Kristol Suggests Invading Iran
This article is worth reading, mostly for the comments. Kristol does not actually call for the US to invade Iran, but he uses the Hitler 1939 analogy and compares Great Britain’s hesitance to declare war on Germany in the wake of the Czeck invasion to Obama’s distance from Iran right now.
The Washington Post commenters have no mercy with Kristol. Compared to Kristol’s hilariously underdeveloped line of thought on the matter, they also show relatively impressive wisdom.
“Kristol is the affirmative action hire at the WAPO, how else can you explain it. This guy has been wrong about everything forever.”
“For a witless Neocon failure any world event, any statement, any happening, is an opportunity to attack Obama. Read the WaPo witless idiot, it is TOO EARLY to jump in like a Neocon and start breaking the china.”
“It’s called “Waiting for the dust to settle.” The situation in Iran, which is volatile on a good day, is unstable enough; it doesn’t need a shoot-from-the-lip display of patriotic machismo from the Great Satan to muck things up even further.”
This is my favorites comment:
“Not even the Iranians yet know exactly what happened, and the information is still simmering. A better quote from Obama:
‘There was a delay because I like to know what I’m talking about before I speak.’”
I remember being unable to suppress my grin when then-candidate Obama said this.
Kristol and Krauthammer are the two most consistently wrong pundits of all time.
Don’t forget Christopher Hitchens.
The whole anti-Obama crowd has a baffling response on the Iran elections. It is hard to tell exactly what they are saying should be done instead and what that would accomplish. It seems obvious that they just want to disagree with whatever Obama is doing, but I could be wrong; they could just be deeply confused on the whole issue.
It seems like in an ideal neocon world, the US president would speak out strongly against the suspicious elections and “act” (John McCain). Such intervention is certain to cement Ahmadinejad’s political position. Is that really what they want? Why?
Is there anyone who is not deeply confused/unsure/conflicted about what the proper response is here?