Talk:Bill Kristol

message: Kristol is an articulate voice of conservatism, but I would gently note that any guy who graduated from high school in 1970 could have served in Vietnam with the rest of us.  Although I tend to agree with Kristol on the overall situation in Iraq, which is now (2009) en route to some form of democracy, it is relevant to note that I put my life on the line in Vietnam for my beliefs.  Most of our national politicians, from Clinton to Bush Jr., were very careful not to do so.
So, you volunteered for service in Vietnam.. Right?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.244.49.172 (talk) 23:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Just a Gentle, But Relevant, Note

message: Bill Kristol is a neoconservative, not a conservative.  
I updated the page to reflect and one of these moderators reverted it.
The guy is a neocon. His dad is the founder of the neo con movement.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.30.110.164 (talk) 19:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Neoconservative is a flavor of conservative, thus Kristol is both a conservative and a neoconservative. FONToKNOW 19:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, yes, it's true that .. nonconservative ideals are not conservative, but Neoconservative ideology is typically considered a branch of American conservatism, as much as paleoconservatism or any other string that could be affiliated. 68.116.186.63 23:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NeoCon 

message: uhhh it says he's a maniac....that's not very academic. 
The entry for William Kristol:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Kristol
says "In 1997 he founded, with Robert Kagan, the Project for the New American Century (PNAC)..." 
BUT
the entry for PNAC:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PNAC 
says [PNAC was] "Founded by Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, the Project for the New American Century, or PNAC, is a Washington, DC based think tank."
I don't know the correct answer.
"He is one of the leading architects of the most futile and horrendous foreign policy blunder in United States history: the Iraq War."
How is this neutral?
::: Both of these cases, the "futile blunder" and "PNAC Founded by Dick Chaney and Donald Rumsfeld," are examples of wiki-sabotage that more often goes completely ignored. 68.116.186.63 23:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who founded PNAC ? 

message: As I stated in my summary, I don't think the Fresh Air quote is very intersting and/or encyclopedic. As a political commentator, Kristol says all sorts of things, many of which turn out to be wrong. In this regard, he is certainly not different from any other commentator. If we listed every thing that he said that turned out wrong and every time a blog posted something snide about him, the article would be 100 pages long. Lets stick to genuine controversies that can be supported by real evidence, not ones cooked up in blogs. --Beaker342 23:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fresh Air 

message: C-Span's Washington Journal on March 28, 2003 with Daniel Ellsberg with comments, disclosing lies  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.36.29.71 (talk) 20:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ignorant of Iraq history Gulf War, at 2003 

message: There is a mentions in the first line of this entry that Kristol is ¨a warmongering kike bastard¨ when I tried to edit this out however, it does not appear in the text, will someone with more computer saavy than I will address this calumnous entry ASAP!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.47.191.5 (talk) 17:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was probably changed in the time you tried to change it yourself. A lot of blatant vandalism is caught within minutes by various bots and users on the lookout. --Beaker342 06:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  In need of Change 

message: This comment was removed from the lead:
:inspired in part by the ideas of Leo Strauss. William Kristol is interviewed about Strauss' impact on US policy.
This is a biography of a living person, and with all due respect to left wing conspiracy theories about a right wing Straussian cabal bent on American empire, any discussion about Leo Strauss needs to be put into proper context, and it certainly doesn't belong in the lead. I took the time last night to translate some of WK's comments from the NPR link provided. Let's see what he actually said:
NC: "When did you first become acquained with the teachings of Leo Struass?"
 
WK: "I never actually met Leo Strauss. He died in 1973, I believe, and I was just beginning graduate school then, but I studied political philosophy as an undergraduate and a graduate student at Harvard, and Strauss was a well known interpreter of text, and one became famililar with him just in the course of one's studies. In particular, also I had Harvey Mansfield of Harvard, who still teaches there, a very fine scholar in his own right, maybe the most preeminent interpreter of Machiavelli, I would say, alive today, and he was or had been a student of Strauss, or had met Strauss, and been so convinced by Strauss' writings that he became a quote <sic> Straussian, even though he actually hadn't gone to Chicago, and never actually I guess taken courses with Strauss, so Mansfield was considered a Straussian, therefore I'm considered a Straussian, and we're all a cheerful parts of the Straussian cabal now, I suppose."
 
NC: "I suppose. As I understand it there are East Coast Straussians and West Coast Straussians."
 
WK: "Right, and Northern and Southern Straussians, it's become a little bit much, I mean look, Strauss was a very serious thinker, and one of the good thing about this whole controversy, which has many silly and some distasteful aspects, I would say, is that if it leads more people to read Strauss and make up their own mind about whether he is or isn't a compelling and convincing interpreter of Plato and Aristotle and Aristophanes, Maimonides, and Machiavelli, and Hobbes, I mean the range of his work was amazing, all the way up through Nietzsche, and very modern thinkers -- people should make up their own minds about him, we shouldn't take it on authority that he was a great thinker or that he was wrong about things. The other point I would make, just in an introductory way, is that I've never said that my own political beliefs derive from Strauss, and there are Straussians who are liberals and conservatives, Straussians who opposed the intervention in Iraq, and Straussians who favored it, I mean Strauss operated at a very high level of theory, really, and he wrote very little about American politics, and almost nothing about American foreign policy, certainly, and those of us who happened to be hawks in the 90s and were for intervening in Bosnia, and intervening in Kosovo, and intervening in Iraq, never said that's because we studied with a student of Strauss, and I don't think it is, in fact. I think there's a sort of weird, and I think Professor Xenos suggested this too, there's a weird jump from Strauss' great influence as a thinker and teacher to the notion that a small group of us somehow have ever claimed that we were applying Strauss, when we happened to, several of us happened to be, have fairly normal, if somewhat controversial, political views."
I'm not opposed to an appropriate discussion of Leo Strauss in the body of the article, but a casual reference in the lead is inappropriate. MoodyGroove 12:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed Strauss reference from lead

message: should the part about pnac be under the 'weekly standard' heading? maybe just the heading needs to be changed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.121.194.115 (talk) 10:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weekly Standard & PNAC 

message: The criticism section is weak. 
Why is a Jon Stewart quip considered criticism?  Stewart is a comedian, not a respected authority.
I also don't get the David Corn criticism - "[I]n an effectively functioning market of opinion-trading, Kristol's views would be relegated to the bargain basement".  If the functioning market of opinion-trading is the editorial page of the New York Times, then Kristol is at least out of the basement and Corn hasn't even been admitted to the building.
Betweenvacations (talk) 03:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Corn was saying that if opinions were valued according to the accuracy of their opinion maker, Kristol's track record is so bad that his opinions would be worthless. To say that Kristol's predictions get more play than Corn's is just to point out that accuracy and track-record don't seem to be what determines which opinions get printed, which is Corn's point.—MiguelMunoz (talk) 09:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: As written, I can't tell if this section is describing Bill Kristol's career, or that of his father, Irving Kristol. The ambiguity is created in the first sentence:
"Kristol is the son of Irving Kristol, who served as the managing editor of Commentary magazine and is considered by some as the father of neoconservatism. After teaching political philosophy and American politics at the University of Pennsylvania and ..."
I think Irving Kristol is the managing editor of Commentary magazine and the father of neoconservatism. After that, is it Bill or Irving who taught at University of Pennsylvania, etc.?
—QuicksilverT @ 17:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Career confusion 

message: I don't know if this really belongs in the article, but it's funny: Foreign Policy magazine just put Bill Kristol at the top of their 'Worst Predictions of 2008' list, for predicting, amongst other things, that Barack Obama would not win a single Democratic primary. See here:  If someone thinks that's appropriate to mention they can add it, but I'm not sure so I'm posting it here instead. Terraxos (talk) 00:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another link for the Criticism section? 

message: How come there is no mention of his racial views?
In an op-ed piece that ran on December 31, 2008, Kristol writes:
 "I still remember watching Maya Angelou read 'On the Pulse of Morning' at Bill Clinton's inauguration in 1993 -- and thinking that American culture really was in a state of irreversible decline, as she indulged in that multicultural cataloguing of 'the Asian, the Hispanic, the Jew / the African and Native American, the Sioux / the Catholic, the Muslim, the French, the Greek / the Irish, the Rabbi, the Priest, the Sheikh / the Gay, the Straight, the Preacher / the privileged, the homeless, the teacher'. 
 I've looked at some of Alexander's poetry and am confident she'll be a big improvement on Angelou. It makes me think our culture isn't necessarily getting worse. It may even be getting better." 
I've just one question to ask: William, does it ever get hot under the hood? Seriously, that kind of rhetoric ("Our culture in a state of irreversible decline", due to demographic changes) is exactly the sort of thing the KKK used in the 1920's to describe their "100 Percent Americanism", which seems very similar to today's conservatism. I have no idea where Kristol got his Klan-like opinions, but it sickens me that, while Don Imus got fired for his remarks, newspapers nationwide still syndicate Kristol.
:::But he's right.  Just call us racists, as your kind does, and move on, angry boy.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.180.165 (talk) 16:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, there are plenty of legitimate reasons to dislike Kristol (I have plenty myself), but he was criticizing Maya Angelou and her poem, not disparaging the races she mentioned. His comment about the decline of American culture was a critique of Clinton's choice of Angelou, not an expression of racism (though I would still strongly disagree with it).131.111.131.165 (talk) 16:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racial Views 

message: I realize that "criticism" sections are widely regarded as problematic on wikipedia, but this is a good example of why just deleting them isn't really a good solution.  Kristol is a really controversial figure, who has received a lot of criticism on his track record, and as written, this article appears to be pretending that this isn't so.  Skipping this is not being "Neutral", it's providing an endorsement-by-default.  I know reporting on controversy without taking sides in it is a tricky business, but refusing to do it at all is hardly a solution.  -- Doom (talk) 15:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "Really controversial figure, who has received a lot of criticism on his track record"--according to what reliable sources?  Are they opinion sources or news sources?  What makes him any more controversial or a recipient of significantly more criticism than other pundits? Drrll (talk) 16:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Section break -- original criticim section

message: The article states a number of Kristol's positions on foreign policy, but he's also apparently being cited as some sort of economic expert/strategist:
  http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/15/liquidationists-of-the-world-unite/
A summary of his economic opinions would be of some use, I would think.
:Apparently you can't read. He's not being cited as an economic expert. He signed an open letter to Ben Bernanke, and Paul Krugman was pointing out that the guy is NOT an economic expert. --JHP (talk) 04:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Positions on economics? 

message: Does anybody know what area of concentration his bachelor's degree is in? The article doesn't say. Also, the article said that he earned a B.A. from Harvard, but Harvard doesn't offer the B.A. I assumed he received an A.B. and made the correction. --JHP (talk) 04:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bachelor's degree? 

message: Kristol's recent op ed about Glenn Beck's analysis of Egypt (and the ensuing dispute--primarily from Glenn Beck's side of the fence) is probably worhty of mention. BlennGeck (talk) 19:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you know of any non-opinion reliable sources that cover the dispute? Drrll (talk) 19:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

text: Looks like there a quite a lot of news sources that cover this (see search).  Looks like enough coverage to me to add a mention of this in this article. Drrll (talk) 23:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Beck-Egypt Dispute

message: I agree with "Doom" who wrote above on 16 November 2010:  Quote: I realize that "criticism" sections are widely regarded as problematic on wikipedia, but this is a good example of why just deleting them isn't really a good solution. Kristol is a really controversial figure, who has received a lot of criticism on his track record, and as written, this article appears to be pretending that this isn't so. Skipping this is not being "Neutral", it's providing an endorsement-by-default. I know reporting on controversy without taking sides in it is a tricky business, but refusing to do it at all is 
hardly a solution. -- Doom... 
However, I agree that some of the criticisms originally posted did not belong here for the reasons given...they were either opinions of un-respected blowhards, or were unverified facts. However, newsman Dan Rather was fired for making one error, so this is important. (And Rather has a criticism section, as do many/most important people.) 
Just looking at news one finds tons of verifiable examples, such as ""Free Agent" Bill Kristol Now Available To Misinform On Non-Fox Networks - Research August 20, 2013"  the list includes:
Kristol Senate Testimony: "American And Alliance Forces Will Be Welcomed In Baghdad As Liberators." [Senate Foreign Relations Committee testimony, 2/7/02
Kristol: "I Think We'll Be Vindicated When We Discover The Weapons Of Mass Destruction And When We Liberate The People Of Iraq." From a March 2003 interview on ABC's Nightline
Kristol: "[A]lmost No Evidence" That "The Shia Can't Get Along With The Sunni."[NPR, Fresh Air, 4/1/03]
Kristol: "Democrats Want To Destroy Business In The United States By Turning Us Into A Banana Republic." [Fox Broadcasting Co., Fox News Sunday, 6/17/10]
...a long list.  
Plus zillions others, such as on the Neocon's Iraq War :  
WILLIAM KRISTOL, THE WEEKLY STANDARD: Whatever else you can say 
about this war, let me just make my point, George Bush is not fighting this 
like Vietnam. Whatever, we don`t need to be fighting the whole history of 
Vietnam.  
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Saddam, maybe, that`s the danger. ....  
KRISTOL: It`s not going to happen. This is going to be a two-month 
war, not an eight-year war.  
(END VIDEO CLIP) still seen here. ...along w other critiques of Kristol.
See also:  Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section): 
quote: ...he lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of its most important aspects. 
The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance.... 
Someone needs to create another Criticism Section. ...like fish in a barrel. --68.127.93.1 (talk) 21:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  STILL NO Criticism Section????????? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on William Kristol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/11/why-bill-kristol-left-fox-news-176467.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello, why isn't there any section dedicated to Kristol's push for David French as an independent candidate for President in 2016? (Seems like this info would be helpful for people who are trying to find out details about how Kristol thinks)---ES---2602:306:CD9B:E9A0:5CF9:C846:A1FA:4DC0 (talk) 16:12, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  David French endorsement ? 

message: There seem to be a number of news articles and even his Twitter account and handle refer to him as 'Bill Kristol'. Perhaps 'Bill' should at least be included in his name, i.e. William "Bill" Kristol? Seems common enough to mention. --192.75.211.200 (talk) 21:23, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Bill

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on William Kristol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080210053757/http://www.mcclatchydc.com/104/story/27096.html to http://www.mcclatchydc.com/104/story/27096.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi, regarding the Debate tomorrow I hope, ( I’ve only started using Facebook trying to reach out to Americans , Democratic Candidates to EDUCATE them on how to inform Americans how  Close “WE” are to becoming an “Authoritarian Government”,) Candidates “ DONOT” need to ATTACK Each OTHER, present their policies “Succinctly & Briefly”, Tweek the Specifics later, rather speak to the National Security THREAT He & His Administration Pose & the CORRUPTION They have brought to this “TOXIC SWAMP”, He & Bill Barr(AMERICANS Attorney General)NOT Trump’s “Personal Attorney ARE a “Threat” to AMERICA’S Stand on HUMANITY & OUR “STANDING” on the “WORLD STAGE” Ramonasilva (talk) 04:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Candidates Debate tomorrow 

message: I see that the article is now stating that Kristol is now a Democrat because he tweeted he considers himself one at least until Trump is defeated. However, I want to ask if that actually means he has has left the Republican Party (which he has not unequivocally stated like other high-profile Republican defectors such as Steve Schmidt and Justin Amash) and now joined the Democratic Party, or is he just conditionally supporting the Democrats in this election year as a means of opposing Donald Trump and removing the Trumps from politics, as Kristol has strongly rejected their leadership of the GOP from the very beginning. I think to be on the safe side of BLP, I will remove this from the article until we have a better, reliable source saying that Kristol has actually joined the Democratic Party rather than just conditionally supporting them in one election on a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" basis. Reattacollector (talk) 20:45, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is he a really a Democrat? 

message: The redirect Susan Scheinberg has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.   Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:34, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Susan Scheinberg]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]