

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Does William Kristol really need another platform?
He's the co-founder and editor of the Weekly Standard, which Rupert Murdoch owns.
For years, he's been all over the airwaves, first on ABC's Sunday morning talk show and then on Fox.
And he's been, until recently, a columnist for Time magazine.
So why does the Times want him?
In its December 30 announcement, the Times noted that in the mid-1990s, "Kristol led the Project for the Republican Future." But the Times failed to note another, much more important project that he led: The Project for a New American Century, which did so much to pave the way for Bush's Iraq War.
At the Weekly Standard and through the Project for a New American Century, Kristol kept promoting specious claims about the threat from Iraq. And still today he wants war with Iran.
His role in domestic politics is no better. He was instrumental in torpedoing the Clinton health care plan. In December 1993, he circulated a strategy document among Republicans to kill the Clinton plan because it would strengthen the Democrats' base of support among the middle class. The next month, he urged Republicans to take the stance that "there is no health care crisis."
So why the Times feels any obligation to give someone so disreputable a perch on its paper is beyond me.
And it shows a certain lack of institutional self-respect, as well. "Mr. Kristol, 55, has been a fierce critic of the Times," the paper noted in its announcement. "In 2006, he said that the government should consider prosecuting the Times for disclosing a secret government program to track international banking transactions." He also, the announcement added, said the Times was "irredeemable."
So why has the Times coronated this unscrupulous neocon and enemy of the paper?
It's a bad omen for 2008.
Matthew Rothschild is the editor of The Progressive magazine.
(c) 2007 The Progressive
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Does William Kristol really need another platform?
He's the co-founder and editor of the Weekly Standard, which Rupert Murdoch owns.
For years, he's been all over the airwaves, first on ABC's Sunday morning talk show and then on Fox.
And he's been, until recently, a columnist for Time magazine.
So why does the Times want him?
In its December 30 announcement, the Times noted that in the mid-1990s, "Kristol led the Project for the Republican Future." But the Times failed to note another, much more important project that he led: The Project for a New American Century, which did so much to pave the way for Bush's Iraq War.
At the Weekly Standard and through the Project for a New American Century, Kristol kept promoting specious claims about the threat from Iraq. And still today he wants war with Iran.
His role in domestic politics is no better. He was instrumental in torpedoing the Clinton health care plan. In December 1993, he circulated a strategy document among Republicans to kill the Clinton plan because it would strengthen the Democrats' base of support among the middle class. The next month, he urged Republicans to take the stance that "there is no health care crisis."
So why the Times feels any obligation to give someone so disreputable a perch on its paper is beyond me.
And it shows a certain lack of institutional self-respect, as well. "Mr. Kristol, 55, has been a fierce critic of the Times," the paper noted in its announcement. "In 2006, he said that the government should consider prosecuting the Times for disclosing a secret government program to track international banking transactions." He also, the announcement added, said the Times was "irredeemable."
So why has the Times coronated this unscrupulous neocon and enemy of the paper?
It's a bad omen for 2008.
Matthew Rothschild is the editor of The Progressive magazine.
(c) 2007 The Progressive
Does William Kristol really need another platform?
He's the co-founder and editor of the Weekly Standard, which Rupert Murdoch owns.
For years, he's been all over the airwaves, first on ABC's Sunday morning talk show and then on Fox.
And he's been, until recently, a columnist for Time magazine.
So why does the Times want him?
In its December 30 announcement, the Times noted that in the mid-1990s, "Kristol led the Project for the Republican Future." But the Times failed to note another, much more important project that he led: The Project for a New American Century, which did so much to pave the way for Bush's Iraq War.
At the Weekly Standard and through the Project for a New American Century, Kristol kept promoting specious claims about the threat from Iraq. And still today he wants war with Iran.
His role in domestic politics is no better. He was instrumental in torpedoing the Clinton health care plan. In December 1993, he circulated a strategy document among Republicans to kill the Clinton plan because it would strengthen the Democrats' base of support among the middle class. The next month, he urged Republicans to take the stance that "there is no health care crisis."
So why the Times feels any obligation to give someone so disreputable a perch on its paper is beyond me.
And it shows a certain lack of institutional self-respect, as well. "Mr. Kristol, 55, has been a fierce critic of the Times," the paper noted in its announcement. "In 2006, he said that the government should consider prosecuting the Times for disclosing a secret government program to track international banking transactions." He also, the announcement added, said the Times was "irredeemable."
So why has the Times coronated this unscrupulous neocon and enemy of the paper?
It's a bad omen for 2008.
Matthew Rothschild is the editor of The Progressive magazine.
(c) 2007 The Progressive