Ah, the old Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc, the favorite logical fallacy of the dozen or so remaining Iraq War defenders in Washington. Presenting, for the prosecution, Bill Kristol:

The Democrats were wrong in their assessments of the surge. Attacks per week on American troops are now down about 60 percent from June. Civilian deaths are down approximately 75 percent from a year ago. December 2007 saw the second-lowest number of U.S. troops killed in action since March 2003. And according to Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, commander of day-to-day military operations in Iraq, last month’s overall number of deaths, which includes Iraqi security forces and civilian casualties as well as U.S. and coalition losses, may well have been the lowest since the war began.

So far, so good. But then, our noble NYT columnist gets into trouble refuting Barack Obama’s equally asinine explanation 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.” Presenting, for the defense…Bill Kristol!

But Sunni tribes in Anbar announced in September 2006 that they would join to fight Al Qaeda. That was two months before the Democrats won control of Congress. The Sunni tribes turned not primarily because of fear of the Shiites, but because of their horror at Al Qaeda’s atrocities in Anbar. And the improvements in Anbar could never have been sustained without aggressive American military efforts — efforts that were more effective in 2007 than they had been in 2006, due in part to the addition of the surge forces.

Thus, we have learned that when the truth damages the Weekly Standard’s spin-line, it is to be swiftly discarded. When it damages Democratic Party spin, it is to be exalted. This sort of thing is pretty common in Washington, but to refute your own spin in the very same column in which you offer it is truly mastery of the form. Bravo!

On a related Monday-morning-snark note, much fuss has been made of the NYT’s decision to hire Kristol. From someone who bows to nobody in his strong distaste for the man, I’m forced to wonder whether anybody has considered that the NYT’s duty is not to inform the populace, or foster civic understanding, or even present truth to its readers. It’s to sell ads. And do we think that Kristol is going to provide the Times more or fewer links–and accordingly, more or less ad revenue–than it possessed previously?