Calling Kristoff a Liar (my title), Another Embarrassment for Kristoff

Accuracy In Media ^ | October 17, 2002 | Reed Irvine and Cliff Kincaid

[dano1]

New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof made a name for himself with a series of columns claiming he knew who the prime suspect in the anthrax murders was. He called him "Mr. Z," until "Mr. Z" went public and affirmed his innocence. "Mr. Z" is Steven Hatfill, whose spokesman Patrick Clawson says that Krisfof's columns were full of "bunk" and "total garbage."

Perhaps Kristof ought to be investigated for impersonating a serious columnist. Getting off Hatfill's case for a while, he went off on another tangent in a column simply titled "Bush vs. Women," making the president out to be an enemy of women because he withheld $34 million from a U.N. agency involved in China's forced abortion program. Kristof admitted Bush had a point there, but that the money cut-off meant that other worthwhile programs for women in other countries would be terminated as a result. But that's bunk. The Europeans have already announced that they're going to provide the $34 million that Bush won't.

Kristof then charged that Bush is "devastating" third world women in other ways: "It is trying to block a landmark international treaty on the rights of women, even though the State Department initially backed it. The treaty, known as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, or Cedaw, would make no difference in America but would be one more tool to help women in countries where discrimination means death."

Yes, it's true that the State Department initially backed it. That's because Clinton holdovers supported it before the Bush White House understood what the treaty would actually do. The treaty has been hanging around for 20 years, having been signed by President Jimmy Carter. Now that liberal Senator Joe Biden is in charge of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the feminists saw a chance to ram it through. His committee recently passed the measure with the help of two liberal Republicans, Lincoln Chafee and Gordon Smith.

It has no positive impact for third world women, and China is a good example. China signed the treaty and contends that its forced abortion program is entirely consistent with it. Yet more than half of the abortions are girls. In another bizarre development, the U.N. committee that oversees implementation has urged abandonment of "Mother's Day" because it discriminates against working women without children.

Kristof is wrong in saying the treaty would make "no difference in America." Radical feminists support it because they want to use the treaty to enforce their notion of equal rights in the U.S. courts. They failed to gain ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment in the U.S. but see the U.N. treaty as a back-door way to accomplish the same thing. That would mean, among other things, women in the front lines of combat and even a woman's right to sell her body. The U.N. committee supervising implementation of the treaty has recommended decriminalization of prostitution. And that's supposed to be progress for women.

[dano1]

Kristoff wrote another unsubstantiated hit piece against Bush in the New York Slimes.

[Dan from Michigan]

I caught Kristof lying in one of his anti-gun rants. Nothing new for that assclown.

[dano1]

The above article is from Oct. 2002. But today (see "Calling Bush a Liar", NYT, 6/30/04), Kristof wrote the following surpassingly stupid remark:

"It wasn't surprising when the right foamed at the mouth during the Clinton years, for conservatives have always been quick to detect evil empires."

This reflects Kristof's lack of perspective and insight, especially coming so soon after Reagan's funeral reminded us all of our recent history. Kristof seems to be chiding conservatives for Reagan's famous "evil empire" comment. Does Kristof not really believe that the Soviet Union was evil??? Or does he just enjoy being on both sides of every issue, like Flipper???