David Corn
The
Nation
Wednesday, January 3, 2007
The market doesn't work -- not when it comes to conservative
commentators.
Before the Iraq war, rightwing (and middle-of-the-road) pundits
claimed Saddam Hussein was a dire WMD threat, that he was in cahoots
with al Qaeda, that the war was necessary. The neoconservative
cheerleaders for war also argued that an invasion of Iraq would
bring democracy to that nation and throughout the region. They
were wrong. But they have paid no price for their errors. They
did not have to serve in Iraq. None, as far as I can tell, have
had sons or daughters harmed or killed in the fighting there.
They did not have to bear higher taxes, because George W. Bush
has charged the costs of this military enterprise to the national
credit card. Though they miscalled the number-one issue of the
post-9/11 period, they did not lose their influential perches
in the commentariat. Charles Krauthammer, Richard Perle, Robert
Kagan, Gary Schmitt, Danielle Pletka and others (including non-neocon
Thomas Friedman) who blew it on Iraq still regularly appear on
op-ed pages and television news shows, pitching their latest notions
about Iraq, Iran or other matters.
Foremost among this band is William Kristol, the editor of The
Weekly Standard and former chief of staff for Vice President Dan
Quayle. Kristol, a Fox News regular, has not seen his standing
as a go-to conservative pundit suffered. Moreover, he has been
rewarded with a plum posting. Time magazine's new managing editor,
Richard Stengel, has invited Kristol to become what Stengel calls
a "star" columnist for the magazine.
Both Kristol and Stengel are likable fellows. I usually enjoy
debating Kristol on television or radio. He's no hater, and he's
no autopilot partisan. Stengel is a thoughtful and cerebral person
who once was a senior adviser to cerebral Senator Bill Bradley,
a Democrat. So there's nothing personal when I ask, why in the
hell does Stengel believe that what America needs now is more
Bill Kristol? (Slate media cop Jack Shafer criticized Stengel's
pick of Kristol by noting that "Kristol isn't much of a deviation
from Charles Krauthammer, an occasional Time 'Essay' writer."
Friendship declared: Shafer is a pal of mine.)
It's too late to affect Stengel's decision, but let's take this
occasion to review Kristol's record on Iraq, courtesy of a rather
cursory Nexis search. It holds no surprises.
On September 11, 2002, as the Bush administration began its sales
campaign for the coming war, Kristol suggested that Saddam Hussein
could do more harm to the United States than al Qaeda had: "we
cannot afford to let Saddam Hussein inflict a worse 9/11 on us
in the future."
On September 15, 2002, he claimed that inspection and containment
could not work with Saddam: "No one believes the inspections
can work." Actually, UN inspectors believed they could work.
So, too, did about half of congressional Democrats. They were
right.
On September 18, 2002, Kristol opined that a war in Iraq "could
have terrifically good effects throughout the Middle East."
On September 19, 2002, he once again pooh-poohed inspections:
"We should not fool ourselves by believing that inspections
could make any difference at all." During a debate with me
on Fox News Channel, after I noted that the goal of inspections
was to prevent Saddam from reaching "the finish line"
in developing nuclear weapons, Kristol exclaimed, "He's past
that finish line. He's past the finish line."
On November 21, 2002, he maintained, "we can remove Saddam
because that could start a chain reaction in the Arab world that
would be very healthy."
On February 2, 2003, he claimed that Secretary of State Colin
Powell at an upcoming UN speech would "show that there are
loaded guns throughout Iraq" regarding weapons of mass destruction.
As it turned out, everything in Powell's speech was wrong. Kristol
was uncritically echoing misleading information handed him by
friends and allies within the Bush administration.
On February 20, 2003, he summed up the argument for war against
Saddam: "He's got weapons of mass destruction. At some point
he will use them or give them to a terrorist group to use...Look,
if we free the people of Iraq we will be respected in the Arab
world....France and Germany don't have the courage to face up
to the situation. That's too bad. Most of Europe is with us. And
I think we will be respected around the world for helping the
people of Iraq to be liberated."
On March 1, 2003, Kristol dismissed concerns that sectarian conflict
might arise following a US invasion of Iraq: "We talk here
about Shiites and Sunnis as if they've never lived together. Most
Arab countries have Shiites and Sunnis, and a lot of them live
perfectly well together." He also said, "Very few wars
in American history were prepared better or more thoroughly than
this one by this president." And he maintained that the war
would be a bargain at $100 to $200 billion. The running tab is
now nearing half a trillion dollars.
On March 5, 2003, Kristol said, "I think we'll be vindicated
when we discover the weapons of mass destruction and when we liberate
the people of Iraq."
Such vindication never came. Kristol was mistaken about the justification
for the war, the costs of the war, the planning for the war, and
the consequences of the war. That's a lot for a pundit to miss.
In his columns and statements about Iraq, Kristol displayed little
judgment or expertise. He was not informing the public; he was
whipping it. He turned his wishes into pronouncements and helped
move the country to a mismanaged and misguided war that has claimed
the lives of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands
of Iraqi civilians. That's not journalism.
In an effectively functioning market of opinion-trading, Kristol's
views would be relegated to the bargain basement. And he ought
to be doing penance, not penning columns for Time. But -- fortunate
for him -- the world of punditry is a rather imperfect marketplace.
Email
