Kristol: Bush Might Bomb Iran If He ‘Thinks Senator Obama’s Going To Win’
Kristol: Bush Might Bomb Iran If He ‘Thinks Senator Obama’s Going To Win’
On Fox News Sunday this morning, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol said that President Bush is more likely to attack Iran if he believes Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) is going to be elected.
However, “if the president thought John McCain was going to be the next president, he would think it more appropriate to let the next president make that decision than do it on his way out,” Kristol said, reinforcing the fact that McCain is offering a third Bush term on Iran.
“I do wonder with Senator Obama, if President Bush thinks Senator Obama’s going to win, does he somehow think — does he worry that Obama won’t follow through on that policy,” Kristol added. Host Chris Wallace then asked if Kristol was suggesting that Bush might “launch a military strike” before or after the election:
WALLACE: So, you’re suggesting that he might in fact, if Obama’s going to win the election, either before or after the election, launch a military strike?
KRISTOL: I don’t know. I mean, I think he would worry about it. On the other hand, you can’t — it’s hard to make foreign policy based on guesses of election results. I think Israel is worried though. I mean, what is, what signal goes to Ahmadinejad if Obama wins on a platform of unconditional negotiations and with an obvious reluctance to even talk about using military force.
Kristol also suggested that Obama’s election would tempt Saudi Arabia and Egypt to think, “maybe we can use nuclear weapons.” Watch it:
Kristol’s belief that Bush might attack Iran before leaving office is not new. In April, he told Bill Bennett that it wasn’t “out of the question” that Bush would consider such a strike because “people are overdoing how much of a lame duck the president is.”
The claim that Obama’s potential election could force Bush’s hand also isn’t new. Earlier this month, far-right pseudo scholar Daniel Pipes told National Review Online that “President Bush will do something” if the Democratic nominee won. “Should it be Mr. McCain that wins, he’ll punt,” said Pipes.
Both Kristol and Pipes apparently agree with President Bush’s claim in March that McCain’s “not going to change” his foreign policy.
Kristol: McCain And Graham Plan To Introduce Legislation Undermining Supreme Court Decision On Guantanamo
Kristol: McCain And Graham Plan To Introduce Legislation Undermining Supreme Court Decision On Guantanamo
Last week, the Supreme Court ruled that Guantanamo Bay detainees have the right to challenge their detention in civilian courts. Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) wasted no time in publicly blasting the decision, saying they were “disappointed” in “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.”
This ruling will inevitably lead to a “flood of new litigation” challenging the Bush administration’s right to hold these detainees, only one of whom has received a verdict. Detainees will then finally get a decision as to their status.
Today on Fox News Sunday, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol revealed that “very soon” — likely as early as next week — McCain and Graham will be introducing legislation to undermine the Supreme Court decision by setting up a “national security court”:
And I think you will see Senator Graham, accompanied by Senator McCain, come to the floor of the Senate very soon, like next week, and say, We cannot let chaos obtain here. We can’t let 200 different federal district judges on their own whim call this CIA agent here, say, ‘I don’t believe this soldier here who said this guy was doing this,’ you have to release someone,’ or, ‘Let’s build up — let’s compromise sources and methods with a bunch of trials. I mean, it’s ridiculous.
Watch it:
A national security court would envision a scenario “in which sitting federal judges would preside over proceedings in which prosecutors would make the case that a person should be detained.” But as Michael Hoffman and Ken Gude note in a paper for the Center for American Progress, this scenario is problematic and underestimates the U.S. criminal justice system:
Adopting a national security court system would send the United States down another unproven path prone to repeat the same mistakes. It would not further justice or American legitimacy. Rather, it would risk creating American courts that more resemble the tribunals of dictators than those of democracies. And that would be a strategic victory for Al Qaeda, not for Americans. […]
The criminal justice system, coupled with standard military trials when necessary, has and can further law enforcement, intelligence, and prevention efforts without undermining our fundamental liberties or our long-term efforts to combat terrorism. It is time to let it fully do that crucial work.
As ThinkProgress reported on Friday, at one time, McCain and Graham advocated a solution similar to the Supreme Court ruling. In 2003, they called on then-Defense Secretary Rumsfeld to “formally treat and process the detainees as war criminals or to return them to their countries for appropriate judicial action.” Clearly, things change when you’re running for a third Bush term.
Transcript: Read the rest of this entry »
Kristol: Obama was rolling in the dough as community organizer.
Kristol: Obama was rolling in the dough as community organizer.
In his New York Times column today, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol expressed his disappointment at what Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) “left out” of his commencement speech last week at Wesleyan University. Kristol claims that Obama’s decision to become a community organizer in Chicago isn’t very impressive:
And one day, a group of churches in Chicago offered him a job as a community organizer for “$12,000 a year plus $2,000 for an old, beat-up car.” […] Obama wants us to be impressed by the drama of his spurning the big bucks, by his bold acceptance of such a pittance of money in order that he could do good.
Leave aside the fact that two years elapsed between Obama’s graduation from Columbia in 1983 and his heading off to Chicago in 1985. Dramatic foreshortening is, after all, sometimes necessary. And leave aside whether $14,000 in 1985 was really such a shockingly low salary for someone recently out of college — in inflation-adjusted dollars, it’s about what we pay entry-level editorial assistants today at The Weekly Standard.
In today’s dollars, Obama’s $12,000/year in 1985 translates into an inflation-adjusted current salary of $23,958. It seems Kristol may be living in a time warp because what he pays his new employees is less than the average salary for the lowest-level congressional staffer.
Webb: ‘People In The Administration’ Would Like To Strike Iran Before Leaving Office
Webb: ‘People In The Administration’ Would Like To Strike Iran Before Leaving Office
Last year, Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) proposed legislation that would have required the President Bush to “seek congressional authorization prior to commencing any broad military action in Iran,” but the amendment failed in the Senate. On NPR’s Fresh Air yesterday, host Terri Gross asked Webb about the bill and if he thinks “the Bush administration is considering a military strike” before Bush leaves office.
“It certainly seems that it’s on the table,” replied Webb, noting that some in the administration are pushing for it:
GROSS: You also introduced a bill that failed to require congressional approval before any military action in Iran. Do you think the Bush administration is considering a military strike against Iran before President Bush leaves office?
WEBB: Well, it certainly seems that it’s on the table. That there are people in the administration who would like to see that happen.
Listen here:
Yesterday, the White House aggressively pushed back against a Jerusalem Post story claiming that “Bush intends to attack Iran in the upcoming months, before the end of his term.” White House Press Secretary Dana Perino called the story “not worth the paper it’s written on.”
But conservatives close to the administration have also gotten the impression that an attack on Iran could still occur before Bush’s term ends.
In April, a day after meeting with President Bush, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol said on Bill Bennett’s radio show that he didn’t think “it’s out of the question” that Bush would strike Iran before leaving office because “people are overdoing how much of a lame duck the president is.”
New York Times issues correction for Kristol column.
New York Times issues correction for Kristol column.
Earlier this week, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol asserted in a column that he could not find “a single recent instance of a candidate who ultimately became his party’s nominee losing a primary” by a 41-point margin like Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) did in West Virgina. But as ThinkProgress and other blogs quickly pointed out, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) lost to Mitt Romney in the Utah’s primary by 85 points in February. The Times has now issued a correction for Kristol’s column:
Correction: May 21, 2008
In his column on Monday, Bill Kristol said he could not find a recent primary in which the candidate who would go on to win the nomination lost by as big a margin as Barack Obama lost by (41 points) in West Virginia. Mitt Romney won the essentially uncontested Utah primary on Feb. 5 with about 90 percent of the vote.Also, the California Supreme Court is based in San Francisco, not the state capital, Sacramento.
In just six months, this is the third time that the New York Times has been forced to clean up Kristol’s factual errors.
Kristol: Lieberman’s Liberal Bashing Makes Him A Good Choice For Vice President
Kristol: Lieberman’s Liberal Bashing Makes Him A Good Choice For Vice President
On Sunday night, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) gave the Norman Podhoretz Lecture at the annual dinner of the Commentary Fund, in which he claimed that the “Democratic party has completely lost its way on foreign policy.” The speech — and an “adapted” version of it published in the Wall Street Journal today — was enthusiastically received by conservatives across the board.
Conservatives were so pleased with Lieberman’s broadside against his former colleagues that they are now reviving talk of him as vice presidential choice for Sen. John McCain (R-AZ).
In an editorial yesterday, the New York Sun concluded from the Commentary speech that Lieberman “would be a fabulous running mate for Mr. McCain.” On Fox And Friends this morning, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol concurred with the Sun, saying that “after seeing Joe Lieberman’s speech Sunday night,” he really wonders whether McCain will pick him. Watch it:
This isn’t the first time that a Lieberman speech attacking liberals has inspired Kristol to suggest him for vice president.
In Nov. 2007, after Lieberman lashed out at “left-wing blogs,” Kristol penned a Weekly Standard editorial declaring that the eventual Republican nominee should “offer him the vice presidency.” Former Bush adviser Peter Wehner quickly endorsed Kristol’s thinking on the National Review’s blog, calling it “an intriguing idea” that would “scramble the political chessboard.”
In January, McCain appeared open to the idea of picking Lieberman, telling the Wall Street Journal that “he’d be a great partner in any endeavor.”
Kristol’s Third Strike: Weekly Standard Editor Gets The Facts Wrong In His New York Times Column
Kristol’s Third Strike: Weekly Standard Editor Gets The Facts Wrong In His New York Times Column
In his New York Times column today, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol tried to find reasons for conservatives to be optimistic about 2008 elections, despite the claims of some Republicans that “the Republican brand is in the trash can.” To support his argument, Kristol pointed to Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-IL) 41-point loss in the West Virginia primary:
On Tuesday night, while the G.O.P. Congressional candidate was losing in a Mississippi district George Bush carried in 2004 by 25 points, Barack Obama was being trounced in the West Virginia Democratic primary — by 41 points. I can’t find a single recent instance of a candidate who ultimately became his party’s nominee losing a primary by this kind of margin.
Apparently Kristol didn’t look hard enough. Writing at Room Eight, New York political consultant Jerry Skurnik says it took him “all of 2 minutes to find what Kristol couldn’t find.” On Feb. 5, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney beat presumptive GOP nominee Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) by 85 points in the Utah primary:
In fact, on the same day, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee beat McCain by the same margin Kristol touted as unprecedented — 41 points — in the Arkansas primary. As did Mitt Romney in the Colorado caucus.
This is at least the third time that Kristol has gotten the facts wrong in his Times column. In his debut column, Kristol misattributed a quote by Michael Medved to Michelle Malkin. Later, Kristol falsely claimed Obama was in church on a day that he was not.
Kristol Suggests McCain Adopt ‘A Reformist Surge’ To Change ‘The Whole U.S. Government’
Kristol Suggests McCain Adopt ‘A Reformist Surge’ To Change ‘The Whole U.S. Government’
Yesterday on Fox News Sunday, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol said that since wrapping up the Republican nomination for president last March, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has used his time only “moderately effectively.”
To beef up his candidacy, Kristol suggested that McCain model his domestic policy after “the surge” because, according to Kristol, the surge was about “changing the way the U.S. military works” and it “succeeded.” Speaking as a revolutionary, Kristol said McCain needs to advocate “a reformist surge” against “the whole U.S. government”:
KRISTOL: [McCain] could say, “Look, I was a great proponent of the surge. What was the surge about? It was Dave Petraeus changing the way the U.S. military works, and it worked. It succeeded. Why can’t we do this for the rest of the U.S. government? Lots of the U.S. government is broken. We need, in effect, a surge, a reformist surge, for the whole U.S. government.“
Watch it:
It is entirely unclear what Kristol is talking about. But following his Iraq “surge” analogy to its logical conclusion, it seems Kristol is advocating for either 1) an escalation in domestic government staffers to “reform the U.S. government,” 2) more domestic agencies, or 3) a Petraeus-like czar to oversee a government surge.
But isn’t Bill Kristol — a staunch conservative — an advocate of “limited government?” It is odd then that he would suggest such a domestic “surge” for McCain, given that expanding government to change the government is the complete opposite of that philosophy.
All this proves is that Kristol just “really, really loves the surge.”
Kristol ‘Looks Down’ On Majority Of Americans: Calls Them ‘Feckless’ And Unserious
Kristol ‘Looks Down’ On Majority Of Americans: Calls Them ‘Feckless’ And Unserious
In his New York Times column earlier this week, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol decried Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-IL) now-infamous “bitter” comments as being “disdainful of small-town America.” “What has Barack Obama accomplished that entitles him to look down on his fellow Americans?” questioned Kristol.
But on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show yesterday, Kristol himself appeared quite “disdainful” of the majority of Americans who are weary of the war in Iraq, implying that many of them are neither “decent” nor “serious,” but rather “feckless”:
KRISTOL: Every time there’s a little flare up, even if the flare up turns out to be for the better, which is what happened in Basra over the last few weeks, and none the less they go, “oh my God, can’t we get out of this.” So there’s a real weariness. Even amongst some decent people of just you know, it seems kind of there’s no end, there’s no clear, there’s no clarity. … And are we going to be such a feckless country, frankly, that we’re going to waste the sacrifices that have been made, snatch defeat and retreat out of the jaws of success and victory. … I’m moderately hopeful that the country gets beyond the kind of weariness and annoyance about the war and gets serious about the world we live in.
Listen here:
A poll released today by ABC News and the Washington Post, found that “views on the Iraq war have…turned more negative, with six in 10 now rejecting the notion that the United States needs to win there to effectively battle terrorism.” Apparently to Kristol, these 60% of Americans are “feckless,” which is defined as either “ineffective; incompetent; futile” or “having no sense of responsibility; indifferent; lazy.”
Additionally, the poll — which was conducted “after congressional testimony about the war” by Gen. David Petraeus and Amb. Ryan Crocker — found that the majority of Americans, including an increasing share of Republicans, “say the United States should withdraw its military forces to avoid further casualties”:
Moreover, while Bush remains committed to keeping more than 100,000 U.S. troops in Iraq through the rest of his presidency, 56 percent of Americans say the United States should withdraw its military forces to avoid further casualties. This has been the majority view since January 2007.
On several measures, the poll finds Republicans inching away from support for the war. Among them, a sense that progress in Iraq has stalled has increased 13 points from early March, and the percentages who prefer withdrawing troops over risking more casualties (30 percent) and who think that the battle against terrorism can be a success without victory in Iraq (39 percent) are each at new highs.
Perhaps the question should be asked: What has Bill Kristol “accomplished that entitles him to look down on his fellow Americans?”
Echoing Kristol, Rove Says Obama’s ‘Bitter’ Comments Were ‘Almost Marxian’
Echoing Kristol, Rove Says Obama’s ‘Bitter’ Comments Were ‘Almost Marxian’
Yesterday, the Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol claimed that Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-IL) now-infamous “bitter” remarks were Marxist in nature. On Fox News’s Hannity And Colmes last night, former Bush adviser Karl Rove echoed Kristol’s over-the-top characterization, saying “it was almost Marxian“:
ROVE: I don’t find a lot of people in rural America, I certainly don’t find the dominant view to be — “I’m so bitter that I’m going to hold on to my gun or I’m gonna” — You know, it was almost Marxian in this they cling to their religion. I mean, you know, it’s sort of like it’s the opiate of the masses.
Watch it:
Even before Obama’s poorly worded comments last week, many on the right have been making a concerted effort to cast Obama as a socialist and a Marxist. For months now, right-wing talker Glenn Beck, who also hosts a show on CNN Headline News, has been referring to Obama as a “socialist“:
I hope it doesn’t matter to Barack. But he has heard the message of Jesus that shared prosperity is the thing to do. Hope, change, Marxism. This guy is a socialist and all you have to do is listen to his words.
On Fox News Radio yesterday, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) said that it was “a good question” to ask if Obama is “a Marxist,” though he said he would “hesitate” to call him one himself.
UPDATE: As Newshounds notes, Fox News’s Brit Hume and Charles Krauthammer made similar charges on Fox’s Special Report last night. Watch it:
Bush granted Kristol advance preview of Iraq speech.
Bush granted Kristol advance preview of Iraq speech.
In a Weekly Standard column published today, conservative columnist William Kristol reveals that President Bush invited him over to the White House to “preview the Iraq speech he’s giving today.” Kristol breaks the rules of journalistic ethics in order to emphasize Bush’s grieving during Tuesday’s Medal of Honor ceremony and paint a hagiographic picture of the President:
I’ll violate the off-the-record rules in order to convey the tenor of the president’s lengthy response. He explained how difficult it had been for him to keep his composure. … And he had a certain amount of steel in his voice when he then reiterated his determination not to allow the sacrifices of our fighting men and women to have been made in vain.
Fox worships the ‘Kristol Ball.’
This afternoon, Fox News’ Shepard Smith paid tribute to Fox News contributor and New York Times columnist Bill Kristol. Smith claims Kristol has a “Kristol Ball” for predicting that former Massachusetts governor would drop out at the Conservative Political Action Conference and that Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) would win the Ohio and Texas primaries. Smith even gave Kristol his very own Fox News caricature:
Of course, left unmentioned is that the “Kristol Ball” is hazier when it comes to Iraq:
– “We’re not in a civil war. This is just not true.” [7/15/07]
– The U.S. can afford to “stretch our Army and Marines” for “another year or so” in Iraq. [8/24/07]
– Vouched for a “a ticket of Fred Thompson and David Petraeus” in 2008. [9/13/07]
TNR’s Chait takes on Kristol.
The New Republic’s Jonathan Chait takes on the “decrepit intellectual state of neoconservatism,” and its intellectual driver, Bill Kristol. Chait claims there was a time when “there was something inspiring” about the neoconservative vision, but no longer:
As the Iraq war has curdled, the idealism and liberalism have drained out of the neoconservative vision. What remains is a noxious residue of bullying militarism. Kristol’s arguments are merely the same pro-war arguments that have been used historically by right-wing parties throughout the world: Complexity is weakness, dissent is treason, willpower determines all.
Kristol’s good standing in the Washington establishment depends on the wink-and-nod awareness that he’s too smart to believe his own agitprop. Perhaps so. But, in the end, a fake thug is not much better than the real thing.
(Via Andrew Sullivan)
Top Intel Analyst Says Surge Is Failing, Kristol Counters It’s Going ‘Better Than Anyone Expected’
Top Intel Analyst Says Surge Is Failing, Kristol Counters It’s Going ‘Better Than Anyone Expected’
Yesterday, Thomas Fingar, the top intelligence analyst in the Office of the National Intelligence Director, stated that “the most optimistic” assessment of the increase in troop numbers in Iraq is that it has not had a “significant” effect in reducing the violence:
The surge that began a few months ago is having an effect, it has not yet had a sufficient effect on the violence, in my judgment, to move the country to a place that the serious obstacles to reconciliation can be overcome.
The most optimistic projection is that it will be difficult and time-consuming to bridge the political gulf when violence levels are reduced, and they have not yet been reduced significantly.
This morning on Fox and Friends, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol ignored the intelligence assessment, instead offering his unfounded view that the “military situation is better than anyone expected”:
The truth is if you look concretely on the ground in Iraq, the military situation is better than anyone expected. Better than David Petraeus expected. Better than those of us here at home who supported the surge expected six months ago. … And we’re going to win the war. I think we’re going to win this war if we just don’t lose our nerve here at home.
Watch a compilation:
Kristol concluded that if Bush can hold off Congress, “I think Gen. David Petraeus could go down in American history with an amazing performance. … This could be a Ulysses S. Grant situation where Bush finally found the right general.”
Kristol: Bush No Longer Believes Rumsfeld’s ‘Happy Talk,’ But Is ‘Unwilling to Second-Guess’ Him
Kristol: Bush No Longer Believes Rumsfeld’s ‘Happy Talk,’ But Is ‘Unwilling to Second-Guess’ Him
Last night, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol appeared on the Charlie Rose show and reported from inside knowledge that President Bush is “not believing the happy talk any more that he was getting from Rumsfeld.†But, Kristol claimed, Bush will not replace the Secretary of Defense because he’s “unwilling to second-guess Rumsfeld’s fundamental understanding of the use of the military†in Iraq. Watch it:
As Sen. Hillary Clinton pointed out at a recent hearing, Rumsfeld’s “fundamental understanding†of Iraq has been consistently wrong every step of the way. At one point, Rumsfeld even acknowledged surprise at the hostility the troops faced in Iraq. Bush’s unwillingness to question Rumsfeld or challenge his decisions has prevented the strategy in Iraq from advancing past “stay the course.â€
Full transcript: Read the rest of this entry »
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Think ProgressContact Us
Donate