Bill Kristol is nuts.
Ok, Bill Kristol is clearly out of his mind. He was let out of his cage and some idiot let him publish an op-ed in Time Magazine:
"To succeed in reversing the deteriorating situation in Iraq would also have real consequences. The forces of liberty (if it's permissible to use so naive a formulation) could regain momentum in the Middle East. Jihadism could be set on the run. Individuals and nations might decide that it is once again wiser to be a friend of the U.S. than an enemy. Why, the Bush presidency might even turn out to be a success! What a thought!"
As I've said before, I don't know why the media keeps listening to him and his neocon brethren because they were basically wrong about everything.
Remember this oldy but goody from 1998?
"The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy."
Remember Ken Adelman in Feb. 2002?
"I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk." [WaPo]
Rumsfled another PNAC allum:
"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world and the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
"There is no question but that they would be welcomed. Go back to Afghanistan, the people were in the streets playing music, cheering, flying kites, and doing all the things that the Taliban and the al-Qaeda would not let them do."
"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
And now more nonsense from Mr. Kristol:
"The foreign policy cognoscenti and the political élites were happy to dismiss the fact that Saddam's trial was a real achievement of a struggling democracy fighting terror and sectarian strife. They were eager to deprecate the fact that Saddam was tried in court before courageous judges under the laws of his nation, with a chance to defend himself. They were willing to pretend it was no big deal to see a tyrant brought low, to see injustice punished and justice done.
Why? Because to dwell on the life and death of this mass murderer might remind Americans of the fundamental justice of the war. It might cause the American people to wonder why, having accomplished this, they should be so quick to give up on accomplishing more."
You know, he's so right. After witnessing a bunch of thugs from the Mahdi Army inside Saddmam's death chamber with cell phones chanting "Muqtada, Muqtada," I really got the idea there was so much more to accomplish in Iraq. We've lost over 3000 U.S. troops and have spent a half trillion dollars to set up a Shiite theocracy bent on genocide.
Much better than a Sunni regime bent on genocide.
"To succeed in reversing the deteriorating situation in Iraq would also have real consequences. The forces of liberty (if it's permissible to use so naive a formulation) could regain momentum in the Middle East. Jihadism could be set on the run. Individuals and nations might decide that it is once again wiser to be a friend of the U.S. than an enemy. Why, the Bush presidency might even turn out to be a success! What a thought!"
As I've said before, I don't know why the media keeps listening to him and his neocon brethren because they were basically wrong about everything.
Remember this oldy but goody from 1998?
"The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy."
Remember Ken Adelman in Feb. 2002?
"I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk." [WaPo]
Rumsfled another PNAC allum:
"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world and the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
"There is no question but that they would be welcomed. Go back to Afghanistan, the people were in the streets playing music, cheering, flying kites, and doing all the things that the Taliban and the al-Qaeda would not let them do."
"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
And now more nonsense from Mr. Kristol:
"The foreign policy cognoscenti and the political élites were happy to dismiss the fact that Saddam's trial was a real achievement of a struggling democracy fighting terror and sectarian strife. They were eager to deprecate the fact that Saddam was tried in court before courageous judges under the laws of his nation, with a chance to defend himself. They were willing to pretend it was no big deal to see a tyrant brought low, to see injustice punished and justice done.
Why? Because to dwell on the life and death of this mass murderer might remind Americans of the fundamental justice of the war. It might cause the American people to wonder why, having accomplished this, they should be so quick to give up on accomplishing more."
You know, he's so right. After witnessing a bunch of thugs from the Mahdi Army inside Saddmam's death chamber with cell phones chanting "Muqtada, Muqtada," I really got the idea there was so much more to accomplish in Iraq. We've lost over 3000 U.S. troops and have spent a half trillion dollars to set up a Shiite theocracy bent on genocide.
Much better than a Sunni regime bent on genocide.
posted by William Duane at 6:44 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home