Ah...Bloody Bill Kristol can always be counted on to do his part to hype the U.S. going to war with Iran. The man has never found a conflict where som
June 8, 2009

Ah...Bloody Bill Kristol can always be counted on to do his part to hype the U.S. going to war with Iran. The man has never found a conflict where someone else's child can go off to die that he didn't like. On Fox News Sunday Kristol claims that possible concessions with Iran for peaceful nuclear development means that the President is "giving up on the attempt to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons".

If people like Bill Kristol weren't promoting invading other countries that weren't a threat to us, maybe some of these countries wouldn't feel the need to get into an arms race in the first place. That would, of course, never cross a good little war monger like Kristol's mind.

WALLACE: So, Bill Kristol, we in the media, I think it’s fair to say, always hype these speeches from every president, make it sound like it’s going to dramatically alter the situation on the ground. Now that President Obama has come and gone, has he changed anything in the Middle East?

KRISTOL: I don’t think so. And I don’t think he’s helped the situation, because I think he went to the Middle East. What is the biggest problem in the Middle East, the biggest threat to peace, the biggest threat to kill millions of people, the biggest threat to trigger a really disastrous nuclear arms race? It’s Iran’s nuclear program.

He said almost nothing about it. He has three paragraphs. And basically, if you read it carefully, he, I think, pretty much concedes that Iran’s going to get nuclear weapons. He’s worried about a Middle East arms race. He thinks he’ll take care of that by having close relations with the Arab states, I suppose, and extending deterrents to them.

He does not say that the Iranian nuclear program is unacceptable, which he himself had said as a candidate. He’s given up on that. And I think that’s the true news of the speech. All the rest is wishful thinking, and nice talk, and P.R. that may or may not work.

The real news of the speech is he’s giving up on the attempt to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons.

WALLACE: I want to focus on this, because I completely agree with you that in terms of policy it was the most important part of the speech.

The president said that no nation should choose which nation has nuclear weapons, and he said that Iran has a right to a peaceful nuclear program.

Mara, isn’t that a substantial scaling back of the U.S. position towards Iran?


WALLACE: Speaking of negotiation, Bill, who does Israeli negotiate with? I mean, you've got chaos on the Palestinian side.

You've got Fatah in control of the -- to some degree in control of the West Bank. You've got Hamas, which does -- still does not recognize Israel's right to exist and continues to fire missiles from Gaza. Who would Benjamin Netanyahu sit down with if he wanted to?

KRISTOL: I think what the Obama administration thinks is they can get the Arab leaders to the table, they can get Mubarak and the Saudis to the table, and in effect impose a peace agreement both on Israel and on the Palestinians.

I don't think it would be a very stable agreement. It wouldn't be perhaps even enforced at the time, but a notional agreement that would give the sense that there was a peace process moving and, I suppose, if you want to give the Obama administration credit for thinking this through, allow for a kind of more united front in the Middle East, a more -- a calmer Middle East, less opportunities for the Iranians to incite, to recruit terrorists, and less opportunities for Hezbollah and fewer opportunities for Hamas.

I suppose that's their theory. I mean, it is a heck of a way, in my view, to -- I mean -- well, there are so many -- I think it's extremely improbable that it will work, and a lot of it, it seems to me, is just an evasion of the fundamental choice, which is Iran.

You know, we were talking about at the beginning -- it just --when you read those three paragraphs, they're really startling. I mean, there are three U.N. security resolutions which the Bush administration went to a huge amount of trouble to try to get the Europeans signed on. The Russians and Chinese signed on. He doesn't mention them.

Iran is in violation with its enrichment program of U.N. -- this isn't American Bush, you know, imperialism. This is the U.N. Security Council, and he doesn't mention that fact. He really -- he is really conceding an Iranian nuclear weapon and then the question becomes does Israel accept that.

WILLIAMS: I don't think...

KRISTOL: And you know, it's all fair and nice to talk about this peace process, but he has increased the chances of an Israeli strike on Iran...

WALLACE: All right. We've got 30 seconds left...

KRISTOL: ... and sooner -- and sooner rather than later.

WALLACE: ... and I'm ceding it to Ms. Liasson.

Can you help us out?

For nearly 20 years we have been exposing Washington lies and untangling media deceit, but now Facebook is drowning us in an ocean of right wing lies. Please give a one-time or recurring donation, or buy a year's subscription for an ad-free experience. Thank you.


We welcome relevant, respectful comments. Any comments that are sexist or in any other way deemed hateful by our staff will be deleted and constitute grounds for a ban from posting on the site. Please refer to our Terms of Service for information on our posting policy.