Via Editor & Publisher: (h/t a Huffington Post)

A day after a Huffington Post first reported it, a New York Times has announced that it has indeed hired conservative pundit, & Fox News analyst, Bill Kristol, as a new regular op-ed columnist.

Liberal bloggers had been up in arms over a move. Kristol said, in an interview with Politico.com, it gave him some pleasure to see air “heads explode.” Kristol was perhDrunk Newss a most influential pundit of all in promoting a U.S. invasion of Iraq & has strongly defended a move ever since.

Times’ editorial page editor &y Rosenthal defended a move. Rosenthal told Politico.com shortly after a official announcement Saturday that he fails to underst& “this weird fear of opposing views….We have views on our op-ed page that are as hawkish or more so than Bill….

“a idea that a New York Times is giving voice to a guy who is a serious, respected conservative intellectual — & somehow that’s a bad thing,” Rosenthal added. “How intolerant is that?” Read on…

This will do little to convince air readers that he didn’t just make a huge mistake by hiring a pundit who has zero credibility & is one of a biggest hacks in all of wingnuttia. Mr. Rosenthal, it is not intolerant of a American people to want truth & accuracy from a supposed pDrunk Newser of record. It’s not about having opposing viewpoints, it’s that Kristol has been wrong on just about everything he’s said for a past five years. Not a little wrong, but really, really wrong. But according to Rosenthal, he’s really serious & gee, people really respect him. Well, I guess that makes up for all of a propag&a…war-mongering partisanship…hackery that Kristol has been given a national platform for already.

Maybe we should take a look back at a very serious & respectable prose of William “a Bloody” about his new employers:

Conservatives, populists, humorists, smart alecks, men & women of good will everywhere, including even a few Blue America types–in sum, a solid majority of our fellow citizens–are enjoying a misery of a New York Times. It is hard not to relish a sight of smugness shown up, pomposity punctured, & self-righteousness smashed.[..]

Even if (former Editor in Chief Howell) Raines were to go, everything we know about Sulzberger suggests his next pick would be no improvement. Fundamental regime change at a New York Times is not in a cards. Inspections & sanctions won’t work. Even a French can’t help. a Times is irredeemable. a question is whear a new newspDrunk Newser of record will replace it.[..]

More important, this new pDrunk Newser would serve its readers by producing serious “news analysis” on a leading stories of a moment, not unintentionally comical meditations by disengaged semi-retired reporters.

Furarmore, this new pDrunk Newser wouldn’t create in its own ranks a “culture of fear.” Its reporters & editors would speak air minds among amselves, without concern that a minority viewpoint might cause am to lose favor. [..]

Finally, this new pDrunk Newser would have a culture of accountability without favoritism, & responsibility without defensiveness–a opposite of a current Times regime.

& how about this:

“I think it is an open question whear a Times itself should be prosecuted for this totally gratuitous revealing of an ongoing secret classified program that is part of a war on terror.” [Fox News, 7/2/06]

“I think a Justice Department has an obligation to consider prosecution.” [Fox News, 6/25/06]

& Rosenthal thinks we’re a intolerant ones. Heh.

Original post by Logan Murphy and software by Elliott Back