Here we go again. Another Sunday, another week with Bloody Bill Kristol pushing for more military intervention: Fox News Sunday Beats Syria War Drums:
Subhed: Fox Analysts Urge "Irresponsible" Obama To Do "Something," But Won't Say What
William Kristol wants to go to war in Syria, but he won't say what that war should look like. Appearing on Fox News Sunday to discuss reports of chemical weapons attacks in Syria, the Weekly Standard editor (and noted Iraq war hawk) attacked President Obama as "totally irresponsible" for indicating that he doesn't want "to start another war," saying: "You've got to do what you've got to do."
When host Chris Wallace pointed out to him that there are "no good choices" for intervening in the Syrian conflict and asked, "so what do you do?," Kristol brushed it off without indicating how he thought the president should respond: "You do what you think is best. You're commander in chief, you've got an awful lot of options."
They were all happy to use this as en excuse to amp up the rhetoric on Iran as well. Kristol didn't want to give specifics himself, but the one thing you can be sure of is, it won't matter how President Obama responds, they'll attack him later if things don't go well. Never mind that Wallace admitted there are no good options.
Full transcript below the fold.
WALLACE: Yes, but Mr. Kristol is now going to say but you got to do two things at the same time. Let's talk specifically about Iran, which I think everybody agrees in the Middle East is the real key factor here. As I discussed with the ambassador, discerning as an intelligence matter, assessing whether or not Syria has used chemical weapons, is a much easier technical matter than assessing whether or not Iran has a nuclear capability, which is all behind closed doors. Much harder, and certainly, in terms of, you know, this kind of error tight case and prove, much harder to access. If he fails to act now, what do you think is the message to the mullahs in Tehran?
KRISTOL: Well, I think the message is that he -- as Amy and Brit said it, this is not a president who wants to start another war, that's the way he sees it. I think it's totally irresponsible for the American president to have that. Nobody wants to start wars, but you've got to do what you've got to do. And it doesn't really matter if the public is at 39 percent, at 60 percent.
I mean really? This is -- what is happening in Syria is a very serious matter. I mean what's going to -- it's the spillover effect, setting aside 75,000 people killed, which incidentally one point in time, liberals and Democrats cared about. You know, there once was a liberal internationalist wing of the Democratic Party, Chuck Lane is the last representative of it, probably. I mean that actually thought, maybe U.S. should use its power to prevent this kind of slaughter from happening.
But the actual effects in Jordan and in Iraq, where we spent a lot of treasury to achieve the reasonable outcome, the president then didn't secure any troops there now, and now there's a huge danger of this spilling over into Iraq, and throughout the Middle East, and then the effect in Iran I think is very serious. I think it emboldens the mullahs. And I think it was very significant this week that Amos Yadlin who is the former head of military intelligence in Israel, who was closed to Netanyahu, said we only have a few months now to deal with Iran. I think Israel now probably feels they have to deal with Iran on their own and can't wait for the president.
LANE: Well, you know, there's another aspect that involves Iran, and that's the fact that Iran is a very close ally of the Assad regime, and according to reports now, is pouring its support into propping him up militarily, and mobilizing Hezbollah out of Lebanon, to send their fighters into Syria, raising the prospect that at the end of all, this Assad could actually win this thing and impose his will on that country.
WALLACE: So you're saying that that's another reason why we should intervene?
LANE: It's another reason that I think pushes in that direction, because it -- what we have here is a situation where Iran could see itself, if Assad succeeds in surviving at least, as having intimidated or frightened the United States into staying out of the area.
WALLACE: Now, let me just pick up one last thing, we're run out of time, Bill, and I want to ask you, as the person who's urging action, there are no good choices, as I discussed with the ambassador. If you bomb, as he said, you could be complicit in a war crime of dispersing the chemical weapons. If you try to secure them, you're putting boots on the ground in the middle of a civil war. If you arm the rebels, there are growing stories that a growing percentage of the rebels are tied to Al Qaeda. So, what do you do?
KRISTOL: It would have been easier two years ago, but you do what you think is best, bases as -- you're commander in chief, you've got an awful lot of options, covert and overt. And I think you've got to -- it's understandable to err on the side of caution, but now we're paying much more of a price for inaction than action.