what does the Likud Party have to do with this?? Kristol’s “hawkishness” is not too different than Jeane Kirkpatrick’s.
I know you Israel bashers try to make Israel the scapegoat for the Iraq War, and when you deny it, it becomes “only Likud.” But the scapegoating for America’s troubles didn’t stop after Sharon left Likud and Olmert (Kadima as PM) took the helm.
But there won’t always be one that gets to. If America stops trying to lead, well, few countries have any reason to follow Russia’s or China’s lead.
In theory, nothing wrong with America being the strongest, so long as we don’t start acting like it.
Great Caesar’s ghost! I haven’t thought about Jeane Kirkpatrick for ten years, since gently smiling over her obituary.
Get me a stick, a baseball bat, a fireplace poker, anything! I have to beat it back into its grave!
You’ve made it very clear that supporting Netanyahu is your most moral position, even more important than supporting the United States. What party is Netanyahu the leader of?
you’re the one hijacking the thread; the thread is supposed to be about Kristol and his third party candidate. All I did was say how I felt bad for Kristol and at least he’s patriotic (unlike Trump and Bernie), and you and others turned it into an attack on me.
But while I’m responding, fact is America and Israel’s interests are nearly identical; no one is putting Likud as more important than the US. The only ones accusing anyone of that are far-left and alt-righters.
You’re right, that’s the least.
I wasn’t talking about Iraq but rather current elements of Likud policy such as demands for a constantly aggressive attitude towards Iran. That said, I find it funny you should mention Jeane Kirkpatrick considering that when the Argentine military junta ordered the invasion of the Falkland Islands, she advocated a policy of neutrality even though the United Kingdom (whatever you may think of Thatcher) was under a democratically elected government and the overwhelming majority of Falklanders approved of being part of the UK. How’s that for betraying long-time allies?
Which had utterly nothing to do with the Iraq invasion–the one that was launched against a secular dictatorship, opening the way for both sectarian violence and the rise of ISIS.
Your “armchair pacifists” claim is a straw man to help you avoid facing your desire to repeat GWB’s mistakes, all the while professing to be a Democrat.
:rolleyes:
Couldn’t have anything at all to do with an Islamic fundamentalist regime working on the bomb. Naah.
So David French is his guy? Seriously? And French hasn’t even consented to run? Not to mention that while David French is a heckuva a human being, he’s the kind of guy you introduce to politics with a House run, not a Presidential run.
Look, the LP is running two two term governors on their ticket. That’s the minimum bar a third party needs to hit to compete in this race. Running a war hero with no political experience ain’t going to cut it unless he’s like a general with foreign policy experience or something like Stan MacChrystal. There are literally 10,000 vets who are more qualified to run for office than David French at this point. If not 100,000.
My stance on Iran is exactly the same as that of the President.
My stance on Iran is exactly what Hillary Clinton really thinks, given that she did not make a deal when she was SecState and took a much harder line on negotiations than Kerry did. And even Kerry was prodded by the President demanding that we get “creative” to get to a deal when it looked like one wouldn’t happen, which is politispeak for “make whatever concessions you have to”.
I’m skeptical if this is Hillary’s true feelings, but if they’re yours, then your feelings would lead to a much, much higher chance of Iran building a bomb.
If French was the strongest potential savior Kristol could come up, he’s pretty much hit the bottom of the barrel.
Oh, you can get much lower than French. French at least has a following among conservatives. For example, lower than French in status would be Bill Kristol himself.
well said…she’s only vocally going along with the deal to not alienate Obama or too many anti-war types, which woulda brought in Biden. Had she not gone along, Biden would be in the race right now.
I wouldn’t go that far. Her strategy is to tie herself to Obama, so that means supporting him fully on everything. But on the Iran deal, I think she’ll be much less inclined to overlook breaches than Obama would be.
Heh. Bill Kristol is so trolly, insane, and just plain wrong about everything I have to assume that he posts here on Elections.
Now, I never would say that anyone else here aspires to be a mini-Kristol, but my formidable powers of prognostication assure me that the Forum will continue to be filled with talk of how huge a percentage of the vote Gary Johnson’s going to get on the Libertarian ticket. It’s different this time, don’t you know.
Has anyone ever seen Bill Kristol and adaher in the same place at the same time? Hmm.