This is the opening line from Kristol's column:
And so, despite his doubts and dithering, President Obama is taking us to war in another Muslim country. Good for him..
And he's not being sarcastic.
The president didn’t want this. He’s been so unhappy about such a possibility—so fearful of such an eventuality—that first he tied himself in knots trying to do nothing.What a dick, trying to avoid additional bloodshed!
Then he decided that, if he had to act, it would be good to boast that he was merely following the Arab League and subordinating American action to the U.N. Security Council. After all, nothing—nothing!—could be worse than the perception that the United States was “invading” another Muslim country.And why the quotes around the word invading?
Rubbish. Our “invasions” have in fact been liberations.Seriously, you're still trotting out the liberation b.s.? We're still waiting to be greeted as liberators in Iraq.
We have shed blood and expended treasure in Kuwait in 1991, in the Balkans later in the 1990s, and in Afghanistan and Iraq—in our own national interest, of course, but also to protect Muslim peoples and help them free themselves. Libya will be America’s fifth war of Muslim liberation.
Since when do the neocons give a fuck about Muslim people? Does this sick little prick really think that anyone believes that the Republican party is willing to spend one red cent to liberate Muslims? The people they take every opportunity to demonize and villify?
The modern Republican party has played a key role in these honorable struggles. When in power, Republicans have taken the lead in fighting for liberty.
If by "fighting" you mean "sending other people's sons and daughters off to fight," then yeah, you may have a point.
When in opposition, they have sought to push Democratic presidents to act—in the Balkans, and today in Libya—
Oh, yeah, I remember how you guys pushed Clinton to act in the Balkans. I believe the refrain was "No War For Monica!"
We have supported Democratic presidents when they do exactly what we tell them to do. Well, "support" is a strong word.
On March 17, for example, a few hours before the Security Council voted on Libya, the House of Representatives considered a resolution offered by Rep. Dennis Kucinich, “Directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove the United States Armed Forces from Afghanistan.”
God Bless Dennis Kucinich!
The Afghanistan war has had bipartisan support from the beginning.
The beginning when it was supposed to be about getting Osama bin Laden? Sure, there was plenty of bipartisan support for that. For some reason, there might be a bit less support for keeping troops in Afghanistan indefinitely with no apparent goal.
The Afghanistan war has had bipartisan support from the beginning. The Obama administration and the GOP leadership were both opposed to Kucinich’s resolutionWhich probably tells you all you need to know about the supposed lefty/liberal Obama administration.
Kucinich’s resolution—which called not merely for timetables or draw downs, but for the simple and absolute removal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan. Yet close to half the Democrats in the House of Representatives voted for retreat and defeat.
The other half voted to continue to feed our soldiers into the meat grinder of Afghanistan for no earthly goddamned good reason? Who are these assholes?
And the Republicans? 222 to 8 against withdrawalSo there are 8 Republicans with some sense of human decency? That's a little encouraging.
That is what the modern Republican party has stood for. Part of that modern Republican tradition includes, when in opposition, supporting a Democratic administration when it does the right thing. That’s what Republicans have done with regard to Afghanistan. It’s what Republicans will do as the nation prosecutes the effort in Libya. And as Republicans select a 2012 nominee, they should seek a leader who will stand unabashedly for freedom at home and abroad.
It would almost be funny if there weren't people who take Kristol seriously.