To every Sunday, there is spin, spin, spin...not least from the Iraqi fiasco's biggest cheerleader, William "The Bloody" Kristol who apparently thinks that enthusiastic consistency makes up for being 100% wrong on about everything he says. On FOXNews Sunday he furthers the new neo-con meme of the Iranian threat, which is absent any evidence other than the neo-cons' insistence that they are a threat. Pay no attention that it's the same rhetoric used to go after the Taliban, then Saddam, then al Qaeda in Iraq. Juan Williams points out that Kristol's war-mongering is getting a little old.
WALLACE: Bill on the policy side, and it’s what I talked about with Stephen Hadley, perhaps the most striking development this week was the increased and new focus on Iraq, on Iran rather, not al Qaeda as the central threat to our interest in Iraq. What's up, what's going on there?
KRISTOL: Well what's going on is that we've done so much damage to al Qaeda, they've been pushed up north toward Mosul. I think we're going to continue to reduce their effectiveness, and so now the Iranian-backed Shi’a extremists are the major threat. That's good, not bad. We have virtually wiped out al Qaeda in Iraq which al Qaeda said over and over was the central front of their battle against the US. Uh I think now Iran comes more into focus. Uh we need to, we have to see how much we can do to deter Iran from uh uh, complicating things in the south with the Shi’a, but the good news is the Iraqi Shi’a government which which was supposed to be a puppet and pawn of Iran has turned against the Iranian-backed Shi’a militia. Politically, I think this is good for McCain for this reason: What's the main challenge of the next President? Dealing with Iran. Dealing with Iran's attempts to get mutual hegemony. Dealing with Iran's attempt to destabilize Iraq. Dealing with Iran's attempt to get nuclear weapons. Who do you want dealing with Iran over the next four years? McCain or Obama? I think that's good for McCain.
WILLIAMS: I don’t think it’s good for McCain because I think it makes the war a bigger issue. I mean, the whole rationale that was put forward this week still focused on al Qaeda. And as you have just said, the United States military has done a good job of dealing with al Qaeda. So then the argument becomes: if things are getting better, why do we need to stay? Oh no, because if we leave, things will get worse. But wait a second, you’ve dealt with al Qaeda, and now we shift to Iran, you know, the new devil in the picture. I think at some point the…it just strains credibility. Ands when you put Gen. Petraeus there saying, you know, where’s the political progress, it’s almost like you’re talking to the wrong person. You should be talking to President Bush and his team about why there has been no political stability developed in Iraq given that the U.S. military has provided this long time frame from which progress could be made.