Weekly Standard editor William Kristol lauded President George W. Bush's inauguration speech as "powerful," "impressive," and "historic," both in an article for the January 31 print edition of The Weekly Standard and as a FOX News political contributor during FOX's live coverage of Inauguration Day. Washington Post columnist and FOX News contributor Charles Krauthammer, also during FOX News' live Inauguration Day coverage, called Bush's speech "revolutionary" and compared it to fomer President John F. Kennedy's 1961 inaugural address. But Kristol and Krauthammer were consultants for Bush's speech -- a fact that neither disclosed.

A January 22 Washington Post article, titled "Bush Speech Not a Sign of Policy Shift, Officials Say," quoted Kristol praising Bush's address as a "rare inaugural speech that will go down as a historic speech, I believe." The Post article then noted that Kristol and Krauthammer had contributed to planning Bush's speech. According to the Post:

The planning of Bush's second inaugural address began a few days after the Nov. 2 election with the president telling advisers he wanted a speech about "freedom" and "liberty." That led to the broadly ambitious speech that has ignited a vigorous debate. The process included consultation with a number of outside experts, Kristol among them.

One meeting, arranged by Peter Wehner, director of the White House Office of Strategic Initiatives, included military historian Victor Davis Hanson, columnist Charles Krauthammer and Yale professor John Lewis Gaddis, according to one Republican close to the White House.

However, in his article for the January 31 Weekly Standard, Kristol praised Bush's speech without noting that he had been consulted in its creation:

Informed by [political philosopher Leo] Strauss and inspired by [American Revolution-era author Thomas] Paine, appealing to [Abraham] Lincoln and alluding to [Harry] Truman, beginning with the Constitution and ending with the Declaration, with Biblical phrases echoing throughout -- George W. Bush's Second Inaugural was a powerful and subtle speech. It will also prove to be a historic speech.

[...]

If the critics of the speech who have denounced it as simple-minded were to read it, they would find it sophisticated. They might even find it nuanced.