The Dishonorable Kristol
From The Raw Story, here’s neocon Bill Kristol bashing Republican dissenters yesterday on Fox News Sunday: “The idea that they will get credit for deserting the war at this point, they voted for the war, they voted to fund the war, now they’re going to what? Vote for withdrawal, for surrender… It’s a ridiculous political calculation, as well as dishonorable one. The Democrats are behaving terribly, but the Republicans are behaving foolishly.”
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
Republicans who are now fed up with the Iraq War aren’t looking for “credit,” they’re looking to cover their asses heading into ’08. They know already that the war is a losing issue for them. As political calculation, it’s not “ridiculous,” it’s sensible. Voters may not accept what they view as convenient conversion, but abandoning the disastrous status quo is, it seems to me, a risk worth taking. Is it “dishonorable”? Perhaps, if what is driving the dissent is pure political calculation. Where were many of the dissenters back when the war was not yet the losing issue it is today? Still, it would be even more dishonorable to continue to support the status quo — that is, Bush’s war — no matter what. Better dissent, whatever the motivation, than groupthink.
I am tired of repeating myself, but withdrawal is not surrender. That withdrawal is surrender is just the desperate pro-war talking point, and Kristol and his ilk repeat it ad nauseam. Having been wrong about pretty much everything, all they can do now is dismiss the dissent and smear the dissenters. Whenever Kristol opens his mouth to spew this sort of nonsense, all we get is more evidence of his own dishonorable failure.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
15 Responses to “The Dishonorable Kristol”
Its really frustrating that some on the right think that because they voted for the war initially under false pretenses, a politician is obligated to stick by the president regardless of what comes after. Even if the key selling points of that war proved to be groundless and likely massaged, even if the handling of the war’s afterwmath resulted in an Iraqi civil war that we ultimately have little say in.
“You were tricked into voting yes! You can’t back out now you damn librul flip flopper!”
If you apply the paraphrasing of Clausewitz “War is a continuation of politics by other means.” then withdrawl is surrender. When you leave the battlefield in the hands of your opposition and you give them exactly what they want, that is surrender.
What you are really arguing is that, in realpolitik terms, surrender is the lowest cost option for the United States and will have the lowest impact in the long run. However, even a dove like Senator Obama keeps trying to hedge his bets when he says he supports withdrawl but wants to continue training missions, maintain an embassy, and keep up support operations.
The public square has turned into a garbage dump. We are in a deadly serious situation, and it’s being addressed in tersm of insulting opponents.
Rice, in her ivterview with Charlie Rose, spun half-truths for macimum effect, instead of addressing the mess in realistic terms.
I’ll start taking Kristol and Rice seriously, the minute they admit the war was a tragic mistake and we are in a damage control mode. Short of htat, I have no more patience for the noises they make.
This is pure Kristol.
He is a committed warmonger. His allegiance isn’t to the Republican Party but to his vision of benevolent hegemony–a utopian vision that holds war as the answer to America’s problems. Republican support for the Iraq War cannot continue forever, and soon Kristol will and his fellow hawks at the Weekly Standard will find themselves very much alone.
I’ve read an interview in which Kristol implied that he would abandon the Republican Party in a second if the Republican’s retreated from the bellicose foreign policy that he envisions for America. Thus, it’s no surprise that Kristol would lambast moderate Republicans who are voicing their reservations about the war.
Mark my words. Once Bush is out of office and the war is proven to have been a complete disaster in the eyes of the American people, Kristol and his fellow neoconservatives will turn on Bush and blame him for the failure of the war while refusing to accept any of the blame themselves. Richard Perle has already taken a step in this direction, distancing himself from the war and blaming Bush for its execution.
Bill Kristol has been wrong repeatedly about his prognostications about the Iraq War, and yet Fox News continues to turn to him as if he were some kind of foreign policy expert. Worse, Kristol never shows even the slightest bit of remorse for how wrong he was in his predictions.
Being a war-monger means never having to say you’re sorry.
I find Bill Kristol to be no more dishonorable than much of the Left. I’m a center-left Democrat and I’m not happy with what Congress is doing.
Many of the attacks on so-called Neocons boil down to Anti-Semitism.
Holly if Kristol was an atheist, he still is a war monger. I give him credit, he supported Clinton during the Bosnia War when Republicans “attacked the CinC during a war”.
Many of the attacks on the neocons rightly addresses their utopian view of force concerning foreign policy. Most things look good on paper. I think what nicrivera says is exactly right. Once Bush is gone they will lambaste him for his mishandling of poor decisions – in the end they will continue to say it was a worthwhile endeavor. This scape-goating will be similar to communist and socialist’s claim that proper communism or social was never fully attempted which is why it did succeed (not surprisingly, many neocons are former hard left idealists).
correction… which is why it didn’t succeed
I find Bill Kristol to be no more dishonorable than much of the Left. I’m a center-left Democrat and I’m not happy with what Congress is doing.
I wish you’d stop claiming to be something you’re not.
The only reason a real center-leftie would be unhappy with Congress is because it’s not doing MORE to oppose Bush’s war.
The only reason a real center-leftie would be unhappy with Congress is because it’s not demanding the troops be breought home, pronto.
The only reason YOU are unhappy with Congress is because you’re still in favor of the war, and in favor of Bush’s “strategy” for fighting it. You want Congress to be MORE supportive of Bush, not less.
First of all, let’s not exaggerate our own sphere of interest here.
Normal people were out taking their mothers to breakfast, not watching talking heads….on any station.
And, what would a poll say if the question were, “Who is Bill Kristol?”
Answers: comedian 15%
neocon pundit 1%
dunno 84%
While he may stir the emotions of a few, his statements are hardly going to resonate through to any voting booths.
Holly,
Claiming ‘anti-semitism’ , like crying ‘wolf’ too often can backfire.
Many resent it when they are made to feel that no criticism of any Jew can be legitimate. Then comes the backlash of overcompensating via overcriticizing.
Creating idols also creates the urge to knock them down from their pedestals.
Kirstol is Kristol. He has willingly publicized his views and his standing in the public square. I think he was wrong about the war and continues to be wrong, and I didn’t think about his religion or ethnicity until you brought it up.
Holly – Shush!
Holly-My criticisms of the neocons have to do with disagreements on their idea of American hegemony, not their religion. Thousands of soldiers are involved in something that nobody knows how to end, we have wasted billions and will be paying for the consequences of their ideas for many years. The Iraqi people are paying the price right now- 2 million of them are now penniless refugees, hundreds of thousands more are dead.
I refuse to feel like an antisemite for disliking them and their ideas. Most of my dislike is for Bush, Cheney, Condi and Rumsfeld who are not Jewish .Anyway it would be self-hatred, since I’m half-Jewish and have a Jewish husband. I have heard this same argument on right-wing talk shows and it makes as little sense now as it did then. Its like saying that you must be prejudiced against blacks if you don’t support Barack Obama. I will not vote for anyone who can’t see past their ideology to find real world solutions.
“Many of the attacks on so-called Neocons boil down to Anti-Semitism.”
Holly, *sigh* it isn;t always about someones tribal origins, or religion ok? This guy is a freakin evil moron, and so are the PNAC people of which unfortunately most are Jewish. Some evil ass will use the fact of that for hate, but around here we see PNAC for what it is….a giant collection of New World Order evil morons.
” Semitic (from the Biblical “Shem”, Hebrew: ש×, translated as “name”, Arabic: ساميّ) was first used to refer to a language family of largely Middle Eastern origin, now called the Semitic languages. This family includes the ancient and modern forms of Amharic, Arabic, Aramaic, Akkadian, Ge’ez, Hebrew, Maltese, Tigre and Tigrinya among others.
As language studies are interwoven with cultural studies, the term also came to describe the extended cultures and ethnicities, as well as the history of these varied peoples as associated by close geographic and linguistic distribution. The late 19th century term “anti-Semitism” came to be used in reference specifically to anti-Jewish sentiment, further complicating the understood meaning and boundaries of the term.”
Your use of the term “anti-semitic” is actually dishonest as well.
Holly,
Accusing people who criticize neoconservatives of “Anti-Semitism” is getting old. It’s like calling critics of the war “Anti-American.” The “Anti-Semitism” attack is a tactic used by those who support the war but cannot defend their positions.
Neoconservatism is a political ideology–not a religion. The fact that you automatically associate neoconservatism with being Jewish is ridiculous. The majority of Jewish-Americans oppose the Iraq War as well as the neoconservative philosophy. I’ve stated this a number of times and given links to national polls to prove this point.
As far as Bill Kristol goes–he’s repeatedly been wrong regarding the Iraq War. His Weekly Standard wrote several stories about WMD’s, yellowcake from Niger, and connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaida that turned out to be false. Do you deny this, Holly?
Dishonorable, Holly? Our government invaded a third-world country that posed no threat to us and misled the American people in the process.
What has the anti-war Left done that’s even comparable to that in terms of “dishonor”?
What has the anti-war Right done that even’s comparable to that in terms of “dishonor”?
What have anti-war Libertarians done that’s even comparable to that in terms of “dishonor”?