Bill Kristol Calls President ‘Irresponsible’ For Not Wanting War With Syria

[spanone]

we truly live in the twilight zone

Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol told (Mike) Wallace that the president’s failure to intervene sends the message that “this is not a president who wants to start another war.”

“I think it’s totally irresponsible for an American president to have that,” noted warhawk Kristol added. “No one wants to start wars, but you’ve got to do what you’ve got to do.” He also dismissed polls that show the public is opposed to American intervention before reminiscing for a time when there were “liberal internationalists” who would be in favor of committing U.S. troops to break up the conflict overseas.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/fox-panel-takes-on-obamas-red-line-on-syria-bill-kristol-calls-pres-irresponsible-for-not-wanting-war/

[Blue Owl]

1. Go huff some more farts, Billy

n/t

[Thinkingabout]

2. Again a warhawk wanting to start wars without first making proper inspections and an exit plan.

President Obama is showing great responsibility in making sure before he runs out and makes another Bush Blunder. The GOP is always yelling about spending, we are still paying for an unfunded war that Bush got us into. Crystal needs to continue to write and say the dumb things the RW wants to hear and try to keep up his ratings for he sure does not know how to run this country.

[malaise]

3. Yep - Bush and Cheney were responsible

for their illegal war.

These fucking neo-cons should be locked up.

[Aristus]

4. Or sent over to do the fighting their own damn selves...

n/t

[denverbill]

5. I don't know why this moron is taken seriously.

Has he ever actually been right about anything?

Why does he keep having his idiotic opinions publicized? Why don't they just keep bringing that 'end of the world' guy on couple times a year to give his latest prediction on when the world is ending?

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. Tell you what Bill

You are right, we should go to war anywhere you fantasize, but only on one condition...you...yes you, will join the infantry, as a private...will be issued combat kit...and will be in the first wave...in fact, you and every other chicken hawk...and the officer in command of this first wave will be Navy Captain John Sidney McCain, with his exec, one Colonel Lindsey Graham.

Then, and only then, should we consider combat. And no Bill, not your kids...though they should be in the regular combat arms too...nope, you.

It's really easy to ask others to die.

Now on a serious matter, we might have to something about Syria...by we I mean the International Community, and by we I mean somebody else putting those boots if that is needed. There are a few things that we, as international community, can be done very much short of a full fledged war...but that is not good for business I 'spose

[City Lights]

7. Pack your bags and lead the charge, Bill!

I'm sure you'll be greeted with candy and flowers.

[spanone]

8. another neocon chickenhawk....finds it easy to send poor folks kids into combat

[eissa]

9. “What he’s trying to do now is insist on ironclad proof,”

Brit Hume suggested.

How is this a bad thing?!

[Cali_Democrat]

10. War is peace

[LiberalAndProud]

11. I can't help but think that stupid talk like this bolsters the president.

Although I never cease to be amazed at the number of people who have been swayed to an alarming degree by the extreme rhetoric of the right wing, I have to believe that the more violently unbalanced their speech turns, even propaganda-sensitive people will finally reach the point of WTF.

[Initech]

12. No Kristol you stupid fuck. Telling the greedy war mongering bastards...

That the last thing we need is another trillion dollar stalemate is the responsible thing to do. We don't need these greedy bastards looting our treasury for another endless, pointless war. : mad:

George Carlin was right: conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers.

[LeftInTX]

13. I'm so tired of neocons

I wonder if the general public might possibly be getting tired of war-mongering too?

I think as a country, I don't know how much more we can take of cable news 24/7 wars

[Donald Ian Rankin]

14. I'm a card-carrying liberal internationalist, who supported Kosovo, but I think he's wrong.

I'm a card-carrying liberal internationalist. I think the USA was right to attack Serbia over Kosovo, and wrong not to send troops to Rwanda and probably Darfur; beforehand I supported the invasion of Afghanistan, and while with hindsight it's undeniably done more harm than good I still think that it is quite possible that if the USA had committed itself fully to nation-building and not been side-tracked by Iraq that it might well have done more good than harm.

But there doesn't seem much prospect of an invasion of Syria doing much good. Either you're going to leave Assad in power, or you're going to replace him with an unstable coalition of rebels, many of them hardline religious fanatics. And, on top of that, much of the population has already fled abroad, meaning there's very little chance of restoring a stable or prosperous state any time soon.

If your heart is really set on playing the world's policeman and using military force to improve people's lives, I suspect that you'll do most good per dollar or death intervening in the civil wars in sub-saharan Africa. But I suspect that the same money could save even more lives if spend on aid rather than intervention (although I'm not 100% certain of that - Africa civil wars to massive harm and are low-tech enough that Western military intervention might be relatively one-sided.

I suspect that a large part of the desire to invade Syria is that it is an Islamic state.