Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Bill Kristol is actually a very smart guy. The problem is that his partisanship is far stronger than his intelligence and it causes him to shut off his brain and bore full speed ahead with what he must know is utter bullshit. Like this inane blather:
One reason the system isn't is some of the people he put in charge -- Janet Napolitano and Dennis Blair come to mind. Another reason is certain concrete policy choices they've made -- e.g., embracing a law enforcement approach and, without even weighing the choice, immediately choosing to treat Abdulmutallab as a criminal suspect, not an enemy combatant.
This is called special pleading - when you have an argument that applies equally well in two situations but you insist on using it only in one situation and not the other because it would be politically inconvenient for you to be consistent. Why didn't Kristol make this same argument when President Bush did the exact same thing with the shoe bomber in 2001? The two situations are absolutely identical in all relevant ways.
The answer is obvious. He didn't make that argument then because he supported Bush; he's making it now because he doesn't support Obama. This should be obvious to pretty much anyone with an IQ above room temperature, and I'm sure it's quite obvious to Kristol as well. He just doesn't care. Partisanship is more important to him than intellectual honesty. And that is why, despite his many intellectual gifts, he does not deserve to be taken seriously.
Politics
Comments
"Partisanship is more important than intellectual honesty."
That sums up a lot of the MSM.
Also:
Speaking of 'honesty'... any news about Rush?
He was rushed to the hospital.
Posted by: Rodney | December 31, 2009 9:40 AM
While I can't say I'm bowled over by the competence of Janet Napolitano, I'd have a hard time concluding that she is less competent than her brilliant predecessors Tom Ridge and Michael Chertoff.
As far as this "criminal suspect vs enemy combatant" distinction, what difference does it make? The Government has a 100% conviction rate in trying terrorists. richard Reid is serving life without parole and I'll gladly give 100-1 that Abdulmutallab gets the same. So how is that any different than sending them to Gitmo as enemy combatants?
Posted by: JusticeLeague | December 31, 2009 9:40 AM
Well, isn't it obvious? You don't get to waterboard them if you send them to a boring ol' Federal pen.
I'm also going to take issue with Ed's contention that Kristol is a "very smart guy." He has said so many stupid things and made so many stupid predictions since 9/11 that it's difficult to see any real intelligence there. I have my issues with Bill Maher, but I did love his line (directed to the right wingers generally, but particularly applicable here): "Why don't you sit this one out, Nostradamus?"
Posted by: Dave | December 31, 2009 9:53 AM
Ed stated:
Bill Kristol comes across as articulate and dispassionate in his personal style of talking and acting, but I think that doesn't equate to intelligence with him though I agree both are normally a strong indicator of intelligence. I think he's a sloppy thinker who fails to even get his facts straight. And if you're looking for someone who makes more wrong predictions about national politics, you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who beats Kristol at being wrong more often.
I'd be the first to admit that there is a strong correlation between intelligence relative to both dispassion and articulateness, but it's not 100% and to me Kristol is a prime example of the exception. I concede Ed might be correct and me wrong on my observation since I don't have much to go on, but jeez, how hard is it to write a coherent, honest column; something Mr. Kristol repeatedly proved incapable of doing during his disastrous recent stint with the New York Times (Who've since replaced Kristol with the far superior conservative Ross Douthat, who I think is smart though very green in real-world experiences and therefore juvenile in his arguments).
Here's a funny story I've related in this forum before regarding his dad's efforts to get him a job when he was young that speaks to his and his dad's politics as well:
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 31, 2009 10:10 AM
It should be remembered that Mr. Kristol bears considerable responsibility for the choice of Sarah Palin as Senator McCains' vice-presidential selection as, it is my information, he strongly recommended her to the senator. The feeling around Washington is that he considered Ms. Palin an empty vessel that he could fill with his neo-con clap trap.
Posted by: SLC | December 31, 2009 10:29 AM
The talk turned to William Kristol, then Dan Quayle's chief of staff, and how he got his start in politics.
I thought he was higher-up by that point. It just seems as though he's been around for so long.
I'm not at all surprised to read this story. Bill gives the impression of having been brought up in that kind of denialist environment. I'm sure he's convinced himself he's earned everything he has.
The Kristols as a family have done this country a disservice through their pandering to and enabling of the most conservative factions.
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | December 31, 2009 10:31 AM
Re Michael Heath @ #4
It should also be pointed out that the right wing made accusations about Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sodomeyor being admitted to Princeton via affirmative action, ignoring the fact that former president Dubya was admitted to Yale only because of his fathers' influence (apparently, parental influence doesn't amount to affirmative action in the right wing playbook). This is in addition to ignoring the fact that Ms. Sodomeyor finished 2nd in her class, far ahead of the class standing of Dubya.
Posted by: SLC | December 31, 2009 10:36 AM
Parental influence in college admissions is the exact opposite of affirmative action.
(negative action?)
Posted by: mikka | December 31, 2009 10:58 AM
SLC @ 7 - your point reminds of Clarence Thomas. My take on him, especially after publication of his autobiography, is that he's a deeply troubled man.
I think the primary source of what haunts him is his cognitive dissonance that affirmative action provided him with his opportunities which he in no way earned, especially his absurd selection to the SCOTUS in spite of demonstrating zero capabilities he was worthy of consideration. Couple that to his realizing a career accelerated merely by being a black man taking conservative positions. No one would have ever heard of Clarence Thomas if he were white. He distinguished himself merely by being a supreme novelty for the time, a black conservative and now a poster child for why affirmative action is not good policy.
I happen to support affirmative action and Justice Sotomayor is an illuminating example; especially given her language skills' deficiency entering college. I'm merely pointing out that J. Thomas is a great argument against my position. I still support AA since I think Thomas's is an outlier result while also conceding Sotomayor is an extreme result we shouldn't expect to be the norm.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 31, 2009 11:08 AM
@7
They also ignore that Sotomeyor was admitted to Princeton in 1972, when Princeton had an official policy of reserving 800 of the ~1,100 admission slots for men. When the administration moved to remove the gender quota for the 1974 class, there was resistance, specifically from Concerned Alumni of Princeton, who issued a statement saying "Concerned Alumni of Princeton opposes adoption of a sex-blind admission policy."
Basically, Princeton did have admissions policies favoring legacies (mostly whites) and males (overt sex-based quotas), but they worked directly against Sotomayor, not for her.
Alito was admitted to Princeton when it was all-male and was a member of CAP.
That must make for some interesting lunchtime conversation.
Posted by: Ann | December 31, 2009 11:11 AM
I am trying to figure out what tortured logic would make the would-be bomber into a warrior anyways.
If he was shooting at armed forces in a war zone without uniform or official sanction from a recognized government of a nation-state then I would consider calling him an illegal combatant. If he was trying to blow up a civilian airplane not engaged in military purposes filled with civilians flying two cities which are not even remotely war zones or any where near one then I will call him a criminal.
If anything calling this guy a "combatant" gives him an honor that he does not deserve. Beyond the obvious need interrogate him to see if he might give away some other terrorists, he should be treated just like any other murderous thug that our judicial system house.
Posted by: a lurker | December 31, 2009 11:13 AM
SLC @5:
He was half-right, then, which is hitting above his batting average.
He failed to consider that some vessels are empty because nothing has been put in them yet, while others are empty because they have a hole in the bottom and everything drains out.
Posted by: jace | December 31, 2009 11:52 AM
Re jace
Mr. jace wins the thread!
Posted by: SLC | December 31, 2009 12:02 PM
Michael Heath "I still support AA since I think Thomas's is an outlier result while also conceding Sotomayor is an extreme result we shouldn't expect to be the norm."
They're ying and yang; Mirror Mirror versions of each other. That's why Thomas has a goatee.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 31, 2009 1:11 PM
Would anyone be so kind as to point me to some representative example of William Kristol's scholarly work? I've read some of his columns, which were mediocre to put it mildly, and of course I have seen him on the moving picture box with his trademark smirk, but I am not familiar with any of his actual intelligent work. I could devote some time later to looking myself, so if no one has any examples at the tips of their fingers, then please don't exert any effort on my behalf. I had assumed all this time he was someone with above average language skills that didn't actually know anything, but it dawns upon me that perhaps that's an intentional misdirection on the part of a mischievous political operative.
Posted by: m | December 31, 2009 2:34 PM
The systemic failure in this instance was allowing the guy on the plane. The decision to treat him as a criminal as opposed to an enemy combatant has no bearing on that. For Kristol to make that connection is dishonest, idiotic, or both.
Posted by: Taz | December 31, 2009 2:35 PM
For crying out loud, people, the woman's name is Sotomayor.
Posted by: Seraph | December 31, 2009 3:20 PM
Michael Heath @ 4 - You mention his father pulling strings for him as an aside, but being Daddy's Baby Boy is Kristol's whole life. He's not exactly partisan, because he's not so much interested in pandering to the GOP as in fulfilling his father's idea of The Best Little Boy in the World. It's also why he gets everything wrong: although he calls himself a journalist, getting his facts straight is a trivial consideration compared to pleasing the dead-and-buried Irving.
And yes, it is pathetic in a middle-aged man.
Posted by: Molly, NYC | December 31, 2009 4:49 PM
Kristol's dispassionate style strikes me as both a manipulative rhetorical device and a defensive affectation.
I say that Kristol is manipulative because he imitates the tone of dispassion without actually being dispassionate. Genuine dispassion allows for changes of opinion because there is little emotional investment in one's own point of view. Biases always exert pressure on our views, but genuinely dispassionate thinkers strive to reduce the influence of biases.
Kristol’s delivery creates the false impression of a reasonably unbiased person who is open to persuasion by evidence, but it's all smoke and mirrors. No amount of evidence will change Bill Kristol's mind. He is doggedly, emotionally committed to his own positions. Kristol is sophisticated enough to know that if he ranted like Sean Hannity, he'd be dismissed immediately by more intelligent people.
Of course, there is only so long that one can play Kristol's game before intelligent people realize that his dispassionate intellectualism is nothing but a facade. But the posture continues to work with the dopes who rely on the Fox news reality filter.
I also suspect that there is a defensive dimension to Kristol's posturing. In his prep school world, acceptance and respect could accrue to those who distinguished themselves from the naively earnest and the undisciplined emotional rabble of this world. I wouldn't rule out underlying feelings of social inferiority and an intense desire for acceptance in patrician WASP circles where the air of dispassion, without the underlying substance, can be a mark of social superiority. Growing up around academics and influenced by his patrician peers, Kristol had years to hone his act.
Posted by: Dr X | December 31, 2009 5:01 PM
Neapolitano's failure is that she hs not rooted out the incompetance of the Bush years.
Obama should give her six months to kick a few asses or clear her desk.
Posted by: toby | December 31, 2009 5:35 PM
There's a brillian quote somewehre about Kristol Snr attacking Affirmative Action, and then getting his son a series of jobs with Conservative buddies.
Posted by: toby | December 31, 2009 5:37 PM
toby: The heck, you say!
Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 31, 2009 6:53 PM
lurker @ 11:
You nailed this one. These people are not soldiers, they're common criminals. Treating them as combatants gives them a status they do not deserve.
Posted by: Doug | January 1, 2010 10:49 AM