Kristol falsely asserted that Sen. Kennedy wants to continue failed Iraq strategy
SUMMARY: On Fox News Sunday, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol misrepresented Sen. Ted Kennedy's "current position" on Iraq as a plan to "continue to pursue a strategy which has not been winning." In fact, Kennedy was one of only 13 senators who voted to withdraw troops from Iraq by July 2007.
On the December 17 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, Fox News contributor and Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol falsely characterized Sen. Edward M. Kennedy's (D-MA) "current position" on Iraq as a plan to "continue to pursue a strategy which has not been winning." Kristol also claimed that Kennedy's position was "incoherent" because it suggests that "[t]he war, under the supervision of [then-Defense] Secretary [Donald H.] Rumsfeld and General [John] Abizaid and General [George] Casey, has been going downhill" while at the same time arguing that "we've got to listen and defer to General Abizaid and General Casey."
Kristol appeared to be commenting on a statement Kennedy made earlier in the program during an interview with host Chris Wallace. Asked to comment on the proposal that the United States "surge another 50,000 troops into Iraq," Kennedy said, "We have heard in the Armed Services Committee, General Casey, General [Peter] Chiarelli and General Abizaid, who believe that adding additional troops would enhance and increase what they call the footprint and enhance the kinds of antagonisms against the United States forces at the present time." However, in endorsing the generals' claim that additional troops would not improve the situation in Iraq, Kennedy was not arguing in favor of continuing the current strategy, as Kristol suggested. Rather, Kennedy was using the generals' recommendations to bolster his claim that adding more troops is not the answer. As Kennedy said earlier in the broadcast, "I don't believe that that would stabilize the country, nor do I think it'll bring victory."
Kristol did not address the option of withdrawal, suggesting that the only available options were either to add more troops or keep troop levels the same -- a false choice. Kennedy was one of only 13 senators to vote for the so-called "Kerry amendment" to the National Defense Authorization Act, which called on President Bush to "redeploy, commencing in 2006, United States forces from Iraq by July 1, 2007." Additionally, a statement on Kennedy's website recommended that 2006 be "a year of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with the Iraqis assuming primary responsibility for securing and governing their country and with the responsible redeployment of U.S. forces."
From the December 17 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday:
WALLACE: Bill, I want to ask you about one aspect of this that [Fox News Washington bureau managing editor and fellow panelist] Brit [Hume] kind of referred to. You are clearly on record supporting the surge option. We know where General Kristol stands. But throughout this war, the president has always that said that he listens to his commanders on the ground. It came out again this week that General Abizaid -- the top U.S. commander in the Middle East -- General Casey -- the top commander of U.S. forces in Iraq -- have both expressed strong reservations about sending in more U.S. troops. How does the president now justify, if he's going to go this route, ignoring his commanders on the ground?
KRISTOL: Well, the war isn't going so well. I mean, this is what's incoherent about Senator Kennedy's position. His position is: the war is a disaster -- the war, under the supervision of Secretary Rumsfeld and General Abizaid and General Casey, has been going downhill -- but we've got to listen and defer to General Abizaid and General Casey.
WALLACE: I think he'd say you should listen to General Kennedy, who thought you'd never should have gotten into the war in the first place.
KRISTOL: Well, fair enough. But his current position, with 140,000 troops there, is that we should listen to the people -- follow the strategy -- continue to pursue a strategy which has not been winning. And that is not the president's view.
I think, with the departure of Secretary [Donald] Rumsfeld, the president decided a month ago, "I have to take charge of this war." He's ordered a thorough review of options, and it's a genuine review, I believe, led by Stephen Hadley in the White House, the national security adviser. They've looked at a whole bunch of options.
And I think the president believes that the option articulated especially by retired Army vice chief of staff Jack Keane, who was in the meeting with the president last Monday, that we can surge troops, and it will make an effect -- it will have an effect. It will stabilize Baghdad, it will give us a real chance to get the situation enough under control to allow the political process to begin again. I think the president is convinced that that's the way to go.
has Bill ever asserted anything honestly?
No.
This has been another edition of Simple Answers To Simple Questions.
zerosumgame0005 / Tuesday December 19, 2006 12:32:09 PM EST
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
From the WAPO article today -(Quoting the Joints Chiefs of Staff/pentagon officials) the White House "still does not have a defined mission and is latching on to the surge idea in part because of limited alternatives, despite warnings about the potential disadvantages for the military." (further in) "The service chiefs have warned that a short-term mission could give an enormous edge to virtually all the armed factions in IraqThe Pentagon has cautioned that a modest surge could lead to more attacks by al-Qaeda, provide more targets for Sunni insurgents and fuel the jihadist appeal for more foreign fighters to flock to Iraq to attack U.S. troops, the officials said.
The informal but well-armed Shiite militias, the Joint Chiefs have also warned, may simply melt back into society during a U.S. surge and wait until the troops are withdrawn -- then reemerge and retake the streets of Baghdad and other cities." Kristol has zero credibility. He should be mocked not listened too. During the summer 2006 we tried this surge tactic,(From Wikipedia-Operation Together Forward put about 70,000 troops into Bagdad mostly Iraqi) the US and Iraqi forces flooded Bagdad with large # of troops after the Shia mosque bombing. The result was that violence increased 22% (as per US). Gen. William Caldwell said: "Operation Together Forward has made a difference in the focus areas but has not met our overall expectations of sustaining a reduction in the levels of violence." October 2006 was the highest death toll for US troops for the year- the operation was ended October 24. So why does the White House, McCain and Kristol want this surge tactic? Well basically there are "limited alternatives", so what the hell we will try this bc its not "cutting and running" and John Wayne would be proud.
It's an undeniable tone to the rhetoric of the hack "media" (and the president himself) on the matter of Iraq:
It's all about "winning" and "losing" and "victory" and "failure"...
Consistantly speak of Iraq in those terms... keep everybody's back up on the matter... keep all good "Victory Loving" Americans confused on the matter.
Want to be a "Loser"... a "Failure"... want to "Lose" yet another "War", America?
I have the key right here, that de-ciphers the rhetoric for you, America.
Here it is:
The only "Loss", the only "Failure" that could possibly be described here, is the administration's failure to form a STABLE IRAQI GOVERNMENT in the place of the government they so maliciously plotted to invade...
...maliciously and deceptively (WMDs? al qeada links? 9-11 complicity?) plotted against the American People...
...and for no reasons whatsoever, involving the National Security of the American People.
That's the "Loss" and the "Failure" being truly spoken of here... of an administration that sacrifices the lives of our Sons and Daughters in Iraq, for no reason involving the National Security of the U.S. whatsoever.
It's no failure of the U.S. Armed Forces in Iraq... they have done all they can do in that place... they verified no WMDs... they toppled the "regime", captured hussein, killed and/or captured the legacy to his "regime", including his sons... they provided as much internal security to Iraq as they could, our Sons and Daughters in Iraq did, through the formation of an Iraqi national government, and the formation of a national assembly, and the ratification of a constitution...
And they, our Sons and Daughters in the U.S. Armed Forces in Iraq, have done all this (which is all they do), at a cost of 2,950 of their own lives...
They are VICTORIOUS in their mission, our U.S. Troops in Iraq are...
What more would the president (and his many "media" hacks) have them do?
How many more of our Sons and Daughters in Iraq would they sacrifice, for something that does not involve the National Security of the American People?
If you must speak of "Losing" and "Failure", at least be specific enough to say that it is the "Loss" or "Failure" of the administration, and of it's grand scheme of death and profit in Iraq...
Stop speaking of "Loss" and "Failure" as though you were speaking of the American People, or of the Sons and Daughters in Iraq...
...stop trying to confuse and confound the American People on this matter...
...it's a stain to their sacrifice, to attribute loss or failure to them, when they have done all they can do in that place...
THEY ARE VICTORIOUS IN IRAQ, OUR SONS AND DAUGHTERS ARE!
Bring them Home, for their well-deserved Homecoming!
...and admit, that the "Loss" and the "Failure" is the administration's (and their many hacks in the "media")...
...that what has been "Lost" and what has "Failed" is their grand scheme of death and profit in Iraq.
A grand scheme that has never involved the National Security of the American People at all.
The biggest failure in this whole mess was the failure of common sense when King George invaded Iraq for dubious political and personal reasons. It had NOTHING to do with our national security; of that I am convinced.
...and just as the invasion of Iraq was never truly a matter of National Security to the American People (which perhaps, tragically, it took an invasion to find out... to find out that there were no WMDs or al qeada links or 9-11 complicity... that those were all LIES told by the administration)...
...and just as the continued occupation of Iraq serves no National Security concern to the American People (how could it?)...
...this is just as certainly true:
That the U.S. Armed Forces in Iraq, our Sons and Daughters in Iraq, have done done their job VICTORIOUSLY...
That the administration (and their many hacks in the "media") should stop this insulting implication that there is some "Loss" or "Failure" militarily in Iraq...
There is not!
The U.S. Armed Forces in Iraq have done everything humanly possible that they can do in that place... and they deserve their Homecoming, safe and alive!
And the administration (and their many hacks in the "media") should stop advocating more deaths among our Sons and Daughters serving in Iraq, simply for...
...for what?
To save themselves the "political embarassment" of admitting that they sent our Sons and Daughters into harm's way in Iraq, for no reason of National Security whatsoever to the American People?
Or so as to simply keep the $8 billion per month flowing from the U.S. Treasury into the private accounts of the president's friends and family and supporters, Defense Contractors all!
It's a sick scheme of death and greed that kills our Sons and Daughters in Iraq...
It's a sick chorus of voices that these "media" hacks make (led by the sick authors of this greedy scheme)...
They think they're getting away with it undetected.
They got another think coming.
strategy that kristol and his PNAC buddies came up with?
it's eassy to play the blame game and dwell on who started what. Why can't you move forward and support our president?
Oh, sorry I forgot. You hate America.
BTW, only 5 persecuting days left in the War on Xmas.
The problem is the militia/sectarian violence and the Shias propensity to punish the Sunnis politically for all the past wrongs. Recently Maliki reached out and offered amnesty to ex-Baathists. Sunnis were interested but Maliki supposedly reneged on his earlier promises right before the meeting (Juan Cole thank you). The Sunnis boycotted the meeting. The US wants Maliki to crack down on Al-Sadr and the Mahdi Army, but that is his base. Does Bush ever admonish the evangelical right? No he panders to them. Iran is trying to establish a Southern Lebanon in Iraq, weak central govt/strong militias, bc they control and fund the strong Badr Corps militia. It is easier for extremist forces to pull the country apart . Bomb a mosque or a public square and wait for the reciprocate violence to self- perpetuate. Compare that to what groups have to do to pull the country together. Provide security, electricity, jobs, basic necessities, medicines, repair infrastructure-you get the picture. NYT headline today "Insurgents starve Capital of Electricity". So many criminal acts need to be investigated during Bremer's reign. A bunch of twenty something, sycophantic republicans in charge of nation building. Relevant experience not important. What is relevant is whether or not you support Bush. Some were asked for their opinion of Roe v. Wade decision. On top of all this you now have a well established criminal enterprises. Smuggled oil is their primary revenue (millions of dollars a day is stolen). These enterprises flourish in the absence of authority and are going to do everything in the power to make sure choas continues to reign.
Ted Kennedy's remarks do sometimes sound borderline "incoherent". Between his "uhs" every third or fourth word, and his unfinished thoughts/sentences, blending into the next, it is sometimes difficult to follow his choppy ramblings.
Having lived in Massachusetts for 25 plus years I've heard this guy speak probably MORE than some of you. He's been known to talk in circles...The guy is NOT a natural orator.
Since I didn't see Wallace's interview with Kennedy and MMFA left no link, I'll have to just guess how Kennedy presented his opinion. MAYBE it wasn't all that coherent.
Now having said THAT, Bill Kristol is one of the top 5 slimiest neocons. Even IF Kennedy's remarks were crystal clear [no pun intended] Bill Kristol would spin them.
I saw the interview. I know exactly what you're talking about with the eh's etc. but this was the most coherent I've seen Teddy in a long time. He more than held his own against Wallace. Kennedy was ridiculed two and a half years ago when he called Iraq George Bush's Vietnam. I think he's a little more on top of his game than he gets credit for.
one or two will stick. I relegate him( Kristol ) to background noise.
There are few media personalities that can make me madder than W. Kristol. Here's a guy who's all ideology and no clue. Al Frankin loves to play a tape of a Kristol interview, prior to the invasion, where he ridicules critics of the war for thinking that Shiites and Sunnis will end of warring against each other. He went so far as to suggest that it came from an anti-arab prejudice (though not in such words). What a buffoon. And Fox and others keep using him as an foriegn policy "expert".
But what really gets under my skin - besides his smarmy condescending tone - is the cavalier way he talks about adding more troops, by lengthening tours of duty and recalling NG troops. He's the CLASSIC chickenhawk. Never served. Wouldn't dream of it. If there's a hell, he's going there, and if the devil has any kind of imagination, he'll put a gun in Kristol's hand and send him into a hell-hole like Bagdad where he'll have to fight to survive for all ETERNITY.
What a prick.