Heh. You could be right. I forgot the mad world of the media in that piece. That Ann Coulter does well suggests that there might be something in what you say.

Now what idiotic idea could I make mine to scale those punditry heights, hmh?

Kristol also keeps the argument going along "Bush sucks! No, Bush is Great" lines. If everyone settles on a consensus that Bush is a terrible Preznit (which 3/4 of the country has now), then people will actually focus on fixing all the damage Bush has done.

Such a discussion naturally involves, first and foremost, tallying up all the losers who've been kissing Bush's rear and enabling his destruction of the known world for the last 7 years, and holding them accountable for their crimes. Kristol knows his livelihood would be lost, so if he thrusts a flag into the sky and yells "rally to me all ye loyal Bushies" then he can keep the argument going - the rabble continues to argue instead of moving on and tearing him and all the other Millionaire Pundits to shreds.

Glenn Greenwald has a piece up today where he argues support of the war is still de rigueur in the Republican Party. Most supporters of the war are Republicans, and what they value is loyalty, not accuracy.
I also wonder if Kristol is positioning himself for future historical revisionism-
from "Iraq was a noble cause" to the usual stab-in-the-back theories.
Reality never played well with these people anyway.

Except that we will remember it.

ronin - it would be very strange for Kristol, who is Jewish, to use a "stab-in-the-back" theory, since that was one way Hitler denigrated the Jews of Germany.

From now on I'm referring to Kristol as "the neoconservative mime on a unicycle".

It's the Lieberman play. In the wake of the Clinton impeachment, Lieberman discovered that he could break out of the pack with the shtick that he was the Democrat who was "honest enough" to criticize Democrats.

Once he'd found his niche, there was no stopping him. It didn't matter what the subject matter was, he knew that his bread got buttered when he criticized Democrats.

After thinking about this for a while, I believe that Kristol's own career goals are linked to the extent that he can drag the discussion towards the middle from the present point on Bush's legacy.

Pundits aren't judged exactly like clowns yet, and so for Kristol to stake a position in the debate requires that his point isn't totally preposterous. Thought it's true that "totally preposterous" is harder and harder to define these days of Glenn Becks and Rush Limbaughs.

Yeah, but isn't Fred Kagan going to be jealous if Kristol is the go to guy for this stuff? Won't Fat Freddy try to outflank Billy by saying or writing something even more outrageous?

But it's also a can't-lose bet for Kristol.

He's already so complicit in the fuck-up, what does he risk in betting it'll succeed?

It's also meant to be a shot across the bow/buck up of encouragement to other snivelers: don't quiver now.

Why is anyone (other than his own filthy rag) giving this warmongering fool any publicity any longer? Maybe if we turned away from idiots such as Kristol, who have absolutely no political, intellectual, or moral credibility, the MSM would stop paying attention too. And don't count out the very real possibility that Kristol will use the "stab-in-the-back" legend just because he happens to be of a certain ethnicity.

it would be very strange for Kristol, who is Jewish, to use a "stab-in-the-back" theory, since that was one way Hitler denigrated the Jews of Germany.

But it wouldn't be strange for intellectually dishonest hacks, no matter what their demographic background, to use the Preparation-H lip balm when talking about the Bush administration. Given the evidence, I'm comfortable suggesting that Kristol's lips are well-treated.

You have to read everything Kristol writes through neocon glasses. From the neocon's point of view, the bush presidency has been a great success. So the Iraq thing got a bit messy--the price of oil has tripled since 2000, taxes for the richest Americans have been slashed, civil liberties have been curtailed, the government's packed with rightwing water-carriers and the military-industrial complex has never been more powerful. Heckuva job, Bushie!

On the other hand, maybe he's just a major asshole.

Get that man a piss test! How much more proof do we need that Kristol smokes massive amounts of crack? But, I guess from his point of view, Bush is great. He and Cheney were probably the only Republican candidates stupid enough to take PNAC at face value.

No doubt Kristol enjoys having his lithe gams admired in the media. However, I give him an ounce more gravitas. The bottom line is that the pod, the Kris and the Lieb are willing to utterly debase themselves in order to rally the cause of AIPAC likudism

Ezra, thanks for the Marcel Marceau image of Kristol. I do think whiteface is his color.

To tease out this point a bit: Kristol and Kagan are taking advantage of the structural weaknesses of gasbag chatfests: the phony pro-con. One the one hand this, on the other that. Since the "other side" must be represented on the shows (particularly Fox News) no matter how relevant, there's plenty of opportunity for airtime for those with "contrarian" views.

People probably will remember the name Kristol. I just hope it's akin to how they remember the names of other hateful figures such as Joseph McCarthy, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, etc.

"then people will actually focus on fixing all the damage Bush has done." Which people would you be talking about? Other politicians? Democrats? You are delusional if you think that the current crop of politicians in any party will stop swaying whichever way the wind and prospective votes sway from day-to-day and minute-to-minute. Yeah, you hate Bush. So what. Each President has done his own brand of "damage"...who's out there that really has the courage of their convictions? I don't see jack diddly squat.

While it's a nice thought that Kristol is just ultracynical, I think the truth is that he believes it. Hanlon's Razor, innit.