The Neo-Cons Form a New pro-Israel Group to Oppose Obama's Middle East Policies.

It was only a matter of time before the neo-cons set out to destroy anyone who differed in any way from their fanatical pro-Israel stance. In the ad above they have turned their fire towards Joe Sestak, for daring not to offer the correct amount of devotion.

But their real target is Obama for daring to get serious about forming a state of Palestine.

The Emergency Committee for Israel’s Leadership unites two major strands of support for the Jewish state: The hawkish, neoconservative wing of the Republican Party, many of whom are Jewish, and conservative Evangelical Christians who have become increasingly outspoken in their support for Israel. The new group’s board includes Weekly Standard Editor William Kristol and Gary Bauer, the former Republican presidential candidate who leads the group American Values, as well as Rachel Abrams, a conservative writer and activist.

“We’re the pro-Israel wing of the pro-Israel community,” said Kristol.

Jennifer Rubin thinks that this will cause the Democrats problems.

Ambassador John Bolton comments via e-mail on the Emergency Committee for Israel:

I don’t understand why so many people accept the Obama Administration’s ritualistic recital of the pro-Israel catechism, rather than looking at its specific policies and actions. You can say “unbreakable relationship” as many times as you want, but it has no real-world impact. I don’t see how anybody can object to a new group that simply points out the obvious disjunction between what Obama and his acolytes are saying and what they are actually doing.

Indeed. The reaction on the left will speak volumes about its sensitivity on just this point. Are the leftists pro-Obama’s-Israel-policy, or are they truly pro-Israel? There is a difference, one they’d rather not have highlighted, especially in an election year.

Glenn Greenwald is today highlighting this myth that Jewish voters in America get turned off when an American president is perceived as being insufficiently pro-Israel.

When The Washington Post hired torture advocate and low-level Bush propagandist Marc Thiessen as an Op-Ed columnist, it got exactly what it apparently wanted: a regular dose of falsehood-filled neoconservative tripe. But even by his own lowly standards, Thiessen outdoes himself today by hauling out one of the neocon Right's most disproven though still-favorite myths: that Jewish American voters are about to abandon Democratic politicians en masse because of their supposed lack of devotion to Israel. The Right spent all of 2008 spreading the myth that Obama had a "Jewish problem" because of his perceived unreliability on Israel, only for Obama to receive close to 8 out of 10 Jewish votes, even more than John Kerry received in 2004. That's because the dirty little secret of neocons is that the vast majority of Jewish American voters reject their worldview.

This is a myth. Recent surveys of Jewish opinion show that Obama retains his popularity, even at this time, as he challenges Netanyahu over settlement building.

Once again, the neo-cons are talking to themselves and imagine, because everyone they speak to in their tiny cabal agrees with them, that they somehow represent a much wider body of opinion.

Tags: The Emergency Committee for Israel’s Leadership, Kristol, Bolton, Israel, Palestine

Kristol: Gulf spill is "a blow" to "Obamaism," the "notion that the federal government ... is sort of omnipotent".

Apparently, according to the man who is always wrong, the oil spill in the gulf is "a blow" to "Obamaism," which Kristol sees as the "notion that the federal government ... is sort of omnipotent".

Of course, the oil spill was caused by BP and is the responsibility of the private company BP. Quite why Kristol thinks this says anything about Obama's government - or, indeed, the power of government itself - is simply lost on me.

I suppose there are no set of circumstances in Kristol's world where the message isn't anti-Obama.

Tags: Bill Kristol, oil spill, BP, Obama

You, too, can pretend to crush Obama's head!

Just when you think these buggers can't get more ridiculous.

Are you really, really, really angry at President Obama?

If so, The Weekly Standard is here to help. The mag is selling an "Obama stress head" doll that lets you take out your rage at the President by crushing his head in your hand.

As the mag puts it, the doll allows you to "crush those half-baked liberal ideas before they do any more damage."

"Pin his ears back, turn that smile upside down," the mag adds. Click below for a special preview of the "Obama stress head," which can be yours for less than $10: There's more. If you order yours today, they'll throw in the collected works of William Kristol for an additional 99 cents!

They really are a silly bunch of people.

Hat tip to Greg Sargent.

Tags: Republicans, Obama

Bill Kristol: Rand Paul Sophisticated, Complicated, Attractive, Plainspoken, Honest and Thoughtful.

Does Bill Kristol ever tire of getting things wrong?

BAIER: The Republican nominee in the Kentucky Senate race Rand Paul explaining a number of times today his stance on the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

He's not apologizing for his libertarian views. He does not care for the laws that dictate to private business but says he does support overall the Civil Rights Act.

This is causing quite the kerfuffle, as you can imagine. We're back with panel. Bill?

KRISTOL: He has a sort of sophisticated, complicated libertarian view of the Civil Rights Act. One of the ten provisions of the act applies to private businesses.

Look, the country decided 45 years ago we have to abrogate our normal deference to the private sector to do what it wants to insist on non- discrimination even in private restaurants and private hotels and the like because the segregation was so deep in the south, especially, and the injustice was so great.

I think that was the right thing. Rand Paul thinks it's the right thing. It's probably unwise if you're a Senate candidate to engage in some theoretical discussion of what might have been or could have been.

But I also have to say, and I'm not a huge fan of Rand Paul, but if you watch the clips with him, there is something attractive about him. I mean, he's plainspoken and seems like an honest and good-natured guy.

This could be one of these flaps that everyone in Washington has a heart attack about and if you are a voter in Kentucky you think, you know what, he thought about this and says he won't change the Civil Rights Act.

He's a thoughtful guy with a libertarian bent. You could do worse than having him in the Senate.

I'm not sure it hurts him at all with the actual voters in Kentucky.

There is nothing "sophisticated" or "complicated" about Rand Paul's view. It is simplistic and over reliant on the power of the market to always do the right thing.

I think Charles Krauthammer was far more on the money than Kristol in understanding this situation.

KRAUTHAMMER: This is not going to sink him, but it is a negative. If on the first day of the general election campaign you have to issue a statement saying I'm not in favor of repealing the Civil Rights Act, you have a problem. Why are you even discussing it?

There is a reason why in America that libertarians are admired and their ideas are current, but they get half a percent of the vote when they actually want to govern. People don't want this purist individualism actually in government.

Krauthammer is correct when he states that this was "a huge unforced error". Whatever point Rand Paul thought was making, this was simply a disaster. There are areas where one is allowed to be ambiguous, civil rights simply isn't one of them.

But it's amusing to watch Bill Kristol once again attempt to make a positive out of a negative.

Tags: Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, Rand Paul, Civil Rights

Kristol and Williams Get into Shouting Match Over Goldman Sachs Emails Release.

Trust Bill Kristol to get it this wrong. He thinks the outrage here is the fact some emails have been released rather than the content of the emails:

Williams: It’s not ridiculous when you read the emails and the core here is not the release of the emails it’s the content of the emails and the emails reveal that they’re saying the people at Goldman Sachs are saying, you know what, we’re going to make money while investors are losing money. In fact we’re going to have a windfall they say in these emails. That is the outrage in case you missed it!

So, he has this level of outrage over the release of emails and the loss of privacy to some Goldman Sachs employees, yet he had no difficulty with the Patriot Act and the illegal wiretapping of American citizens?

He's a joke....

Tags: Bill Kristol, Goldman Sachs

Kristol, Conservatives and The Constitution.

I find it hysterical to hear conservatives fighting to preserve the constitution. Where were these arguments during the years when George Bush was wilfully ignoring it?

In those days the argument was that the president should be given whatever power he thought necessary to save the country from terrorism. In comes a Democrat and it's all change at Clapham Junction. Suddenly, conservatives have rediscovered the need to limit presidential powers.

Tags: Bill Kristol, George Bush, Constitution

Kristol cheers 'use of force' to delay Iranian nukes.

Bill Kristol is, once again, on air demanding that the Obama administration must be prepared to use force against Iran.

"I think we have to have a credible threat of force and the preparation to use force against Iran. It would be much better if we used force against -- to delay the Iranian nuclear program than if Israel did and there is no evidence that the US government is being at all serious about the use force there," Kristol told Fox News' Chris Wallace Sunday.

Nina Easton, also appearing on the Fox News Sunday panel, quickly rebuked Kristol. "Use of force. You say that so blithely as if use of force -- what happens the next day after the use of force?" she asked.

Even Chris Wallace points out that the most this will achieve is to slow the Iranians down for a couple of years, but Kristol insists that this is still the route that the US should take.

But then, attacking countries without fully thinking out the consequences of what happens after you attack, is what Kristol always appears to advocate.

Tags: Bill Kristol, Chris Wallace, Fox News, Fox News Sunday, Iran, Israel, Neoconservatives, Nina Easton, nuclear program

The King of Wrong Produces an Instant Classic.

It never fails to amaze me how wrong this guy gets it.

People are concerned about the future of this country and they think this bill is bad for it by a majority, and I believe that will be the Republican message and the Republican message will be a responsible one to repeal this bill and replace it with better health care reforms and to get a handle on the debt, which this bill increases…The American public are going to insist on its repeal over the next three years. We are! I predict in 2013 the bulk of this will be repealed and replaced with better health care legislation.

As David Frum pointed out today, it was listening to these gasbags which got the Republicans into this hole in the first place.

Think Progress detail just how wrong some people got this one.

– Dick Morris, Fox News commentator, November 4: “A deathblow to ObamaCare.”

– Fred Barnes, Fox News commentator, January 20: “The health care bill, ObamaCare, is dead with not the slightest prospect of resurrection.”

– Robert A. Levy, chairman of the Cato Institute, January 26: “That’s why Obamacare is dead.”

– Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA), Minority Whip, February 24: “Speaker Pelosi doesn’t have the votes in the House. . . . It is futile for for them to continue to try and push something on the American people that frankly won’t result in better health care.”

– Rep. Dan Boren (D-OK), March 3: “I think the votes are not there and I don’t see where we get them.”

– Cantor, March 5: “Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi doesn’t have the votes needed to pass a health-care bill in the House of Representatives.”

– Rep. John Boehner (R-OH), Minority Leader, March 14: “If she had 216 votes, this bill would be long gone. They tried to pass it in September, October, November, December, January, February. Guess what? They don’t have the votes.”

– Boehner, March 17: Health care reform will pass “over my dead body.”

– Cantor, March 19: “[T]here’s no way they can pass this bill.”

Frum, again, got it right when he said:

It’s Waterloo all right: ours.

But Kristol, that brilliant tactician, is reassuring everyone that this will all be overturned. And you can always trust what he says.

Tags: Bill Kristol, Fox News, Universal Healthcare

Lieberman and Kristol Blame Obama.

Normally, the likes of Joe Lieberman and Bill Kristol pride themselves on being the US troops greatest defenders.

So one would have thought that when both Adm. Mike Mullen and Gen. David Petraeus say that a country's actions were putting the lives of American troops in danger, that Lieberman and Kristol would be the first to condemn that country.

Well, that's not actually how this is playing out. Why? Because the country Mullen and Petraeus named was Israel.

A briefing given to Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Michael Mullen has said that that "Israeli intransigence on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was jeopardizing U.S. standing in the region" and that "America was not only viewed as weak, but its military posture in the region was eroding." The briefing was said to have "stunned Mullen."

This briefing - and Petraeus's subsequent request to have the West Bank and Gaza put under his command - is said to have "hit the White House like a bombshell."

Indeed, the danger to American troops was further emphasised by no less a figure than the American Vice President:

"This is starting to get dangerous for us," Biden reportedly told Netanyahu. "What you're doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. That endangers us and it endangers regional peace." Yedioth Ahronoth went on to report: "The vice president told his Israeli hosts that since many people in the Muslim world perceived a connection between Israel's actions and US policy, any decision about construction that undermines Palestinian rights in East Jerusalem could have an impact on the personal safety of American troops fighting against Islamic terrorism." The message couldn't be plainer: Israel's intransigence could cost American lives.

What was Lieberman's reaction?

Making reference to Clinton’s remarks, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), who enjoys public grandstanding on other issues, urged the White House to be quiet on this one:

“It was a dust-up, a misunderstanding. (Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin) Netanyahu has apologized, and the timing was unfortunate. But the second round of criticism is unproductive. I make one appeal — sometimes silence really is golden.”

And then there's this from Bill Kristol:

On Fox News Sunday yesterday, the Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol stated bluntly that the dust-up was all Obama’s fault. “This is a fight that the White House has picked,” he said. “I do not know, honestly, why the president chose to pick a big public fight just when it was all dying down with Israel.”

Petraeus couldn't have made his message clearer:

David Petraeus sent a briefing team to the Pentagon with a stark warning: America's relationship with Israel is important, but not as important as the lives of America's soldiers.

There's certainly nothing in the statement of either Lieberman or Kristol to indicate that they take this anywhere near as seriously as Petraeus does. And, considering that Petraeus is talking about the lives of American soldiers, that's highly unusual for both of them.

Click here for full article.

Tags: Lieberman, Kristol, Israel, Palestine, Obama, Biden

Graham blasts Cheney on 'al Qaeda 7' ad.

I've spoken before about the amount of Republicans who are lining up to condemn Liz Cheney and Bill Kristol's odious advert, so I won't harp on about it again. I will just note that Lindsey Graham has now joined the throng of Republicans speaking out against that dreadful TV ad:

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a member of the Senate Armed Services and Judiciary Committees, told The Cable Tuesday that the Cheney-Kristol ad was inappropriate and unfairly demonized DOJ lawyers for doing a noble public service by defending unpopular suspects.

"I've been a military lawyer for almost 30 years, I represented people as a defense attorney in the military that were charged with some pretty horrific acts, and I gave them my all," said Graham.

"This system of justice that we're so proud of in America requires the unpopular to have an advocate and every time a defense lawyer fights to make the government do their job, that defense lawyer has made us all safer."

Graham pointed out that when Supreme Court Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito were facing Senate confirmation, some attempted to use their client lists against them and it was wrong then too.

"I'm with Kenneth Starr on this one," Graham added, referring to a letter signed by several GOP lawyers, many of whom defended Bush-era detainee policies, condemning the "al Qaeda 7" ad.

"To suggest that the Justice Department should not employ talented lawyers who have advocated on behalf of detainees maligns the patriotism of people who have taken honorable positions on contested questions and demands a uniformity of background and view in government service from which no administration would benefit," read the letter, which was organized by the Brookings Institution's Benjamin Wittes and signed by David Rivkin, Lee Casey, and Philip Zelikow, among others.

Carl Levin has agreed with Graham and also brought up the John Adams analogy.

"They probably would have called President John Adams a terrorist too, because he defended the British soldiers who killed Americans at Bunker Hill," said Levin. "I don't think folks like that will stop at anything to attack the president and Democrats. I don't know if there are any limits to their venom.... I haven't seen any."

Kristol, of course, is refusing to back down and it's hysterical to read his continuing justifications for the piece of McCarthyism he indulged in, even as Cheney now claims that this disgusting advert "doesn't question anybody's loyalty".

It's so typical that Cheney will claim to have been misunderstood while Kristol still insists that he was right. He's been wrong more often than any other commentator I have ever come across, but it's never stopped him in the past and it won't stop him now. No matter how many of his fellow Republicans step up to the plate to condemn him.

Click here for full article.

Tags: Liz Cheney, Bill Kristol, Al Qaeda 7, Guantanamo 9, Keep America Safe

Ken Starr criticizes attack on DOJ lawyers who represented detainees; compares DOJ lawyers to John Adams, Atticus Finch.

It really does say something about how despicable Liz Cheney and William Kristol's attacks on DOJ lawyers were, that conservatives of every hue are lining up to distance themselves from them.

But even as conservatives line up to deride and condemn what Cheney and Kristol have done, I never ever expected this to be so outrageous that even Ken Starr would want to publicly voice his disgust.

But that is how scandalous their action was.

Here, Starr reminds us that John Adams defended British red coats after the Boston massacre, and says that he hopes that this example is taught to children in schools. He further argues that lawyers cannot be afraid to take on unpopular cases, as this is the only way to challenge and hold to account the power of the government.

Cheney and Kristol should be utterly ashamed of what they did; they have certainly gone so far out on a limb that even conservatives like Ken Starr are lining up to condemn them.

But, both Liz Cheney and Bill Kristol have shown their utter shamelessness in the past.

Kristol did so the other day with a column attempting to defend this indefensible McCarthyite advert.

Ken Starr had an answer to Kristol's column:

Ken Starr: Well, I love Bill Kristol, I view him as a friend. But, he is wrong on this one and this is simply not consistent with the great traditions of our country.

Kristol and Cheney will never admit that what they did was simply wrong on every level. And the saddest thing is that they are both so ideologically driven that they simply can't see what the rest of us are so outraged by.

Kristol: If all this hubbub is the price we have to pay for the Obama administration adopting more responsible detainee policies that will do a little more to keep America safe, it’s worth it.

Kristol and, I suspect, Cheney, will remain unmoved; but I take some comfort from the fact that many, many, conservatives can see what we are talking about here and that they are willing to stand up and say so.

Tags: Liz Cheney, Bill Kristol, al Qaeda 7, Guantanamo 9, McCarthyism

Countdown: Conservatives Outraged With Liz Cheney's Fear Mongering.

I am really pleased that so many conservatives are coming out of the woodwork to condemn Liz Cheney's outrageous McCarthyite attack on lawyers who defended people suspected of terrorism.

It was one of the most despicable and lowly attacks that I have ever come across. She should be damaged by this, but she won't be. Fox will still have her on to talk in the same way as they continue to invite Bill Kristol to give his "expert" opinions. And that man has been wrong more often than anyone else I can think of.

We are tempted to comment, in these last days before the war, on the U.N., and the French, and the Democrats. But the war itself will clarify who was right and who was wrong about weapons of mass destruction. It will reveal the aspirations of the people of Iraq, and expose the truth about Saddam's regime. It will produce whatever effects it will produce on neighboring countries and on the broader war on terror. We would note now that even the threat of war against Saddam seems to be encouraging stirrings toward political reform in Iran and Saudi Arabia, and a measure of cooperation in the war against al Qaeda from other governments in the region. It turns out it really is better to be respected and feared than to be thought to share, with exquisite sensitivity, other people's pain. History and reality are about to weigh in, and we are inclined simply to let them render their verdicts.

The verdict, once delivered, proved Kristol to be utterly in the wrong. But it didn't affect his career one iota. And Cheney won't be affected by her foray into McCarthyism. She will continue to be invited to spout her venom publicly.

Tags: Liz Cheney, Bill Kristol, Guantanamo Bay, lawyers

Blitzer Apologizes for "Any Confusion Caused" by "Department of Jihad?" Chryon.

I spoke yesterday about my disgust at Wolf Blitzer giving credence to Cheney and Kristol's smearing of lawyers who defended people accused of terrorism.

Apparently many others have complained about this section and Blitzer has offered an apology of sorts:

Blitzer: I want to give our viewers a note. As we were going to a commercial break yesterday around this time we had a graphic on the screen that said "Department of Jihad?" followed by a question mark. Many of you tweeted me, said you found that graphic to be offensive. I agree. It was.

The graphic referenced a video that Liz Cheney's organization Keep America Safe. Their video features those words on screen questioning the loyalty of Justice Department attorneys who have previously worked on behalf of Guantanamo detainees.

CNN had no intention of suggesting that the Justice Department supports terrorism. Lawyers at the Justice Department are patriotic Americans, and we certainly regret any confusion that may have been caused by our graphic.

Blitzer is being disingenuous if he imagines that this was the only offensive thing about that particular segment. That viewers suffered "confusion" over that one graphic. For CNN also flashed the words, "Are Justice Dept. lawyers disloyal?" onscreen.

But what was actually most offensive was the fact that Blitzer debated the charges as if they might possibly be of merit, even though it had been revealed that the Bush administration had also employed lawyers who had previously defended Guantanamo detainees.

Blitzer's failing here was that he allowed this McCarthyism credence. He allowed Liz Cheney to smear the reputation of good men and women "unsupported by proof or based on slight, doubtful, or irrelevant evidence"; which is the dictionary definition of McCarthyism.

What was offensive to many was much, much, more than a graphic. It was as Atrios noted, the fact that "right wing lunatics can still push anything into the puke funnel." And that people like Blitzer will imagine that it merits "intense debate".

UPDATE:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Rachel Maddow reports on the number of conservatives who have found Liz Cheney's accusations as offensive as those of us on the left found them.

Tags: Wolf Blitzer, Liz Cheney, Bill Kristol, McCarthyism

Kristol and Cheney Hunt "The Al Qaeda 7".

This advert is truly revolting.

The ad brands Eric Holder's DOJ the "Department of Jihad" because it employs 9 lawyers who previously represented Guantanamo detainees (including Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal, who successfully represented the Guantanamo-plaintiffs in the 2006 Hamdan case before the U.S. Supreme Court). The ad darkly asks of these lawyers: "whose values do they share?," and labels 7 of those unidentified DOJ lawyers "The Al Qaeda 7."

The premise of the ad is as clear as it insidious: any lawyers representing accused Terrorists are of suspect loyalties and allegiances, are devoted to "jihad," and are sympathetic to, if not part of, Al Qaeda (this profoundly ugly smear campaign began with the always-unhinged Andrew McCarthy in National Review, who branded

• Continue Reading

such lawyers "terrorist sympathizers").

This slander encompasses scores of American military lawyers, who have vigorously, passionately and often successfully defended numerous Guantanamo detainees, including those accused of being Al Qaeda operatives.

It's been produced by a group run by Dick Cheney's daughter and Bill Kristol.

The use of the phrase "The al-Qaeda 7" is clearly intended to imply that there is something criminal or suspicious about what these military lawyers have been doing.

The truth, of course, is that these lawyers have simply been doing their jobs and ensuring, as is supposed to be the American way, that the men they represented got as fair a trial as was possible during the days of the Bush administration. And the men they represented were not "terrorist detainees" as this scurrilous ad claims, they were suspected terrorists. And we all know that the vast majority of these detainees were released due to the lack of evidence against them.

And yet, Kristol and Cheney are now launching this attack on these people, implying that these men and women might possibly share values with al Qaeda.

It's about as irresponsible and reprehensible as any advert could possibly be.

John Adams famously represented the British soldiers who took part in the Boston massacre. Would Cheney and Kristol impugn his loyalty and wonder whose values he shared?

UPDATE:

The seven have now been named by a Justice Department spokesman, who said "politics has overtaken facts and reality" in a tug-of-war over the lawyers' identities.

Although the Fox News article contains some interesting facts:

The Obama Administration is not the first to hire lawyers who represented or advocated for terror suspects.

Pratik Shah, an assistant to the Solicitor General hired by the Bush Administration, was part of the WilmerHale team that put together arguments for the Boumediene v. Bush case.

Trisha Anderson, an adviser in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel who was also hired by the Bush Administration, was previously an attorney at Attorney General Eric Holder's former firm, Covington & Burling, where she helped represent 13 Yemeni detainees.

Varda Hussain, an attorney hired in 2008 with the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, was an associate with the Washington-based firm Venable when she helped represent three Egyptians being held at Guantanamo Bay.

Cheney and Kristol were strangely quiet when George Bush and Cheney's father were hiring people who possibly shared al Qaeda's values....

UPDATE II:



Here this reprehensible woman is interviewed by O'Reilly, and I note that O'Reilly utterly skips over the fact that Liz Cheney's father was also part of an administration which hired people who had previously defended suspected terrorists. O'Reilly decides that the Obama administration must be "clearly worried about this issue" rather than acknowledge that Cheney's claims have been exposed as the partisan rubbish which they are.

She goes on here to state that these 9 people have "previously voluntarily represented terrorists". Again, as I have said before, they were suspected terrorists, a distinction which this awful person finds impossible to make. And she is clearly implying that the voluntary status of their work makes them somehow suspicious, or why would she even bring that up?

Nor does she step back from demanding that the American people have the right to know whether or not lawyers who "used to represent and advocate on behalf of terrorists" are working inside the Justice department.

She is clearly continuing to imply that there is reason to suspect such people.

And she gets away with doing all of this without even being asked by O'Reilly about the Bush administration also hiring people who had previously worked to try to get justice for Guantanamo detainees.

Tags: Liz Cheney, Bill Kristol, al Qaeada 7, Republicans

Kristol: I didn't watch it, but I can still comment as if I did.

This is a unique skill.

KRISTOL: No, but I didn’t watch it, so — (laughter). I have a life. (laughter) You compared it at the beginning of the hour to a dog-and-pony show, and I thought to myself, that’s really an insult to dog-and-pony shows. I like the dog shows there on the Animal Planet. … Many people were impressive. The President showed his usual professorial ability to sort of say certain things and highlight certain facts, or alleged facts.

He admits that he didn't watch it and then goes on to comment as if he did. Only on Fox News....

Tags: Bill Kristol, Fox News, Obama, Healthcare

Bill Kristol Claims That Republicans Haven't Politicized National Security.

Bill Kristol wants us to know that he is outraged- outraged - by the suggestion that the Republicans are playing politics with the subject of national security.

They Republicans have actually been playing that card - that the Democrats can't be trusted to keep the country safe - for as long as I can remember.

JOHN BRENNAN: On Christmas night, I called a number of-- senior members of Congress. I spoke to Senators McConnell and Bond. I spoke to Representative Boehner and Hoekstra . I explained to them that he was in F.B.I. custody. That Mr. Abdulmutallab was in fact talking. That he was cooperating at that point. They knew that in F.B.I. custody means that there's a process then you follow as far as mirandizing and presenting him in front of the magistrate.

None of those individuals raised any concerns with me, at that point. They didn't say, "Is he going into military custody? Is he going to be mirandized?" They were very appreciative of the information. We told them we'd keep them informed. And that's what we did. So, there's been-- quite a bit of an outcry after the fact. Where again, I'm just very concerned on behalf of the counterterrorism professionals throughout our government that politicians continue to make this a political football. And are using it for whatever political or partisan purposes.

The Republicans are effecting outrage for Obama treating the "Underwear Bomber" exactly the same as Bush treated the "Shoe Bomber" and, as Brennan points out, they did not have any complaint at the time of his arrest.

This is simply playing politics with national security and what's annoying Kristol is that, at last, they are being called on it.

UPDATE:



Here Rachel Maddow takes on Aaron Schock and wonders why reading someone their Miranda rights has only become an issue since Obama was elected.

MADDOW: What’s the basis of the assertion that reading someone their Miranda rights in unsafe? We did that with every single person who’s been arrested on terrorism charges since 9/11. No one’s ever made an issue of it until the Obama administration and this case with Abdulmuttalab. Really, what’s the problem with being read your rights that wasn’t the problem before?

SCHOCK: Well, first of all, you suggested earlier that reading someone his Miranda rights does not — has never indicated that they talk less to our intelligence folks...

MADDOW: We’ve never heard that from the FBI.

SCHOCK: The fact of the matter is we do know that after the Christmas Day bomber was read his Miranda he did in fact stop cooperating with our intelligence...

MADDOW: That’s not true, actually, it’s not what we know from the people who’ve been involved in this. The “factual” basis of this is so thin!

If Maddow is right, and "every single person who’s been arrested on terrorism charges since 9/11" have been read their Miranda rights, then the Republican reaction to Abdulmuttalab being read his Miranda rights is clearly an example of the Republicans playing politics with national security.

Tags: Bill Kristol, Fox News, National Security

Bill’s Late Father Irving Kristol: ‘My Poor Son Has Got It Wrong Again’

I honestly can't think of any commentator who has been more consistently wrong than Bill Kristol.

Here are Kristol's own words:

We are tempted to comment, in these last days before the war, on the U.N., and the French, and the Democrats. But the war itself will clarify who was right and who was wrong about weapons of mass destruction. It will reveal the aspirations of the people of Iraq, and expose the truth about Saddam's regime. It will produce whatever effects it will produce on neighboring countries and on the broader war on terror. We would note now that even the threat of war against Saddam seems to be encouraging stirrings toward political reform in Iran and Saudi Arabia, and a measure of cooperation in the war against al Qaeda from other governments in the region. It turns out it really is better to be respected and feared than to be thought to share, with exquisite sensitivity, other people's pain. History and reality are about to weigh in, and we are inclined simply to let them render their verdicts.

The verdicts, as we all know, have come in; and Kristol was wrong in every aspect of what he preached. But he has paid no price for getting things as wrong as he did, he has lost no credibility as an "expert"; indeed, he still talks as if the Iraq war was good policy.

Steven Walt explains how this phenomenon works:

“They are effectively insulated from failure,” says Stephen Walt of the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, one of the neocons’ most frequent antagonists. “Even if you’ve totally screwed up in office and things you’ve advocated in print have failed, there are no real consequences, either professionally or politically. You go back to AEI and Weekly Standard and continue to agitate or appear on talk shows as if nothing has gone wrong at all.”

Even his own father and friends of Kristol's admit that he screws things up:

“He would rather take an interesting wrong position than a dull correct one,” says a longtime neocon who did not want to be named because the two are friendly. Several people who know Kristol describe his Palin boosterism—his very public campaign to persuade John McCain to put her on the Republican ticket—as a schoolboy-like infatuation, sparked when a Weekly Standard cruise docked in Juneau. [...] “Bill’s a very close friend of mine, but he does an awful lot of things just to get publicity,” says one prominent Republican who also did not want to be named for fear of offending Kristol.

[...]

Even his father had his qualms. “My poor son has got it wrong again,” he sometimes lamented to an old family friend.

Indeed, even the insane Ralph Peters thinks that Kristol and his ilk are "men for whom too much came too easily in life, so it was all too easy for them to view our troops as mere tools to implement their visions."

But, Kristol continues preaching, and Fox News continues to act as if this man still has credibility, despite the fact that he has been consistently wrong more than any other commentator I can think of.

Tags: Bill Kristol, neo-cons, Republican agenda, Fox News

Binyam Mohamed and Sub-Standard Journalism.

The Sub-Standard really is a uniquely horrible little rag, with the latest edition featuring William Kristol questioning whether or not Obama's healthcare reform will prove to be "a Pyrrhic victory", whilst also admitting that he couldn't really remember who Pyrrhus was.

It's rare that someone admits their ignorance of a subject whilst using that very subject to make their point.

However, in one of his links, I found this amongst a complaint that Obama was releasing too many Guantanamo Bay detainees:

But the Obama administration went the opposite direction. Having promised to shutter the detention facility at Guantánamo within one year, the administration has lowered the threshold for detainees eligible to be shipped out and is expediting the procedures for transferring or releasing them.

A total of 31 Guantánamo detainees have been transferred or released since Obama took office.

Among them are several men who acknowledged -receiving training in al Qaeda's notorious "al Farouq" camp. One, Binyam Mohamed, was slated to participate in the next wave of al Qaeda attacks on American soil in 2002.

Regular readers will know how much I have covered the case of Binyam Mohamed and the fact that the British government are going to extraordinary lengths to cover the fact that they might have been complicit in his torture.

The Sub-Standard offer no proof, not even a link, to substantiate their outrageous claim.

But, speaking as someone who has been following his case with interest, I have never heard any proof to substantiate that accusation.

Indeed, Binyam Mohamed was released the moment he entered British soil. That would hardly have happened if there was any proof that he had been, "slated to participate in the next wave of al Qaeda attacks on American soil in 2002."

This right wing lie has been perpetrated before by Liz Cheney:

L. CHENEY: And instead we are releasing terrorists, like Binyam Mohammed, who planned attacks against the United States. He's now been released and lives freely in London.

Let's be clear; Binyam Mohamed has never been found guilty of any terrorist activity by any court of law. And yet these right wing loons continue to besmirch his name, safe in the knowledge that most Americans don't know who the Hell it is that they are talking about.

The British court system, and even American courts, are all acknowledging that a dreadful wrong was done to this man.

But the Sub-Standard continues to print appalling right wing lies. Republicans really do live within a different reality than the rest of us. And it would appear to be one devoid of all facts.

Tags: Weekly Standard, Binyam Mohamed, Bill Kristol

Kristol Compares Obama’s Olympics Pitch To ‘George W. Bush-Like’ Bullying.

Bill Kristol accuses Obama of George Bush style bullying for travelling to Copenhagen to make the case for Chicago to host the 2016 Olympics.

KRISTOL: Our economy doesn’t need the boost of the Olympics. And then an American president in sort of a George W. Bush-like way goes and tries to bully the International Olympic Committee.

[...]

Come walk with us. I’m here for America. Can you imagine if some Republican — if Bush had done this and we hadn’t gotten it? Typical Bush heavy-handedness, cowboy unilateralist, hegemonic imperialist action. Obama falls into that trap and they went for it. I must say you couldn’t help be amused by it.

Let's leave aside the fact that we all know that the offices of The Weekly Standard - where Kristol is editor - "erupted in cheers" when news came through that Chicago had been unsuccessful in it's bid to host the Olympics; but the real news here is that Kristol - for the very first time that I am aware of - has suddenly caught on to the fact that the Bush administration engaged in bullying. This has obviously only occurred to Kristol once Bush left office, it certainly wasn't something which troubled him at the time as he was one of the administrations greatest defenders.

Secondly, it is traditional for the leaders of the countries who make the final for the Olympic bid to turn up and make their pitch selling their nation, Obama was certainly breaking no new ground in doing so. I mean, the leaders of Brazil, Spain, and Japan were also in attendance. Were these other leaders also "bullying" for their own nations?

Indeed, had Obama not attended, I can well imagine Kristol and others on the right blaming Obama's non attendance for Chicago's loss. These guys really want to have it both ways.

Hat tip to Think Progress.

Tags: William Kristol, Obama, Olympics, Chicago

From the People Who Brought Us the Iraq War.

It's from the same people who brought us the war with Iraq, so what can possibly go wrong?

A group of neo-cons - in their new guise as the more modest sounding Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI) - have sent an open letter to Obama asking that he “fully resource” the war in Afghanistan. These are mostly the same people who used to identify themselves as The Project For a New American Century; the same people who wrote to Clinton demanding that he remove Saddam Hussein from power using U.S. diplomatic, political, and military power.

The names of those who have signed are all familiar enough, with the exciting addition of that well known foreign policy guru, Sarah Palin:

Steve Biegun, Max Boot, Debra Burlingame, Eliot A. Cohen, Ryan C. Crocker, Thomas Donnelly, Eric Edelman, William S. Edgerly, Jamie M. Fly, David Frum, Abe Greenwald, John Hannah, Pete Hegseth, Margaret Hoover, Thomas Joscelyn, Frederick W. Kagan, Robert Kagan, William Kristol, Tod Lindberg, Herbert London, Clifford May, Robert C. McFarlane, Joshua Muravchik, Sarah Palin, Keith Pavlischek, Beverly Perlson, Danielle Pletka, John Podhoretz, Stephen Rademaker, Karl Rove, Jennifer Rubin, Randy Scheunemann, Gary Schmitt, Dan Senor, Marc Thiessen, Peter Wehner, Kenneth Weinstein, and Christian Whiton.

When you see signatories like Kagan, Kristol, Rove and Palin, you know that the document, however innocuous it may sound, is probably toxic; which is why so very few of their liberal cousins have bothered to sign the letter, despite Obama's open commitment to Afghanistan.

The truth is that when nutters like Kristol and Palin start congratulating you on your foreign policy, it would only be sane to start questioning what you might have overlooked.

If I was Obama I would have read this letter and shit myself. "If they agree, just where am I going wrong?", I would have thought.

And, as always, the mere sight of Kristol's signature would make me wonder just where bombing Iran featured in all of this.

Click title for full article.

Tags: Afghanistan, Obama, FPI, Kristol, Palin, Kagan