"Times readers who expect the paper's columnists to mirror their views may not like the idea of an alleged war criminal like Kristol infesting its pages any more than they liked the idea of Nixon's pal Safire setting up a squat there. But they're the same people who'd boycott a restaurant just because it starts serving an entrée they hate."

How is it possible that Bill Kristol is an "alleged war criminal"? He is not the commander in chief, a soldier, or a policy maker. This is an outright slander from Mr. Schafer and he needs to retract his statement in short order.

NO, he's worse than that! Bill Kristol has been in the forefront for seven long years now, shamelessly, immorally fomenting for the invasion and occupation of Iraq and now, not satisfied with the slaughter there, it's on to Iran, if he gets his druthers!

He's been given, by whatever powers that be, center stage in our media to write, be editor for a right-wing, neo-conservative magazine, to propagandize unendingly on many different TV shows and, regularly, great opportunities that none of the rest of us will ever have the opportunity to have to protest the invasion and he NEVER has been refuted by the submissive jackals/pundits who apparently couldn't care less about the people of this country or Iraq.

The NYTimes, by giving Kristol this prestigious position as a columnist for the paper has stuck its fingers in the eyes of all Americans who have opposed this hideous Shock and Awe invasion.
It has overtly rewarded Kristol, one of the nation's most visible and ostentatious warmongers, and has given its blessing and approval of the Iraqi holocaust.

How I wish the saintly Bob Herbert, Paul Krugman and Frank Rich would resign in protest against this appointment.

Key word is 'alleged.' He is not making the accustation. He's trying to suggest that others have made that accusation . . . . to answer your question.

But he misses the point entirely. So entirely I can only think its some kind of effort to cause us to look at something that can be explained, as opposed to that which cannot.

I think it all comes down to integrity. . . . not just journalistic. Though that counts (see the author's own quote "Kristol is a political operator." What makes him stand out as a poor choice is the appearance that his self-interest (to be someone who controls others, gets attention, misleads to his own advantage) is far more motivating to him than any legacy as a great observer, communicator, analyst or humanitarian.

And I stand among those who think the Times could, and should, do better. The media in the U.S. (my vantage point is presently in Europe, reading and listening to news in other languages) can't see the forest through the trees. They fear that sales will slow to a halt and they will have to shut down. So they are all going the way of the t.v. talk show hosts who digressed to the point of inviting emotional rants onto their programs.

Very sad and, frankly, scarey.

As far as William Safire goes. He was one of the main factors pushing me toward OTHER points of view. His bias was so clear, he was so full of contempt, and, frankly, illogical and unconvincing, that I found myself seeking out opinions other than his own. That is not a vote for keeping Kristol employed (let him try to convince another resource to hire him). Rather, I say that only to calm the nerves of those who are so incensed that they can't get passed it.

Any reader worth their weight in potatoes will look for multiple sources to find versions of the truth they can believe (and if you don't, you should).

Them's my thoughts.