Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

The Weekly Standard

The Weekly Standard was an American conservative political magazine that published weekly from September 1995 until its closure in December 2018, serving as a prominent voice for neoconservatism and intellectual conservatism in opposition to both liberal progressivism and populist strains within the right.^[1]^[2] Founded by William Kristol, Fred Barnes, and John Podhoretz, the magazine was initially backed by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation before shifting ownership to Philip Anschutz's Clarity Media Group in 2009.^[3]^[4] Kristol served as editor until 2016, with the publication emphasizing rigorous policy analysis, cultural commentary, and a hawkish foreign policy rooted in promoting democracy abroad.^[1]^[5] It gained significant influence in the late 1990s and early 2000s, shaping Republican thought through advocacy for interventions like the Iraq War and critiques of isolationism, while nurturing a cadre of writers who bridged traditional conservatism with Wilsonian idealism.^[2]^[6] The magazine's commitment to these principles, however, positioned it as a counterweight to emerging nationalist tendencies, earning praise for intellectual depth but criticism for elitism and detachment from grassroots priorities.^[7]^[8] Its defining characteristics included sharp editorials against perceived threats to Western values and a reluctance to align with Donald Trump's 2016 candidacy, which alienated subscribers and advertisers amid shifting conservative media dynamics.^[9]^[10] The publication ceased operations after its December 24, 2018, issue, with owner Clarity Media citing unsustainable subscription losses, though co-founders alleged deliberate termination to consolidate readership under the more Trump-friendly Washington Examiner.^[4]^[11]^[12]

Founding and Early Development

Establishment and Initial Launch (1995)

The Weekly Standard was established in 1995 by William Kristol and Fred Barnes, with John Podhoretz also involved in early planning, as a biweekly political opinion magazine aimed at articulating conservative principles amid the Republican congressional gains of the previous year.^[13]^[14] Kristol, formerly chief of staff to Vice President Dan Quayle and a key Republican strategist, served as editor, while Barnes, a veteran journalist from outlets like The New Republic, co-edited; the publication sought to distinguish itself from established conservative voices like National Review by emphasizing policy analysis and intellectual engagement over ideological purity.^[15]^[13] Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation provided the initial funding, committing at least $5 million over five years through its News America subsidiary, enabling operations without immediate reliance on subscriptions or advertising.^[15]^[14] The magazine's inaugural issue appeared on September 18, 1995, following an announcement earlier that spring and a promotional rollout that positioned it as a counter to perceived liberal dominance in Washington media.^[16] Initial distribution targeted 30,000 copies, primarily through subscriptions and select newsstands in major cities, with content focusing on critiques of the Clinton administration, advocacy for welfare reform, and support for the "Republican Revolution" led by House Speaker Newt Gingrich.^[13]^[2] The launch capitalized on the momentum from the 1994 midterm elections, where Republicans gained control of both houses of Congress for the first time in 40 years, framing the Standard as a forum for sustaining that ideological shift through rigorous argumentation rather than partisan cheerleading.^[13]^[2] Early reception highlighted the magazine's ambition to influence policy debates, with Kristol articulating in promotional materials a goal of "serious conservatism" that integrated neoconservative foreign policy hawkishness with domestic reformism, though financial losses were anticipated given the competitive landscape of opinion journalism.^[14] Murdoch's backing, drawn from his broader media empire including The New York Post, underscored a strategic investment in diversifying conservative outlets, despite the venture's projected annual deficits exceeding $2 million in startup costs.^[15]^[14] The debut issue featured essays on fiscal restraint and cultural issues, setting a tone of combative yet erudite commentary that aimed to appeal to policymakers and intellectuals in the capital.^[16]

Growth During the Republican Revolution

The Weekly Standard launched its inaugural issue on September 18, 1995, capitalizing on the momentum from the 1994 midterm elections, where Republicans under Newt Gingrich's leadership secured majorities in both chambers of Congress for the first time since 1952, an event dubbed the Republican Revolution.^[17] This political shift created demand for intellectual conservative commentary amid debates over the Contract with America, welfare reform, and fiscal restraint, positioning the magazine as a timely counterweight to both liberal media and populist conservative outlets.^[18] Early issues focused on scrutinizing the new Republican Congress's implementation of revolutionary policies, including coverage of the 1995 government shutdowns triggered by budget disputes with President Bill Clinton. The magazine's neoconservative perspective emphasized principled governance over short-term partisan gains, earning praise for its rigorous analysis that appealed to policymakers, with founders William Kristol and Fred Barnes leveraging their Washington connections to amplify its reach.^[19] This alignment with the era's conservative energy fostered rapid influence among GOP elites, as evidenced by its role in shaping discourse on issues like entitlement reform, even as the revolution faced setbacks such as the 1996 elections.^[20] While precise initial circulation data remains limited, the publication quickly garnered a niche but impactful audience in Washington, contrasting with larger conservative magazines like National Review, which boasted over 150,000 subscribers.^[21] Subsidized by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation, The Weekly Standard prioritized intellectual heft over mass appeal, achieving early prominence through syndication and references in policy circles rather than explosive subscriber growth, setting the stage for its enduring, if modest, footprint in conservative media.^[22]

Editorial Philosophy and Content Focus

Neoconservative Core Principles

Neoconservatism, as reflected in The Weekly Standard's editorial philosophy, emphasized an active American role in global affairs grounded in moral clarity and the defense of democratic values against authoritarian threats. Founding editor William Kristol, son of neoconservatism's intellectual progenitor Irving Kristol, advanced a vision of "benevolent global hegemony," wherein the United States leveraged its military and economic primacy to promote liberal democracy abroad, rejecting isolationism and realpolitik caution in favor of principled interventionism.^[23] This stance manifested in the magazine's vigorous support for the 2003 Iraq War as a means to dismantle tyranny and foster regional stability, viewing such actions as extensions of national interest beyond mere geography to include ideological solidarity with free nations.^[24] Domestically, neoconservative principles upheld economic growth through tax reductions and supply-side policies to sustain prosperity and temper egalitarian excesses, while accepting temporary budget deficits as preferable to stagnation, diverging from traditional conservatives' fiscal austerity.^[24] The magazine critiqued the expansive welfare state inherited from the Great Society era not for outright abolition but for imposing limits to preserve work incentives and individual liberty, aligning with a pragmatic acceptance of government intervention tempered by skepticism toward bureaucratic overreach and social engineering utopias.^[25] Culturally, The Weekly Standard defended bourgeois virtues and traditional institutions against 1960s countercultural relativism, forging alliances with religious conservatives on issues like education reform and restrictions on pornography, while promoting patriotism as a natural civic sentiment to bolster democratic resilience.^[24]^[25] In foreign policy specifics, the publication distrusted supranational institutions that could erode U.S. sovereignty or blur distinctions between allies and adversaries, as exemplified by opposition to détente with the Soviet Union and advocacy for robust defense spending during the Cold War.^[24] This approach prioritized ideological confrontation, supporting alliances like the U.S.-Israel partnership as bulwarks against totalitarianism, and extended to post-Cold War calls for preemptive action against rogue states.^[26] Overall, these tenets fostered an optimistic, forward-oriented conservatism that celebrated American exceptionalism without nostalgia, distinguishing neoconservatism from paleoconservative retrenchment or libertarian non-interventionism.^[24]^[25]

Signature Features and Regular Columns

The Weekly Standard distinguished itself through recurring sections that blended sharp commentary, satire, and lighter cultural observations, setting it apart from more straightforward opinion journals. The "Scrapbook," typically appearing on page 2, served as a signature miscellany feature compiling brief, incisive notes on politics, media, and culture, often with a satirical edge targeting liberal inconsistencies or policy absurdities.^[27]^[28] This section, present in issues from its early years through its final volume, functioned as a curated digest of ephemera, akin to a conservative Noticing column, drawing on editors' and contributors' observations to highlight overlooked hypocrisies without extended argumentation.^[29] Complementing the front-matter intensity, the "Casual" column offered a counterpoint of witty, anecdotal essays on everyday life, personal experiences, and cultural quirks, frequently illustrated to enhance its approachable tone.^[27]^[30] Writers like Andrew Ferguson and Victorino Matus used it for self-deprecating reflections or light grilling of social trends, as seen in Ferguson's 1998 self-interview or Matus's accounts of domestic routines, maintaining a house style that prioritized readability over polemic.^[31]^[32] At the rear, the "Parody" section provided a weekly humorous spoof, often mimicking liberal outlets or public figures, rounding out the magazine's blend of seriousness and levity.^[27] "Correspondence" handled reader letters with editorial replies, fostering engagement, while "The Standard Reader" curated excerpts from notable books or essays aligned with the publication's intellectual bent.^[27] These elements, consistent across issues like Volume 10, No. 44 (August 2005), underscored the magazine's commitment to varied prose forms over uniform advocacy.^[27]

Ownership, Operations, and Financial Trajectory

Rupert Murdoch's Initial Backing and 2009 Sale

News Corporation, controlled by Rupert Murdoch, provided the initial financial backing for The Weekly Standard, enabling its launch on September 18, 1995.^[13] Murdoch pledged to fund the magazine for at least three years with an initial investment of several million dollars, reflecting his interest in establishing a conservative voice in Washington amid the post-Cold War shift toward neoconservative ideas.^[13] Under News Corp's ownership, the publication maintained operational independence in its editorial stance while relying on Murdoch's resources to cover persistent losses, estimated later at around $3 million annually in its early years.^[33] By 2009, following News Corp's 2007 acquisition of The Wall Street Journal, which overlapped in conservative opinion coverage, Murdoch decided to divest the magazine.^[34] On June 17, 2009, News Corp sold The Weekly Standard to Clarity Media Group, a Denver-based publisher owned by billionaire Philip Anschutz, for approximately $1 million.^[35] ^[36] The transaction transferred ownership to Anschutz, a conservative investor with holdings in media and energy, who committed to sustaining the magazine's focus despite its financial challenges, including annual losses nearing $5 million.^[33] This sale marked the end of Murdoch's direct involvement, shifting control to a buyer aligned with similar ideological priorities but operating outside the global media empire.^[37]

Business Model and Circulation Challenges

The Weekly Standard operated primarily as a bi-weekly print magazine, relying on subscription revenue, advertising, and financial subsidies from its owners to sustain operations, a model typical of niche political publications that prioritized intellectual influence over profitability.^[38] Initially backed by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation starting in 1995, the magazine incurred annual losses estimated between $2 million and $5 million, reflecting a strategy of controlled deficits to maintain its editorial independence and reach within conservative circles.^[39] In June 2009, News Corporation sold the publication to Clarity Media Group, a subsidiary of Philip Anschutz's Anschutz Corporation, for an undisclosed sum, shifting ownership to a Denver-based media entity that continued subsidizing operations amid persistent unprofitability.^[40]^[33] Circulation peaked above 100,000 in the early 2010s but declined to 72,000 by 2017, exacerbating financial strains as print advertising revenue eroded in the digital era.^[4] Earlier figures showed around 55,000 subscribers in 2003, underscoring modest scale compared to competitors like National Review, which boasted over 150,000.^[22]^[21] These trends mirrored broader industry challenges, including the shift to online media and reduced ad dollars for legacy print outlets, which Clarity Media cited as key factors in the magazine's viability.^[38]^[41] The combination of stagnant revenue growth and rising production costs led to the magazine's closure announcement on December 14, 2018, with its final issue dated December 24, 2018, after 23 years of publication.^[4] While some observers speculated that editorial criticism of Donald Trump contributed to reader attrition and donor reluctance, the owner emphasized structural economic pressures over ideological misalignment as the decisive cause.^[4]^[42] This outcome highlighted the vulnerabilities of subsidy-dependent models in a fragmented media landscape, where even influential outlets struggled without diversified digital revenue streams.^[43]

Key Personnel and Contributors

Founding Editors and Leadership

William Kristol served as the founding editor and publisher of The Weekly Standard, while Fred Barnes acted as the founding executive editor.^[2] John Podhoretz contributed to the magazine's establishment alongside Kristol and Barnes. The trio launched the publication with financial support from Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation, aiming to provide a platform for neoconservative ideas amid the post-1994 Republican congressional gains.^[2]^[44] Under Kristol's leadership, the magazine emphasized rigorous policy analysis and critique of both liberal orthodoxy and paleoconservative isolationism, with Barnes overseeing daily editorial operations.^[2] Terry Eastland held the role of publisher during the early years, managing operational aspects including distribution through News Corp.^[21] The first issue appeared on September 18, 1995, marking the outlet's entry as a biweekly (later weekly) conservative voice distinct from establishment Republican media.^[44]^[17] Kristol, previously chief of staff to Vice President Dan Quayle, and Barnes, a veteran journalist from outlets like The New Republic, shaped the leadership to prioritize intellectual conservatism over partisan loyalty.^[2] This founding structure endured through the magazine's initial decade, with Kristol retaining influence as editor-at-large even after editorial transitions, such as Stephen F. Hayes assuming editor-in-chief duties in 2009. The leadership's focus on substantive debate helped establish The Weekly Standard as a key neoconservative institution, though it drew criticism for elitism from populist conservatives.^[2]

Influential Contributing Editors and Writers

Christopher Caldwell, a senior editor, gained prominence for his cultural and political commentary, including features on European immigration challenges, such as the 2015 piece on migrants encamped near Calais, which highlighted tensions over border security and integration policies.^[2] His work often critiqued progressive orthodoxies from a skeptical conservative perspective, contributing to the magazine's reputation for intellectual depth in domestic and international affairs.^[45] Andrew Ferguson, who joined as a senior editor at the magazine's 1995 launch, specialized in long-form reporting on topics ranging from evolutionary psychology to political scandals, blending rigorous investigation with wry humor.^[2]^[46] His essays, such as those examining scientific fads and Washington insider culture, exemplified the Standard's commitment to substantive critique over partisan cheerleading, influencing conservative commentary on policy and society for over two decades.^[47] Matt Labash, a senior writer and national correspondent, distinguished himself with gonzo-style reporting that exposed human frailties and political absurdities, including profiles of figures like Roger Stone during the 2000 campaign and a widely read 2002 analysis defending the Galactic Empire in Star Wars as a satirical nod to realpolitik.^[45]^[2] Labash's pieces, often infused with a contrarian edge rather than strict neoconservatism, covered corruption and cultural undercurrents, earning acclaim for their narrative drive and contributing to the magazine's appeal among readers seeking unvarnished dispatches.^[47] Stephen F. Hayes, a senior writer focused on national security, advanced arguments for robust foreign policy through detailed reporting on intelligence and administration decisions, notably as a proponent of the 2003 Iraq invasion based on assessments of Saddam Hussein's WMD programs and ties to terrorism.^[45] His investigative work, including coverage of Vice President Cheney's role in post-9/11 strategy, later positioned him as editor-in-chief from 2016, shaping the Standard's hawkish editorial line amid internal debates over Trump-era conservatism.^[48] Early contributors like David Brooks provided "comic sociology" essays, such as "Patio Man and the Sprawl People" in 1996, offering observational portraits of suburban American life that presaged his later mainstream influence.^[47]^[2] Tucker Carlson, in his pre-cable phase, penned vivid, anecdote-driven pieces modeled on Hunter S. Thompson, including critiques of eugenics policies, adding a stylistic flair that broadened the magazine's journalistic range before his shift to television.^[47]^[2] These writers collectively amplified the Standard's voice in conservative intellectual circles, prioritizing evidence-based arguments over ideological conformity.

Political Influence and Engagements

Advocacy for Foreign Policy Interventions

The Weekly Standard promoted a neoconservative vision of American foreign policy that prioritized military intervention to dismantle tyrannical regimes, foster democratic institutions, and neutralize threats from rogue states and terrorist networks.^[49] This approach rejected isolationism and restraint, arguing instead for proactive U.S. leadership to reshape unstable regions, often framing interventions as moral imperatives aligned with national security interests.^[50] Editorials and essays in the magazine frequently invoked the post-Cold War unipolar moment as an opportunity for the United States to export liberal values through force if necessary, drawing on thinkers like Irving Kristol and emphasizing regime change over mere containment.^[51] A cornerstone of this advocacy was the magazine's vigorous support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. From 2001 onward, The Weekly Standard published pieces arguing that Saddam Hussein's possession of weapons of mass destruction, ties to terrorism, and defiance of international norms necessitated his removal to prevent future attacks on the U.S. and its allies.^[2] Founding editor William Kristol co-authored influential op-eds, such as a 1998 call echoed in later issues for deposing Saddam to liberate Iraqis and stabilize the Middle East, positing that democracy promotion there could trigger a regional domino effect toward moderation.^[52] The magazine framed the war not solely as preemption but as a strategic investment in remaking the Arab world, with editorials dismissing critics as appeasers akin to pre-World War II isolationists.^[50] Post-invasion, The Weekly Standard defended sustained U.S. commitment, particularly endorsing the 2007 troop surge under General David Petraeus as a corrective to earlier counterinsurgency failures.^[53] Articles highlighted empirical gains in security metrics, such as reduced violence in Baghdad and Anbar Province by mid-2008, attributing them to increased troop levels and a shift to population-centric tactics, while critiquing withdrawal timelines as risking al-Qaeda resurgence.^[53] This stance extended to Afghanistan, where the magazine urged escalation against Taliban safe havens and opposed drawdowns, viewing partial retreats as invitations to jihadist entrenchment.^[54] Beyond Iraq and Afghanistan, the publication advocated interventions in emerging crises, including calls for airstrikes on Iran's nuclear facilities and arming Syrian rebels against Bashar al-Assad starting in 2011.^[55] Contributors like Robert Kagan argued in its pages against President Obama's "lead from behind" doctrine, as in the 2011 Libya operation, insisting that half-measures emboldened adversaries and eroded U.S. credibility.^[56] By 2014, amid ISIS advances, editorials renewed demands for robust action, including ground forces if needed, to rollback caliphate ambitions and reaffirm American primacy.^[2] These positions consistently prioritized causal links between unchecked aggression abroad and domestic vulnerabilities, grounded in historical analogies to Munich rather than multilateral consensus.^[57]

Domestic Policy Positions and Critiques

The Weekly Standard consistently advocated for welfare reform emphasizing work requirements and reduced dependency on government programs, praising the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act for transforming aid from entitlement to temporary assistance that promoted self-reliance.^[58] Its editors critiqued expansions of welfare under subsequent administrations, arguing that unchecked entitlements discouraged marriage and perpetuated poverty traps, as evidenced by analyses highlighting marriage penalties in means-tested benefits.^[59] This stance aligned with broader conservative efforts to devolve power to states while maintaining a safety net focused on behavioral incentives rather than unconditional support. In education policy, the magazine championed market-oriented reforms including school choice, charter schools, and voucher programs to foster competition and empower parents, while supporting accountability standards like those in the No Child Left Behind Act to measure and improve outcomes.^[60] It criticized federal overreach under President Obama, such as waivers undermining reform promises, and advocated for teacher evaluation flexibility to prioritize effective instruction over union protections.^[61] Contributors like Joy Pullman argued that rigid tenure systems stifled innovation, urging policies that rewarded performance to address stagnant student achievement.^[62] On immigration, The Weekly Standard endorsed enforcement-focused reforms with legal pathways for skilled workers but grew skeptical of amnesty provisions, co-authoring opposition to the 2013 "Gang of Eight" bill as a flawed compromise that prioritized legalization over border security and would incentivize further illegal entries.^[63] Earlier, editor William Kristol signed a 2006 statement backing guest-worker programs alongside workplace enforcement to balance economic needs with rule of law, critiquing both open-borders laxity and blanket restrictionism as politically untenable.^[64] This positioned the magazine against restrictionist hardliners on the right, who accused it of insufficient cultural assimilation emphasis, while faulting liberal policies for undermining wage protections for low-skilled Americans. Socially, the publication upheld traditional values, opposing abortion as a moral failing and advocating pro-life policies, while critiquing same-sex marriage expansions as eroding family structures central to societal stability.^[65] It leveled critiques at cultural relativism in media and academia, promoting a "humane conservatism" that integrated free markets with moral renewal, rejecting pure libertarianism for ignoring community and character formation.^[66] Paleoconservatives and libertarians often faulted these views as insufficiently deregulatory or overly interventionist in personal spheres, while left-leaning outlets dismissed them as regressive barriers to progress.^[67]

Reception, Achievements, and Criticisms

Praise for Intellectual Rigor and Impact

The Weekly Standard garnered acclaim for its commitment to intellectual seriousness, distinguishing it from more polemical conservative outlets through rigorous argumentation and depth of analysis. Franklin Foer observed that the magazine "combined high intellectual seriousness with the crass mentality of a political operative," evident in its erudite cultural essays and robust coverage of books and the arts, which reflected a reverence for high culture amid political commentary.^[47] This approach fostered a platform for substantive debate, positioning the publication as an ideological vanguard within American conservatism, as articulated by co-founder Bill Kristol.^[47] Critics and admirers alike highlighted the magazine's cultivation of exceptional writing talent, producing pieces that were "stylish, unexpected, and full of warmth."^[47] Contributors such as David Brooks and early Tucker Carlson delivered witty, arch essays that elevated discourse, while figures like Matt Labash were lauded for humane sympathy and humor, and Andrew Ferguson for mastery of reported features, book reviews, and obituaries.^[66] Matthew Walther praised its "beautifully written" articles, including profiles like Matthew Continetti's on Senator Rand Paul, underscoring a humane, neoconservative vision rooted in thinkers such as Irving Kristol and Daniel Patrick Moynihan.^[66] The publication's impact extended to shaping conservative intellectual life by prioritizing principles over commercial expediency, maintaining quality even as it expanded online without dilution.^[66] It showcased influential septuagenarian voices like James Q. Wilson and Jeane Kirkpatrick, contributing to a "cover-to-cover vibrance" that influenced policy debates and nurtured a generation of writers.^[47] National Review contributors remembered it as a "reliable source of intelligent... writing" and "felicitous" prose, respecting it as a formidable competitor in conservative journalism from its 1995 founding through its 2018 closure.^[68] Walther echoed Kristol in deeming it the finest right-of-center magazine for over two decades, crediting its role in advancing ideas amid shifting political tides.^[66]

Critiques from Left and Right Perspectives

Critics from the political left primarily assailed The Weekly Standard for its neoconservative promotion of military interventions, most notably its vigorous endorsement of the 2003 Iraq invasion, which left-leaning analysts attributed to over 4,000 American military deaths, approximately 400,000 Iraqi deaths between 2003 and 2011, and costs exceeding $1 trillion, yielding no durable strategic gains and instead fostering regional instability, the rise of ISIS, and spillover into Syria's civil war.^[5] The magazine's advocacy for "forever war" and regime-change doctrines, exemplified by co-founder Bill Kristol's calls for confronting Iraq, Iran, and even broader threats like China, was derided as ideologically rigid warmongering that prioritized abstract democratic crusades over pragmatic assessments of costs and outcomes.^[6] Such positions, critics argued, not only exacerbated chaos abroad but indirectly paved the way for populist backlash at home, including the ascent of Donald Trump, by discrediting establishment conservatism.^[6] From the right, paleoconservatives and traditionalists long viewed The Weekly Standard as a neoconservative outpost that supplanted authentic conservatism with an emphasis on global activism and democratic capitalism, marginalizing restraint-oriented perspectives in favor of interventionism that diverged from national sovereignty priorities.^[69] This critique intensified over the Iraq War, where paleoconservatives like Pat Buchanan warned against neocon-driven empire-building, arguing it subverted Reagan-era realism and hijacked Republican foreign policy toward unnecessary entanglements, a stance vindicated by the conflict's protracted failures as foreseen by antiwar traditionalists.^[70] In the Trump era, populist conservatives and the president's supporters further condemned the magazine for its unyielding opposition to Trump, branding it elitist and disloyal to the GOP base; Trump himself labeled it "pathetic and dishonest," run by "failed so-called conservatives," while figures like Rep. Steve King celebrated its 2018 closure as retribution for prioritizing institutional critique over allegiance to the movement's populist turn.^[4]^[9]

Controversies and Legal Issues

Iraq War Support and Its Aftermath

The Weekly Standard provided vigorous intellectual support for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, publishing numerous editorials and articles that framed the removal of Saddam Hussein as a moral and strategic imperative in the war on terror.^[71] Editor Bill Kristol argued that the operation would enhance American security by eliminating a dictator with WMD ambitions and ties to terrorist networks, as articulated in pre-invasion commentaries emphasizing Hussein's history of aggression and non-compliance with UN resolutions.^[72] Contributors like Stephen Hayes highlighted purported operational links between the Iraqi regime and al-Qaeda, bolstering the magazine's case for preemptive action despite debates over intelligence reliability.^[73] Following the March 20, 2003, invasion, initial coverage celebrated rapid conventional victories but soon pivoted to critiques of postwar planning, with writers attributing early instability to inadequate troop commitments rather than inherent flaws in the decision to intervene.^[74] By 2006, as sectarian violence escalated, the magazine advocated a counterinsurgency "surge" of additional U.S. forces to secure population centers and enable political reconstruction, an idea advanced by resident fellow Frederick Kagan in a May 2006 article that influenced subsequent policy debates.^[75] This stance aligned with the magazine's broader neoconservative emphasis on American military resolve to achieve democratic outcomes, even amid rising casualties and no discovery of active WMD stockpiles.^[76] In the war's protracted aftermath, The Weekly Standard defended the invasion's rationale against mounting skepticism, with Kristol asserting in 2015 that ousting Hussein averted greater threats and that subsequent failures stemmed from insufficient commitment rather than the initial premise.^[77] Critics from paleoconservative and libertarian circles lambasted the magazine for overreliance on optimistic projections that underestimated insurgency dynamics and nation-building costs, arguing this advocacy prolonged U.S. entanglement and eroded conservative support for interventionism.^[78] The position fueled internal right-wing fractures, as the war's inconclusive results—marked by over 4,000 American troop deaths by 2011 and the emergence of ISIS post-withdrawal—highlighted risks of ideologically driven foreign policy, though defenders maintained causal links between Saddam's survival and regional volatility.^[79] This controversy diminished the magazine's influence within the Republican coalition, associating it with policies viewed as hubristic by an ascendant isolationist faction.^[2]

Libel Lawsuit Involving Sidney Blumenthal

In August 1997, Sidney Blumenthal, a senior advisor to President Bill Clinton, filed a $30 million defamation lawsuit against internet columnist Matt Drudge and America Online (AOL) after Drudge published an item alleging that Blumenthal had a history of spousal abuse covered up by the White House.^[80] The report, disseminated via Drudge's online newsletter hosted on AOL, cited anonymous Republican sources claiming court records existed of Blumenthal's violence against his wife, Jacqueline.^[81] Blumenthal denied the allegations, asserting they were false and motivated by political opposition to the Clinton administration.^[82] During the discovery phase of Blumenthal v. Drudge, Blumenthal's legal team issued broad subpoenas to approximately two dozen journalists and sources perceived as critics of the administration, demanding "any and all documents" related to Blumenthal, Drudge, and potential informants.^[83] Among those targeted were staff from The Weekly Standard, including reporter Tucker Carlson, whose father, Richard Carlson, had been U.S. ambassador to the Seychelles and was named in the subpoenas alongside his son.^[84] The subpoenas sought materials potentially linking recipients to the Drudge report's origins, including notes from a 1994 dinner party attended by Carlson where Blumenthal's personal life may have been discussed.^[84] These actions drew criticism from conservative outlets, which portrayed the subpoenas as an intimidation tactic by Blumenthal—a Clinton confidant known for countering media scrutiny of the administration—to harass and silence ideological opponents rather than pursue legitimate discovery.^[85] The Wall Street Journal editorialized that Blumenthal was leveraging the private suit to access journalistic sources and documents, effectively weaponizing the courts against figures like Carlson and Weekly Standard contributors who had reported skeptically on Clinton-era controversies.^[85] The demands extended to internal communications and unpublished research, prompting motions to quash from recipients who argued they infringed on First Amendment protections for the press.^[82] In April 1998, U.S. District Judge Paul L. Friedman dismissed AOL from the suit, ruling that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunized internet providers from liability for third-party content, a precedent that shielded platforms from publisher status. Blumenthal and Drudge settled out of court in May 2001, with Drudge issuing a retraction and apology stating the abuse allegation was unsubstantiated, though Blumenthal later described the litigation as financially draining, estimating costs exceeding $500,000 without recovering damages.^[86] The episode underscored tensions between Clinton administration allies and conservative media, with The Weekly Standard's involvement via subpoenaed staff highlighting broader disputes over source protection and political retribution in defamation litigation.^[83]

Internal and External Debates on Conservatism

The Weekly Standard actively shaped internal debates within American conservatism by championing a neoconservative synthesis of traditional values, free-market economics, and assertive foreign policy, often in tension with paleoconservative emphases on isolationism and cultural preservation. In the 1990s, the magazine's editors, including Bill Kristol, repeatedly assailed Pat Buchanan's presidential bids for promoting protectionist trade policies, stringent immigration controls, and America First non-interventionism, which they deemed incompatible with conservatism's historical support for global engagement and economic openness.^[87] ^[78] Buchanan's 1992 and 1996 campaigns, in particular, drew fire for echoing nativist themes that Kristol and contributors argued risked alienating core Republican constituencies and reviving fringe elements within the movement.^[88] These positions fueled external clashes with paleoconservatives, who viewed The Weekly Standard as emblematic of an intrusive, cosmopolitan conservatism detached from America's heartland traditions; this rift contributed to the 2002 founding of The American Conservative by figures like Buchanan, explicitly as a counterweight to neoconservative dominance in outlets like The Weekly Standard.^[89] By the 2010s, the magazine's "Never Trump" editorial line—framed as a defense of principled conservatism against populism—intensified external debates, with writers contending that Donald Trump's trade skepticism, immigration rhetoric, and institutional skepticism betrayed Reagan-era tenets of limited government, moral clarity, and internationalism.^[2] ^[17] Kristol, for example, publicly explored third-party alternatives and labeled Trump a threat to conservative intellectual standards, prompting backlash from populist outlets that derided The Weekly Standard as an elitist relic out of touch with working-class voters' economic anxieties.^[4] Internally, The Weekly Standard maintained relative unity among contributors but hosted debates in its pages on conservatism's practical boundaries, such as calibrating foreign interventions against domestic fiscal constraints and navigating populism's appeal without abandoning fusionist principles blending social traditionalism with market liberalism.^[90] These discussions reflected broader tensions over whether conservatism should prioritize ideological purity or electoral viability, though the magazine's anti-Trump consensus underscored its commitment to first-order principles over partisan expediency.^[47] The unresolved nature of these debates, amid declining subscriptions tied to the Trump realignment, highlighted The Weekly Standard's role in exposing fractures that persisted beyond its 2018 closure.^[4]

Closure and Legacy

Announcement and Reasons for Shutdown (2018)

On December 14, 2018, Clarity Media Group, the parent company owned by Philip Anschutz, announced the immediate cessation of The Weekly Standard after 23 years of publication.^[91] The final issue appeared on December 17, 2018, resulting in the layoff of approximately 35 staff members.^[92] ^[93] Clarity's official statement attributed the shutdown to a "challenging media and subscription environment," noting that despite the magazine's "quality and influence," continued operation had become "untenable."^[91] The company reported steep declines in subscriptions and advertising revenue, with circulation dropping significantly since its 2009 acquisition by Anschutz for a reported $1 million.^[92] ^[9] Editorial leadership and co-founders offered additional perspectives on the causes. Editor-in-chief Stephen Hayes indicated that the magazine's persistent criticism of President Donald Trump contributed to the revenue downturn by alienating key conservative subscribers who aligned with the president.^[3] ^[94] Co-founder John Podhoretz contended that financial pressures were not the sole factor, describing the closure as a deliberate "murder" driven by corporate cannibalism to redirect readers and resources toward Clarity's more Trump-friendly Washington Examiner.^[12] ^[11] He emphasized friction between editorial independence and business priorities under Anschutz's ownership, rather than purely ideological opposition to Trump.^[4] Staff reports corroborated that owners opted to shutter rather than sell the title, aiming to consolidate market position in conservative media.^[10] The shutdown highlighted tensions within conservatism, as The Weekly Standard's neoconservative, anti-Trump stance isolated it amid a readership shift toward pro-Trump outlets, empirically evidenced by its revenue losses post-2016.^[8] This combination of market dynamics and strategic ownership decisions marked the end of a publication known for intellectual rigor but increasingly marginalized in the Trump-era Republican landscape.^[1]

Post-Closure Influence and Retrospective Assessments

Following its final issue on December 17, 2018, The Weekly Standard exerted no direct institutional influence on conservative journalism, as its print and online operations ceased entirely.^[4] The magazine's archives remain accessible digitally, preserving its body of work for reference, but readership shifted to successor outlets founded by former staff.^[95] Key editors, including Bill Kristol, relocated to platforms like The Bulwark, launched in 2019, which sustained critiques of Trump-era Republicanism aligned with the Standard's later Never Trump orientation. This migration preserved elements of the magazine's intellectual style—emphasizing policy analysis over populist rhetoric—but within a narrower, anti-Trump niche that commanded limited sway in the broader GOP.^[2] Retrospective evaluations portray The Weekly Standard as emblematic of neoconservatism's marginalization within post-2016 conservatism, where its advocacy for interventionist foreign policy and institutionalist domestic views clashed with rising nationalist sentiments.^[1] Analysts from outlets like The New Yorker have described the shutdown as formalizing neocons' exile from the Republican coalition, attributing diminished relevance to the magazine's resistance to Trumpism amid subscriber losses exceeding 50,000 since 2016.^[1] ^[89] Conservative commentators, such as those in The Washington Post, have argued that its closure accelerated a revival of working-class-focused conservatism, unburdened by the Standard's perceived elitism and hawkish legacy tied to Iraq War advocacy.^[96] ^[97] Critics from the left, including in The New York Review of Books, have assessed its enduring impact negatively, highlighting a track record of promoting regime-change doctrines that yielded geopolitical failures, such as post-2003 Iraq instability.^[6] Right-leaning retrospectives, like those in Vox, credit it with principled opposition to demagoguery but fault its detachment from voter priorities, contributing to its pre-closure influence erosion as web traffic rose while political clout waned.^[5] ^[3] By 2025, amid neoconservative figures' selective realignment with Trump administration policies on issues like Iran, the Standard's legacy appears confined to academic and archival discussions of pre-populist conservatism, with minimal active shaping of GOP platforms.^[98] Mainstream media assessments, often from left-leaning sources, tend to frame this as ideological obsolescence without fully accounting for market-driven subscriber exodus driven by partisan realignment.^[99]

References

[1]
The Closing of The Weekly Standard Makes Neoconservatism's ...
Dec 14, 2018 · For more than two decades, The Weekly Standard was the house organ of neoconservatism. William Kristol, one of the magazine's co-founders and ...
[2]
The Weekly Standard Is Dying a Surprisingly Standard Death - Politico
Dec 6, 2018 · Steadfastly neoconservative in its editorials, the Standard led the charge for the Iraq War. Its pro-war policies, which were disastrous when ...
[3]
The Weekly Standard, a conservative magazine critical of Trump, to ...
Dec 14, 2018 · The Weekly Standard was founded in 1995 by Kristol, Fred Barnes, and John Podhoretz. It was initially published by Rupert Murdoch's News ...
[4]
The Weekly Standard, conservative outlet that criticized Trump, to ...
Dec 14, 2018 · The Weekly Standard is shutting down, owner Clarity Media Group announced Friday, ending one of the only conservative outlets that consistently stood in ...
[5]
Weekly Standard vs. Trump: neoconservatives are the most ... - Vox
Dec 5, 2018 · The Weekly Standard isn't just any conservative magazine. It's distinctively the “neocon” magazine. Its founding editor, Bill Kristol, was the ...
[6]
'The Weekly Standard': A Record of Failed Regime Change
Dec 18, 2018 · For it is political influence that the neocons crave. Kristol worked to destroy the 1993 Clinton Healthcare bill and sought to mold first ...
[7]
The Squandering of the Standard - The American Mind
Jan 16, 2019 · Its team of gifted writers was finally squandered on a vendetta against a party that had moved on.
[8]
https://www.theweek.com/articles/812765/how-weekly-standard-lost-influence
[9]
Conservative Magazine 'Weekly Standard' Shutters, Trump And Rep ...
Dec 17, 2018 · The Weekly Standard, an influential conservative magazine founded in 1995, published its last issue on Monday, shuttering after steadily losing revenue for ...
[10]
The Weekly Standard is officially shutting down - Vox
Dec 14, 2018 · Staffers of the publication told me last week that financial pressures aren't the main reason the 23-year-old magazine is shutting down.Missing: closure | Show results with:closure
[11]
Weekly Standard, rightwing magazine opposed to Trump, closes ...
Dec 14, 2018 · The Weekly Standard, one of the last holdouts opposed to Donald Trump within rightwing media, has been closed after 23 years, silencing its hawkish voice.
[12]
Co-Founder: 'Cannibalism,' Not Anti-Trump Stand, Killed 'Weekly ...
Dec 16, 2018 · The last issue of the 23-year-old magazine was published this week, and co-founder and contributing editor John Podhoretz says friction between business and ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[13]
Debut for a Conservative Weekly - The New York Times
Sep 11, 1995 · The Standard was founded by Mr. Kristol together with Fred Barnes, a former editor at The New Republic and a regular panelist on the "McLaughlin ...Missing: launch Bill
[14]
MAGAZINE FOR THE RIGHT-MINDED - The Washington Post
CONSERVATIVES LAUNCH WEEKLY WITH RUPERT MURDOCH'S MONEY. September 8, 1995More than 30 years ago. By Howard Kurtz. Bill Kristol, Fred Barnes and John ...
[15]
Murdoch Finances New Forum for Right - The New York Times
Apr 30, 1995 · They said the magazine would be owned by Mr. Murdoch's News America Corporation, which has committed to financing the enterprise for at least ...
[16]
The Weekly Standard, Volume 1, Number 1, September 18, 1995
Dec 15, 2018 · The Weekly Standard, Volume 1, Number 1, September 18, 1995. by: The Weekly Standard. Publication date: 1995-09-18.
[17]
The Weekly Standard is shutting down: what it meant to conservatism
Dec 14, 2018 · The first issue of the Weekly Standard was published on September 18, 1995. Arriving soon after the so-called Republican Revolution of 1994 ...
[18]
Weekly Standard Lived by the Partisan Sword — And Died by It
Dec 14, 2018 · It was no accident that the magazine was founded in 1995, the year the “Republican Revolution” led by Newt Gingrich arrived in Washington.Missing: 1990s | Show results with:1990s
[19]
The Weekly Standard: A Reader: 1995-2005 - William Kristol
Sep 6, 2005 · Almost from the moment its inaugural issue appeared in September 1995, The Weekly Standard has been widely considered the nation's ...
[20]
Is the Republican Revolution Alive? - Commentary Magazine
Mar 1, 1996 · According to Fred Barnes, writing in the Weekly Standard, 64 percent of Americans say that big government is a greater threat to the country ...
[21]
Weekly Standard Magazine - SourceWatch
Founded under Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation, it was first published on September 17, 1995.Missing: date | Show results with:date<|separator|>
[22]
White House Listens When Weekly Speaks - The New York Times
Mar 11, 2003 · The circulation of The Weekly Standard, which was founded by the News Corporation in 1995, is only 55,000. The Nation, a liberal beacon, has ...Missing: figures | Show results with:figures
[23]
"Benevolent Global Hegemony": William Kristol And The Politics Of ...
But the neo-cons continued to argue for “American Greatness,” founded new institutions, and made alliances with hard-line conservatives such as Dick Cheney and ...
[24]
[PDF] The Neoconservative Persuasion
And since the Republican Party now has a substantial base among the religious, this gives neocons a certain influence and even power. Because religious.
[25]
Neoconservatism | American Enterprise Institute - AEI
The neoconservatives fought against affirmative action from the very beginning, and precisely on the ground that it represented a violation of the traditional ...Missing: core | Show results with:core
[26]
“Mugged by Reality”: The Neoconservative Turn - VoegelinView
Jul 15, 2021 · [1] Neoconservatives favored a vigorous anti-communist and activist foreign policy, a strong relationship with Israel, and believed that the ...
[27]
The Weekly Standard Archive - Issue Contents
The Weekly Standard. ABOUT US, |, SUBSCRIBE, |, HOME. Enter the The Weekly Standard Digital Archive. Vol. 10 • August 2005 • No. 44. Scrapbook, 2. Casual, 4.
[28]
Scrapbook,, THE WEEKLY STANDARD - The Unz Review
The Weekly Standard • 17 Years, 724 Issues, 13,263 Articles, 33,041pp. ← Previous ArticleEntire IssueNext Article →. Scrapbook. AIG's Fables.
[29]
Witness Protection Program; From the Scrapbook. - Document - Gale
Witness Protection Program; From the Scrapbook. Citation metadata. Date: Feb. 22, 2010. From: The Weekly Standard(Vol. 15, Issue 22). Publisher: News America ...
[30]
The Weekly Standard: Casual Column Illustrations Part 3 :: Behance
A couple of my latest illustrations for the Casual column in the Weekly Standard, including some choppy water paddle boarding and a fellow and his guitars.
[31]
[PDF] Weekly Standard Warning - Barry Ritholtz
rine training base in Estonia in September 1995, the. Russian presence in East-Central Europe ended. Nations held captive for two and a half centuries were.
[32]
Victorino Matus › Eat, Drink, Bloviate
In the August 1 issue of the Weekly Standard you will find my most recent Casual column on my bachelor week—a once-a-year event, in which my wife and kids ...
[33]
The Stealth Media Mogul - Forbes
Jun 29, 2009 · Anschutz's latest acquisition, The Weekly Standard, loses an estimated $5 million annually. Virtually all media accounts of the sale ...
[34]
Philip Anschutz snags Weekly Standard from Rupert Murdoch
Jun 17, 2009 · Launched in 1995, the Weekly Standard may have become less vital to Murdoch after he acquired the Wall Street Journal, which carries much more ...Missing: initial backing
[35]
New Owner for a Magazine as Political Tastes Change
Aug 2, 2009 · In June, The Weekly Standard was handed from one conservative billionaire, Rupert Murdoch, to another, Philip F. Anschutz, for about $1 million.
[36]
Murdoch sells Weekly Standard mag to Anschutz – The Denver Post
PUBLISHED: June 17, 2009 at 9:43 AM MDT. DENVER—The Weekly Standard magazine has been sold to a Denver-based media company owned by billionaire Phil Anschutz.
[37]
Murdoch Sells The Weekly Standard to Anschutz - DealBook
Jun 18, 2009 · Rupert Murdoch has agreed to sell The Weekly Standard magazine to a Denver-based media company owned by the billionaire Phil Anschutz.
[38]
https://www.wsj.com/articles/conservative-magazine-weekly-standard-to-close-after-23-year-run-11544810354
[39]
Opinion | The Weekly Standard is gone - The Washington Post
Dec 14, 2018 · A little bit of history: The Weekly Standard launched in 1995 with money from mogul Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. under the guidance of ...
[40]
Anschutz group buys conservative Weekly Standard from News Corp.
Jun 17, 2009 · The Weekly Standard magazine has been sold to a Denver-based media company owned by Phil Anschutz. Clarity Media Group said Wednesday that Anschutz was buying ...
[41]
The Weekly Standard is closing after 23 years - New York Post
who also writes for ...
[42]
Weekly Standard, a Rare Anti-Trump Conservative Magazine, to Close
Dec 14, 2018 · While Clarity Media Group cited finances as the reason for closure, editor-in-chief Stephen Hayes hinted that the downturn may be due to the ...
[43]
https://www.nypost.com/2018/12/14/the-weekly-standard-is-closing-after-23-years/
[44]
The Weekly Standard, a critic of Trump on the right, is shutting down
Dec 14, 2018 · The magazine, founded by William Kristol and Fred Barnes under News Corp., published its first issue on September 18, 1995. Clarity Media Group ...Missing: date details
[45]
Who Killed The Weekly Standard? | The New Yorker
Jan 3, 2019 · The Weekly Standard was killed last month, an act that had both a clear culprit and a muddy forensic trail.
[46]
Andrew Ferguson | American Enterprise Institute - AEI
Ferguson joined The Weekly Standard as a senior editor at its founding and was affiliated with the publication for more than two decades.
[47]
The Weekly Standard Is Ending on a High Note - The Atlantic
Dec 15, 2018 · Today the magazine Kristol founded, The Weekly Standard, is not awake at all. The owner of the magazine, Phil Anschutz, has snuffed it out. He ...
[48]
Steve Hayes, Author at The Dispatch
Steve Hayes ... Prior to co-founding the company in 2019, he worked at The Weekly Standard for 18 years, covering Washington, politics, and national security.
[49]
Neoconservatism and American Foreign Policy - Brookings Institution
Aug 3, 2010 · VAISSE: No, it's pretty much gone; take for example The Weekly Standard, which on foreign policy is really very distinctively neoconservative.
[50]
The Weekly Standard's War - FAIR.org
Sep 1, 2009 · For the next seven years, the Standard would become the birthplace of hawkish foreign policy proposals that would become official U.S. policy; ...
[51]
Neoconservative Foreign Policy: An Autopsy - The Objective Standard
May 20, 2007 · An editorial in the leading neoconservative publication, The Weekly Standard, called for a “war to replace the government of each nation on ...
[52]
Should the U.S. Have Invaded Iraq in 2003 for the Purpose of ...
This primary source worksheet allows students to evaluate arguments about democracy promotion leading up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
[53]
Weekly Standard: Terrorists' War in Iraq Continues - NPR
Oct 28, 2011 · In anticipation of the exit of U.S. forces, it seems that al-Qaida has executed a renewed wave of attacks in Iraq. The Weekly Standard's ...
[54]
The Weekly Standard - Militarist Monitor
Feb 15, 2020 · The Weekly Standard served as the flagship journal of neoconservative opinion and activism for more than two decades, from 1995 to 2018.
[55]
William Kristol: Dulce Bellum Inexpertis | Cato Institute
Aug 31, 2010 · All well and good; especially given the role neoconservatives have played in advocating the invasion of Iraq or urging military strikes on Iran.
[56]
Events in Iraq Open Door for Interventionist Revival, Historian Says
Jun 15, 2014 · Robert Kagan has called for the president to resist a popular pull toward making the United States a nation without larger responsibilities.
[57]
https://www.theweek.com/articles/809540/continuing-lunacy-neocons
[58]
Stop the Revolution, I Want to Get Off - Commentary Magazine
May 15, 2025 · The new magazine I conceived and then co-founded in 1995 was called the Weekly Standard. ... welfare reform and a balanced budget, and, as ...
[59]
[PDF] Discouraging Marriage - Welfare Reform Academy
Sep 15, 2015 · Subscribe now to The Weekly Standard! Get more from The Weekly Standard: Follow WeeklyStandard.com on RSS and signup for our free Newsletter.
[60]
Fulfilling the Promise of School Choice - American Enterprise Institute
Sep 25, 2008 · Daniel Casse, “Debating School Choice,” The Weekly Standard, March 31, 2008. 5. Quoted in Alan J. Borsuk, “Choice May Not Improve Schools, Study ...
[61]
Weekly Standard: President Cheats On School Reform - NPR
Aug 10, 2011 · ... learning. Joy Pullman of The Weekly Standard argues that this bold play on education reform is the mark of a dictator.
[62]
Weekly Standard: Let A Thousand Teachers Bloom - NPR
Mar 13, 2012 · There are more than three million public school teachers in the U.S. Marcus A. Winters of The Weekly Standard argues for more flexibility in ...
[63]
Kill the Bill | National Review
William Kristol is editor of The Weekly Standard. Rich ...
[64]
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB115248762825501868
[65]
Bill Kristol Was the Standard - Crisis Magazine
Aug 5, 2022 · Bill Kristol has never explained his abrupt 180-degree change of views on key issues like abortion and same-sex marriage.
[66]
What made The Weekly Standard great
Dec 14, 2018 · The most obvious one is that the Standard was, for more than two decades, the best right-of-center periodical published in the United States.Missing: signature | Show results with:signature
[67]
The Weekly Standard Was Wrong About Almost Everything
Feb 2, 2019 · In its best issues, it offers a moveable (type) feast, powered by a genuine belief in the power of words and ideas to improve things. The Weekly ...
[68]
Goodbye to The Weekly Standard | National Review
I'd start listing some of my favorite examples, but we'd be here all ...
[69]
The Neocons Lose One Last War - The American Conservative
Apr 29, 2022 · The Weekly Standard was based in Washington, D.C., and from the start combined neoconservative politics with intrepid political reporting as ...Missing: critiques | Show results with:critiques
[70]
Why the Paleos Were Right About Iraq - The American Conservative
Mar 22, 2023 · Twenty years after the Iraq invasion: The paleocons were right about the Iraq War because they were right about liberalism.
[71]
William Kristol | The War Behind Closed Doors | FRONTLINE - PBS
The president lays out really two objectives side by side as equally important -- fighting the war on terror, and fighting the war against dictators developing ...
[72]
Kristol advocates war with Iraq for U.S. safety - Yale Daily News
Feb 5, 2003 · William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, said going to war with Iraq is the best option for ensuring the safety of American citizens.
[73]
Links Between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaida | PBS News
Oct 6, 2004 · Stephen Hayes writes for the Weekly Standard Magazine; he ... case for war. MARGARET WARNER: Where do you think the balance lies ...
[74]
Too Few Troops | Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Apr 26, 2004 · The problem in Iraq is not poor public relations, or a lack of will. Rather, it is the failure of policymakers at the highest levels to fashion ...
[75]
Themes - Can The Surge Work? | Endgame | FRONTLINE - PBS
Jun 19, 2007 · Scholar Frederick Kagan's article, from a May 2006 issue of The Weekly Standard, advocating major clear and hold operations in Iraq.
[76]
Right War for the Right Reasons
Feb 23, 2004 · Critics of the war, and of the Bush administration, have seized on the failure to find stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. But ...
[77]
William Kristol: We were right to fight in Iraq - USA Today
May 20, 2015 · We were right to invade Iraq in 2003 to remove Saddam Hussein, and to complete the job we should have finished in 1991.
[78]
What The Weekly Standard Has Wrought - The American Conservative
Dec 17, 2018 · The Standard's polemics could be both civil and well-informed: one could read an attack of Pat Buchanan (when Buchanan's presidential run was ...
[79]
Iraq War Architect Bill Kristol: Knowing What We Know Now, "We ...
May 21, 2015 · Kristol's stance on the war's justifications today differs considerably from his arguments in favor of invading Iraq in 2003. At that time, ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[80]
Drudge Case Irks Judge - CBS News
Apr 28, 1999 · Blumenthal and his wife, Jacqueline, filed a $30 million libel suit against Drudge in August 1997 for circulating a rumor on his online Drudge ...Missing: Sidney | Show results with:Sidney
[81]
[PDF] Sidney Blumenthal v. Matt Drudge and America Online, Inc.
... defamation case in which. Prodigy Services, an Internet computer service like AOL, was held liable as a publisher of defamatory material. See Stratton ...
[82]
BLUMENTHAL'S SUIT HAS BECOME MORE THAN A DRUDGE ...
Aug 3, 1998 · At issue is a subpoena from the White House aide to Journal editorial writer John Fund, part of Blumenthal's defamation suit against cyber-gossip Matt Drudge.
[83]
Clinton Aide Settles Libel Suit Against Matt Drudge -- at a Cost
May 1, 2001 · After being prodded by the judge in the case to demonstrate some progress, Blumenthal's side recently issued subpoenas to two dozen people -- ...Missing: journalists | Show results with:journalists<|separator|>
[84]
Libel Grudge Match Begins! Blumenthal vs. Matt Drudge - Observer
Aug 3, 1998 · Sidney Blumenthal's libel suit against Internet gossip guru Matt Drudge is quickly devolving into a rancorous sideshow to Washington's main. By ...
[85]
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB90157752782319500
[86]
Blumenthal v. Drudge - Wikipedia
44 (D.C.D.C., 1998), was a case of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia concerning online defamation and whether an Internet service ...
[87]
Clinton Aide Settles With Matt Drudge - The New York Times
May 4, 2001 · Sidney Blumenthal, aide in Clinton White House, settles libel suit he and his wife, Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal, brought in 1997 against ...<|separator|>
[88]
A Dressing-Down For Pat Buchanan - CBS News
Apr 1, 2005 · Buchanan favors tighter controls on immigration. Kristol, editor of the influential conservative magazine The Weekly Standard and former chief ...
[89]
Republicans Launch Attack On Buchanan - The Washington Post
Sep 23, 1999 · The politicians' attacks on Buchanan come at the same time such conservative publications as the Weekly Standard, the Wall Street Journal ...
[90]
How The Weekly Standard lost its influence
Dec 17, 2018 · Like The American Conservative before it, The Weekly Standard stood opposed to the Republican president. That stance cost it dearly.
[91]
Steve Hayes Transcript - Conversations with Bill Kristol
Oct 5, 2019 · ” And there was a lot of internal debates, even in the pages of The Weekly Standard, on that kind of thing. And again, they weren't all – I ...
[92]
Clarity Media Group Announces Closure of The Weekly Standard
Dec 14, 2018 · On December 17, The Weekly Standard will publish its final edition. "For more than twenty years The Weekly Standard has provided a valued and ...
[93]
The Weekly Standard, Pugnacious to the End, Will Cease Publication
Dec 14, 2018 · In the meantime, the final issue of The Weekly Standard is to be published on Monday. A version of this article appears in print on Dec. 15, ...
[94]
The Weekly Standard, influential conservative magazine, will shutter
Dec 14, 2018 · After 23 years the Washington-based magazine will come to an end, with 35 staff members losing their jobs.
[95]
https://search.opinionarchives.com/TWS_Web/digitalarchive.aspx
[96]
The Weekly Standard Digital Archive
Years 1990s ... ambassador sounds a lot like someone running for something By Michael Warren N ikki Haley has accomplished something no other Republican has ...Missing: circulation Revolution
[97]
The Weekly Standard - Wikipedia
Sources have attributed its demise to an increasing divergence between Kristol and other editors' shift towards anti-Trump positions on the one hand, and the ...
[98]
The Weekly Standard is gone. But the future of conservatism is bright.
Dec 19, 2018 · There has been a revival on the right of thinkers and publications engaging with urgent problems facing middle- and working-class Americans.Missing: internal external
[99]
Conservative Magazine The Weekly Standard To Fold After 23 Years
Dec 14, 2018 · The paper's most lasting legacy may be its role in promoting the Iraq War, as its editors wrote in the months after 9/11 that they hoped ...
[100]
Those Sometimes-Trump Neocons Are Returning to the Fold Over Iran
Jun 20, 2025 · As the president backs Israel's long-awaited war with Iran, his neoconservative critics find themselves in an awkward position.
[101]
Opinion | Who Killed The Weekly Standard? - The New York Times
Dec 15, 2018 · This week, Anschutz and McKibben murdered The Weekly Standard, the conservative opinion magazine that Anschutz owned.<|separator|>