I love how he immediately slides into Afghanistan as if the conflicts are equal. I'm just waiting for him to shout out "quagmire" in another month or so as if President Obama simply just decided to invade Afghanistan on his lonesome, and that we didn't have 7 years of policy history with boots on the ground.

Afghanistan is the conflict we needed to be involved in, and it was the one that the last Administration bobbled and then put on the back burner--despite clear evidence of who was responsible, our quite real responsibility for toppling a government, and the clear and present danger of NOT stabilizing the country, and its borders from the fleeing Taliban and Al Qaida fighters--and his obvious derision on the subject of Afghanistan isn't just visible in this clip, but rising over the last five years. For him, Afghanistan is a joke conflict. It has no real profit, and actually ending it would mean stemming a portion of the ire in the Middle East, and we can't really have that, because then we would lose a boogey man that we can pop up to scare people on occasion.

It is the intellectual dishonesty that makes this man a stand out for shills. If you would like to sell your soul and your reputation out, here is your blueprint, kids. That he revels in his own intellectual crapulance is palpable.

HowlingFrog

The world still owes Earlham College a thank-you for that masterpiece.

What Bill Kristol may look like:



/hot, like his mansauce

Of course it has to be someone elses fault. These asshats are never to blame for anything.

Sha-ZAM!

Let's drop Kristol in the middle of Fallujah and let's see how fast he starts apologizing.

I still haven't forgiven him for closing CBGBs.

kronicfeld: Sha-ZAM!

PYLE!

I'm still waiting for an apology for Mr. Saturday Night.

I'm not surprised; the WMDs were always just one of the many excuses provided for invading Iraq. I mean, really, aside from the WMD argument that everyone likes to focus on, the rest of the reasons were really no different than the reasons we invaded Afghanistan. It's always a little funny to me see people who support the Afghan invasion get so upset over Iraq when they have the same stated goals and same flawed reasoning behind them.

Shaggy_C: I'm not surprised; the WMDs were always just one of the many excuses provided for invading Iraq. I mean, really, aside from the WMD argument that everyone likes to focus on, the rest of the reasons were really no different than the reasons we invaded Afghanistan. It's always a little funny to me see people who support the Afghan invasion get so upset over Iraq when they have the same stated goals and same flawed reasoning behind them.

Are you saying Bin Laden was in Iraq? The training camps for Al Qaeda were in Iraq?

There are people who are born without the ability to be ashamed of themselves. This smug prick is one of them. He has the gravitas of a garden hoe yet he speaks as if people take him seriously. He's been wrong about every single thing he's ever prognosticated on yet he doesn't see fit to drop out of public life.

The guy is a walking billboard for loser, but he just doesn't get the hint.

Shaggy_C: I mean, really, aside from the WMD argument that everyone likes to focus on, the rest of the reasons were really no different than the reasons we invaded Afghanistan.



I believe you missed something, infidel.

the problem is that the necons forgot that they made up the whole lie about WMDs and just pretend like it's been about nation building from the start, and americans are so stupid that it actually works.

Skleenar: Shaggy_C: I mean, really, aside from the WMD argument that everyone likes to focus on, the rest of the reasons were really no different than the reasons we invaded Afghanistan.



I believe you missed something, infidel.

Wait....

Is that a Casio he's wearing?

He'd have to be sorry and/or think he did something wrong in order to apologize.

Phil Moskowitz: There are people who are born without the ability to be ashamed of themselves. This smug prick is one of them. He has the gravitas of a garden hoe yet he speaks as if people take him seriously. He's been wrong about every single thing he's ever prognosticated on yet he doesn't see fit to drop out of public life.

The guy is a walking billboard for loser, but he just doesn't get the hint.

why should he? he is completely funded by wing nut welfare, from his magazine to his think tanks. when your conservative parents constantly reinforce your positive attitude about yourself with little hundred thousand dollar affirmations, you start to really believe it. in that sense he is like the epitome of an american student. keep telling him how great his work his so he feels good about himself, regardless of how shiatty it actually is.

Shaggy_C: I'm not surprised; the WMDs were always just one of the many excuses provided for invading Iraq. I mean, really, aside from the WMD argument that everyone likes to focus on, the rest of the reasons were really no different than the reasons we invaded Afghanistan. It's always a little funny to me see people who support the Afghan invasion get so upset over Iraq when they have the same stated goals and same flawed reasoning behind them.

You've swallowed more right wing logic than you'd like to admit if you're trying that line of BS.

rnld: Are you saying Bin Laden was in Iraq? The training camps for Al Qaeda were in Iraq?

Does MS13 justify overthrowing the Mexican government and invading their land?

'Afghanistan' did not attack America. Al Qaeda did. Yet, in return, we attacked Afghanistan, not Al Qaeda. See the disconnect there?

Shaggy_C: I'm not surprised; the WMDs were always just one of the many excuses provided for invading Iraq. I mean, really, aside from the WMD argument that everyone likes to focus on, the rest of the reasons were really no different than the reasons we invaded Afghanistan. It's always a little funny to me see people who support the Afghan invasion get so upset over Iraq when they have the same stated goals and same flawed reasoning behind them.

False equivalency Shaggy is false equivalency Shaggy.

I don't even have the stamina to be offended with these people anymore. I'm glad they are out of power for the moment, but the fact is they will get even more self-righteous when the current president fails to fix their mess. Nobody ever learns anything, and we'll be the laughing stalk of the world soon.

Shaggy_C: 'Afghanistan' did not attack America. Al Qaeda did. Yet, in return, we attacked Afghanistan, not Al Qaeda. See the disconnect there?

No one in Iraq attacked America.

But people who were operating under the protection of the Taliban did.

Now, you might have a point in that Bush decided to ignore an offer to hand over bin Laden. But whether or not it was made in earnest, or with conditions that could reasonably be accepted is kind of moot, now.

Hibno: we'll be the laughing stalk of the world soon.

That's a pretty stock response.

god damn i cant stand that smug asshole, the way he just sits there, without a farking care in the world. it's all one big academic political science experiment for him. its hard for me to watch this video and control my blood pressure. watch his whole demeanor change when he goes on a show like colbert or jon stewart, because he knows he is about to have his ass handed to him.

Skleenar: No one in Iraq attacked America.

But if a single Iraqi had ever committed a terrorist act, we would have been justified in the invasion? The point being that we should never have allowed a relatively small terrorist group to be our excuse to invade an entire nation and overthrow a sovereign government. Al Qaeda was not a part of the Taliban; sure, they weren't doing shiat to stop them, but that didn't mean that they should have been grouped together as the same threat or target.

Skleenar: Hibno: we'll be the laughing stalk of the world soon.

That's a pretty stock response.


Ooooo, burn.

'Afghanistan' did not attack America. Al Qaeda did. Yet, in return, we attacked Afghanistan, not Al Qaeda. See the disconnect there?

Quite frankly, that argument supports the opposite conclusion from what Kristol would like people to think -- if even the Afghan invasion was unjustifiable, then the Iraq invasion was naked US aggression.

Skleenar: Now, you might have a point in that Bush decided to ignore an offer to hand over bin Laden.

Heh, it's kind of funny in a way - remember when he did the exact same thing in regards to Saddam . Oh, Ike, where did you go?

Shaggy_C: But if a single Iraqi had ever committed a terrorist act, we would have been justified in the invasion? The point being that we should never have allowed a relatively small terrorist group to be our excuse to invade an entire nation and overthrow a sovereign government. Al Qaeda was not a part of the Taliban; sure, they weren't doing shiat to stop them, but that didn't mean that they should have been grouped together as the same threat or target.

It's good that you recognize there were completely different reasons that we went into Iraq, then. Because those kind of obviously are.

You can pull back and say, "Well, they're the same because they're both invalid reasons to invade a country", but that looks silly too.

PlatinumDragon: Quite frankly, that argument supports the opposite conclusion from what Kristol would like people to think -- if even the Afghan invasion was unjustifiable, then the Iraq invasion was naked US aggression.

Why do people assume I'm a neocon? I'm calling Kristol an idiot, and anyone who supported one war over the other disingenuous in their reasoning behind it. We weren't justified in either case, unless you bought into the background idea of forcing liberty and freedom and the point of a rifle.

Shaggy_C: But if a single Iraqi had ever committed a terrorist act, we would have been justified in the invasion? The point being that we should never have allowed a relatively small terrorist group to be our excuse to invade an entire nation and overthrow a sovereign government. Al Qaeda was not a part of the Taliban; sure, they weren't doing shiat to stop them, but that didn't mean that they should have been grouped together as the same threat or target.

Shaggy, man, I love your devil's advocate stance on just about everything--but this is hardly a fair comparison.

Osama was invited to go to Afghanistan and was on friendly terms with Mullah Omar, and even assassinated one of his main rivals in Afghanistan.

You are asking us to accept an equivalence that is so strained it is hard to even recognize.

Shaggy_C: I'm calling Kristol an idiot, and anyone who supported one war over the other disingenuous in their reasoning behind it.

THis is the part you haven't supported at all.

Your initial claim was:

mean, really, aside from the WMD argument that everyone likes to focus on, the rest of the reasons were really no different than the reasons we invaded Afghanistan.

So aside from the absolutely most important thing about the discussion, they're the same? (which isn't true anyway.)


I didn't support either invasion. They're very different wars with very different rationales, that were presented and sold to the American public in very different ways.

When do we get the apology from Bill and Hillary Clinton?


They made the claim first.

So? Who the f*ck is Bill Kristol?

Shaggy_C: We weren't justified in either case, unless you bought into the background idea of forcing liberty and freedom and the point of a rifle.

my memory my be faulty, but I don't recall liberty and freedom being the reasoning we went into Afghanistan. I remember it being about beating the shiat out of the people that caused 9/11 to sooth the American's need for revenge. Iraq was sold to us through WMDs,and later it became about spreading freedom. for the record, I'm for pulling out of Afghanistan and Iraq in this farking minute. its sad that Obama has bought into the lie that we can fashion that country into a Democracy with nothing more than several thousand troops. fact is, that place is a graveyard of empires. we have two options. we can drop the lie, and pull out now, or we can continue with our blinders on, lose hundresd of billions more, hundreds of more troops killed, and pull out in another 5 years. the thing is, the result will be exactly the same. in 10 years the country will fall to another puritanical extremist group.

CtrlAltDelete: So? Who the f*ck is Bill Kristol?

one of the philosophical leaders of the neo-conservatives. Probably the de-facto current leader, i'd say.

He added, "this could be bad... for Obama."

depmode98: one of the philosophical leaders of the neo-conservatives. Probably the de-facto current leader, i'd say.

And who pays attention to him?

Skleenar: You are asking us to accept an equivalence that is so strained it is hard to even recognize.

I beg to differ; I don't think their friendship or acceptance of oneanother is justification enough for the overthrow of the Afghan government. Would you suggest that the governments that served as financial backers of Al Qaeda should have been toppled as well?

I'd like to drop a porcupine down this shameless twerps shorts.

CtrlAltDelete: depmode98: one of the philosophical leaders of the neo-conservatives. Probably the de-facto current leader, i'd say.

And who pays attention to him?

a lot of people actually. are you serious? his magazine, philosophy, and intellectual disciples single handedly changed the course of this nation's history by getting his mired in Iraq.

Shaggy_C: Skleenar: You are asking us to accept an equivalence that is so strained it is hard to even recognize.

I beg to differ; I don't think their friendship or acceptance of oneanother is justification enough for the overthrow of the Afghan government. Would you suggest that the governments that served as financial backers of Al Qaeda should have been toppled as well?

The actual government of Afghanistan was pretty much in exile. Pre-invasion they only had something like 5% or so of the nation w/ the Taliban controlling the rest.

Shaggy_C: I don't think their friendship or acceptance of oneanother is justification enough for the overthrow of the Afghan government. Would you suggest that the governments that served as financial backers of Al Qaeda should have been toppled as well?

This is a new argument. Your argument was:

I mean, really, aside from the WMD argument that everyone likes to focus on, the rest of the reasons were really no different than the reasons we invaded Afghanistan.,

Which is the enormous stretch. Your claim is that aside from the most important factor in why we invaded, the reasons were the same. The claim that the other reasons are the same is also wrong, but asking people to put aside the WMD argument is just silly.

Obdicut: I didn't support either invasion. They're very different wars with very different rationales, that were presented and sold to the American public in very different ways.

Perhaps from your point of view; but back in my Republican days I was all gung-ho on Iraq for the same reason I was gung-ho about Afghanistan, frankly I fell for the lie that 'freedom' could be brought about by US troops. Of course, I have a habit for assuming my viewpoint is often shared by others on my 'side' of an issue which often isn't the case (though I definitely thought it was back then!)

Anyhow, here's an article on the issue I found pretty interesting to read not too long ago. It's from 2006 but sums up the issue pretty nicely I think:
Link (new window)

1st rule of politics--the more wrong and costly the mistake you are directly responsible for, the less you should apologize.

Bill Kristol can make up for it by leading a new troop engagement in Tora Bora. With an enourmous orange hard hat on that makes it easy to identify him as 'teh leadre.'

An apology from him would not be worth the air it would him take to wheeze the words out his face sphincter.

You know if someone hacked into Kristol's financial accounts and erased them, I wouldn't shed a tear.

This man needs to be homeless and begging in the streets.

Shaggy_C: Perhaps from your point of view; but back in my Republican days I was all gung-ho on Iraq for the same reason I was gung-ho about Afghanistan, frankly I fell for the lie that 'freedom' could be brought about by US troops.

So talk about your own reasons, not everyone else's. Jesus.