William Kristol and the New York Times

I know some heads have been spinning and a few liberals are spitting nails, but it is very cool to see another point of view in the New York Times.

Kristol correctly points out hypocrisy the Dem's candidates Obama and Clinton are faced with-

When Obama was asked in the most recent Democratic presidential debate, “Would you have seen this kind of greater security in Iraq if we had followed your recommendations to pull the troops out last year?” he didn’t directly address the question. But he volunteered that “much of that violence has been reduced because there was an agreement with tribes in Anbar Province, Sunni tribes, who started to see, after the Democrats were elected in 2006, you know what? — the Americans may be leaving soon. And we are going to be left very vulnerable to the Shias. We should start negotiating now.”

Seriously, Obama is claiming that the success in Iraq is a result of Democrats claiming defeat in Iraq. That does not make sense to most common sense thinking folks, but he said it anyway.

Not to be outdone by Obama's ridiculous statements, Clinton was hot on his trail making another statement just as ridiculous-

Yesterday, on “Meet the Press,” Hillary Clinton claimed that the Iraqis are changing their ways in part because of the Democratic candidates’ “commitment to begin withdrawing our troops in January of 2009.” So the Democratic Party, having proclaimed that the war is lost and having sought to withdraw U.S. troops, deserves credit for any progress that may have been achieved in Iraq.

Kristol is right-

That is truly a fairy tale.

So is the New York Times balanced not that they have hired Kristol?

Not really, but it is certainly an improvement.