Bill Kristol: The Anti-Nostradamus

[meegbear]

When you hear level-headed people say that General Kristol and the Neocons have been wrong about literally everything for the past five years, they're not kidding. Anonymous Liberal — guest-posting for Glenn at Unclaimed Territory — gives us a small sample of the predictions made by TIME Magazine's new "star" columnist:

On March 17, 2003, on the eve of our invasion of Iraq, Bill Kristol wrote the following:
We are tempted to comment, in these last days before the war, on the U.N., and the French, and the Democrats. But the war itself will clarify who was right and who was wrong about weapons of mass destruction. It will reveal the aspirations of the people of Iraq, and expose the truth about Saddam's regime. It will produce whatever effects it will produce on neighboring countries and on the broader war on terror. We would note now that even the threat of war against Saddam seems to be encouraging stirrings toward political reform in Iran and Saudi Arabia, and a measure of cooperation in the war against al Qaeda from other governments in the region. It turns out it really is better to be respected and feared than to be thought to share, with exquisite sensitivity, other people's pain. History and reality are about to weigh in, and we are inclined simply to let them render their verdicts.

Well, it's been almost four years since Kristol penned those smug, taunting words, and I think it's fair to say that history and reality have indeed weighed in. There were no weapons of mass destruction. Our invasion has destabilized the entire region (and not in a positive way) and has actually exacerbated the overall terrorist threat our country faces. We are no longer feared or respected, at least nowhere near the degree we were before the invasion. Over 3000 American soldiers have lost their lives (with many thousands more badly injured). Tens of thousands of Iraqis (perhaps hundreds of thousands) have been killed and millions more displaced. We've squandered billions of dollars, as well as our national credibility and mystique. And our armed forces are currently bogged down and stretched to the limit as they undertake the thankless task of policing an escalating civil war.

Now, you would think that being so incredibly wrong about such an important subject might hurt your career prospects, and that would probably be true in any other field. But in the world of Washington punditry, being consistently and catastrophically wrong about everything is apparently not an obstacle to advancement. As David Corn reports, TIME Magazine has invited Kristol to become one the magazine's new "star" columnists.

I can see why TIME wanted Kristol so badly. His track record over the last few years is rather remarkable. Here's a sampling of some of Kristol's most impressive contributions to our political discourse over the last few years:

August 26, 2002:
Reading the Scowcroft/New York Times "arguments" against war, one is struck by how laughably weak they are. European international-law wishfulness and full-blown Pat Buchanan isolationism are the two intellectually honest alternatives to the Bush Doctrine. Scowcroft and the Times wish to embrace neither, so they pretend instead to be terribly "concerned" with the administration's alleged failure to "make the case."

April 4, 2003:
"There's been a certain amount of pop sociology in America ... that the Shia can't get along with the Sunni and the Shia in Iraq just want to establish some kind of Islamic fundamentalist regime. There's almost no evidence of that at all. Iraq's always been very secular."

April 28, 2003:
The United States committed itself to defeating terror around the world. We committed ourselves to reshaping the Middle East, so the region would no longer be a hotbed of terrorism, extremism, anti-Americanism, and weapons of mass destruction. The first two battles of this new era are now over. The battles of Afghanistan and Iraq have been won decisively and honorably. But these are only two battles. We are only at the end of the beginning in the war on terror and terrorist states.

March 22, 2004:
(T)here 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. The perpetually sour American media focus on the tensions between Shiites and Kurds that delayed the signing by three whole days. But the difficult negotiations leading up to the signing, and the continuing debates over the terms of a final constitution, have in fact demonstrated something remarkable in Iraq: a willingness on the part of the diverse ethnic and religious groups to disagree--peacefully--and then to compromise. This willingness is the product of what appears to be a broad Iraqi consensus favoring the idea of pluralism.

July 26, 2004:
What the Bush administration did say--and what so many reporters seem to have trouble understanding--is that Iraq and al Qaeda had a relationship that, by its very existence, posed a potential threat to the United States.

October 29, 2004 (column titled "Politicizing the bin Laden Tape"):
Is there any development in the war on terror, however grave, that the Kerry campaign won't try to exploit for partisan advantage?

November 1, 2004: (column titled "Bin Laden v. Bush")
Osama bin Laden's videotape is an attempt to intimidate Americans into voting against President Bush.

March 7, 2005:
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. The fall of the Berlin Wall on November 9, 1989, ended an era. September 11, 2001, ended an interregnum. In the new era in which we now live, 1/30/05 could be a key moment--perhaps the key moment so far--in vindicating the Bush Doctrine as the right response to 9/11. And now there is the prospect of further and accelerating progress.

April 4, 2005 (re: Terri Schiavo)
After all, we are a "maturing society," as the Supreme Court has told us. Perhaps it is time, in mature reaction to this latest installment of what Hugh Hewitt has called a "robed charade," to rise up against our robed masters, and choose to govern ourselves. Call it Terri's revolution.

November 7, 2005:
Last week the Bush Administration's second-term bear market bottomed out.

November 30, 2005 (column titled "Pelosi's Disastrous Miscalculation"):
All this made me think the 2006 elections could result in a Speaker Pelosi. I now think that unlikely. Pelosi's endorsement today of the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq makes the House Democrats the party of defeat, the party of surrender. Bush's strong speech today means the GOP is likely to be--if Republican Congressmen just keep their nerve--the party of victory. Now it is possible that the situation in Iraq will worsen over the next year. If that happens, Bush and the GOP are in deep trouble. They would have been if Pelosi had said nothing. But it is much more likely that the situation in Iraq will stay more or less the same, or improve. In either case, Republicans will benefit from being the party of victory.

December 26, 2005 (column titled "Happy Days!"):
If American and Iraqi troops continue to provide basic security, and if Iraq's different sects and political groups now begin to engage in serious, peaceful bargaining, then we may just have witnessed the beginning of Iraq's future.

April 4, 2006:
What was striking, following the mosque bombing, was the evidence of Iraq's underlying stability in the face of attempts to undermine it. The country's vital institutions seem to have grown strong enough to withstand even the provocation of the bombing of the golden mosque.

I could go on and on, but you get the idea. If you want to succeed as a conservative pundit in Washington, the key appears to be amassing a mile-long track record of wildly inaccurate predictions and disastrously bad advice. Congratulations, Bill Kristol. You truly are a "star".

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/01/03/bill-kristol-the-anti-nostradamus/

[Jacobin]

1. Good Lord

Nice compilation.

I literally lunge for the remote on my TV when that ghastly smirking schlong's face comes on the tube.

What a sickening thing...to live in a country where this kind of utter delusional thinking and Baghdad Bob commentary is rewarded.

This fucker should be heckled out of the country.

On edit:
I didn't realize he jumped on the Schiavo band wagon with his erstwhile fundie evangelical friends (the same ones who think he will convert to christianity when the arabs attack Jerusalem and Jayzus comes down to save them). This guy is worse by magnitudes than PT Barnum. He is a dangerous man.

[Itchinjim]

2. I prefer to call him,

Nostradumbass.

[formercia]

4. I love it, methinks

subject to review at a later date when there is a remote possibility of something more descriptive.

I hope someone has a cell phone camera to record the moment.:evilgrin:

[Jacobin]

3. This deserves to be kicked

Almost as much as KristolMeth Bill deserves to be kicked in the ass

[unpossibles]

5. he's even worse than Pat Robertson

and that says a LOT!

[jgraz]

6. Not that we should stop kicking Billy's ass or anything

But I'd bet you could compile a similar list for any of the neocon pundits. My guess is that David Brooks or Tony Blankley would be just as entertaining.

[applegrove]

7. As someone said about another pundit ...Nostra-Dumb-Ass. LOL I liked

that one.

[liam_laddie]

8. K & R!

Kristol's absurdities are now gonna be in "Time?" Indecipherable...
:puke:
Reading between the lines of the his/PNAC's manifesto indicates, to me at least,
the main goal is to protect Israel...at US taxpayers' expense. There is no
evidence to the contrary; all the arguments they make are just smoke and mirrors
to obscure their real agenda. Yes, I am definitely against such extremist Zionism;
not against Israel's (and an independent Palestine's) right to exist.
Kristol's smug puss must be ignored.

[Morgana LaFey]

9. This is unbelievable! I actually wish you'd gone on and on.

I do have to say, tho, that there's one thing I've enjoyed -- and that is the sheepish look on his face during interviews (e.g., TDS). Pure gold.


I have to add this. My favorite:
April 4, 2003:
"There's been a certain amount of pop sociology in America ... that the Shia can't get along with the Sunni and the Shia in Iraq just want to establish some kind of Islamic fundamentalist regime. There's almost no evidence of that at all. Iraq's always been very secular."

What willful ignorance. People who actually knew what they were talking about warned us well in advance, and in the starkest possible terms. They were so convincing that I finally came to realize that there ARE some instances in which a strong-arm dictator is about the only thing that works. Iraq was cobbled together by the Brits (and the U.S.?) and Saddam kept it together for many, many years. No doubt it was an unnatural (and violent) peace, but there was no civil war.

[proud patriot]

10. LOL

Oh man I'm sending this to my DAD ...

K&R

[ProudDad]

11. Did you cc Time with this?

On Edit:

Of course, Time has always been a right-wing rag anyway. He'll fit right in...

Shades of PNAC:

"Luce, who remained editor-in-chief of all his publications until 1964, was an influential member of the Republican Party. Holding anti-communist sentiments, he was an instrumental figure behind the so-called "China Lobby," and played a large role in steering American foreign policy and popular sentiment in favor of Nationalist leader Chiang Kai-shek and his wife Soong Mei-ling. Once ambitious to become Secretary of State in a Republican administration, Luce penned a famous article in Life magazine in 1941, called "The American Century," which defined the role of American foreign policy for the remainder of the 20th century (and perhaps beyond)."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=edit&forum=132&topic_id=3039018&mesg_id=3039881

[Generic Brad]

12. He could always get a job as a weather forecaster. n/t