If Obama Is Likely President, Says Kristol, Bush Will Bomb Iran


Just like a Bush to leave an incoming president with a new, unfinished war:

On Fox News Sunday this morning, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol said that President Bush is more likely to attack Iran if he believes Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) is going to be elected.

However, “if the president thought John McCain was going to be the next president, he would think it more appropriate to let the next president make that decision than do it on his way out,” Kristol said, reinforcing the fact that McCain is offering a third Bush term on Iran.

Talk about a poison pill. Heck, Bush the Elder only left one unfinished war for Clinton. Bush the Younger might well leave three!


Sean Paul Kelley June 22, 2008 - 6:04pm
( categories: Analysis | Iran | USA: Campaign 2008 )

Congress needs to get some spine (hah!) and send a firm message to Little George that it reserves the sole right to make war and any attempt to circumvent that power will result in charges of treason.

We've never had a president charged with treason before; it would be interesting. It might demonstrate what a "damned piece of paper" can do to one.

Petronius June 22, 2008 - 7:03pm

Israel. The US would have to "defend" them if they attack first and then Iran strikes back.

creativelcro June 22, 2008 - 7:28pm

Israel needs some sort of military victory. Killing civilians in Gaza just doesn't do the trick.

Petronius June 22, 2008 - 10:19pm

attacking Iran is going to work out as well as they hope.

Ian Welsh June 23, 2008 - 3:49am

"McBush," I believe is the correct spelling. That's John W McBush.

yogi-one June 23, 2008 - 3:47am

I think the air is leaking out too fast. His credibility is sinking so fast and the bureaucrats are probably more concerned about investigations that he could push the button and nothing would happen and no one would ever hear about it.

brodix June 23, 2008 - 5:36am

Jun 24, 2008
Asia Times
By Kaveh L Afrasiabi

Unfortunately, compounding the UN's shortcoming above-cited is a related failure of mainstream media in the US and Europe to criticize Ban's flawed approach to the Iran crisis, or to address the systematic disinformation and planned paranoia about Iran's nuclear program put forth by Israel and its allies.

Instead, the US media in particular have allowed themselves to become an unwitting accomplice of Israel's anti-Iran propaganda machine, dutifully recycling the line that Iran is actively pursuing nuclear weapons, has amassed "weapons-grade" enriched uranium, and is thus on the verge of arriving at "the point of no return" with respect to bomb-making.

In a word, the race to dupe public opinion about a "clear and present danger" posed by Iran's nuclear program, to justify Israel's threatened attack (with the US's tacit approval) is in full gear and the US media are by and large about to receive another "F" card, just as they did with the US's 2003 invasion of Iraq, when the "pluralistic" media became a shell of itself by blindly echoing the White House's spin about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

From the New York Times to the Wall Street Journal to the Boston Globe, the Dallas News and so on, a common thread running through their editorials and opinion pages nowadays is a fundamental distortion of facts about Iran's nuclear program that has gone unnoticed despite the patently obvious and flagrant nature of this distortion.

With leading nuclear experts, media pundits and members of the US Congress recycling it, this serious distortion has now acquired the status of a truism about Iran, and a dangerous one that lends itself to an unprovoked attack on Iran by Israel and or the US.

But, no matter what the influential position of their signatories, the narratives in the US media that persist in their claim that Iran has manufactured "weapons-grade" enriched uranium simply cannot stand the weight of scrutiny and are refuted by the IAEA's findings to the contrary. These narratives routinely refer to the IAEA's reports on Iran, yet turn a blind eye to those reports' explicit references to Iran's "low-enriched uranium" (up to 4%)

Tina June 23, 2008 - 10:24am

While there's little reason to doubt that the present US administration is always willing to cause the sudden, unnecessary deaths of thousands of people, including Americans, Kristol's warrning is nothing more than another of the usual, patently obvious scare ploys. Is he also responsible for the "Obama is the antichrist" campaigns? In the fractured mental universe of very odd people, Kristol and his friends sound increasingly desperate.

Anyway, he needn't be so worried. The notion that the US will elect... how do you say... a "person of color"... to the Presidency is about as likely as the much vaunted "victory" in the "war on terror". (Victory cannot be declared until all the scary people of all the nations of the world choose to become nice and stop acting up.) Racism defines America and is deeply rooted in its history. Who would they be without it?

Chickadee June 23, 2008 - 12:03pm

Yes, there are multitudes in this country who wouldn't vote for a black man if you held a gun to their heads, but the fact that Obama's even gotten this close indicates that something has changed, and for the better. I suspect it will be a squeaker either way, but if stays sharp, he could win this. (And I say this as someone who has never been an Obama fan.)

geoduck June 23, 2008 - 5:55pm

People are impatient with the present status quo, no doubt, but not THAT impatient. imo.

Chickadee June 23, 2008 - 10:15pm

Sheesh I wish there was a way to delete a duplicate post/

Chickadee June 23, 2008 - 10:15pm

you just solved that problem - your post is no longer a duplicate.


"While not a Playboy reader, she invites a male acquaintance in for a quiet discussion of Chagall, Nietzsche, jazz, sex." - not a Hugh Hefner quote

adrena June 23, 2008 - 10:34pm

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.