Bill Kristol: Completely and Tragically Wrong

Bill Kristol or William Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard, is one of those Ivory Tower-never-served-in-the-military neo-cons that cheered and pushed for the US invasion of Iraq (see some other Chickenhawks here). Yet, Billy Kristol is fond of sending other people’s kids to war; so much so, in fact, that his Fox News co-commentator, Juan Williams, jokingly refers to Kristol as "The General" and questions his over reliance on military force.

With that in mind, why is Billy "The General" Kristol taken seriously anyway? Of course, the so-called liberal media must find hour-upon-endless-hour of jabbering heads to fill their precious airtime, so they gladly hand the mike over to "The General" — he’s always got a war to sell, which makes for neat content.

But, isn’t it about time that more people conclude as Alex Koppelman concludes here? Alex Koppelman writes:

Bill Kristol is rarely unsure about anything; Sunday was no exception. Appearing on "Fox News Sunday," Kristol told host Chris Wallace that "the notion that a retreat in Iraq would not embolden terrorists elsewhere in the Middle East, and terror recruiters in the suburbs of London, is ludicrous… It’s just factually true that our pulling out of Iraq will be bad for us in the global war on terror."

Now, I can’t say for sure that Kristol is wrong. What I can say for sure is that we have absolutely no basis to believe Kristol was right. Kristol, after all, has a long track record of getting Iraq completely, and tragically, wrong. In April of 2003, he went on NPR’s "Fresh Air" to say:

On this issue of the Shia in Iraq, I think there’s been a certain amount of, frankly, Terry, a kind of pop sociology in America that, you know, somehow the Shia can’t get along with the Sunni and the Shia in Iraq just want to establish some kind of Islamic fundamentalist regime. There’s almost no evidence of that at all. Iraq’s always been very secular.

Good one, Bill.

In February of 2003, he and Lawrence Kaplan told the National Review’s Kathryn Jean Lopez that "having defeated and then occupied Iraq, democratizing the country should not be too tall an order for the world’s sole superpower."

That one’s turned out well.

Yet Fox still considers Kristol a legitimate pundit on the subject. Why, for God’s sake? He has absolutely no experience or knowledge relevant to the subject. And again and again he has proven that any opinion coming from his mouth on the subject will be proven wrong.

The right’s media critics have made it their mission to call for the regulation of the media by means of attacking the First Amendment, threatening those of us in the press who dare to do our jobs with the threat of violence. Maybe it’s time for the rest of us to call for a little media regulation of our own, to ask that our pundits have some sort of license to spew, or at the very least have the ability to prove they know what the hell they’re talking about. At the moment, the ability to produce a quick, uncomplicated talking point seems to be the only qualification.

Go read Alex Koppelman over at the HuffingtonPost.com, he’s got more to say.

Imus and His Soft Belly Bitches

No wonder I loathe — yes, loathe! — these asses… all conservative and reactionary pansies that mistake their bravado for actual courage.

Here you have these middle aged, soft bellied men in the comfort of their air conditioned radio studio in some American metropolis — thousands of miles away from any danger — casting the first stone against journalist Jill Carroll, after she was released from her 82 day captivity by terrorists in Iraq. Here you have a young woman that spent the last 82 days believing that every day would be her last, fully aware of the fate that many other kidnap victims met — from a quick bullet to the head, to decapitation. However, according to these three poor examples of manhood and Americanism, she was not traumatized enough nor did she damn her kidnappers enough to meet their satisfaction. So, of course, as conservatives do, they resorted to destroying her character and questioning her patriotism, and allegiance. These bastards never took even one second to empathize with Jill, a woman that saw her companion and translator be murdered at the start of her ordeal and, too, a woman that must have wondered whether she would live to see her family again. Am truly pissed that these motherfuckers even think that it’s okay to say all that they said about a person that’s just spent 82 days being held by murderers and thugs:

There was a shocking segment earlier today on the popular radio/television show “Imus In The Morning.” Watch this exchange between Executive Producer Bernard McGuirk and Don Imus’ sidekick Charles McCord.

[...]

Some lowlights:

MCGUIRK: She strikes me as the kind of woman who would wear one of those suicide vests. You know, walk into the — try and sneak into the Green Zone.

IMUS: Oh, no. No, no, no, no.

MCCORD: Just because she always appears in traditional Arab garb and wearing a burka.

MCGUIRK: Yeah, what’s with the head gear? Take it off. Let’s see.

…

MCCORD: Exactly. She cooked with them, lived with them.

IMUS: This is not helping.

MCGUIRK: She may be carrying Habib’s baby at this point.

…

IMUS: She could. It’s not like she was representing the insurgents or the terrorists or those people.

MCCORD: Well, there’s no evidence directly of that –

IMUS: Oh, gosh, you better shut up!

…

MCGUIRK: She’s like the Taliban Johnny or something.

[...]

Some lowlights:

MCGUIRK: She strikes me as the kind of woman who would wear one of those suicide vests. You know, walk into the — try and sneak into the Green Zone.

IMUS: Oh, no. No, no, no, no.

MCCORD: Just because she always appears in traditional Arab garb and wearing a burka.

MCGUIRK: Yeah, what’s with the head gear? Take it off. Let’s see.

…

MCCORD: Exactly. She cooked with them, lived with them.

IMUS: This is not helping.

MCGUIRK: She may be carrying Habib’s baby at this point.

…

IMUS: She could. It’s not like she was representing the insurgents or the terrorists or those people.

MCCORD: Well, there’s no evidence directly of that –

IMUS: Oh, gosh, you better shut up!

…

MCGUIRK: She’s like the Taliban Johnny or something.

Thanks to ThinkProgress.org for bringing these asses to our attention — you can read the full transcripts and view the video clips from ThinkProgress.org here and here.

Now, a day after obtaining her freedom, Jill has released a personal statement that more accurately describes her experience — now, will these asses have big enough balls to apologize… will these poor excuses for men be, in fact, men and own up to their mistakes, or will they cower like the pampered soft bellied limp dicks that they are?

Here’s Jill in her own voice:

I’m so happy to be free and am looking forward to spending a lot of time with my family. I want to express my deep appreciation to all the people who worked so long and hard for my release. I am humbled by the sympathy and support expressed by so many people during my kidnapping.

In the past few days, the U.S. military and officials have been extremely generous, and I am grateful for their help. Throughout this ordeal, many U.S. agencies have committed themselves to bringing me safely home.

[...]

So many people around the world spoke out on my behalf.
Thank you, all of you.

During my last night of captivity, my captors forced me to participate in a propaganda video. They told me I would be released if I cooperated. I was living in a threatening environment, under their control, and I wanted to go home alive. So I agreed.

Things that I was forced to say while captive are now being taken by some as an accurate reflection of my personal views. They are not. The people who kidnapped me and murdered Alan Enwiya are criminals, at best. They robbed Alan of his life and devastated his family. They put me, my family and my friends - all those around the world - who have prayed so fervently for my release through a horrific experience. I was, and remain, deeply angry with the people who did this.

I also gave a TV interview to the Iraqi Islamic Party shortly after my release. The party had promised me the interview would never be broadcast or aired on television, and they broke their word. At any rate, fearing retribution from my captors, I did not speak freely. Out of fear I said I wasn’t threatened. In fact, I was threatened many times.

Also, at least two false statements about me have been widely aired: One, that I refused to travel and cooperate with the U.S. military and two, that I refused to discuss my captivity with U.S. officials. Again, neither statement is true.

I want to be judged as a journalist, not as a hostage. I remain as committed as ever to fairness and accuracy - to discovering the truth - and so I will not engage in polemics. But let me be clear: I abhor all who kidnap and murder civilians, and my captors are clearly guilty of both crimes.

Now, I ask for the time to heal. This has been a taxing 12 weeks for me and for my family. Please allow us some quiet time alone, together.

To Imus and his locker room bitches (I include Imus in this condemnation because he did not speak up when he could have), first, apologize to Jill and to your listeners for distorting the record; and, then, when you have the balls to go to Iraq and bring your radio program from outside the green zone, get kidnapped and are later released 82 days after being adducted, only then will you all deserve and have the legitimacy to stand in the same room as Jill Carroll.

No WMD: “Gone as Far as Feasible”

We’ve known for a while that, in fact, there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq – just as the UN weapons inspectors had warned the Bush administration prior to the invasion and, in spite of the lies used by Bush & Co. to sell their war of choice, just as millions of people around the world had suspected all along. Now, however, it is absolutely final (Associated Press - April 25, 2005):

Of course, the latest finding on the lack of WMD in Iraq will not stop the Bush & Co. supporters, the Republican loyalists and other fellow Chickenhawks* from continuing to support their lame duck president’s war of choice in Iraq.

Finally, I agree with Kos, it’s time for the Chickenhawk Bush loyalists to atone:

* Chickenhawk n. A person enthusiastic about war, provided someone else fights it; particularly when that enthusiasm is undimmed by personal experience with war; most emphatically when that lack of experience came in spite of ample opportunity in that person’s youth.