Quote of the Day

"Bush was president during the financial meltdown, the Obama team has turned that around pretty well." 

~Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol

...:blink, blink:...

American Hero

posted by Armadillo Joe

This woman is an American hero.  I put her on the same pedestal as the Dixie Chicks as someone incredibly brave, who had the courage to speak her convictions at great risk to her personal well-being at a time when people were routinely punished severely for speaking out.

Recall, if you will, the dark days of early 2003.  We were ramping up to W-A-R (shock and awe) and the retarded chimpanzee in the White House along with his Evil Uncle Dick(head) had so twisted the public's imagination into pretzel knots of illogic and abject fear -- hellbent as they were on some good old-fashioned 'Murrican score settlin' against some random brown-skinned folks to hit the four-for-the-price-of-one bonus of 1.) gettin' even for our most holy of holies 9/11 (Ah-men) 2.) settling a blood-feud between the Bush and Hussein clans with American taxpayer-funded blood and iron 3.) making an example of some ragheads before the rest of them get anymore uppity ideas (I'm looking at you Tom "Suck on this" Friedman) and 4.) making up for having skipped Vietnam by collecting machismo points by proxy via the deaths of other people's sons and daughters -- that anyone anywhere at any time who ever whispered the slightest hint of dissent that maybe, perhaps just maybe, our glorious war in the Middle East wasn't quite the photogenic Greatest Clash of Civilizations since Cecil B. DeMille shod a cast of 10,000 extras in swords and sandals... was roundly persecuted, punished and plowed-under.

I was already living in the sodom of New York City during that time -- easily the place in America most immune to Mr. Bush's "charms" and machinations, amid the assorted degenerates and pinko-lib'ruhl-islamo-fascist-America-hating Lefty terrorist-sympathizers of the entertainment industry -- and even correcting for the emotional distortion field surrounding the smoldering pit at the southern end of Manhattan island, working as I did in the so-called "red zone" below 14th Street hardly ten blocks from Ground Zero, we spoke in dissenting voices rarely and even then in the hushed tones usually reserved for snarky comments during church.

It was a dark time, indeed.  And, other than social ostracization, we actually had very little to fear from saying something negative about the general drift of current events.  Imagine someone who did, who understood that they had a great deal to lose, and spoke anyway.

Ashleigh Banfield is that person.  I used to just think of her (when I thought of her at all) as just another vapid, pretty "news" model -- more famous for her stylish choices of eyewear than anything she might have accomplished as a journalist -- and when she disappeared from the Tee-Vee in early 2003, I hadn't even noticed.  It wasn't until her story finally came out in 2005 that I understood what became of her.  The ramifications of it break my heart in empathy for her struggle and in sadness for what America became, or was revealed to have already become, in the events of the first four years of the Cheney Administration.

She gave a speech to some journalism students at Kansas State University on April 24th, 2003 where she said stuff like this:

You didn't see where those bullets landed. You didn't see what happened when the mortar landed. A puff of smoke is not what a mortar looks like when it explodes, believe me. There are horrors that were completely left out of this war. So was this journalism or was this coverage? There is a grand difference between journalism and coverage, and getting access does not mean you're getting the story, it just means you're getting one more arm or leg of the story. And that's what we got, and it was a glorious, wonderful picture that had a lot of people watching and a lot of advertisers excited about cable news. But it wasn't journalism, because I'm not so sure that we in America are hesitant to do this again, to fight another war, because it looked like a glorious and courageous and so successful terrific endeavor, and we got rid of a horrible leader: We got rid of a dictator, we got rid of a monster, but we didn't see what it took to do that.

[...]

the message before we went in was actually weapons of mass destruction and eliminating the weapons of mass destruction from this regime and eliminating this regime. Conveniently in the week or two that we were in there it became very strongly a message of freeing the Iraqi people.

[...]

If we had paid more attention to Afghanistan in the '80s we might not have had 9-11. If we hadn't left it in such a mess, we might not have had 9-11 and three thousand people would be alive to talk to you today.

[...]

This TV show (the Iraq War - ed.) that we just gave you was extraordinarily entertaining, and I really hope that the legacy that it leaves behind is not one that shows war as glorious, because there's nothing more dangerous than a democracy that thinks this is a glorious thing to do.

War is ugly and it's dangerous, and in this world the way we are discussed on the Arab street, it feeds and fuels their hatred and their desire to kill themselves to take out Americans. It's a dangerous thing to propagate.

[...]

the Fox effect, the Fox news effect. I know everyone of you has watched it. It's not a dirty little secret. A lot of people describe Fox as having streamers and banners coming out of the television as you're watching it cover a war. But the Fox effect is very concerning to me.

I'm a journalist and I like to be able to tell the story as I see it, and I hate it when someone tells me I'm one-sided. It's the worst I can hear. Fox has taken so many viewers away from CNN and MSNBC because of their agenda and because of their targeting the market of cable news viewership, that I'm afraid there's not a really big place in cable for news. Cable is for entertainment, as it's turning out, but not news.

I'm hoping that I will have a future in news in cable, but not the way some cable news operators wrap themselves in the American flag and patriotism and go after a certain target demographic, which is very lucrative. You can already see the effects, you can already see the big hires on other networks, right wing hires to chase after this effect, and you can already see that flag waving in the corners of those cable news stations where they have exciting American music to go along with their war coverage.

And when her corporate masters at MSNBC found out, they did this to her:

I was office-less for ten months....No phone, no computer. For ten months I had to report to work every day and ask where I could sit. If somebody was away I could use their desk. Eventually, after ten months of this, I was given an office that was a tape closet. They cleared the tapes out and put a desk and a TV in there, and a computer and phone. It was pretty blatant. The message was crystal clear. Yet they wouldn't let me leave. I begged for seventeen months to be let out of my contract. If they had no use for me, let's just part ways amicably -- no need for payouts, just a clean break. And [NBC News President Neal Shapiro] wouldn't allow it. I don't know what his rationale was -- perhaps he thought I would take what I felt was a very strong brand, and others felt was a very strong brand, to another network and make a success of it. Maybe that's why he chose to keep me in a warehouse. I will never forgive him for his cruelty and the manner in which he decided to dispose of me.

But "Bloody Bill" Kristol, Tom Friedman and a slew of other Big Media war cheerleaders were all richly rewarded for advocating Bush's Folly, while Ms. Banfield, after her contract finally, mercifully expired, was banished to the hinterlands of cable news on Court TV for having the courage of her convictions.

A promising career stopped dead in its tracks.

Until now.  She has been hired by ABC News.  I hope this is a new beginning for her.  I celebrate it and even sent her a congratulatory note. You should, too, at this link: banfield.info@gmail.com.

But first, you should go read her entire speech.

Jon Stewart Eviscerates Bill Kristol

I have always thought that even though Bill Kristol has been wrong about basically everything he's ever predicted, it's because he can't help but be disingenuous in an effort to promote the conservative agenda. But after his most recent interview on The Daily Show, I just think he's a fucking moron.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Bill Kristol Extended Interview
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Joke of the Day

I wonder if Stewart thought, "Hmm... it's a slow day today. Who shall I feed on? I know! Bring me the head of Bill Kristol!"

Another Possible Motivation for Palin

Posted by Fraulein

This weekend I felt as confused by Sarah Palin's rambling press conference as everyone else, but now I think I have a theory about what she's really up to. I agree with Carl that it's possible she simply wants to clear the decks and prepare for a 2012 Presidential run. However, I still think that at some point, as dumb as the leading "thinkers" in the GOP are, these people have to accept that it would be suicide for the party if Palin were to emerge as the front runner. I mean, we can't possibly get that lucky, can we? To have this blithering doofus at the top of the ticket, when she doomed McCain as their Vice Presidential candidate? The Republican base for whatever incomprehensible reason just loves this woman. The rest of the country, not so much.

So here's my alternative theory: it's all about the money. Specifically, money from speeches and a book tour.

Palin herself, although seemingly untroubled by any complicated thought process, still must have at least some dim understanding that a Presidential bid would be doomed from the start. She did like getting to shop for all those expensive clothes though. She loved having the cameras on her, and hearing the cheers of the adoring GOP faithful. What better way to milk what remains of her 15 minutes of fame than "writing" a "book" about her experiences on the campaign trail and giving speeches at fringe right-wing wacko gatherings for some obscene fee? That way she gets to remain "famous," which I think is what she liked the most about the whole campaign anyway, make a shitload of cash, and walk away laughing.

What do you all think -- any other theories?

_____________________________

EDITOR'S NOTE: While my original instinct was that Palin flew the coop to prepare for higher aspirations, I want to make it clear if I haven't before that I think it's the stupidest move she could have made.

Along with most other analyses, I agree that not running for re-election but also flat out quitting her job makes her look like she couldn't hack it. Whether that is true or not is irrelevant. She failed to fulfill one full term in office as Governor of the 4th least populated state while receiving the most federal aid of any state. This further diminishes what little she had on her resumé to begin with. Her penchant for hashing out private matters in the tabloids (see Johnston, Levi) or using the power of her office for intimidation (see Gate, Trooper) makes her seem power hungry and unstable.

And here's the kicker. If Bill Kristol thinks it's a good move, you know it's wrong.

- Broadway Carl

The Pandemic of Stupid (Part One: Iran's Election)

I haven't blogged much over the last couple of days because I've been sitting in front of my television machine waiting for a CDC news conference to announce that about 30% of the US population has been infected with a Stupid Plague. But so far, nothing. No BREAKING NEWS or THIS JUST IN. No Alex Witt(less) and her hairsprayed mane on MSNBC to warn of the Stupid Plague. No Wolf Blitzer and his Beard of Doom™ interviewing a government official telling us to wrap our houses in plastic sheeting and duct tape to avoid losing your brain cells.

What gives? We've all been exposed to it. Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck seem to be the "Typhoid Marys" of the Stupid Plague, the carriers of this disease but somehow remain immune to becoming so stupid that they continue to breathe involuntarily even though their brain matter has turned to goo. I sometimes wonder how they haven't stepped into an oncoming bus while crossing the street.

There has been an outbreak of the Stupid Plague and it's easy to detect those infected. For example:

Iran has its presidential elections and it looks like a tight race. Mahmoud "Holocaust Schmolocaust" Ahmadinejad was feeling the heat from Mir-Hossein "That's HOssein not HUssein" Mousavi. The vote counting went all through the night. The results? Ahmadinejad wins 63% of the vote. WHAAA?!?! This was "close"? There are riots in the streets, hundreds of thousands of protesters wanting their vote to count. It looks like they take their elections seriously in Iran; they don't take their vote for granted, like in.... nevermind.

So what is the general reaction?

President Obama: "The second thing I think’s important to recognize is that the easiest way for reactionary forces inside Iran to crush reformers is to say it’s the US that is encouraging those reformers. So what I’ve said is, `Look, it’s up to the Iranian people to make a decision. We are not meddling.’ And, you know, ultimately the question that the leadership in Iran has to answer is their own credibility in the eyes of the Iranian people."

Makes sense doesn't it? If we're shouting democracy and freedom from the mountaintops, why in the hell would he interfere in another country's election if we don't happen to like the outcome?

John McCain: "I'm disappointed, it is an American principle ever since our founding that we are dedicated to the principle that all are created equal and the fact is they have the right to free elections and to select their leadership."

That's right, Johnny. An American principle. Last I checked, Iran was a Middle Eastern theocracy that we've had no diplomatic relations with for the last 30 years.

But you have to hand it to McCain being so concerned about the elections of a people he joked about bombing the shit out of not too long ago. And haven't we heard the nutty neocons like Joshua Muravchik, William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer advocating military action against Iran for what seems like forever? Now the same neocon establishment are the defenders of democracy in the Middle East? The bastions of liberty for Iran? Please, spare me.

Mike Pence (R-Doucheland): "I appreciate the fact that the president said the protesters have a right to be heard and represented, and I appreciate the fact that he said he is troubled... But I respectfully disagree with the administration's decision to essentially draw the line at not meddling and not interfering."

So Pence wants the United States government to meddle and interfere with Iran's elections? I wonder what Pence would have said if, oh I don't know, Germany or France or even Iran had "meddled or interfered" with our 2004 Presidential election because of the prospect of voter fraud in Ohio? I'm guessing he wouldn't have been thrilled about it.

Oh, and by the way, just because President Obama mentioned Iran and said we weren't going to meddle in their electoral affairs was enough to cause Iranian officials to accuse the US of meddling in their affairs. But, unlike the GOP using this as a political opportunity, and the neocons who have a penchant for being incredibly wrong on their warmonger ideas (see Iraq, Shock and Awe), I'd rather be accused of meddling in another sovereign nation's political process than actually meddling.

William Kristol's Last New York Times Column

William Kristol issued his final column for the New York Times today and the collective sigh of relief could be heard across progressive America wherever you stood. However, Kristol, who was most known for being wrong pretty much every time he opened his mouth or put pen to paper, did his best to outdo himself. I suppose he figured since he was going down in flames, he may as well just vomit out any outrageous thing that came to mind.

This one paragraph alone had me in stitches:

Since Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980, conservatives of various sorts, and conservatisms of various stripes, have generally been in the ascendancy. And a good thing, too! Conservatives have been right more often than not — and more often than liberals — about most of the important issues of the day: about Communism and jihadism, crime and welfare, education and the family. Conservative policies have on the whole worked — insofar as any set of policies can be said to “work” in the real world. Conservatives of the Reagan-Bush-Gingrich-Bush years have a fair amount to be proud of.

Tell me you don't have tears rolling down your cheeks after reading that! He does admit that there have been "some regrets." Really, Bill? Do tell! He doesn't, but qualifies conservative ascendancy was due to the timing of liberalism's weakness in the 60s and 70s.

The main point of his column is the question of whether Obama "can save liberalism." The only reason I know that is because that's the title of his column. There's really nothing in the column to suggest the trouble with liberalism and how it needs saving, despite the fact that the GOP has been trounced in the last two elections. But judging by his track record, the last thing I'd want is any advice from Kristol about anything, especially how to save liberalism.

My other favorite line in this article from the man who was wrong on Iraq every step of the way, goes on to say how Obama's inaugural speech was "unabashedly pro-American and implicitly conservative." Did you expect it to be anti-American? And implicitly conservative? It all depends on how Kristol is defining "conservative," doesn't it? If he's going by the last eight years, then phrases like "we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord" and "We'll restore science to its rightful place"* and "we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals" are a direct repudiation of Kristol's previous "implicitly conservative" administration.

Kristol also seems to have trouble with Obama's only quote not being attributed to Thomas Paine, as if Paine is some kind of pariah and Obama didn't want people to know that it was a quote from "The Crisis."

For some reason, Obama didn’t identify the author of “these timeless words” — the only words quoted in the entire speech. He’s Thomas Paine, and the passage comes from the first in his series of Revolutionary War tracts, “The Crisis.” Obama chose to cloak his quotation from the sometimes intemperate Paine in the authority of the respectable George Washington.

Please, Bill, continue. Are you on to something? Why does Obama do this, Bill? What is your analysis? Of course, Kristol doesn't say. He just let's it hang out there. But that's always been Kristol's modus operandi. Throw something out there that sounds unbecoming, almost insulting, but for no apparent reason except to cast doubt on the subject and perhaps for plausible deniability when he's called on it. Ooh! Paine was "intemperate," calling for revolution against the evil British, and since Obama chose Paine's words, we'll have to keep a keen eye on how he governs. Sometimes I think Kristol literally takes a crap on a sheet of 8½" x 11" paper and turns it in as his op-ed piece.

Today I have a spring in my step, a song in my heart and a smile on my face because this is what I read at the end of Kristol's New York Times op-ed page: "This is William Kristol’s last column." And there was much rejoicing... Hooray!


* On a side note, who thought that they'd ever hear the words, "we'll restore science to its rightful place" coming from the mouth of a US President in 21st century America?

Why Does This Dipshit Still Have A Job?

Will someone tell me why anything Bill Kristol writes matters? Only a weatherman can be wrong so often and still be able to retain his job. And yet, here is Kristol in the New York Times again with this craptacular observation:

Sure, the election results had been bad — but they weren’t devastating. Obama wasn’t winning the popular vote by double-digit margins, as some polls had suggested he might. Republican losses in the Senate and House were substantial but not catastrophic.

...there was virtually no change in the voters’ ideological self-identification: in 2008, 22 percent called themselves liberal, up only marginally from 21 percent in 2004; 34 percent were conservative, unchanged from the last election; and 44 percent called themselves moderate, compared with 45 percent in 2004.

In other words, this was a good Democratic year, but it is still a center-right country.

Oh, Bill. Bill. You can try to talk yourself into your idiotic assessments until you're blue in the face, but the reality is that the country is not "center-right." In fact, it never has been. Here's a little something from Gallup brought to us by our good friend, Mr. Bob Cesca:

• Americans are pro-choice (67 percent)
• Americans support the Geneva Conventions with regards to torture (57 percent)
• Americans don't want the government snooping in their bank and internet records (67 percent)
• Americans want the USA Patriot Act changed or eliminated entirely (81 percent)
• Americans support protecting the environment at the expense of economic growth (55 percent)
• Americans believe that global warming is happening (86 percent)
• Americans believe that it's the government's responsibility to provide health care (69 percent)
• Americans support the decriminalization of marijuana (55 percent) and support the legalization of medical marijuana (78 percent)
• Americans are opposed to attacking Iran (68 percent, according to a CNN Poll)
• Americans support labor unions (60 percent)
• Americans want government funding of embryonic stem cell research (56 percent)
• Americans believe that free trade hurts American workers (65 percent)
• Americans believe rich people and corporations aren't paying enough taxes (66 and 71 percent respectively)
• And overall party affiliation? 54 percent of Americans are Democrats (with leaners) and 39 percent are Republicans (with leaners).

Bob also mentions this little tidbit of information:

Of the last 30 Congresses, since 1945, Republicans have controlled the House for a grand total of seven Congresses. Seven out of 30. The 80th Congress, and the 104th-109th. In the Senate, the numbers are slightly better. Ten out of 30.

We know you really, really, really want to think that the country is more conservative, but just because you say it doesn't make it true. Here's a handy, dandy little map brought to you by the newspaper of record that you happen to work for, The New York Times:

See all the blue there, Billy boy? Those are counties that shifted and voted more Democratic than in 2004. That's a lot of blue, isn't it? A bit too much blue to claim that the country is "center-right."

And yet, this moron still has a job, but hopefully not for long.

Bill Kristol: Biggest. Douchebag. Ever.

I as soooooooooo glad I recorded The Daily Show last night. When I heard the name "Bill Kristol" come out of Jon Stewart's mouth, I almost got sick to my stomach. This is one of the most vile conservatives ever and at the same time such an easy punching bag because you can count on him to be wrong 99% of the time. I'm still looking for that one percent but I'm giving Kristol the benefit of the doubt.

But still, I just can't take anymore bullshit these last four days (FOUR DAYS!) before the election - I don't even listen to the live coverage from the Republican campaign trail anymore - and I certainly didn't feel like listening to the likes of Kristol after a long day, but Stewart is like a fine surgeon with his comedy scalpel and it was a lesson in how to deal with wingnuts.

Jon Stewart is my hero.



Stewart: Sarah Palin is from Alaska. They give a stipend from corporations to their citizens. That is Marxism, is it not? Isn't that redistribution of wealth?

Kristol: No, that's conservative economics. Helping those hard working citizens.

Audience moans and laughs in disgust.

[...]

Kristol: I'd would prefer to go with McCain's record in the Senate than Obama's record in the campaign.

Stewart: But [McCain] has repudiated almost that entire record during the campaign.

Kristol: Oh, nonsense. Nonsense. You're reading the New York Times too much, Jon.

Stewart: BILL, YOU WORK FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES!

[...]

Stewart: But you can't look at past performance as a predictor, otherwise you wouldn't be obviously still a pundit.


Bill Kristol: Biggest. Douchebag. Ever.

Just Shut Up And Go Away!

C&L: For years now, FOX News pundit William Kristol has been wrong on nearly every subject he’s chosen to write about or speak to. His follies at Fox are legendary, and since bringing his special brand of fact- & research-free hackery to the pages of the New York Times, he’s made not one, not two, but now three glaring gaffes to add to his comical body of work.

Think Progress: In his New York Times column today, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol tried to find reasons for conservatives to be optimistic about 2008 elections,
despite the claims of some Republicans that “the Republican brand is in the trash can.” To support his argument, Kristol pointed to Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-IL) 41-point loss in the West Virginia primary:

On Tuesday night, while the G.O.P. Congressional candidate was losing in Mississippi district George Bush carried in 2004 by 25 points, Barack Obama was being trounced in the West Virginia Democratic primary — by 41 points. I can’t find a single recent instance of a candidate who ultimately became his party’s nominee losing a primary by this kind of margin.

Apparently Kristol didn’t look hard enough. Writing at Room Eight, New York political consultant Jerry Skurnik says it took him “all of 2 minutes to find what Kristol couldn’t find.” On Feb. 5, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney beat presumptive GOP nominee Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) by 85 points in the Utah primary.

What an embarrassment to the New York Times that this schmuck is on their payroll. He should be removed immediately along with the idiot who hired him.

UPDATE: Glen Greenwald

" ... Hillary Clinton lost Kansas to Obama by 49 points; lost DC by 51 points; lost Hawaii by 52 points; and lost Idaho by 62 points. So by Kristol's reasoning, Hillary Clinton -- just like Obama -- couldn't possibly be a strong candidate because she lost some primaries by more than 41 points (granted, some of those were caucuses).
Somehow, though, that reasoning doesn't apply to John McCain, who lost Utah by 85 points. In addition to his 85-point loss in Utah, McCain lost Arkansas by 40 points to Mike Huckabee and lost Kansas by 36 points to Huckabee. For some reason, those facts didn't make it into Kristol's column either."

Bill Kristol On "A" Daily Show

Isn't is sad when a Republican operative disguised as a "political pundit" gets schooled by... a comedian?

My favorite line: Stewart after Kristol is still trying to sell the Iraq occupation and escalation as a good thing - "I understand why you feel like you have to say that a lot to yourself, because if I had suggested going in there ten years ago and it turned out this way, I'd feel shit too."

Proof That There Is No God

Bill Kristol Hired By New York Times

This is ludicrous. Bill Kristol, co-founder of Project for the New American Century and the warmonger who hasn't gotten one thing right when it comes to Iraq is being hired by the New York Fucking Times.

This is the same dipshit that came up with this gem:

"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."

Iran was secular because of Saddam Hussein, you fuckwad. Remember him?

Guess I'll be cancelling my subscription to the Times.

BIll Kristol's Predictions for 2008

Kristol does his best Jeanne Dixon impersonation and predicts that Republicans will win the White House in 2008.

"...I think Republicans win in November, and if it's not Dick Cheney, McCain/Romney, McCain/Lieberman... there are some very good Republican tickets."

This guy has been full of shit for years now, and somehow he's still considered a "pundit" for Fox News, hopefully the only network that will carry him. I wonder if Kristol predicted Time Magazine was going to can him for his amazing lack of credibility?

Bill Kristol on The Daily Show

Bill Kristol, Editor of The Weekly Standard, advocate of the War in Iraq, who was once quoted as saying, "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"... yes, that Bill Kristol, was Jon Stewart's guest on The Daily Show Monday night.

He's just come back from 8 days in Iraq, and he reports that it's all going... wait for it... "well."

Stewart asks Kristol to help him understand the vitriol cast upon those who oppose the war.

Stewart: "I obviously have been against the war from the start, didn't think it was a good idea. Here's what I don't understand: how, if it doesn't go well, if it continues to go badly, how will that be my fault?"

Kristol: "It will be your fault if we pull the plug on a strategy that is now working..."

So here is where this game of chess has progressed. If it goes well, we congratulate Bush and the Republicans, if it goes badly, it's the anti-war groups and the soft-on-defense Democrats who are to blame. Which scenario do you think is more likely to happen? Check. It's a "can't lose" situation in their eyes.

Stewart backs Kristol against the wall by succinctly outlining what went wrong and how a true leader would admit those mistakes and bring the country together and not dismiss those who disagree with him. Kristol sidesteps it with a Jew joke.

Other infamous quotes and predictions by Kristol:

April 28, 2003: "The battles of Afghanistan and Iraq have been won decisively and honorably."

July 26, 2004: "...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."

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."

Read the full Glenn Greenwald blog, Bill Kristol: Pundit Superstar, and then wonder why anyone still listens to Kristol or how he even continues to get work.