Proof that Bill Kristol is a Windbag
October 6th, 2006

In 2003, just as the Iraq War was starting, our old friend William Kristol was busy belittling and mocking anyone who would dare to question the official neoconservative view that the Iraq war would be a cakewalk. Here is is making fun of Terri Gross on NPR, when Terri asks whether an Iraq War could get messy:

“There’s been a certain amount of pop sociology in America, that 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.” [National Public Radio, 4/1/03] [Listen Here]

I see. So if, instead of relying on “pop sociology,” those foolish peacenik hippies had simply read Kristol’s Weekly Standard, they would have realized the obvious truth: that a War in Iraq would be clean, simple, and cheap. Thanks Bill!

Posted in Politics by Adam
RSS 2.0
Jeffrey
November 8th, 2006

Your comments regarding Iraq and Bill Kristol are beyond sophomoric they belie a partisan bias that borders on insanity. No one in the neo conservative movement stated Iraq would be a cakewalk. That being said the post conventional military reconstruction phase of O.I.F. would have been a lot easier without neo liberal hijacked DNC obstructionism. Such difficulties in large part due to the fact that democrat obstructionism undermined the timely manner of the United States applying the conventional military phase of operation Iraqi freedom. It was the DNC that caterwauled about the United States going to the United Nations (a collaborative body populated by dishonest / hostile state actors). A United Nations populated by state actors (Russia, China, France and Germany) that not only had vested fiscal interest in the previous Bath’s regime in Iraq to the tune of billions of dollars from the oil for food program but who publicly stated for the past 10 years (that would be before this administration got into office) that they would do ANYTHING to undermine the United States Unipolar moment. It was the DNC who squawked about collaborative approaches regarding national security / global stability in attempts to not seem weak on defense and make their obstructionism more palatable.

The result of DNC obstructionism was to afford Sadam time to disperse his Fedayeen Sadam terror troop’s centers of gravity meld them into the indigenous populace to fight a low intensity guerrilla war designed to undermine post military phase stability within Iraq. This initial instability translated into opportunity for external elements (such as Iran and Syria) to flood the country with insurgents. That fact combined with how the DNC undermined perceptions of legitimacy regarding preventative warfare and it becomes quite clear why the United States striking those external insurgent centers of gravity (Iran and Syria) became a political impossibility leading to the problems that we are having to this very day.

So contrary to your partisan motivated drivel the difficulties we are having in the reconstruction phase of O.I.F. is not proof that democrats are some how prophetic regarding International relations / foreign policy. Rather such difficulties are in large part resultant of democrat obstructionism. Obstructionism that not only undermined our efforts in Iraq but also eroded solidarity / national will regard support for the doctrine of prevention all in the name of partisanship. Can we say self fulfilling prophecy? To any rational person possessing formal academic training in geo-strategy collective security postulated by the DNC is known to be absolute bunk. Sadly a majority of Americans don’t take the time out to dissect your nonsense. I would suggest instead of acting the self absorbed “bottom” you seem to be maybe read some books on geo politics / geo strategy and stop spewing partisan filth. Oh wait you are too busy being pissed off for some misperceived infraction against your “lifestyle” via the ban on gay marriage to think clearly.

Jeff

PS Seeing as I am a veteran of 14 years I can say from my experience that most of my military buddies despise the effect your party has had on our effort in Iraq and find it completely disingenuous that you postulate such partisan motivation sedition under the dubious auspices of “caring for the troops”. If you truly cared about us you would not have fked me and my buddies over to orchestrate a situation that is facilitative to your partisan agenda.

Adam
November 8th, 2006

Thanks for your comments Jeff, but unfortunately you are woefully misinformed. How could you have missed the well-known article written by prominent pro-war neoconservative Ken Adelman, claiming that a future war in Iraq would be a cakewalk. He entitled his article: “Cakewalk in Iraq.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A1996-2002Feb12?language=printer

Not sure how you come to the conclusion that “no one in the neo conservative movement stated Iraq would be a cakewalk” given that famous article. He followed up with an article in 2003 in which he gloats at how right he was, concluding that it had been a cakewalk just as he predicted. You an read that in his article “Cakewalk Revisited:”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A1512-2003Apr9

You can read more on Mr. Adelman at his wikipedia entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_L._Adelman

pnac
December 20th, 2006

The neocons (PNAC) didn’t want to leave Iraq in the first place. The document “Rebuilding America’s Defences” is full of information on their objectives.

I doubt six months I believe Rumsfeld said…

*Name
*Mail
Website
Comment