November 25, 2013

Fox wasn't the only network parading out the neocons to attack the negotiations with the Iranians that were announced over the weekend. MSNBC's Morning Joe had one one of Scarborough's favorites, Dan Senor, a.k.a. "Baghdad Bob" around these parts on this Monday, and then for good measure their producers decided they needed to double down on the war mongers and brought on Bloody Bill Kristol as well -- because god knows what that show needs is one more belligerent asshole to sneer at and talk over the guests who don't agree with them other than Scarborough.

That's exactly what the audience was treated to when Kristol got into it with one of the other guests on the panel, Richard Haass, where Kristol sniped at him for daring to suggest that anyone might think that lobbing a few bombs Iran's way might be considered an act of war.

After going back and forth on whether the recent deal with the Iranians is going to work or not and whether or not in the end they might ultimately agree to give up their enrichment capacity to build a nuclear weapon, Haass pushed back at Kristol on what his solution would be if it's impossible to get the Iranians down to zero capacity.

KRISTOL: Do you think it's inevitable?

HAASS: Depending on the details, sure.

KRISTOL: Oh my god.

HAASS: The question is, if you have very few centrifuges, very little ability to accumulate low-enriched uranium, no heavy water reactors so you can't have a second path to a nuclear weapon, tight inspections, yeah, that would be a deal. You're not going to get...

KRISTOL: Well, it takes the fly out of the ointment. Do you think that deal is plausible, honestly?

HAASS: Yeah.

KRISTOL: Really?

HAASS: Yeah. The answer is possible and that's what we have to negotiate. (crosstalk) The question I ask for you is, do you think getting them down to zero is possible. Answer, no. So what are you willing to live with? Are you willing to live with an unregulated Iran, or do you want to go to war? That is the real choice. The choice is not between this deal and a deal that is perfect, but we can negotiate. (crosstalk)

KRISTOL: The day before this deal, there was a choice that didn't immediately involve going to war, which is to increase the sanctions, which allegedly were doing a lot of damage, a. And b, this “go to war” line is misleading. You can have strikes that set back their program that aren't “going to war.”

HAASS: You don't know how Iran would respond to the strikes. To assume away what the scenario would look like after we use military force, sure you can assume...

KRISTOL: So you're ruling out military force?

HAASS: No, not at all. I don't want to do it blithely.

Of course Scarborough couldn't let things go without chiming in about how terrible it is that anyone would call any of them war mongers as well. Sorry pal, but after the way you acted following our invasion of Iraq, you don't get a pass for your behavior now.

It would have been nice if anyone had asked Kristol if the United States would consider military air strikes against us an act of war or not. I'm assuming he'd have a slightly different opinion than the one he gave on Iran here.

Can you help us out?

For 18 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.