How Many Wars Will Bill Kristol Hatch?

-

kristol_incompetent.jpg
I was with Bill Kristol and much of the rest of the world on the legitimacy and crucial need to invade Afghanistan and to crush al Qaeda.
But at the time, the Kristols and Cheneys and Podhoretzes of the world felt that Osama bin Laden was too ephemeral a villain for the American public to remain exercised about for very long. So, the legitimate mission was broadened into an illegitimate one — the toppling of a classic thug, Saddam Hussein, because of non-existent WMDs and historical chips on the shoulder left over from the first Gulf War.
The US invasion and occupation of Iraq has been a disaster for Iraq and America and has the region on the precipice of a potential sectarian convulsion that could undermine the interests of all players.
But as Juan Williams told Bill Kristol last year:

. . .you just want war, war, war, and you want us in more war.
You wanted us in Iraq. Now you want us in Iran.

Yes, Kristol wants to bomb Iran. He wouldn’t mind taking out Syria in the process. But like John Bolton, Bill Kristol seems ready and willing to propose any number of new wars.
Now, he wants America to attack Burma. This creates a false dichotomy that should be speared to death.
Kristol writes in yesterday’s Washington Post:

What about limited military actions, overt or covert, against the regime’s infrastructure — its military headquarters, its intelligence apparatus, its rulers’ lavish palaces? Couldn’t such actions have a deterrent effect, or might not they help open up fissures in the regime? Have we really done all we can to avert the disaster that is unfolding?

What Kristol is trying to do is set up a foil where those willing to invade and conquer with no regard for consequences and in the name of freedom are life’s true heroes — and those who suggest that there are better pathways to achieving American interests and the expansion of self-determination abroad are immoral and violate the ethics of what America is about.
While I think that all of these challenges are more nuanced and should not be stuck in silly, binary structures — the general opposite of what Kristol suggests is true.
Besides, isn’t it time for Bill Kristol and friends to step back and ask themselves how they could have been so wrong on Iraq and that its time for some serious re-tooling of both tactics and strategic objectives?
I’m with James Fallows on this who writes:

. . .If I had been vociferously, prominently, moralistically, and disastrously wrong on the major foreign-policy issue of the time — that is, if I had been all-out in favor of invading Iraq and had been withering in my dismissal of those not man enough to support that step or who said “what’s the rush?” — then I might, conceivably, be a little hesitant before striking similar cocksure poses about new issues as they came up.
But apparently this is just me. Because there is an emerging overlap between those who were 100% sure about the need to invade Iraq, and the certain success of that endeavor, and those who are 100% sure about the need to teach China a lesson about its coddling of the Burmese junta, and the moral righteousness of getting tough with the Chinese.

Warmonger is taking on a new meaning in this new 21st century of ours.
— Steve Clemons

Comments

31 comments on “How Many Wars Will Bill Kristol Hatch?

  1. Frank says:

    How I wish our politicians would read these commentarys…Steve has attracted erudite writers so creative in expression, that I wish they would write books to expand the nuances expressed in their comments..Maybe they are profesional writers…
    Iwould hope the neo-cons would input this blog more often…to “rationalize” their position…
    Thanks Susan, POA, Kathleen, and so many more to mention, for crystalizing the “what is”. The beam of reality is refracted through those crystals, revealing so splendidly, the heretofor hidden colors of deceit.

    Reply

  2. Kathleen says:

    POA… only one thing gone wrong was tongue in cheek. From my perspective nothing has gone right.

    Reply

  3. Kathleen says:

    Oh.. and W stands for Warmonger.
    Thanks for that Steve.

    Reply

  4. Kathleen says:

    POA… that’s why Chalabi was supposed to win…that’s what he was paid, in advance, to do.
    Marcia… the heaviness of the “White Man’s Burden” gave me a good chuckle.
    I hate to sound like a pol, but if the Iraqi gov’t did dtand up and NOT invite the “Coalition” Forces to remain in Iraq, the UN Security Council could not renew it’s authorization when it expires in December. Last I heard, the Iraqi Parliament was petitioning the UNSC to not renew its authorization without putting the question to a vote by the Parliament. In the past, it was Maliki’s decision alone. Perhaps we should petition the UNSC in support of the Iraqi Parlaiment’s efforts.
    The thought of end-running Busholini appeals to me.

    Reply

  5. pauline says:

    War ‘Slogans’ On Troops’ Graves?
    8/245/05
    AP) Traditionally, gravestones for Americans killed in combat have included the minimum information necessary to identify the fallen soldier, sailor, airman or Marine.
    Almost all the headstones for the more than 2,000 troops killed in Iraq or Afghanistan, however, are inscribed with the slogan-like operation names the Pentagon selected to promote public support for the conflicts.
    Families are being told they have the option to have the government-supplied headstones engraved with “Operation Enduring Freedom” or “Operation Iraqi Freedom” at no extra charge, whether their family members are buried in Arlington National Cemetery or elsewhere. A mock-up shown to many families includes the operation names.
    Arlington was the first U.S. military cemetery and generally is considered the most prestigious.
    A huge majority of military gravestones from other eras are inscribed with name, rank, military branch, date of death and, if applicable, the war and foreign country in which the person served and died.
    Families are supposed to have final approval over what goes on the tombstones. That hasn’t always happened.
    Nadia and Robert McCaffrey, whose son Patrick was killed in Iraq in June 2004, said “Operation Iraqi Freedom” ended up on his government-supplied headstone without family approval.
    “I was a little taken aback,” Robert McCaffrey said, describing his reaction when he saw the operation name on his son’s tombstone. “They certainly didn’t ask my wife; they didn’t ask me.” He said Patrick’s widow told him she had not been asked either.
    “In one way, I feel it’s taking advantage to a small degree,” McCaffrey said. “Patrick did not want to be there, that is a definite fact.”
    The owner of the company that has been making gravestones for Arlington and other national cemeteries for nearly two decades is uncomfortable, too.
    “It just seems a little brazen that that’s put on stones,” said Jeff Martell, owner of Granite Industries of Vermont. “It seems like it might be connected to politics.”
    source —
    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/08/24/national/main793188.shtml

    Reply

  6. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “Correction… one thing did go wrong in Iraq… Chalabi was supposed to win the election. Now we have to surge and insurge until the Maliki gov’t falls.”
    Actually, these treasonous pieces of shit aren’t exactly enjoying a roaring success at privatizing Iraq’s oil assets, either.

    Reply

  7. arthurdecco says:

    Replace ‘proscribed’ with ‘advocated’ in my last post and it will all become clear to you. LMAO!

    Reply

  8. Bonethug Iranian says:

    Ben Franklin stated, “we’ve given you a republic, if you can keep it.” Well we couldn’t and that is glaringly obvious. Warmongering is now American foreign policy and that is to our eternal damnation. America screwed the pooch in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran is up for the next round of shock and awe disaster. “We the people’ are chained to a tyranny of our own making. Silence does make for a cowardly response to political madness. So in the end, embrace America the warmongering police state and prepare for nuclear world war.

    Reply

  9. Kathleen says:

    susan… right on!!!! Socialized terror, indeed.
    Bill Kristol and his NeoNutzi friends don’t think anything went wrong with Iraq. It’s perfect for them and their grand Plan. With the stock market breaking new highs, what could be wrong?
    At the risk of sounding like a parrot, I’ll repeat what I’ve been saying for 4 years now.
    They had no exit strategy because they never intended to leave. They need the “insurgency”, stimulated by Blckwater, to “jusitfy” staying in Iraq until they can foment war with Iran and Syria. Otherwise, Busholini would have accepted the Iraqi Proposed Peace Plan after their election and the adoption of their Constitution.
    Peace is not profitable and people have time to worry about civil rights. Not good for Dick Tater, who, incidentally, thanks to Democraps, will never exit the Oval Office either.
    Correction… one thing did go wrong in Iraq… Chalabi was supposed to win the election. Now we have to surge and insurge until the Maliki gov’t falls.
    Here’s a clue, Steve… the emporer has no heart.

    Reply

  10. arthurdecco says:

    Steve Clemons said: “Besides, isn’t it time for Bill Kristol and friends to step back and ask themselves how they could have been so wrong on Iraq and that its time for some serious re-tooling of both tactics and strategic objectives?”
    I wouldn’t waste my time asking Bill Kristol, or any of the other wastes of food he emulates/controls/sucks up to, anything. NOTHING that comes out of their mouths is worth hearing. Nothing.
    Bill Kristol and the rest of the revolting, repulsive, sociopathic Neo’s were not “wrong” about Iraq, fer crissakes, Mr. Clemons!
    They were LYING!
    LYING! Lying Lying LYING!
    Surely even a smooth, polished, oh-so-civilized man like you can see that.
    These Psychopathic Monsters, (YES! MONSTERS!), who are so far responsible for the deaths of more than a million people who never harmed a single American and the displacement of millions more (not just in Iraq but in Lebanon and Palestine too) should be treated like the British treated traitors in the 18th century: Drawn and quartered, (pulled apart by horses attached with ropes to all four limbs), then hung by the neck if still living and gutted with sabres, with their torn-out bowels dipped in pitch and burned in front of their still-seeing eyes. Sounds as American as what your present government does to the innocent, while they ignore the guilty. Think how quickly it would lead to a cessation of these Monstrous crimes against humanity by these sniveling cowards who use the bodies of American boys and girls to murder their foreign enemies.
    Are you afraid to acknowledge Kristol’s LIES because you may lose your access to all-expense-paid views of the Swan River and whispered exchanges in expensive Washington restaurants if you do?
    Doesn’t seem like a good enough excuse to ignore the truth to me. But then I’m sane, like a goodly number of those posting our revulsion with Kristol, and your silk glove handling of him here.
    What would I know about Washington politix? Where it seems being out of your gourd is a requirement for employment.

    Reply

  11. Marcia says:

    How heavy it has grown, “The White Man’s Burden – spreading “freedom” and “democracy” for which the local natives are so ungrateful.

    Reply

  12. JohnH says:

    Once again Scott Ritter hits the nail on the head with his no nonsense analysis of US-Iranian relations: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/09/4431/
    “In short, there are many factors involved in what one might term the “root cause” of Iranian-US animosity. But the reality is all of the points of friction between Iran and the US could be readily resolved with viable diplomacy save two: Israel’s current level of unflinching hostility towards Iran, and America’s addiction to global energy resources. These two factors guarantee that there will be tension between Iran and the United States for some time to come, and place blame for the continuation of tension firmly on the side of the United States.”
    With all their high-paid talent, you would think that “enlightened” think tanks like the New America Foundation would be able to publish clear, succinct analyses to counter all the BS defecated by Kristol and the neocons. Apparently they don’t want to. They prefer sit passively while Neocons and Vichy Democrats frame the issues. They restrict their criticism to process (war vs. negotiations) and happily ignore the accuracy of the warmongers’ false pretenses.
    As such, it’s hard to refute easy e’s charge that “NAF, like the other think tanks (AEI, Heritage, Brooks, etc.) are enablers of the corporate/industrial/military complex…”

    Reply

  13. susan says:

    Tom Gilroy has it exactly right:
    How Pelosi Ended ‘The War With Iraq’
    Posted October 9, 2007 | 09:39 AM (EST)
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com
    Perhaps you haven’t noticed, but The War With Iraq is over.
    “Like everything with the Bush administration’s relationship to it’s gullible public, the point is never what they’re doing, but what they say they’re doing; it’s the words, not the deeds.
    So No Child Left Behind of course has nothing to do with helping challenged children in bad schools to keep up, it’s about defunding and dismantling the public school system. And ‘saving Social Security’ has nothing to do with saving social security, its about handing over what’s left of the public trough to the investment industry, etc, etc, etc—is there a single American under a rock anywhere that doesn’t know this drill by heart by now?
    And now the war with Iraq is no longer ‘The War With Iraq’; its been successfully rebranded as ‘The War with Iran’.
    Try and sit through a single newscast or reading of the international page without finding a reference to how Iran is the real ‘enemy’ over there; whether it’s the nuclear bomb there’s no evidence of them developing, the IEDs there’s no evidence of their government smuggling across the border to harm the agents of our benign humanitarian effort in Iraq, or how Ahmadinejad’s denial of the facts of the Holocaust means he’s ready to wipe out the free world—or at least America, which can’t really be called the free world anymore. But I digress.
    Mel Gibson denies the facts of the Holocaust, too, but unless he’s planning on wiping out the free world by boring them to death with shitty movies, I don’t really see him as much of a global threat. And our own leader, the intellectual from Yale who can’t pronounce ‘nuclear’–he routinely denies the facts of not only evolution, but global warming, contraception, carcinogens in drinking water, etc, etc, etc and you never hear a peep about him bringing on Armageddon. (Well, only in fundamentalist churches, but they’re happy about it.)
    But if you scan any of the news for idiots—The NY Daily News say, or CNN— you’d think Ahmadinejad had actually flown the planes into the World Trade Center and that he literally walks around Tehran with American blood dripping off his bib. When he spoke at Columbia the other week, the conservatives who run American mainstream media spun it like Hitler had spoken at ACLU headquarters in the middle of the Blitz.
    The rebranding of War With Iraq into War With Iran is only Phase I of a multi-phased rebranding strategy that will go on for years, a strategy that is in fact prepping us for the big hand-off to a Democratic White House that needs its own public spin for staying in Iraq until we’ve met the one and only (private) benchmark we’ve had all along; a permanent force in the world’s largest military base securing the theft of the world’s second largest deposit of oil. But don’t take it from me–ask Alan Greenspan, that liberal.
    If you doubt the existence of this strategy, than you must’ve missed the emergence of Phase II last week, when all three of the leading presidential candidates from the ‘opposition party’— the party that supposedly has a mandate from the American people to end the war—furrowed their collective brow and professed dismay that it just seemed too darn unrealistic—and no doubt unpresidential— to get troops out of Iraq any earlier than–are you ready?–2013.
    Why not just let Bush stay president? It’s what he wanted all along.
    Of course the troops the Dems plan to keep there won’t be ‘combat’ troops, because the ‘war’ will be over—at least rhetorically. They’ll be a ‘stabilization force’–that’s Phase III of the rebranding.
    Phase III will last 50 years, and you’ll never hear the word ‘combat,’ only ‘stabilization’, but on the ground, the facts will be the same they’ve always been; unwelcome Americans kids getting killed and maimed by a debilitated local populace who hate them. Desperate Iraqis–armed and otherwise–with no water, sanitation, electricity, protection or hope will still be slaughtered in the streets or made into internal or external refugees. And of course there’ll be the big cherry on top we’ve wanted all along; control of the oil.
    And voila–we’ll basically have our new Israel; a permanently volatile and unstable place that we’ll diplomatically dither with for eternity, all the while pumping tax dollars into a ‘stabilizing’ military infrastructure to ensure the local population will never have peace and are so distracted by survival that we’ll get away with grabbing what we’ve decided is ours to steal.
    Any questions?
    The opposition party ‘came back into power’ and passed non-binding resolutions to chide a president who doesn’t give a shit who chides him and then voted to support an ill-advised surge and increase funding for the very war they had a ‘mandate’ to end. These are facts, not rhetoric.
    The Democrats bought Bush the time he wanted by pitching their rhetoric to their constituents, while the White House bought time pitching their rhetoric to their few remaining constituents, and now the moment to get out of the whole abhorrent mess has passed. Bush will be gone but the troops will stay and we’ll have gotten the oil.
    Oh sure, there’s all the side ‘benefits’–the American taxpayers funding the creation of a massive invasion/occupation industry–companies like KBR, Bechtel, Blackwater, you know the names–that take taxpayer dollars to at first rip a region down and then take taxpayer’s money to build the region up again, albeit in accordance with their own privatized corporate needs and with inferior materials and slave labor.
    (or perhaps you thought all those buildings in the Green Zone were built by well-paid union construction workers outfitted in state of the art protective gear with round-the-clock-workplace safety standards in place–you know, like in Katrina)
    In short, a massive, publicly funded destruction/reconstruction industry for private profit. Call it ‘socialized terror.’
    They’ll call it ‘job creation.’
    What could’ve stopped it all, the great rebranding, the escalation, the extra deaths and crippling debt, not to mention yet another gutting of the power of the American voter? The impeachment process. This is of course the one thing Nancy Pelosi declared was ‘off the table’ before she’d done a single thing as Speaker.
    Say it again, to yourself: ‘The one thing that truly could have derailed the longest war in US history, in the one moment where it was still possible, was declared ‘off the table’ by the leader of the opposition party, placed in power by a mandate from the people.’
    The ‘Ending The War Phase’ is over and the ‘How Can We Sensibly Approach A Solution Phase?’ has begun. Feel any different?
    It’s like Karl Rove is still writing the script. Maybe he is.
    Our new Democratic president will tell us the ‘war is over’ and it will be as hollow as ‘mission accomplished’–especially to the Iraqis. But Americans will hear our ‘combat troops’ are coming home and sigh with relief as they nod with a feeling of democratic triumph at ‘the wave of change in Washington’—and go back to American Idol and Dancing With The Stars.
    Maybe we should stop parsing the spin and arguing over which lie seems closer to the truth we want to believe.
    Maybe we should forget about reality TV for a sec and start thinking about reality reality.”

    Reply

  14. Patricia says:

    Not only am I feeling deja vu, reading that Kristol is calling for war again, but it takes me back to my first reading of the PNAC policy statements, which ultimately called for taking on China militarily — what a better proxy for taking on China than attacking a repressive regime like Burma. The PNAC playbook — deja vu all over again.

    Reply

  15. Sandy says:

    “…Besides, isn’t it time for Bill Kristol and friends to step back and ask themselves how they could have been so wrong on Iraq and that its time for some serious re-tooling of both tactics and strategic objectives?
    …Warmonger is taking on a new meaning in this new 21st century of ours.”
    — Steve Clemons
    Me again. The Rude One. I’m sorry, Steve, but this post is a little too disingenuous for my benefit.
    You are either working far too closely with these people and are blinded by their real agenda….or, with this, you are making as though you are suddenly taken aback by them. Suddenly “surprised” at their warmongering.
    Where have you been for seven years? Have you read none of the neo-conservative literature and philosophy. Are you ignorant of what they have ALWAYS stood for?
    To even SUGGEST that Bill Kristol and his friends ought to talk straight about the Iraq war — as they run around screaming for
    the bombing of Iran ….and every where else it serves them — just rings completely false to me.
    Whom do you think you are kidding here? Have you read NONE of your commenters’ comments over the years? Have you paid NO attention at all to the mountains of EVIDENCE?
    Come on. Being charming goes just so far. Being wide-eyed goes a bit too far.

    Reply

  16. ... says:

    how much are they being paid for their war crimes? kristol needs to put on some army boots and stay away from editorials… him and his ilk are a bunch of losers in every way shape and form until they actually put their body where their mouth is – on the war front in iraq to begin with…
    does he have shares in blackwater or haliburton?? without full disclosure one can never know another persons motives.. these guys are all suspect.

    Reply

  17. easy e says:

    Which is it? The West (military industrial complex)using Zionism as tool to achieve its imperialistic aims. Or Zionism using the complex to achieve its expansionist aims. Probably both.
    *****************
    Ahmadinejad: West is ?Zionism’s captive?
    Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, addressing the World Qods (Jerusalem) Day ralliers and Friday prayers worshipers, said Zionism is a political party that has taken captive western states and nations. “There is also a second idea which says western powers and statesmen have founded Zionism themselves and they are directing the Zionist game,” he said.
    “According to this idea,” the president said, “The Zionist party is, as a matter of fact, these heads of western powers who are playing their role behind the curtain, but they have invented something dubbed as ‘Zionism andoppressed jews’.
    Addressing the western powers, Ahmadinejad said,” I ask you, which one is the real Zionist? Are you captives or you are lying and you are the axis of Zionism?”
    He added, “This is a serious question, if the Zionists control you, we and the other free nations are ready to help you to make yourself free from this criminal party’s captivity and rescue your nations.”
    Ahmadinejad told western officials, “If you are behind the curtain, declare it. I am asking those governments, who support the Zionists to declare their position. But in any case they should know that they are responsible and are partners of the Zionist regime’s crimes.”
    ? 2007 Al Bawaba (www.albawaba.com)
    http://www.albawaba.com/en/news/217426

    Reply

  18. easy e says:

    When one looks at the composition of NAF’s board, http://www.newamerica.net/about/board, Steve’s promotion of Hillary and other corporatists shouldn’t come as a surprise.
    NAF, like the other think tanks (AEI, Heritage, Brooks, etc.) are enablers of the corporate/industrial/military complex aimed at U.S. global hegemony. The British Empire has morphed into the American Empire.

    Reply

  19. pauline says:

    Ron Paul spelled it out on the House floor about Kristol, Kristol’s father, and the entire cabal of neo-gangsters.
    “The godfather of modern-day neo-conservatism is considered to be Irving Kristol, father of Bill Kristol, who set the stage in 1983 with his publication Reflections of a Neoconservative. In this book, Kristol also defends the traditional liberal position on welfare.
    More important than the names of people affiliated with neo-conservatism are the views they adhere to. Here is a brief summary of the general understanding of what neocons believe:
    They agree with Trotsky on permanent revolution, violent as well as intellectual.
    They are for redrawing the map of the Middle East and are willing to use force to do so.
    They believe in preemptive war to achieve desired ends.
    They accept the notion that the ends justify the means,that hardball politics is a moral necessity.
    They express no opposition to the welfare state.
    They are not bashful about an American empire; instead they strongly endorse it.
    They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive.
    They believe a powerful federal government is a benefit.
    They believe pertinent facts about how a society should be run should be held by the elite and withheld from those who do not have the courage to deal with it.
    They believe neutrality in foreign affairs is ill advised.
    They hold Leo Strauss in high esteem.
    They believe imperialism, if progressive in nature, is appropriate.
    Using American might to force American ideals on others is acceptable. Force should not be limited to the defense of our country.
    9-11 resulted from the lack of foreign entanglements, not from too many.
    They dislike and despise libertarians (therefore, the same applies to all strict constitutionalists.)
    They endorse attacks on civil liberties, such as those found in the Patriot Act, as being necessary.
    They unconditionally support Israel and have a close alliance with the Likud Party.”
    entire speech at —
    http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr071003.htm

    Reply

  20. Brigitte N. says:

    Unfortunately, these neo-cons continue to have influence in Washington, otherwise we should just ignore these out-of-control desk warriors who have gotten us into the post-9/11 mess in the first place and are still looking for more. I will not vote for any candidate who has these ideologues as major advisers (i.e., Giuliani and Podhoretz) or in even minor roles in or close to their camps. Hanlon may not be a neo-con but he surely played into their hands. I had no idea that he was part of Senator Clinton’s camp as an above post reveals.

    Reply

  21. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “The next time you watch this witch Hillary spew your BS, try to imagine her saying “Gee, no thanks, that would give me too much power”.”
    Oops, sorry Steve, I meant to say “her” BS. Of course, uh, if you subscribe to it, it kinda becomes “your” BS too, doesn’t it?

    Reply

  22. Carroll says:

    “Just look at today’s Post, and the report of how corporate, moneyed interests bought their way out of getting taxed at a fair rate.”
    Posted by David N at October 9, 2007 09:54 AM
    >>>>>>>>>>
    Yea, I saw that. Equity manger’s earnings are taxed at 15% while ordinary workers pay 35% on earned income.
    And Harry Reid say that is just fine by him and the senate doesn’t have time to take this up.
    Dems-repubs..same special interest whores… no difference.

    Reply

  23. KOJ says:

    I don’t buy it. This is a diversion, and an attempt to cast an impression of consistency regarding his so-called “tough” foregn policy stance…i.e., trying to say that he also “cares” about the non-middle east stuff, too.

    Reply

  24. JohnH says:

    Well I get Kristol’s agenda: Burma has oil and supplies China with it. How fast can he turn the country into an existential threat to Israel?
    Funny how the neocons keep overlooking Sri Lanka, which has more than its share of terrorism…and the country is a major supplier of tea!!!

    Reply

  25. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Democratic Concessions Are Expected on Wiretapping
    By ERIC LICHTBLAU and CARL HULSE
    Published: October 8, 2007
    WASHINGTON, Oct. 8 — Two months after vowing to roll back broad new wiretapping powers won by the Bush administration, Congressional Democrats appear ready to make concessions that could extend some of the key powers granted to the National Security Agency.
    continues at…
    http://tinyurl.com/2rxlkr
    Well, of course the are going to commit “concessions”. The incoming Administratiion can’t wait to exercise the expanded powers, hold themselves to the same standard these fuckers in the Bush Administration have held themselves to. Who really believes the Democratic politicians have more integrity, morality, or respect for the law than the outgoing Republicans have? Ift these people respected the law, Bush/Cheney would be facing criminal action.
    The next time you watch this witch Hillary spew your BS, try to imagine her saying “Gee, no thanks, that would give me too much power”.

    Reply

  26. Matthew says:

    Waging wars of aggression is a war crime. There is no “good” country exception. Call these thugs what they are: people who advocate war crimes.
    Steve: Why you use flowery language like “false dichotomy” you avoid the key question: We have no right to murder foreigners in wars of choice. Full stop. Everything is surplusage.

    Reply

  27. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Why in God’s name should we expect ANYONE, a toddler on the rug, or a politician in Washington, to change behaviours they are not held accountable for?
    Steve, you can’t have it both ways, you cannot dismiss the need for exposure, impeachment, indictment, prosecution and punishment on the one hand while decrying the behaviour of the neocons on the other hand. They will do as much as they can get away with. I mean, its not like their agenda or goals are a mystery or anything.
    Acting as though impeachment is an “option”, rather than a legal and morale mandate has created a situation in Washington that has completely erased any illusion we may have had about equal justice before the law and a representative government. The last seven years have proved irrefutably that our government holds itself above and beyond the law, and will pursue any policy it pleases, without fear of accountability.
    If these fuckin’ criminals want to bomb a country, they will simply do it. If they want to read your mail, tap your phones, they will do it. If they want to attach electrodes to your nuts until you scream for mercy, or die, they will do it.
    Why shouldn’t they? They have got away with it thus far, and its quite obvious they aren’t going to be taken to task for it.
    Tell ya what, I’d hate to be a Muslim in the Middle East right now, because these satanic monsters like Kristol haven’t even BEGUN to show us what they are capable of yet.

    Reply

  28. MarkL says:

    Steve, How do you feel about the presence on Hillary’s campaign of Michael O’Hanlon, who is very similar to Kristol in his outlook. I believe Kenneth Pollack is also a Hillary adviser—equally worthless. Why do you think they are on her staff?
    Also, what do you think of the statements of retired Lt. Gen Kennedy that HRC supports the war (or words to that effect)?
    I don’t think we should read a candidate’s views from his or her advisers, necessarily, but I think the people Hillary surrounds herself with send a bad message to voters.

    Reply

  29. David N says:

    There is no war. There never has been.
    All there is is a campaign to frighten the American people into abandoning their rights, their security, and their prosperity, by handing over all three to corporate, fascist interests that have taken over our government.
    Just look at today’s Post, and the report of how corporate, moneyed interests bought their way out of getting taxed at a fair rate.
    Just look at the Supreme Court, which grants First Amendment protection to corporate, commercial speech, but denies it to high school students. Why should the student have the same rights as a corporation, just because he’s a mere human being?
    The so-called War on Terror has been nothing but a political campaign slogan from day one. Nothing that they have done has made us safer; rather we are in greater danger now than we have ever been. Our danger started on Jan. 21, 2001, and will continue as long as corporations run this country instead of people and laws.
    Believing that, of course, is a reason I’m unemployed, while Kristol is making millions serving at the corporate altar.
    How much are you making, guys? How?

    Reply

  30. LJ says:

    “The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism by Naomi Klein seems to provide a plausible narrative for how being wrong time after time is not about stupidity or bad judgment, but can be part of the plan.

    Reply

  31. John Shreffler says:

    War is a drug, the most addictive one ever invented. All those denizens of the think tanks who try so valiantly to trick it out into a rational venture need to keep that in mind. Chris Hedges’s book War Is a Force Which Gives Us Meaning sets out the conditions which make Chalmers Johnson’s Blowback trilogy such a crucial body of work. It’s almost too late for us but not quite.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *