He's a neocon - with an op-ed column in one of the most important newspapers in the world. So here we have a man who has been wrong about everything, including the most misguided, dangerous and corrupt strategy, PNAC, in the history of our country, a man who has done incalculable damage not only to our country but Iraq, which we could never make whole again if we devoted the next hundred years to it and he's rewarded with a column in the NYT. What's amazing is that these people no longer even try to hide the corruption and nepotism that drives the media - and hiding it is the least they could do.

The rest is commentary.

Would it be too much to ask that we leave Rabbi Hillel out of this? 

I was tempted to read the first NYT Kristol piece, but held off. I don't want hit counters to add another tick. Surely I have missed nothing.

This column was fucking ridiculous. Kristol is just mendacious. Saying that republicans want a "regular-guy" president after 8 years of the high-born Bush. What the fuck, bill kristol? What country are you living in?

Then he quotes Michelle Malkin, that bastion of good sense.

And he wraps it up by claiming than an Obama-Huckabee race would induce Bloomberg to run. What the crap? That's not even close to right.

Ugh.

I am afraid that the first sentence of Kristol's piece was actually changed from the original "Who will rid me of this troublesome priest?" but my guess is that original sentiment and its outcome is far closer to Kristol's true thoughts.

I e-mailed the NYT about Krystol annointing Huckabee a "regular guy', and reminded him we have a "regular guy" in the WH. One you (he) want to have a beer with. Look what he has done. Shredded the Constitution and lowered our Country's esteem around the world and split us at home. Also, if I wanted a "regular guy" to vote for and have a beer with, I would select one of my drinking buddies at the VFW. A place where VETERANS meet. A place foreign to Krystol.

GOP Talking points from 1985 at that.

What really irked me was his "Some of us" want something different.

There was that sense of entitlement, as if the "some of us" are so important, so entitled to have our way... that we can just look down on the rest of you reptiles... and tell you what we see, what we want, what should happen.

It made me sick!

I love the Malkin quote about the hard working self-reliant wing. It's especially ripe given that both Kristol and Rosenthal have their positions based on their Daddies rather than on some kind of elbow greased bootstrapping.

Snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory in Iraq.

Ladies and Gentlement, meet the new neocon party line--we will be hearing this over and over again, as the right tries mightily to spin history to exonerate its own stupidity and hubris.

The first of many big whopping turds that Kristol will be laying on the Times op-ed page.

One thing that is impressive about Kristol's article is his willingness to sacrifice short term political advantage in order to help establish a theme that will have resonance with the public in another decade. It is likely that the Democrats will win this year and it is also very likely that they will withdraw US troops from Iraq within a year. Though we know that the US lost the war a couple of years ago, it is not generally accepted. However, once we withdraw and an anti-American government takes power, it will be clear to all that we did indeed lose. Planting "snatching defeat from the jaws of victory" is not a slogan that will win elections today. But in a few years it will be a major part of the platform for the right to reorganize themselves.

Yet another example of where Conan Doyle's formulation ("I'm not sure your assistant isn't as remarkable as your advertisement" -- from "The Red-Headed League) applies yet ag'in.

As for Kristol and Huckabee, they are two shamelessly RW souls -- what more is there to say? Q -- Is Kristol accurate or not in suggesting that Huckabee has a very serious chance of being elected president this Nov? This question is separate from the question of what the difference is b/t him and a bucket of manure; in FACT, could he appeal to a coalition of at least nearly a majority of those who will vote this November, close enough so that the GOP can steal yet another election?

I couldn't stand Safire either. But the guy could write and he was, I'm afraid, a real Republican (he was with Nixon in 1960).

Was being the operative word.

By the end Safire had rolled over for the NeoCons and greatly undermined his legacy as a "real conservative." It's like what they say about torture, given enough pressure and time, everybody gives in and will say whatever they're required to.

It is ironic that Kristal basis part of this column on trying to protect John G. Roberts. Here quoted on Barack's own site from the Wapo August 27,2007 is Barack's take on that nomination:

"[Obama] was thinking about voting to confirm John G. Roberts Jr. as chief justice. Talking with his aides, the Illinois democrat expressed his admiration for Robert's intellect. Besides, Obama said, if he were President he wouldn't want his judicial nominees opposed simply on ideological grounds.

And the Rouse, his chief of staff spoke up. This is no Harvard moot-court exercise, he said. If Obabma voted for Roberts, Rouse told him people would remind him of that every time the supreme court issued nother conservative ruling, something that could cripple a future presidential run. Obama took it in. And when the roll was called, he voted no."

Here is Clinton's official statement on the matter:

September 22, 2005

Statement of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on the Nomination of John Roberts to be Chief Justice of the United States

"The nomination of Judge John Roberts to be Chief Justice of the United States is a matter of tremendous consequence for future generations of Americans. It requires thoughtful inquiry and debate, and I commend my colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee for their dedication to making sure that all questions were presented and that those outside of the Senate had the opportunity to make their voices heard. After serious and careful consideration of the Committee proceedings and Judge Roberts’s writings, I believe I must vote against his confirmation. I do not believe that the Judge has presented his views with enough clarity and specificity for me to in good conscience cast a vote on his behalf.

The Constitution commands that the Senate provide meaningful advice and consent to the President on judicial nominations, and I have an obligation to my constituents to make sure that I cast my vote for Chief Justice of the United States for someone I am convinced will be steadfast in protecting fundamental women’s rights, civil rights, privacy rights, and who will respect the appropriate separation of powers among the three branches. After the Judiciary Hearings, I believe the record on these matters has been left unclear. That uncertainly means as a matter of conscience, I cannot vote to confirm despite Judge Roberts’s long history of public service.

In one memo, for example, Judge Roberts argued that Congress has the power to deny the Supreme Court the right to hear appeals from lower courts of constitutional claims involving flag burning, abortion, and other matters. He wrote that the United States would be far better off with fifty different interpretations on the right to choose than with what he called the “judicial excesses embodied in Roe v. Wade.” The idea that the Supreme Court could be denied the right to rule on constitutional claims had been so long decided that even the most conservative of Judge Roberts’s Justice Department colleagues strongly disagreed with him.

When questioned about his legal memoranda, Judge Roberts claimed they did not necessarily reflect his views and that he was merely making the best possible case for his clients or responding to a superior’s request that he make a particular argument. But he did not clearly disavow the strong and clear views he expressed, but only shrouded them in further mystery. Was he just being an advocate for a client or was he using his position to advocate for positions he believed in? The record is unclear.

It is hard to believe he has no opinion on so many critical issues after years as a Justice Department and White House lawyer, appellate advocate and judge. His supporters remind us that Chief Justice Rehnquist supported the constitutionality of legal segregation before his elevation to the high court, but never sought to bring it back while serving the court system as its Chief Justice. But I would also remind them of Justice Thomas’s assertion in his confirmation hearing that he had never even discussed Roe v. Wade, much less formed an opinion on it. Shortly after he ascended to the Court, Justice Thomas made it clear that he wanted to repeal Roe.

Adding to testimony that clouded more than clarified is that we in the Senate have been denied the full record of Judge Roberts’s writings despite our repeated requests. Combined, these two events have left a question mark on what Judge Roberts’s views are and how he might rule on critical questions of the day. It is telling that President Bush has said the Justices he most admires are the two most conservative justices, Justices Thomas and Scalia. It is not unreasonable to believe that the President has picked someone in Judge Roberts whom he believes holds a similarly conservative philosophy, and that voting as a bloc they could further limit the power of the Congress, expand the purview of the Executive, and overturn key rulings like Roe v. Wade.

Since I expect Judge Roberts to be confirmed, I hope that my concerns are unfounded and that he will be the kind of judge he said he would be during his confirmation hearing. If so, I will be the first to acknowledge it. However, because I think he is far more likely to vote the views he expressed in his legal writings, I cannot give my consent to his confirmation and will, therefore, vote against his confirmation. My desire to maintain the already fragile Supreme Court majority for civil rights, voting rights and women’s rights outweigh the respect I have for Judge Roberts’s intellect, character, and legal skills."

###

Obama was not concerned enough about the impact of Robert's views on the real world to register a protest but was willing to make a change based on his own political future. Obama as a Harvard Law grad has no excuse for being so oblivious to the ways in which values inform legal decisions.

For those interested in the neo-Con's views of the world and American military power's role I would recommend "Why America Sleeps" by Douglas and Frederick Kagan. It views are very short on political realities but it interesting.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Let me assure everyone that I meant no respect to Safire when I said he's better than Kristol.  He's awful.  

In 1988, I was working for Sen. Levin and, at his request, did a letter to Secretary of State George Shultz endorsing the peace process (so mild, you wouldn't believe it). 30 Senators signed it and the lobby went insane!

So William Safire calls me to tell me he is doing a column exposing that the letter was written not by me (for Levin) but by Yossi Beilin, who then worked for Peres. I didn't know who Beilin was. But Safire had been told that it was evil leftist Beilin who wrote the letter by then UN Amb Bibi Netanyahu. It was a total lie.

In the end, Safire wrote the column attacking Levin as doing the letter at the request of Peres (a lie) but not saying Beilin wrote the letter.

The amazing part was having a NY Times columnist call and threaten me (yes, he was threatening) on behalf of the Likud right. Freaked me out because had the article appeared, I would have been accused of acting as an agent of a foreign political party and I was a sworn official of the US government. I ran to Levin's office to tell him. He just said, "since it's all lies, why should we care." Anyway, that was William Safire! Story on Levin Letter

Is the NY Times going to be like the Wall Street Journal, a good source for news but an Opinion Page of Neo-cons. The Wall Street Journal is the most right-wing opinion page in the country, but the rest of the paper is really good, guess the NY Times is trying to match that.

Jon