Punditry Kristolized:  Part III

After a New York Times editorial page editor defended the hiring of William Kristol by making the laughable claim that he was, "a serious, respected conservative intellectual," I was inspired to put together a collection that would show how often and overwhelmingly wrong Kristol has been.  In Part I of this series, Kristol's relentless drum beat for war in Iraq was highlighted, while Part II focused on his fearmongering claims about WMD and his later rationalizations when those weapons failed to materialize.  And this week I will concentrate on Kristol's demonization of those who opposed the war and his rosy assessments of progress in Iraq.  

Let's begin by looking at Kristol's treatment of those who opposed his and the administration's neocon fantasy "to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests."  Just two months before Congress was to vote on the Authorization to Use Military Force Against Iraq, and amidst a growing chorus of voices opposing the war, Kristol wrote:

The appeasers don't want the president to do a better job of explaining his policy. They don't agree with his policy...Reading the Scowcroft/New York Times "arguments" against war, one is struck by how laughably weak they are.

So, what were those crazy kids saying to make Kristol laugh?  The New York Times worried about the, "country's volatile mix of Shiites and Sunnis, Arabs and Kurds," while Brent Scowcroft argued that war in Iraq:

...is certain to divert us for some indefinite period from our war on terrorism.

The United States could certainly defeat the Iraqi military and destroy Saddam's regime. But it would not be a cakewalk. On the contrary, it undoubtedly would be very expensive -- with serious consequences for the U.S. and global economy -- and could as well be bloody.

At a minimum, it would stifle any cooperation on terrorism, and could even swell the ranks of the terrorists.

And if you ignore the nearly five years of ethnic-cleansing and sectarian violence, the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden's continuing freedom, the 5 billion spent so far, the 3,943 U.S. military deaths and the increase of terrorists worldwide, those arguments were laughably weak.  

And so Kristol got his war.  And as the years passed and opposition to the war increased as the casualties mounted and the violence continued unabated, Kristol responded critics in the only way he could:

The Teddy Kennedy wing of the Senate Democrats, the Nancy Pelosi faction of the House Democrats, a large majority of Democratic grass-roots activists, the bulk of liberal columnists, the New York Times editorial page, and Hollywood. These liberals--better, leftists--hate George W. Bush so much they can barely bring themselves to hope America wins the war...They hate Don Rumsfeld so much they can't bear to see his military strategy vindicated...They hate conservatives with a passion that seems to burn brighter than their love of America...

But this Congress doesn't want to run a war. It wants to lose a war. Congress can, in principle, achieve this, and the Democrats who control this Congress are doing their best to bring it about.

We'll just call them Defeatists, who are willing to ensure a U.S. defeat for the sake of destroying the Bush administration.

They're [the media] simply committed to discrediting the war and humiliating the Bush administration.

Yes, opposition to the war is simply Bush-hate.  It isn't the hundreds of thousands of deaths and billions of dollars, it's just an America-hating desire to humiliate George Bush.  Because after all, the war has gone so well:

The good news is that we may turning the corner in the debate on post-war Iraq...and despite the continued killings of American soldiers, the situation on the ground in Iraq may well be turning.  

In short, while it is indeed possible that, with a little luck, the United States can muddle through to success in Iraq over the coming months.  

What's more, there are hopeful signs that Iraqis of differing religious, ethnic, and political persuasions can work together. This is a far cry from the predictions made before the war by many, both here and in Europe, that a liberated Iraq would fracture into feuding clans and unleash a bloodbath.

Here, the last month's news--the mainstream media to the contrary notwithstanding--is promising...all of this enables one to be cautiously optimistic about the prospects in Iraq.
 
Just four weeks after the Iraqi election of January 30, 2005, it seems increasingly likely that that date will turn out to have been a genuine turning point.  

"Happy Days!"  The Iraqi elections really could be a turning point.

We are on the way to success in Iraq.  

If so, this past week could turn out to have been a pivotal moment in the Iraq war.

Have you noticed we're winning the war in Iraq--despite the assurances of Democrats, including their Senate leader, that the war was already lost?

Over and over, year after year, Kristol was wrong.  But being wrong had never stopped Kristol before, so naturally he latched onto George Bush's escalation as the latest path to victory.  Just another chance for Kristol to say we are at a pivotal turning point and on the way to success.  And to the critics who point out that the Iraqi government has failed to meet the required benchmarks, Kristol says that is:

...another key problem in this discussion. Reed dismissed all the hard-won gains of our forces and our diplomats in Iraq with the assertion that the surge was intended to allow the Iraqi government time to pass benchmark legislation, which the Iraqis have failed to do. Ergo, he and other critics say, the surge has failed. But American forces are not in Iraq to enable the Iraqi parliament to have a nice-looking scorecard.

Oh?  How was it that George Bush explained his escalation of the war?

I've made it clear to the Prime Minister and Iraq's other leaders that America's commitment is not open-ended...America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced.

And what we have more than a year later is the administration occasionally saying a benchmark has been met before retracting the claim, while Iraqi officials believe they might be able to take over by 2012.  Success!  Or as Kristol put it nearly five years ago, "despite the continued killings of American soldiers, the situation on the ground in Iraq may well be turning."  And as a matter of fact, Kristol is no longer hedging his bets with "may well be," because:

We are now winning the war.

The measure of their success lies in the fact that so many Iraqis now see American troops as friends and protectors.

Leaving aside the fact that Kristol and his ilk cheerfully ignore that more than half of all Americans want our troops out of Iraq, one can only look at his latest measure of success and say, uh oh:

Seventy-nine percent of Iraqis oppose the presence of coalition forces in the country...80 percent of Iraqis disapprove of the way U.S. and other coalition forces have performed in Iraq...72 percent say the U.S. presence is making Iraq’s security worse...Fifty-seven percent call violence against U.S. forces acceptable, up six points.

And according to William Kristol, we're winning?    

 

[visit website]