Kristol: ‘Better’ for US to attack Iran than if Israel did

[laststeamtrain]

Kristol: ‘Better’ for US to attack Iran than if Israel did

By David Edwards and Gavin Dahl
Sunday, April 4th, 2010 -- 12:17 pm

The Obama administration should be seriously considering a strike on Iran, according to neoconservative Fox News contributor Bill Kristol.

An Israeli Deputy Defense Minister said last week that he expected Israel would have to attack Iran within a year. Kristol believes it would be better for the US to attack first.

"I think we have to have a credible threat of force and the preparation to use force against Iran. It would be much better if we used force against -- to delay the Iranian nuclear program than if Israel did and there is no evidence that the US government is being at all serious about the use force there," Kristol told Fox News' Chris Wallace Sunday.

<snip>

"Look, precisely because the consequences are so serious whether we use force or Israel uses force, a serious and responsible US government must think that through and play that out," he responded. "I would say the Obama administration is so adverse to even hinting at the use of force that we don't have the kinds of preparations we should have if Israel were to strike."

This video is from Fox's Fox News Sunday, broadcast April 4, 2010.

<more>

http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0404/kristol-us-strike-on-iran-israeli-strike/

[sakabatou]

1. Let's send Kristol to the front line. Alone.

[Dramarama]

2. Great idea

Not. this is all I've been reading on the WSJ. "Nuke Iran, Do it! Do it! Do it!"

[KonaKane]

3. Why is this asshole still being given media time?

It never ceases to amaze me how the media is so quick to still give the most failed, the most wrong, the most antisocial losers a podium. What happened to rewarding virtue instead of vice?

[CurtEastPoint]

4. His college roomie was Alan Keyes? Boy, I'll be they were a laugh

together. Just... just... ewwwwwwwww

[MadMaddie]

5. Kristol the guy that never got anything right!

That will be what he is remembered for.

[yellowwood]

6. IIt Would Be the End of Us

For God's sake, we must avoid a war with Iran. How is it in our interest? Are we afraid that Iran will attack us?
It may be Israel's interest. But we are not their nanny.
I heard Kenneth Pollack (another neocon) on NPR last week saying that there have been "war games" (disgusting term) played to show how Israel attacking Iran would play out. The games showed that it would take a while before US would get in the fight, and, in the meantime, Israel would suffer a lot of damage. I dislike the assumption that we would automatically finish a war that they would start.
These guys talked us into Iraq. We can see how well that's going, and it's much less powerful than Iran.

[Lost4words]

7. Iran has its own problems, and it could change for the better if left alone.

[SpiralHawk]

8. Typical Republicon Chickenhawk

These republicon chickenhawks -- no end of them -- are always spoiling for somebody else to have a fight -- while they whimp out and sit home safe and sound sucking their thumbs, wearing their diapers, and listening to Rush 'DraftDodger' Limbaugh or Glenn 'Crybaby-Chickenhawk' Beck talk about how MANLY the republicons are.

Ptoooey on their phony tough guy stance. I'd like to see just one of these chickenhawk republicon assclowns serve in the US Armed Forces for even 5 frikkin minutes.

[DCBob]

9. I really despise that man...

:puke: on Kristol.

[malaise]

10. Hasn't this fucking chicken hawk killed enough people?

:puke:

[Cleita]

16. This is why these people should have been investigated and charged with

crimes if investigations turned up such things. They wouldn't be walking around like they had any credibility to be speaking in public about waging pre-emptive wars. They should be in prison.

[stranger81]

11. Better for whom? Israel?

Not better for us, and not better for Iran.

[notadmblnd]

12. Let Israel do dtheir own dirty work

[LooseWilly]

13. No wonder the US won't sign on to the international court...

It might inhibit open talk of war crimes by editorialists.

Pakistan might attack India too... should we go ahead and invade preemptorily there too, because "it would be better if we attack (India) than if (Pakistan) attacks (India)"?

Russia might attack Georgia again. Should we maybe attack Georgia first, because "it would be better if we attack (Georgia) than if (Russia) attacks (Georgia)"? Or should we maybe attack Russia, for the converse reason?

And... what the fuck criteria is being used to determine "better" vs. "worse" here??

[Cleita]

14. Kristol is one of the original founders of the Project For a New American

Century, you know the one that wanted a Pearl Harbor type incident so that America could go to war in the Middle East. I think his credibility is right there with the Easter Bunny's.

[Joanne98]

15. GRRRRRRRR

[KG]

17. isreal has nukes and the most powerful military force in the mideast.

really, who is real threat in this situation. hint - it ain't iran.