This is one of those silly exercises in contrarianism that confuses insignificant counterexamples with reasoned refutation. For example:

1. Shafer cites Kristol's "prescience" about the surge in response to criticism of Kristol based on his disastrous advocacy and unstinting support for the debacle in Iraq. Even had the surge achieved its principle objective - creating conditions in Iraq sufficient to produce political reconciliation - this would be scant redemption for a man who dismissed warnings of post-Saddam tension between Shiites and Sunnis as "pop sociology." Really, Jack, does a four month abatement of the horrific violence in Iraq, itself more a result of appeasing Sunni warlords in northern Iraq than any "surge" in troops, qualify Kristol as "prescient"?

2. Shafer responds to arguments that two hardcore neocons on the op-ed pages of the Times are too many by noting that Kristol and Brooks differ on abortion and gay marriage. As far as Jack is concerned, the NYT is free to feature four anarcho-syndicalists on its op-ed pages as long as they differ on earmark reform. Look, Jack, Kristol and Brooks may differ on many issues and may have completely different styles and methods, but if diversity is valued by the NYT then reserving two column slots for members of a small and dwindling faction within the minority party - precisely the same number alloted all of liberalism (Krugman, Herbert) - is a funny way of achieving it.

Jack never really gets around to discussing the real objection to Kristol, which is that he is less a journalist than a propagandist. A journalist has some duty to readers to offer reasoned analysis even when ardently advocating a particular position. For instance, a journalist might have fairly noted that a Sunni-Shiite civil war was not a foregone conclusion in Iraq, but only a propagandist could have dismissed such concerns as "pop sociology" in the face the Sunnis brutal repression of the Shiites during Saddam's reign. Check that: only a propagandist OR A PIMP could have done so.