William Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard and the son of Irving Kristol, the self-described "godfather of neoconservatism," speculated in a recent syndicated opinion piece: "I suppose I'll merely expose myself to harmless ridicule if I make the following assertion: George W. Bush's presidency will probably be a successful one."

Follow this link to the original source: "Why Bush Will Be A Winner"


William Kristol's coy suggestion that he is going out on a limb and facing "harmless ridicule" by defending the reputation of the current president creates the impression that he is merely an innocent bystander displaying the courage of his convictions.

A cursory examination of Kristol's background, however, reveals that he is merely doing what he has done throughout his life — being a good neocon team player. Furthermore, lest there still be confusion among some about the difference between a neoconservative and a classic conservative, it is important to recognize that neoconservatism has as much in common with genuine conservatism as a pineapple has with an apple.

And, in Kristol's case — if one will pardon an unavoidable pun — the apple has not fallen far from the tree. William's father, Irving Kristol, is considered the founder of American neoconservatism. The elder Kristol was an active Trotskyite while a student at the City College of New York, from which he graduated in 1940 with a B.A. in history. Years later, in 1983, Kristol wrote that that he was proud to have been a member of Trotskyite Fourth International back in 1940.

Far from being an aberration, the elder Kristol's Trotskyism was, in fact, a common credential of the founders of the neocon movement, most of whom were also on the payroll of the World War II-era OSS and its successor spy agency, the CIA. The CIA was not above helping to launch neocon organs, such as the British-based magazine Encounter, which Irving Kristol co-founded and edited from 1953 to 1958. The better-known "conservative" magazine National Review, started by William F. Buckley, Jr., was heavily influence by Buckley's two mentors Willmoore Kendall and James Burnham, who were early Trotskyite/OSS/CIA veterans that recruited Buckley into the CIA, and turned him against the classic conservatism of his father, William F. Buckley, Sr.

Unlike Buckley, William Kristol did not have to split with his father to become a loyal neocon. Following in the elder Kristol's footsteps, in 1994 William established — along with fellow neocon John Poderetz (the son of former Commentary editor Norman Poderetz), and with financing from Rupert Murdoch — The Weekly Standard, a leading voice of neoconservatism.

The relevance of this mini-history of neoconservatism to Kristol's assessment of the Bush presidency is that, for decades, the neocons have dominated the Republican Party. One common thread among many neocons is membership in the internationalist Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), including Irving Kristol, Norman Poderetz, William F. Buckley, Newt Gingrich, former President George H.W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. (CFR membership among Democrats is also legendary, a recent outstanding example being former President Bill Clinton.)

In making his assessment of the Bush presidency, Kristol touches on the two major areas most people would use to evaluate any government's fulfillment of its mission: peace and prosperity. Taking the latter first, Kristol's positive rating seems overly generous, given the continual growth of our national debt, unfavorable balance of trade, the erosion of our manufacturing base, and the vast outsourcing of American jobs.

Then Kristol addresses the bogeyman, asking: "But wait, wait, wait: What about Iraq?" Setting an admittedly speculative scenario, Kristol suggests:

First of all, we would have to compare the situation now with what it would be if we hadn't gone in. Saddam Hussein would be in power and, I dare say, victorious, with the United States (and the United Nations) by now having backed off sanctions and the no-fly zone. He might well have restarted his nuclear program, and his connections with al-Qaeda would be intact or even strengthened.

We would like to propose another scenario: If we had not gone into Iraq, the situation there would be largely unchanged since before we went in, with most Iraqis still fearful of their government, but with stability prevailing and with Iraq's oil still being shipped to the West under the oil-for-food program. Al-Qaeda operatives, as fearful as most Iraqis of Saddam Hussein, would still be operating largely out of the mountains along the Afganistan-Pakistan border, with limited help from Iran. But Iran, cautious of the formidable adversary Saddam Hussein represented on its Western border, would not be nearly as bold as it is today. As an added bonus, the more than 3,600 Americans killed in Iraq would now be home with their families.

Kristol is not as impartial an observer of the Bush administration's policy on Iraq as it seems, however. In 2003, just as the Iraq War was starting, Kristol was as a guest on the National Public Radio program "Fresh Air" and made the following statement: "There's been a certain amount of pop sociology in America ... that the Shia can't get along with the Sunni and the Shia in Iraq just want to establish some kind of Islamic fundamentalist regime. There's almost no evidence of that at all. Iraq's always been very secular."

One would think that with a track record for prophecy like that, Kristol would make no further predictions about either Iraq or President Bush, but neocons evidentally have steadfast loyalty to each other.

Kristol's current prediction is: "If Gen. Petraeus succeeds in Iraq, and a Republican wins in 2008, Mr. Bush will be viewed as a successful president.... I like the odds."

We wonder what odds the bookmakers in Las Vegas would give for that scenario playing out.

Warren Mass

Warren is the Editor for the John Birch Society Bulletin.


Trackback URL for this post:

Originally by Warren Mass from The John Birch Society - Truth, Leadership, Freedom - on July 19, 2007, 9:37am


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.