Barack Obama will assume that just and rightful authority at noon on Tuesday. After a dinner with him that I attended last week, as we said our goodbyes, I overheard one of my fellow conservatives say softly to the president-elect, “Sir, I’ll be praying for you.” Obama seemed to pause as they shook hands, and to thank him more earnestly than he did those of us who simply — and sincerely — wished him well.
The incoming president is the ...
Full Story »
As part of the group that wrote PNAC, I can hardly credit his appraisal of Bush going to war against Iraq...as it was part of the PNAC plan before Bush took office. Also, he totally failed to mention that 9/11 occurred on Bush's watch-after disregarding warnings from Clark and other professionals! This is a re-writing of history, and totally inexcusable. And to title our next president the "Next War President" is beyond the pale, especially before Obama is in office. He might well, and I hope, be our "End the War President"- but that falls off of PNAC's path for the USA future. Trying to rewrite the history of the Bush presidency by not only distorting but ommitting pertinent facts is sheer partisanism and not quality ... More »
Kristol totally failed to mention that 9/11 occurred on Bush's watch- after Bush disregarded warnings from Clark and other professionals! This is a re-writting of history, and totally inexcusable. And to title our next president the "Next War President" is beyond the pale, especially before Obama is in office. He might well, and I hope, be our "End the War President"- but that falls off of PNAC's path for the USA future. Trying to rewrite the history of the Bush presidency by ... More »
When you read a column by William Kristol you know it will be well written. You also know it will have a conservative slant.
I agree that President Bush favored Israel but maybe if he was just a tad more even handed we could have avoided this no win war.
From the title of this piece I expected this story to be about Obama (perhaps expounding on the dinner with conservatives). It was not, rather it is mainly about Bush. Kristol is either misleading (or being naive) when he states: "Bush stood with Israel when he had no political incentive to do so and received no political benefit from doing so." Further he implies that America was on the verge of accepting defeat in Iraq in late 2006--certainly a view that is in need of definition and is open to debate. In sum this article was not what I expected and I was not impressed by what I read.
Yet another piece of Israeli militarist propaganda from a stalwart neocon, hoping to convince his readers that the insane Bush administration adventure in Iraq was a "victory"!
Kristol is an incessant propagandist for Israeli militarists and fanatical Jews counting on the US taxpayers to support the cost of relentless oppression of the Palestinians. The true cost of protecting Israel runs into the tens of billions of US taxpayer dollars per year, and it only makes Israel's long-term security needlessly to become in question because it prevents a settlement of the Israel/Palestine problem.
While we don't, at this time, know how Iraq will turn-out, and it looks like Afgan., is just starting again, all I see Bush leaving is a mess.
Retrieving Comments
