A tale of two moral compasses. The NY Times issued an editorial exhorting Bush to not "abuse" the pardon privilege:

With the Bush administration drawing to a close, it is presidential pardon season. Presidents have become increasingly shameless about issuing pardons to insulate political cronies from prosecution, even to protect themselves. We hope President Bush will not abuse the pardon power by putting his appointees, political supporters or friends above the law.

The Constitution gives the president sweeping authority to grant pardons. The founders intended for presidents to use this power as an “act of grace” or to promote the public welfare. It was never intended to be a get-out-of-jail-free card for people close to the president who stretched, bent or broke the law.

A nice, if a bit naive, sentiment. The editorial goes on to point out how past presidents have abused the privilege, so it's not without precedent to have Bush issue pardons to whom he wishes to repay for their political loyalty (Hi, Scooter!).

But it is svengaliesque William Kristol whose advice will much more likely be heeded by his PNAC buddies and disciples in the Executive Branch. He argues in his Weekly Standard that the right thing for Bush to do is to pardon any and all foot soldiers in his War on Terror™:

One last thing: Bush should consider pardoning--and should at least be vociferously praising--everyone who served in good faith in the war on terror, but whose deeds may now be susceptible to demagogic or politically inspired prosecution by some seeking to score political points. The lawyers can work out if such general or specific preemptive pardons are possible; it may be that the best Bush can or should do is to warn publicly against any such harassment or prosecution. But the idea is this: The CIA agents who waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and the NSA officials who listened in on phone calls from Pakistan, should not have to worry about legal bills or public defamation. In fact, Bush might want to give some of these public servants the Medal of Freedom at the same time he bestows the honor on Generals Petraeus and Odierno. They deserve it.

Unbelievable. This goes beyond immorality and straight into a complete lack of humanity. And let me for the record reiterate that Bill "Brave with other people's kids" Kristol has NEVER been right. Not once. Not when he cheerleaded the Iraq invasion and lied about the reasons. Not when he cheerleaded Sarah Palin and led the campaign to get her on the GOP ticket. Not once in his weekly appearances on Pravda, er...FoxNews has he ever given even the slightest semblance of being right. And now he goes against his employers at the NY Times (Jeez, what does it take to fire a bloodthirsty, warmongering amoral Republican flack? Obviously as much as it does in the US Senate) to suggest that those who have violated every principle that was supposed to be the American dream should get the farkin' Medal of Honor?

And sadly, the Villagers will look to this and not blink an eye.

I think I've made my feelings about Bill Kristol very clear in the past, but allow me to reiterate: He is never right. He is wrong constantly. Anything and everything he says is a pathetic mix of lies and ignorance.

Now that we're clear, I have to ask, what will it take before the New York Times realizes that they are paying for utter and complete wrongness to pollute their paper?

In less than six months since his column began, the New York Times had already issued at least three corrections for factual errors in Bill Kristol columns.

Today, he's given his editors another reason to keep their red pens close at hand.

Kristol's assertion that the 9/11 attacks "did not result in a much-feared (by intellectuals) wave of popular Islamophobia or xenophobia" in this country will surely come a surprise to the millions of Muslims and immigrants in this country.

This goes against plentiful data and the lived experience of Muslims, Arab Americans and immigrants in our country. Many Muslim Americans reported increased hostility toward them after 9/11. Shockingly, Kristol's "non-existent" Islamophobia and xenophobia have also proved deadly for a number of Americans who became victims of hate crimes after 9/11. (See Divided We Fall for a moving account of this painful reality.)

Considering the amount of xenophobia that Bill Kristol and his PNAC buddies have unleashed on this country in pursuit of their agenda, I'm surprised he thinks he can write this without bolts of lightening striking him down.

Download | play Download | play

In one of the odder transformations seen this primary season, some of the harshest critics of Hillary Clinton are now championing her candidacy with great gusto. Kristol seems to lead this pack of concern trolls from the vast rightwing conspiracy, but we've also seen Rush Limbaugh, Joe Scarborough,and Karl Rove among others rush to her defense. And then last month's bizarre endorsement from her once arch nemesis Richard Mellon Scaife.

In this clip from yesterday's Fox News Sunday Kristol rallies to her side saying, "She is a better candidate than he is. "

And Kristol continues today in the NY Times:

I normally don’t claim to speak for other members of the vast right-wing conspiracy. After all, we’re each nefarious in our own, individual way. Indeed, we often disagree with one another.

But I do think I can speak for most of my fellow right-wingers when I say this: We once looked forward with unambivalent glee to the fall of the house of Clinton. Many of us still do. But we also see the liberal media failing to give Hillary Clinton the respect she deserves. So, since we conservatives believe in giving credit where credit is due, it falls to us to praise Hillary.

Of course, the disdain for all things Clinton has not lessened one iota among these people. The annoying clucking sound we hear is only Republicans savoring the prospect of Democratic discord, their only real means to retaining the White House.

Info from the Youtube link:

Thomas Friedman, the author and NY Times columnist, was invited to Brown University to give a keynote speech on Earth Day, before a packed auditorium. His talk, titled "Green is the new Red White and Blue" was about how corporate environmentalism (based on putting a price on the atmosphere, and investing in biofuels and techno-fixes) can restore America to its "natural place in the global order." Luckily, this outrageous neoliberal capitalist propaganda was interrupted with a suprise visit from the Greenwash Guerrillas.

And further information from the Brown University newspaper.

After the pie hit Friedman and splattered on his face and torso, the two jumped offstage and ran out of the southeast exit of the building, followed closely by a man trying to catch them. A police officer also ran toward the exit but stayed inside.

The thrower was eventually caught by police, who detained her in Salomon's lobby before moving her elsewhere.

"One of the offenders was apprehended, placed in the custody of the Brown Department of Public Safety and identified as a Brown student," University spokesman Michael Chapman said in a statement released Tuesday night. "The University will review this incident through its non-academic disciplinary system to determine the appropriate response."

Update: John Amato: You may remember that Mr. Friedman was one of the main cheerleaders in the media for the US to go into Iraq and kick a little ass because "we could."

Download | play   Download | play

Friedman: What they needed to see was American boys and girls going house to house, from Basra to Baghdad, um and basically saying, “Which part of this sentence don’t you understand?” You don’t think, you know we care about our open society, you think this bubble fantasy, we’re just gonna to let it grow? Well, Suck. On. This. That Charlie is what this war is about. We could of hit Saudi Arabia, it was part of that bubble. Could of hit Pakistan. We hit Iraq because we could.

Clark Hoyt, the public NY Times said that Bill Kristol should never have been given a job because he wanted to prosecute the NY Times for running the "bank data mining" story. Here's Hoyt:

Publication of the article was controversial — my predecessor as public editor first supported it and then changed his mind — but Kristol’s leap to prosecution smacked of intimidation and disregard for both the First Amendment and the role of a free press in monitoring a government that has a long history of throwing the cloak of national security and classification over its activities. This is not a person I would have rewarded with a regular spot in front of arguably the most elite audience in the nation.

One would think that journalistic ethics should count for something. If you're a warmongering conservative---those rules need not apply. (h/t Jason)

UPDATE: Think Progress says that: "New York Times Public Editor Clark Hoyt writes today that Kristol “refused to talk” to him about his comments or the controversy over his hiring, which Hoyt calls “an odd stance for someone who presumably will want others to talk to him for his column.”

Download | play John Amato: Here's a mash up clip C&L did with the Huffington Post on William the Bloody Kristol after he got the NY Times gig. (h/t Scarce)

Bill Kristol’s inaugural column in the paper of record confirms the concerns of critics. It’s filled with the kind of far-right talking points that one has come to expect from the Weekly Standard editor.

How bad is it? Let's see:

* It's filled with cliched, hackneyed writing.

* It quotes Michelle Malkin.

* It quotes Michelle Malkin incorrectly.

There's some interest in Kristol's willingness to support Mike Huckabee, despite the GOP establishment's reservations, but on the whole, it's the kind of piece that will continue to make NYT readers wonder what the newspaper was thinking.

William "the Bloody" Kristol gets rewarded with a gig by the NY Times for being a neocon---warmongering---psycho. The MMSSSMMM RULES!

Check out C&L's awesome video archives to see the madness that is "Kristol"

Here's David Sirota's response via email:

This is really sick - especially when you consider it is happening at a time when the country is clearly moving more progressive, and there are so many good progressive columnists who have guest columned for the Times before (Ehrenreich, Katha Pollit, Tom Frank, etc.).

Either way - it is an absolute abomination from the standpoint of basic accountability. A pundit being factually wrong on almost everything he hung his hat on is rewarded by the largest newspaper in the world for his track record. If ever there was an example of the world of journalism literally thumbing its nose at basic accountability, this example of Bill Kristol falling up is it.

Well said, David!