military service" as well--and assumed his audience would, too? In that case, the "omission" is merely a figment of Kristol's vexed imagination.

Second, in common parlance, "public service" usually implies service mainly with a domestic focus. That connotation of the "public" doesn't exclude or preclude military service, of course; but usually we use separate qualifying phrases for that kind of national dedication, namely military service or national service or service to one's country. The terms "public" and "national" are not synonymous and fungible. Precisely because of the semantic distinction between "public service" and "military service," the latter sometimes does need special mention and explicit referencing--hence the unspoken grounds for Kristol's complaint.

But that linguistic severability also means that one could speak about and extol public service without needing to take up, or tacitly disparage, the separate matter of military service. Analogously, we would neither expect nor require, for instance, that a commencement speaker at the Wharton School, who encourages M.B.A. graduates to dedicate themselves to American business enterprise, also explicitly raise the possibility that such graduates actively consider working for military contractors such as Halliburton or Blackwater. Such an "omission" regarding the proper ambit of business would not be conspicuous by its absence.

Kristol's additional charge against Obama about self-serving speech raises self-referential issues about Kristol's own column. Had Obama explicitly encouraged Wesleyan graduates to sign up for military service, he surely would have needed to mention that we are currently at war in Iraq (something Kristol conveniently omits in his paean to military service), and that volunteering for military service during this time of war would mean, with a high degree of probability, that one will be shipped off to Iraq. Somehow Kristol "omits" that he was one of the chief architects, supporters, and promoters of that very war.

In other words, Kristol wants Obama to perform a "public service" for Kristol's war. He wants Obama to inspire graduates to become grunts for that war in particular. Talk about a self-serving piece of prose!

Ad hominem attacks can backfire. Kristol wants others to encourage our young men and women to volunteer for national military service during wartime, and yet Kristol himself never served in the military--though he came of age during the Vietnam War. He's never given the American public a good explanation about why he avoided such service. The closest he's ever come to military service is reading Thucydides or Carl Schmitt. Aw shucks, I guess it just didn't work out at the time. Maybe Wesleyan graduates of 2008 can compensate for his Harvard deferral of 1970.

Those who live in glass houses probably shouldn't omit those key details.

Comments

[ALEJCARO]

Military service? Military service? Bill Kristol takes chutzpah to new levels. Bill Kristol should aim his comments about military service to his neo con pro-war buddies who like to wage war but send others to do the fighting. No not chickenhawks, but out and out neo con cowards.

[Piatt]

Another Republican Chickenhawk. Perhaps, like Cheney, he had other priorities. Why on earth is the New York Times giving "Quyale's brain" a regular chance to bloviate?

[freshnotbitter]

In his column Kristol tries to affect a little "modesty" by noting that he has never been one who could imagine and deliver a commencement address. He goes on to praise those who do.

Well, Bill, it's very easy if you have some knowledge to pass on to college grads drawn from a lifetime of living and learning. It is more difficult when you approach the task like you approach your columns, finding 1001 ways to entice theh public into a game of 3 card monte.

[SlithyTove]

I agree with the author's analysis of Kristol, and object to his inventing the term 'war mongerer': 'warmonger' will do quite nicely, thank you.

[BBackSoon]

“I hope that Kristol fairly and consistently applies…..­” Theres your problem right there!!!!

[FlowerGirl]

Is there any more useless person in America than Bill Kristol?
He has never DONE anything of aqny value for anybody. He has been allowed to talk a lot, but he has never informed anyone correctly on any subject he has talked about.
Oh, he does have his claim to fame though. He is the son of the "Father of Neoconserv­atism."
He has much in common with his sibling. (1) He is devoted to giving out misinformation. (The "Noble Lie" is a prime tool for the Neocon "Elite" to deceiver the masses and gain their support for the bpaqrasites looting them.) (2) He is devoted to undemocratic government. (Neoconservatism began with a bunch of Comunists who tried and failed to gain control of the Democratic Party. Now that they have squeezed the juice oput of the Republican Party, they are trying to sneak into the Democratic Party again. The DLC bunch was a good beginning.­) (3) He is a true AIPAC type Zionist above all. After that, and for that purpose, he is for a militarized America.
I suggest it is past time to purge such filth from our system. That our media still give such a big voice tells us so0mething about the sickness of our system.

[lthuedk 1]

Living proof that a modern day, anti-American militant socialist can wander among us without causing a stir. In fact, the NYT has placed Kristol, a Neo Con, at the top of it's commentary food chain to show how he blends in; how his very existence proves beyond doubt that America is ready to move forward into that Straussian good night.

What a fool he and his AEI clones are. America will never accept the Neo Con as anything close to legitimate, in the same way it would reject Goebbels, Stalin, or Hitler. Mr. Kristol is a totalitarian relic whose only contribution to civilization is to provide a living example of why such ideologies are always doomed to fail.

http://www.light-to-dark.com/kristol_bush_rove.html

[BonnieJW]

Why can't "journalists" dig and find out some really juicy stuff about these rats? I'm sure Kristol, Wolfowitz, Cheney, etc. have lots of dirt going on now and in the past. The MSM is not only ineffectual, they are plain lazy.

[longislandlol]

I used to love everything about the Times-- but why did they hire the neo-con king to write? Dear God-- what were they thinking?

[JoeDoorman]

What is so surprising about Bill Kristol working at The New York Times?
His agenda echoes what the Times been preaching for years.

Here is The New York Time’s Thomas L. Friedman writing on March 13, 2003, seven days before the Iraq invasion. "Removing Mr. Hussein—with his obsession to obtain weapons of mass destruction—ending his tyranny and helping to nurture a more progressive Iraq that could spur reform across the Arab-Muslim world are the best long-term responses to bin Ladenism."

This is in lock step with Bush and Co.
Kristol could have authored it.

[Insideout143]

Bill Kristol is a sorry excuse for a 'reporter.­' He constantly gets facts wrong. He should have been part of Hillary Clinton's campaign staff.

[peggio]

HE TRIED, GOD KNOWS HE TRIED. True he had help from those other right wing Hillary fans, Pat Buchan, Joe Scarborough and our own timid R in D clothes...­..Harold Ford!

New slogan for the times.....­ALL THE NEWS THAT GIVES YOU FITS....WE PRINT!

[Chrisallalone]

If I recall correctly, a point similar to Kristol's was made on this page by Frank Schaeffer. I often enjoy his writings, but I thought that his argument in this case was as specious as Kristol's point as described here. I would never disparage military service in general, but advocating it at this particular moment is offering young people a direct ticket to a war that Obama has spoken against since its inception. How could he be expected to do that?

At any rate, as Seery points out, Obama's address did nothing to exclude military service. He was just talking about something else.

[itsnotmyfault]

John, What you fail to realize is that when Bill Kristol himself was a bright eyed bushy tailed wayward youth, he too was subjected to a college commencement speech by an equally eloquent speaker who encouraged public service yet failed to include the opportunity of military service. The speaker at Kristols graduation was a Democrat and not just any Democrat but a left leaning hate America Democrat. And it was only because of this Democrat's oversight, (if that is was it was and not a sleight and disrespect to the Military and all service men) did Bill Kristol choose not to serve his country in the military. He would not enlist. It would not be his fault.

Bill would be saddled with that guilt to this day and unfairly tainted with the epithet of warm mongering "chicken hawk," advocating more wars at every turn yet never himself strapping on the boots and brain bucket.

No wonder he recoiled at Obama's oversight (if that is what it was). One has to ask how many more Bill Kristols were made that day? And why do they all work at the Bush whitehouse?

[dotmafia]

Kristol should have his @ss thrown in jail for the rest of his life for instigating so much havoc, destruction and death with his warped views. And he's allowed to continue doing it with his baiting of Iranians and Muslims! He's no different than the Nazi propagandist Julius Streicher who was hanged as a result of the Nuremberg War Crimes Trial.

[research]

More proof, if you needed it, that the NYT is NOT a liberal paper. There are NO liberal papers.

Bill Kristol is wrong and evil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Kristol