Reading William Kristol's latest screed in the Weekly Standard, one is tempted to pause and double-check the source. Is the content from a random right-wing blog, some nutty talk-radio show, or a leading DC establishment player in one of the most widely-read conservative political magazines in the country?

I naively thought I could no longer be surprised by Kristol's columns, but his latest gem pushes the envelope to new depths. Did you know, for example, that American liberals were not only responsible for Khmer Rouge's crimes, but our withdrawal from Vietnam also created the conditions for the Islamist revolution in Iran in 1979?

Kristol concludes:

ll honor to George W. Bush for following in Reagan's footsteps, grasping the nettle, and confronting the real lessons and consequences of Vietnam. The liberal media and the PC academics are horrified. All the better.

As the left shudders, Bush leads.

There isn't even an argument to refute here; it's just childish cheerleading and empty sloganeering.

A couple of months ago, Kevin Drum noted, "The Bill Kristol phenomenon is a stellar example of what a nice suit and a sober tone of voice can do for you.... e's smart enough to talk in more soothing tones. As a result, he gets columns in Time magazine, edits his own widely-read magazine, and shows up constantly on television."

But with columns like these, Kristol's penchant for "soothing tones" is gone. He's just a sycophant, blithely touting a dangerous policy that doesn't work, and bashing those who dare to disagree.

Does Kristol actually believe his own fluff? I'm inclined to think so, but as Jonathan Chait explained this week, it may not matter: "Kristol's good standing in the Washington establishment depends on the wink-and-nod awareness that he's too smart to believe his own agitprop. Perhaps so. But, in the end, a fake thug is not much better than the real thing."..[Open in new window]