Kristol falsely claimed Dems "renounce[] the use of force" against "jihadist Islamic threat"
On the February 4 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, Weekly Standard editor and Time magazine part-time columnist William Kristol falsely claimed that, in contrast with the Democratic presidential hopefuls, the Republican potential candidates "are all against renouncing the use of force in dealing with the jihadist Islamic threat." Discussing the 2008 presidential election, Kristol asked: "Do you want a party that renounces the use of force or do you want a party that's willing to use force?" However, no major Democratic presidential candidate has renounced "the use of force" in dealing with "the jihadist Islamic threat."
In fact, the top three 2008 Democratic potential presidential candidates -- Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY) and Barack Obama (IL), and former Sen. John Edwards (NC) -- have all stated that they favor an increase in the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan, where the Taliban is reportedly resurgent.
In a letter co-authored with Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN), Clinton declared the need to send more troops to Afghanistan upon returning from a trip to the region. The Hill reported:
According to Clinton and Bayh, military commanders in Afghanistan need about 2,300 more troops.
"The Taliban - and its al Qaeda partner - remains a pernicious enemy, and a failure to defeat it decisively in the spring risks undermining public confidence in the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai," Bayh and Clinton wrote in a letter to [Defense Secretary Robert] Gates. "It would be tragic if we fail in Afghanistan because of an unwillingness to deploy a manageable size of additional troops to aid an important and willing ally during a time of true need."
Similarly, on the February 4 edition of NBC's Meet the Press, when asked by host Tim Russert about his proposal to withdraw 40,000 troops from Iraq, Edwards stated: "Some American men and women should come home, some should go into Kuwait, some should go into Afghanistan," where he described the war effort as "moving south, unfortunately." Edwards added that, as president, he would "keep an able [troop] presence in the Persian Gulf."
Additionally, Obama has made clear his intentions to pursue victory in Afghanistan through increased military presence in that country. In a speech to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs in November 2006 titled "A Way Forward in Iraq," Obama said that by "redeploying from Iraq to Afghanistan, we will answer NATO's call for more troops and provide a much-needed boost to this critical fight against terrorism."
From the February 4 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday:
CHRIS WALLACE (host): Yesterday, down in South Carolina, he talked to an AP reporter and said, quote, "There's a real good chance," end quote, that he will. Two questions: One, do you think that Rudy Giuliani will actually get into this race? And secondly, can he overcome his stands on, you know, social issues -- pro-gun control, pro-choice, pro-gay rights -- particularly with the Republican conservative base?
KRISTOL: Yes, he will run, I believe. I mean, I've talked to people close to him just this last week. They're doing a lot of briefings. The fundraising is moving ahead. I think he intends to run and most likely will run.
Two, he may be able to overcome enough of these problems. Well, he certainly is a competitive candidate for the nomination. He and McCain are clearly the two leading candidates.
And I think -- and the conventional wisdom is well, once he gets in the race and everyone learns that he's pro-choice, and has a different view on gay rights and has been pro-gun control, that his support will collapse. I'm not so sure. This is a war election, as we were just talking about the Democrats. The Democrats are going to be the anti-war party. McCain, Giuliani, Romney are all for -- are all against renouncing the use of force in dealing with the jihadist Islamic threat.
I mean, that's what this election's going to come down to. Do you want a party that renounces the use of force or do you want a party that's willing to use force?
"Do you want a party that renounces the use of force or do you want a party that's willing to use force?"
At the moment, first I'd want a media that spoke the truth instead of making up insulting bullsh*t like Kristol's. Ever hear of Afghanistan, Kristol? I heard a few Democrats were in favor of going in there after the people who were responsible for knocking down those two buildings in Manhattan. I think that was reported in most newspapers... oh, nevermind, most newspapaers are liberally biased.
Irony,
When you hear/read some of the idiocy spouted by Kristol, it becomes doubly frightening when you consider that he and others of his ilk are close advisors to Duhhbya and his Gang That Couldn't Think Staight.
Bill Kristol is a war whore.
As long as none of *HIS* family or buddies have to go get shot at.
I watch C-Span, and I've been seeing this guy frank luntz on there of late... he's being promoted in some way I guess, for a book scam or simply as a hack for the administration.
He's being billed as some kind of "language guru" as best I can tell... he's the brains (or so he claims) behind all the extraordinary words the administration puts forth, in their attempts to mask and confuse you from seeing clearly, their schemes.
This guy luntz didn't invent the word "freedom", or "war" or "terror" or "enemy" (favored words by our administration), but somebody came up with "war on terror" (reduced from "global war on terror" for reasons I'm not sure of)...
Is that this guy, I wonder... did he coin "war on terror"?
Somebody had to... just like the term "cold war", it didn't invent itself, but must have had somebody think it up... somebody wanting to sell you such a thing.
We have the same kind of confusion, and the same kind of salesmenship, with this nonsense of...
"jihadist Islamic threat"
I wonder who came up with that one... and do they still use the term "Islamo-fascists" or did that one get laughed off the pages of the funny papers?
I'd like to think that we have people on watch, protecting us against the type of murderous saudis who attacked us on September 11, 2001...
I'd like to think they don't waste their time talking about the "jihadist Islamic threat" or "Islamo-fascists" or other stupid words...
...stupid words that worthless hacks like luntz think up, and kristol repeats.
Frank Luntz...
To the best of my recollection, Frank Luntz is the Republican pollster who worked with Newt Gingrich and Haley Barbour in the 1994 Republican campaign for the takeover of the 104th Congress. The famous "Contract With America' campaign was punctuated by the Republican's use of focus-tested words and phrases designed to demonize their Democratic Party opponents. Luntz was the Republican word guy... (I hope my memory is correct... maybe someone can help me out if I'm wrong.)
you are correct
Of course, these well-crafted words and phrases are not meant to inform, but persuade and mislead... in as vague terms as possible, to avoid making a detailed account of what it is being said... and at the same time to even take advantage of the vague notions and undetailed opinions the American People might already have.
So we have "jihadist Islamic threat" and "Islamo-fascism" and other foolish terms that would never be uttered by any watchful soldier or sensible law enforcement officer doing their job...
...but are idiot words and phrases uttered incessantly by our administration and the "media" hacks who serve them... an administration in command of our soldiers and at the top of our law enforcement.
I have an idea.
Whenever they say "jihadist Islamic threat" (or even "Islamo-fascism") in discussing the "terror threat" against the American People, then you should force the discussion into a more detailed and specific analysis:
"To what degree might this 'jihadist Islamic threat' be associated with any foreign government? I mean, what foreign government is it that either actively funds and directs such a threat, or otherwise simply harbors within their borders that threat?" you should ask (as all persons in this world live within the borders of some identifiable nation).
What answer will be given to such a specific question?
Whether or not any specific answer is given, you should take the lead in forcing the argument, and suggest possible answers:
"Syria?" you'd ask... "or Iran maybe? Or even Iraq possibly?"
...all as a matter of bait, so that you may suggest as a possible foreign government that might actively fund and direct, or otherwise simply harbor within their borders, the vaguely stated "jihadist Islamic threat"...
All as a way of ultimately asking:
"Saudi Arabia?"
"Is Saudi Arabia in any way what is meant by this vague thing called a 'jihadist Islamic threat'?"
All of which will make the likes of kristol squirm and blush and sputter and evade...
All of which is invitation for you to point out:
That the only "terror attack" of any sort, against the American People on U.S. soil, by anything that might otherwise be vaguely referred to as a "jihadist Islamic threat", was not financed and directed by any such vaguely and stupidly worded thing...
But that the attacks of September 11, 2001 were financed and directed by the Saudi "royal" family (you know, the president's "good friends" and business partners), and not something called a "jihadist Islamic threat"...
...or at least that's what the Joint Congressional Inquiry's Report on the attacks of September 11, 2001 says...
...the Findings and Conclusions (Part Four) of which you could read yourself, were it not for the fact that the president has classified those Findings and Conclusions of that Inquiry's Report...
...on behalf of his "good friends" and business partners, the Saudi "royal" family.
Nice post, Dem.
Much appreciated and thanks Rusty... the dialogue on this issue ("terror" and 9-11 and Iraq), which is the very matter of prime concern to the American People (the Constitutionally-mandated matters of Justice and our common defense)...
...is too lax right now... too lost in the nonsense of '08 so early (too lost in the he said/she said foot-in-mouth nonsense, over-ripe and sickening in all seasons, especially so early in this cycle), so early in this "media" distractionary nonsense that so disserves the American People...
It's not going away (it being so foul).
We're not going away either (we being so concerned for our land America, and our Sons and Daughters for whom we farm it)...
...We the People shall not shirk our responsibilty to our land, and to the Blessings of Liberty, to ourselves and our Posterity (our Sons and Daughters)...
A Constitutional obligation... it's not going away...
Nor are We.
As a relative high-point of this sick and manipulative use of language on this issue, we have the Secretary of the DOD making reference to the record-breaking DOD portion of the budget just submitted by president George W. Bush...
We have Secretary Gates referring to yours (and mine and Congress's) reaction to that budget submission as...
STICKER SHOCK
My LORD... now they are trying to manipulate our reaction to this monsterous scheme of lies and greed and death in Iraq...
...to the purchase of an automobile.
My LORD, Save Us from this...
Please LORD.
"Do you want a party that renounces the use of force or do you want a party that's willing to use force?"
What a dumbass question. How about asking for a party that can decide wisely and nobly when to use force and when to use restraint.
How about this question, "Do you want a TV pundit with an ounce of sanity or someone like Kristol who lost their marbles long ago?"
Kristol has been in the Cristal again. No, sorry, smoking crack again. Hold it, must be crystal meth again. I'm starting to believe that all these whore pundits get together somewhere and get strung out before they get on TV so they can sell this stuff. When you're rich like that, you do get access to the real good stuff. Plus they probably take a few tokes of the super secret, classified, customized hallucinogens that the gov't puts together so that they all can stay on message. You watch what happens, Kristol is going to get busted with coke on the nose and a hoochie in his shorts shouting "stay the course!, conservatism rules!, Bush is right!, I wanna have his baby!, please Condi let me share, I'll be good!"
This is originating from someone who is working for the " Weekly standard " advertising themselves as required reading in the this White House and beholden to a Murdoch paycheck..
Kristol's question kinda reminds me of Sean Hannity...
HANNITY: Do you favor being a patriotic American by staying in Iraq as long as it takes to win the war... or do you favor dishonoring our brave troops by traitorously cutting and running? Yes or no!!
GUEST: Well, what do you mean by...?
HANNITY: YOU'RE DUCKING THE QUESTION!!!
What are we supposed to expect from Kristol? Has he been right even a single time about ANYTHING other than his name since the march to this disasterous invasion began?
Interesting that our Troglodyte friends haven't bothered to defend this one. I guess some lies are too big for even them to embrace.
kristol has been losing it lately. his statements are becoming outlandish.
and as far as "renounce" force. condi rice told the 9-11 commission in 2004 that she did not think "it would have been a good thing to respond to the cole".
"War whore"....I love it. Kristol is dangerously insane, he thinks war is fun, and he's the head cheerleader. Using force for the right reasons is good, but using force to advance some kind of imperial ambition, to dismantle a constitution and/or bill of rights, or to distract from domestic problems is bad. This administration's reasoning and true objectives behind its use of force to invade, occupy and destroy Iraq is disgusting, and cheering for a continuance of the same mind set is demented. After all, it's no skin off their nose; it's not their sons, husbands or fathers whose lives are being thrown away for partisan politics. Besides, war is good for business. I want a party that doesn't lie, cheat and steal, Nowadays in the USA, is there such a thing?
Yeah, there is...the Greens. But for some reason the majority of the voters seem intent on keeping the same old crooks and crazies in power and finding excuses NOT to vote for the good guys.
Since none of the trolls want to touch this one, I'll pretend to be one.
All liberals are hippy beatnecks, who want to hug Bin Laden. Logic hurts dosn't it, liberal stupidheads! And Olbermann's ratings are low, and Talk America has problems. Finally affirmative action is racist because it points out that minorities even exist.
Did I do a good job?
Outstanding. There is now no need for several of our recent trolls to waste their time.
"Did I do a good job?"
No, you forgot to mention that global warming is liberal hog wash. I know global warming has nothing to do with this thread but to play the role of the right wing troll you must make irrelevant and irrational statements.
You're welcome... ;>)
Sorry Irony, I forgot all about Global Warming and how its a liberal lie to weaken troop moral and embolden our enemies.
Also lets not foget that liberals also spend weekends driving illegal immigrants over the boarder. Because we all know that illegal immigrants are more likely to vote for the liberal Democrats (I believe one troll posted something like that in the past). Also that the Clinton administration purchased the tickets for the 9/11 islamofacists to bomb us.
No Dem guys are just against preemptive strikes againist a country posing no threat.
They also don't want our troops to be used to prop up weak governments. They also don't want the troops to be in the middle of a Civil War.
Kristol and all his PNAC pals are busy running for cover for putting us in the position of not being able to move forewards nor backwards in Iraq.
In other words, any failure is due to everybody else in either implementing or opposing the effort, not those who thought it up in the first place.
America never will be, nor want to be, the Wehrmacht.
Do you want a party that renounces the use of force or do you want a party that's willing to use force?
The real question is...Do you want to continue with the party that has f***ed up everything it has touched or do you want a new direction?
"Did I do a good job?"
================================================
Excellent work, McCain. Leatherhelmet and the rest of the motley crew can take the day off now.
Seems like for the past few weeks that there has been a variation on the same conversation on Faux News Sunday. Bill Kristol will say something really crazed about Iraq or the politics involved with Iraq, Juan Williams will call him out on it and usually get a few points in, and then Hume will jump in and get all huffy and condescending, basically telling Juan he doesn't understand what he is talking about or what is really going on in Iraq.
Let's also not forget that we hate Jesus, America, capitalism, and want to murder innocent stem cells.
What I really hate is "family."
Yes Rusty,
I'm still trying to find the Anti-Family Caucus, so I as a true liberal can join. I mean, by having pro-family conservatives, where are the anti-family Democrats?
You don't have to look far, just find the local aclu meeting and they'll all be there.
No you wont, that baseless assertion is an outright lie. Nothing more than biased nonsense
ka KA ka KA.......RIGHT WING PARROTS....KA-THE aclu ARE EVIL...KAka - Democrats are soft on security...Kaka...Bill O'Reilly fights for the little guy...Kaka..Geroge W Bush has a sharp intellect...Kaka...William Kristol is a serious journalist..Kaka- good parrot, Proud Christian....polly gets a cracker.......for President.
See, if I had said what you just said, I would be called a "troll". You get to be considered a hero for saying anti Christian sentiments. You must be proud of your ability to sway the audience. But, otherwise you still have nothing to add other than troll material.
" that baseless assertion is an outright lie"
Oh? Show me an instance where the aclu promotes family values, (and getting abortion-on-demand is not a family value). Until you can show me that, your strawman complaint is invalid. The person asked for an "Anti-Family Caucus" that "a true liberal can join" and I gave him/her an example. You will only find "true liberals" in the aclu. It's not my fault you aren't excited about the truth.
Actually using the Republican conservative model I have developed the qualifications for an anti-family liberal candidate:
1. Married for 5+ years, in a stable relaitonship (Childern, at least 2-3)
2. Has never cheated on spouse
3. Never used drugs (except maybe in college or to experiment once or twice), rarely drinks (if at all)
4. Has never stolen or taken bribes
5. Does not believe we should send anyone's child into a useless fake war, to advance thier political careers or establish a "legacy"
6.Believes that the majority should not vote on the rights of the minority, believes in equality for all families (even those that do not look like his/her own)
7. Believes that all childern should have quality (no, excellent) educational opertunities (not based on money or family ties).
So that is the ultimate anti-family liberal political figure.
" ....have all stated that they favor an increase in the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan, where the Taliban is reportedly resurgent "
Hilary has come out and said she will get US troops out of Iraq. Is the jihadist Islamic threat no longer present in Iraq? What about the rest of the world? Isn't that threat posed in many countries? They are only worried about ONE country, it sounds like they are renouncing the use of force to me. It sounds like they are scared to fight the war on terror (terrorized if you will) and will only support the war in Afganistan because it is "popular" to support the war in Afganistan.
And it sounds to me like you just want to see as many Americans killed in Iraq as possible and dont really care if it serves any purpose as long as you can bask in the vicarious glory of war glorious war. See how easy it is to just assign venal motives? That is why it is worthless to just make such baseless assertions. Is it that hard to see we find the use of military power in IRAQ as counterproductive? Afghanistan is different because they WERE involved in the 9/11 attacks on us and thus there is a justification. Even the Arab world wasnt up in arms about that. Invading Iraq who was NOT a threat to us is a different kettle of fish which is why Bush had to LIE to drum up support for that invasion. We arent doing anything productive there in terms of fighting terrorism. They werent even THERE before we invaded. In fact if the point is extremist jihadist terrorists then invading the most SECULAR Islamic nation in the region was pure insanity. We are inflaming the entire region and helping to destabalize it. We are creating extremists faster than we are killing them and the Iraqis themselves want us GONE.
" Afghanistan is different because they WERE involved in the 9/11 attacks on us and thus there is a justification. "
I thought most liberals claimed it was the Saudi's that were behind the attack on 9/11. Haven't even you said all 19 of the terrorists (directly involved) were Saudi? Why is it that Afganistan is the "just" war and removing a corrupt/murdering dictator (with demonstrative assurances of WMD's from democratic leaders of the previous administration) is considered an "un-just" war? Where are your calls for attacking Saudi Arabia instead of fighting in Afganistan?!
"We arent doing anything productive there in terms of fighting terrorism. They werent even THERE before we invaded. "
You're right, we should just pack up and leave Iraq in the capable hands of the Iraqi government. It's obvious they can handle the situation themselves. After all they still have the Iraqi Republican Guard protecting Bagdad. Oh, wait, aren't they the ones fighting against us? Well, so much for them not being there before we invaded. Any more strawman arguements?