Kristol: I wish Bush had said "a little more about winning" and "a little less about helping the Iraqis"
During Fox News' panel discussion following President Bush's January 10 prime-time speech, Weekly Standard editor William Kristol declared, "I wish there were a little more [in the speech] about winning the war and a little less about helping the Iraqis." His comments came after he told host and Fox News Washington managing editor Brit Hume that "[o]ne thing that sort of disturbed me about the speech" was that he did not think the president had "use[d] the word 'war' in the speech." "I'm not sure, I didn't hear it," Kristol said. "I haven't done a word search here, but I didn't hear it. I wish there were a little more about winning the war and a little less about helping the Iraqis."
From Fox News' January 10 post-speech coverage:
KRISTOL: We have to win the war, frankly, whether the Iraqis play an excellent game or a pretty good game or even a pretty poor game.
HUME: So you don't think this strategy depends on the Iraqis?
KRISTOL: I don't think it should depend as much on the Iraqis --
HUME: But it does, though, doesn't it?
KRISTOL: -- as the president continues to say it does. I don't know if it really does. He continues to say it does.
HUME: But can it succeed if the Iraqis aren't up to this? Can we really ever succeed there if the Iraqis don't want to do this, if they don't really want to live together and have a democratic or, at least, an open society?
KRISTOL: A lot of them want to live together. That doesn't mean they can pass an oil law. I'll put it -- the president mentioned --
HUME: Yeah, we can't pass an oil law in this country.
KRISTOL: We can't -- no, exactly. You know what? They can pass an oil law tomorrow, and if we don't have secure -- if our forces can't establish security in Baghdad, the place could degenerate into a horrible ethnic cleansing and genocide. Or, if they don't pass an oil law, we could win the war. One thing that struck me, when Fred was talking, he said -- you know, he compared it with previous wars. One thing that sort of disturbed me about the speech, does the president use the word "war" in the speech? I'm not sure, I didn't hear it. I haven't done a word search here, but I didn't hear it. I wish there were a little more about winning the war and a little less about helping the Iraqis.
HUME: That is it for our part of the coverage tonight.
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
I thought the reason we went to war was to help the Iraqis?
it was more to help ourselves. Wars are fought for money and power, but are sugar-coated in ideals to make them palatable to the public.
Where are the Coalition forces. Can't we get the additionally 20,000 troops from the other countries in the "Coalition". With some hope the voices of the American people are being heard along with the rest of the world. We need to stop this insanity before we get any deeper.
[link to johnedwards.com]
"I am opposed to President Bush's plan to send additional troops to Iraq. Congress must act now to block funding of Bush's escalation of the war — and demand that the President provide a plan to leave Iraq. "
We went so Bush, Cheney, et. al. could improve their stock portfolios . . . just listen to Cavuto, he'll tell you.
All that talk about WMD's, bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq, overthrowing Saddam, 9/11, etc., was just so much, um, BS . . .
Shameless creeps... all of them.
it's all cliched nonsense. i actually don't think that it's out of the question that we can somewhat stabilize the situation in baghdad temporarily. but at what cost? and it would require nothing less than staying there indefinitely, in order to achieve what the right wing considers as a "win". i was opposed from the beginning, and i told those who argued with me that it would turn out exactly as it has. those people are a lot less vocal now. but we had a chance the start of the war to make it far better than the situation as it is now. it was a huge error to disband the iraqi army. we could have kicked out the top command, and paid the regular soldiers and kept them on our side. instead we removed their means of support for their families and made them bitter and angry. but then that has been the method with this administration. find the best policy and then do exactly the opposite.
Mr. Project for the New American Century himself with his swarmy smile. If he wants victory in this quagmire I say he should get out from behind his comfy desk at the Weekly Standard and put his boots on the ground. Until then I say STFU.
At the risk of beating a dead horse, how exactly is victory defined by Kristol? Sounds to me like Kristol has been asleep under a rock the past three years... or else he's just thick as a brick in terms of lessons learned.
Rush, Hannity, they're all on it- "we MUST win the war in Iraq"- they've been trying to create this dramatic and valiant victory chant,which puts anybody who isn't with Bush (pretty small group now) in the category of "people who don't want to win/ don't think we can win/will accept shame and defeat in the world's eyes/ etc."
I tuned in the Oxymoron the other day, and he let on a caller. former conservative who had caught on and figured out the scam. Rush was sputtering andwhining, almost in tears trying to "explain" to this very reasonable caller how not staying forever in Iraq was going to emasculate every man in this country. Whatta puss.
I heard somewhere that you leftist twits were all in favor of fighting Al Qaeda. Abu Al Masri, the Al Qaeda leader in Iraq, claims that Al Qaeda has 12,000 fighters oon the ground in Iraq. [link to www.cbsnews.com]
I have also heard that you lefties are upset that we haven't focused on the people actually responsible for 9-11. Al Qaeda was responsible for 9-11. Now Bush's policy has created this opportunity to nail 12,000 of these Al Qaeda fanatics at a time and place of our choosing. So why aren't you interested in fighting/killing theses 12,000 Al Qaeda fighters in Iraq?
I think it much more likely that none of you anti-war people actually think America, its people or its way of life are worth defending, which is why you don't have the starch to suppport going after these Al Qaeda fighters.
Ok, please defend yourself and the ways of your country. Why is Bush in Iraq? Where are the WMD? Why does he take out evil dictator Saddam, while leaving in peace evil dictator Kim-Yong Il? Why does Bush need the military to do a diplomatic action, i.e. to topple Saddam? Why is Iraq so important when we know China is literally sqeezing the work and life out of its people? Why do you give tax cuts to the most wealthy? Why are you patriotic about a country that's entirely made up of earlier nations like Spain, France, Africa? (There's nothing to be patriotic about you illiterate prick) Why didn't Bush see the civil war coming soon as the power vacuum was there? Why would you defend a 'president' just because he's the president? (he's just a man you know) Why would Russia not pre-emptively nuke the US since Bush poses a greater treath to the world then any dictator? I know reading is hard but if you try, one day you will start thinking for yourself. You should try it, it feels good.
His fortune teller told him otherwise.
BTW, name callling like (Pric&) will get you the boot.
Elimination of Al Qaeda protects the freedoms and traditions of this country. Hasn't it occurred to you that waiting for them to come attack before deterring them means searching all people entering public buildings and boarding airplanes and other public tranportation? I can remember when there was none of this screening, searching, profiling, sniffing, flouroscoping, etc. We had more freedom then.
Could it be that Kim Jong Il has been left undisturbed because he thus far has no demonstrated connections to Islamic terrorists, unlike Saddam, who playing host to a host of them?
WMD? We found lots opf WMD in Iraq and 20 tons of WMD were siezed from Al Qaeda in 2004 in Jordan during the thwarted WMD suicide attack plot on Amman. How did Al Qaeda get WMD?
You haven't the courage to call me an illterate prick to my face. I suggest you not do it here.
Where did I defend the President? I merely pointed out the obvious: the enemy, according to the narrow Democratic definition of who is the enemy, is present in Iraq in strength.
You ask why I defend the Western Tradition? Simple. Two reasons. It is the greatest civilization that has ever existed. The culture the Islamofascists wish to impose in the form of a global Caliphate is an abominable tyranny and I want no part of enabling its success, which defeatists like you are advancing.
Or are you just trying to define the word MORON for us? The CIA said DIRECTLY they had no evidence of ANY connection between Iraq and international terrorists for a decade BEFORE THE INVASION. Do stupid people like you just make things up or is there a clearing house for the nonsense you spew? WE have found plenty of WMDs in Iraq???? Yeah, and the tooth fairy left me a millionare too. Bunk. Lets go after al Queda but NOT at the expense of Iraqis. We WERE where al Queda was and left there to fight a more profit friendly war in Iraq. You moronic warmongers really dont care if the nonensense you spew makes any sense at all do you as long as it is a rationale to kill, kill, kill, and get as many Americans killed as possible.
If the CIA really said this, which I doubt, then they are blatantly wrong, factually incorrect, as are you.
to wit: the following international terrorists are known to have been in Iraq prior to 2003.
Abu Nidal "Abu Nidal, who returned to Iraq, where he had planned his first terrorist attack 26 years earlier. The Iraqi government later said Abu Nidal had entered the country using a fake Yemeni passport and was not there with their knowledge, but by 2001, at the latest, he was living there openly, and in defiance of the Jordanian government, whose state security court had sentenced him to death in absentia in 2001 for his role in the 1994 assassination of a Jordanian diplomat in Beirut." [link to en.wikipedia.org]
Abu Abbas "After the hijacking, under immense political pressure from the United States and Italy, Tunisia expelled Zaidan from the country. He fled to Baghdad, where Saddam Hussein sheltered him from extradition to Italy. He remained in Iraq and commanded the PLF (reunited in 1989) until Saddam was deposed by coalition forces in 2003." [link to en.wikipedia.org]
Abdul Rahman Yasin "Yasin was taken to FBI headquarters in Newark, New Jersey, and was then released. The next day, he flew back to Iraq, via Amman, Jordan. Yasin was later indicted for the attack, and eventually in 2001 he was placed on the initial list of the FBI Most Wanted Terrorists, on which he remains a fugitive today. He disappeared prior to 2003's U.S. coalition invasion in Operation Iraqi Freedom."http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/World_Trade_Center_bombing
Abu Musab Al Zarqawi "In the summer of 2002, Zarqawi was reported to have settled in northern Iraq, where he joined the Islamist Ansar al-Islam group that fought against the Kurdish-nationalist forces in the region." [link to en.wikipedia.org]
Once more, you are proven factually incorrect. You've just been lit up, sucker!
(There's nothing to be patriotic about you illiterate prick)
Dude, uncool. There's nothing to suggest that NL207 is illiterate.
First of all, I'd like to congratulate you on your very insightful right-wing talking point that every blowhard that you look up to uses at every turn, it clearly shows how deep your intellect is!
This lame argument has been debunked over and over......
First, I would ask you to name even ONE American that has publicly come out and claimed that he wanted his country to lose or be hit or be destroyed?
Second, To say that attacking Iraq was a Bush strategy to get all Al Queda fighters in one area is as childish as it can get. Al Queda may be evil and willing to maim and destroy, but I doubt they are dumb enough to put themselves all in one area to be taken out by us.
Third, If that is the case, that we went into Iraq to destroy Al Queda (They are mainly in Afganistan and Pakistan) to do this, then that is a war crime if there ever was one!
How can you be so willing to defend a president that attacks a country that was KNOWN not to be a hotbed for Al Queda.
Try reading Richard Clarke, Joe Conason, Greg Palast, or Ron Suskind..... it might help you!
"First, I would ask you to name even ONE American that has publicly come out and claimed that he wanted his country to lose or be hit or be destroyed?"
In all fairness, he's not saying that any one person has literally said those words (though I don't doubt someone has, if only at the stupidly-far left). He's saying that the actions of liberals are defeatistic because they don't support America's "winning" the war and otherwise dominating global politics.
Now, for my personal response: The difference boils down to the fact that I don't claim to know what's best for everyone else in the world. Bush and his followers do. If that's defeatism, well, guilty as charged.
You.
You here are defending withdrawal from Iraq leaving intact on the battlefield a force of 12,000 terrorists. Where do you suppose these terrorists, all sworn to the destruction of Israel, the destruction of the United States, and the imposition of a global caliphate, are going to go after US withdrawal from Iraq?
I do not think for one moment they will remain in Iraq. Some of them will come ... here.
the "12,000" terrorists want to come here, why don't they just come here right now?
would have made that more dramatic.
And as soon as the terrorists get their 12,000 magic carpets, they will be...here.
Thanks for the... stylistic advice.
The terrorists... are moving... freely... in Iraq and elsewhere...
There's no reason... to think... that the presence of our troops in... Iraq... is keeping them from coming... here... if that's what they want... to do.
I feel like... William Shatner.
The 9-11 hijackers all arrived here by air, did they not .....
Some of them already have.
A handful in 1993 managed to detonate a sizeable car bomb in the WTC killing 6 innocent people.
Richard Reid was seized on aninbound jet liner trying to ignite a bomb hidden in his shoe.
Jose Padilla went to Al Qaeda school in Pakistan and cameback to America with the intention o construct and detonate a radiological bomb.
20 odd Al Qaeda operatives penetrated the US and on Sept 11, 2001, Hijacked 4 fuel laden jetliners which they used to kill 3,000 people, damage the Pentagon and destrioy he World Trade Center in New york.
then there were the 'Lackawanna Seven', who were apprehended by a turncoat in their midst before ther plans could reach a formative stage.
There are probably more I don't know about.
Now, once more, repeat after me, Abu Al Masri, Al Qaeda leader in Iraq, claims ther are 12,000 Al Qaeda fighters in Iraq.
Your Rumsfeldesque one- man Q &A session... is very... inpressive.
Yet I'm... confused.
Are you saying that... we're fighting them... over there... so thet don't come... here?
And... backing that up... by pointing out that they are already...here ?
Watch some old video of Rummy. You might see that when you're trying to fool people by cross-examining yourself, at least plan ahead enough that you don't ...lose.
And I hope you don't mind us pinching your ...style.
My point was that the Islamofascists have demonstrated clearly they are able to infiltrate our shores. All of those I mentioned previously are either dead or in custody and no longer pose a threat, unless liberal lawyers are able to get some of the still living released from jail.
The point you so conveniently ignore is that withdrawal from Iraq at this juncture, leaving an enemy force of 12,000 intact there is an invitation for the enemy to redeploy all or some of their force from Iraq to other 'theaters'. Perhaps they will come to a theater near you... as the Chechnyan terrorists did in Moscow, killing hundreds.
This is a war. Neither you nor any polyglot collection of Democratic peaceniks can just declare peace and walk away. The enemy is not satisfied and is not prepared to lay down their arms, renouncing violence. they will continue to attack until their aims are realized. One of their aims is the establishment of a Glabal Calipahate. [link to www.fas.org]
"First, I would ask you to name even ONE American that has publicly come out and claimed that he wanted his country to lose or be hit or be destroyed?"
-----
Bill O'Reilly has said he doesn't care if terrorists hit San Francisco.
Assuming for the sake of argument there are 12,000 AlQaeda fighters in Iraq (and that the figure is not simply AlQaeda propaganda), a more correct statement would be that Bush's policy has allowed AlQaeda to grow in Iraq. AlQaeda had virtually no active presence in Iraq before the war... how on earth did we allow it to build to a strength of 12,000? That sounds like a failure of policy, not a success. It also indicates that as long as we keep killing AlQaeda fighters in Iraq that they will continue to be replaced (and the numbers increased) by new fighters. Sounds to me that to continue fighting AlQaeda in Iraq benefits AlQaeda... it strengthens their numbers. To continue to pour money and lives into the no-win situation in Iraq is insane. It's time to re-group and re-think our plan against AlQaeda. AlQaeda must love people like you.
is losing, it is no wonder your side has such problems figuring out which end to wipe afterwards.
NL, since you have all the answers then maybe you can answer this simple question that has been bothering me for months now:
What is a win in Iraq?
I keep hearing the far-right talking heads say "Do you want us to win in Iraq." to which I always ask "What is a win?" I mean every single reason for going into this war has turned out to be either a) a lie or b) a near total impossibility. I mean let's pretend for a moment that I'm not a military strategist, or a rocket scientist, or a mindless zombie who follows everything that a small group of masters tell me. So you explain it in layman's terms. What is a win in Iraq? Once you actually tell me what a win is, I'll tell you whether or not I want to do it.
A win in Iraq would
1. Remove Saddam 2. Remove the presence of terorrism. 3. Bring peace/stability between the Shia and Sunni . 4. Help the country rebuild it infrastructure. 5. Get the hell out.
That is clear as can be to me. But will it ever happen. I am not sure the People of Iraq want that.
BTW. Clinton linked Bin Laden and Saddam. Did you forget?
Carter made mention of a unstable middle east when he was president.
So did Nixxxxxxxon
Why aren't you on a plane to Iraq? They really really need you now. And pack up the rest the of age neocon warmongers and take them along with you. You guys are cheering on senseless blood shed and death while sitting in the comfort of your homes and offices typing BS on a computer. The war is worth it as long as you don't have to do the fighting. The word CHICKEN HAWK comes to mind here.
Vietnam?
It's your turn.
Last gasp of rhetorical right. So what. I dont care if Clinton was wrong too. He told the CIA to look into al Queda/Iraq connections after the Cole, their answer? there was none. Ben Laden called Saddam an infideal, for a Wahabi Sunni that is a death threat. Al Quedas stated mission was to bring Sharia law to all SECULAR Islamic countries, you know like Iraq except HE couldnt have dreamed of being able to do it. It was so nice of Bush to help him out there. I am sure Ben Laden has a pin up poster of Bush in his bedroom and thanks Allah for him every day.
Did you know that bin Laden was not particularly enamored of Al Zarqawi, in part because of Zarqawi's blatant hatred of Shiism, which bin Laden considered to be divisive. Bin laden also took personal offence to this as his own mother was a Shiite. "When Zarqawi first met bin Laden it was loathing at the first sight as bin Laden distrusted and disliked Zarqawi immediately.[54] In an interview on Al-Majd TV, former al-Qaeda member Walid Khan, who was in Afghanistan fighting alongside Zarqawi's group explained that from the day al-Zarqawi's group arrived, there were disagreements, differences of opinion with bin Laden on a number of issues and positions.[55] Bin Laden also suspected that many of Zarqawi's group members were Jordanian intelligence, disliked Zarqawi's swagger and the green tattoos on his left hand, which he reportedly considered un-Islamic and found Zarqawi hatred of Shiites divisive (bin Laden's mother is a Shiite).[54] " [link to en.wikipedia.org]
I am also impressed that you, who so roundly condemn CIA intelligence gathering in regards to Niger Uranium, WMD and Iraq, continue to quote CIA results whenever they support your opinions, even when those results are so obviously wrong.
I think a win is Iraq is the utter destruction of all the Islamofascist elements in Iraq. They come in two decidedly different flavors who don't necessarily like each other.
Group one are Sunnis with Al Qaeda at their core. Some of them hate the Shia with a fury. Bin Laden actualy takes a soft line on the Shia, since his mother was a shiite. This is why I think it likely Osama has been hiding in Iran for much of the time we have been seeking him in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda owns responsibility for 9-11. The Job isn't done if they are still operational afterwards.
Group two are the Shiite holy warriors, some of whom are Twelvers. Their leader in Iraq is Moqtada Al Sadr. Their organization is the Mahdi Army. He must be killed for two reasons: he is the enemy and he arranged to have Imam Koei, one of our allies in Iraq, murdered [by swordsmen in a Mosque no less]. Al Sadr's leash is held in Tehran by Mamoud Ahmadinejad, also a Twelver, but that terrorist is a separate problem.
It would be nice if a stable, moderate government emerged as well, one who will freely trade oil at current market prices as well as keep a modicum of order there, but I don'tthink that is a must for victory.
Bush has more extensive goals there. I don't think they all need to be attained to score a win and I think it will be very hard to achieve all of Bushs aims.
Obviously this guy listens to WAAAY too much AM radio and watches WAAAAY too much Fox News.
I think every American wants us to get the bad guys. The problem is we are creating more of them with this senseless war.
At the same time we compromise the very things that make this country great with warrentless evesdropping and questioning the patriotism of those who disagree with Bush's misguided and dangerous policies. The real enemies aren't in Iraq. They'rre at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in D.C.
Just want to get as many Americans killed as possible and couldnt care LESS about defending America which the invasion of Iraq had NOTHING to do with.
Your attempt at a point was logic free. I also WANT more money, doesnt mean I am willing to rob a bank to get it. Notice the al Queda fighters are there NOW, that is they FOLLOWED us into Iraq, they werent operating there BEFORE the invasion. What is the moral justification for making the Iraqi people pay for our war with al Queda when they had nothing to do with what al Queda was doing BEFORE the war?
No all you warmongers care about is war glorious war and people dying which is the only thing that gets your little thingy hard.
"facts" are false.
I have no desire to lose any more people in battle than necessary. I have some appreciation fo what that really means, an appreciation your rhetoric tells me you lack.
I also do not want to have our civilians attacked at unawares and killed by these fanatics in their homes, offices and daily lives as has happened before. There is no way to prevent a determined guerilla enemy from inflicting at least some casualties of this sort even in the presence of a police state, and I certainly do not wish to see a police state erected in this country. Therefore, the only reasonable approach to prevent this is to engage these fanatics on ground of our choosing outside the US.
This line in your post confuses me........ "(pretty small group now) "......
To which group do you refer as small?
Or was it a simple grammer error and your meant 'large' or 'majority'.......
I'm pretty damn sure what you meant......
it was just really bad, fast writing- The idea (I think you knew what I meant) was that the people who ARE still under the impression that Bush is doing a swell job are becoming a SMALLER group .
For some reason, I wrote what looks like the exact opposite. I've suggested to others here that they read their own stuff before hitting "post". Maybe I'll give it a try myself. Thanks.
Kristol would talk less about the New American Century and more about helping the American people.
you know, all you guys act like this is real or something...i mean...it's nothing more than a video game or maybe a texas-style, friday night football game...isn't it?
Ey, listen up. Bush did not want this war to be over in a few days, mkay. Bush needed a lengthy war so he could make sure the US treasury could get to his fellow-war-profiteerers. Why else on earth do you think Bush was so eager to send a too small fraction (cfr. Vietnam) of the army into Iraq, just hinting the enemy to start a guerilla war (cfr. Vietnam) so the US would need time to overcome it (cfr. Vietnam). Bush has learned from history. The people sure as hell haven't. Follow the leader, dealer, decider. Sure he listens to no one and he tells us just what we want to hear, but he is our leader and he's leading. Give me a break, the devil is rolling on the floor laughing his ass off. Bush is not the ass, we're the ass. For letting Bush kill our families and steal our taxes so he can give it to his buddies at defense. This is beyond shameful, this is plain evil.
... in the White House.
Bill Bennett can explain the addiction to "winning", no matter what it takes. Gambling with wealth you don't really have or own (the lives of Americans), in order to finally "WIN". The obsession of gambling causes irrational behavior, and grown men will continue to go deeper and deeper, risking their family's future, their home, their everything for the stake for just "one more chance to win."
Bush is obsessed with winning, and equally unwilling to accept the alternative: That he and his "policies" are LOSERS. But as every gambler knows, there is no winner or loser if the game is still going on. So the game NOW is just to keep the game going, for as long as Bush can keep throwing assets he CONTROLS, but does not OWN, into the losing pit.
There can be no VICTORY ... the only question is how many more American lives and billions of dollars must be lost before SOMEONE says "ENOUGH!". It won't be Bush ... because Bush's closest friends are telling him they never had it so good. Raytheon, Halliburton, Exxon/Mobil, and all the defense contractors are becoming fabulously wealthy from those tax dollars and soldier's blood.
Bush now has only ONE happy constituent: The Great American War Profiteer. They want the game to continue ... and even better, ESCALATE ... for as long as possible. THEIR losses don't exist; it's all HAPPY DAYS for the makers of bombs and the harvesters of oil.
a confrontation between Kristol & Juan Williams during the Lebanon/Hezbollah/Israel flare up [war?].
Kristol was calling for the U.S. to get INVOLVED militarily. To back Israel by taking on Iran.
Juan Williams turned to Kristol and said:
"You Just Want War, War, War, War, And You Want Us In More War you wanted us in Iraq now you want us in Iran..."
Kristol's reaction? His perpetual condescending smirk in place.... He shrugged
ice-cold blood and lack of simple human decency would have made him a good Nazi or Stalinist. He was just born in the wrong place and time.
and sadly people still give this LOSER the time of day on their airwaves. What is trying to do, egg Bush on? This guy lives in an abstract world where nothing is real.
He and many others. Condi Rice comes to mine. These neocon intellectuals who pretend to be so civilized with their refined manners are responsible for so much violence and death. They're a gory bunch.
with her classical piano skills brings to mind Nero and his fondness for the violin...