Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Who Will Confront Obama? Cheney, Gingrich and...?

"Mark my words," Joe Biden prophesied in late October 2008, "It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama.”

And so it was to be. North Korea’s testing nukes, Iran’s testing missiles, Russia’s testing its ability to bully neighbors, China’s testing crackdowns on dissidents, Sudan’s testing non-cooperation on Darfur, jihadists from Pakistan to Gaza are testing and re-testing terror and intimidation. It’s a testing world out there. And not just for President Obama. Because other political leaders also have an obligation to explain what policies they’d pursue to prevent a dangerous world from -- not to put too fine a point on it -- spinning out of control.

For Republicans and conservatives, the temptation has been to attend to the home front and to focus on resisting Obama’s big government agenda -- an agenda worth resisting, in my opinion. But the most successful conservative intervention in the first four months of the Obama presidency has been -- counter to predictions by consultants and pundits -- that of Dick Cheney on national security policy. He may be the only Republican so far who’s really forced Obama onto the defensive. And most conservatives and Republicans would, I think, agree that the other Republican who’s effectively -- if episodically -- challenged Obama on foreign and national security policy has been Newt Gingrich.

Both Cheney and Gingrich have the background and stature to address credibly national security issues. Here’s an interesting question: Will any Republican whose career lies mostly ahead of him -- or her -- step up to confront Obama on the foreign policy and national security front? Is any of them enough of a risk-taker to defy the conventional wisdom that if you’re a mere senator or congressman or governor or aspirer to office, you should focus on domestic issues, that it’s hard (and it is) to take on a president on foreign policy? Will any of them seek to join Cheney and Gingrich in the foreign policy fray?

What if no younger political figure steps forward? If national security remains front and center over the next three years (a pretty safe bet), could the GOP nominee in 2012 be Gingrich...or even -- gasp! -- Cheney?

By William Kristol  | May 25, 2009; 12:05 PM ET
Categories:  Kristol  | Tags:  William Kristol  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: An Obama-Cheney Thought Experiment
Next: Nancy Pelosi Is No Longer Heroic

Comments

How exactly is Gingrich qualified to speak on national security?

Posted by: stanwood1 | May 25, 2009 12:43 PM | Report abuse

Cheney and Gingrich as the voices of the GOP. And so the Republican brand has come down to hearing the angry words of the Lord High Torturer and the Holier Than Thou Government Hating Skirt Chaser.

Who but the self-loathing would want to join these two in doing anything?

Posted by: kcbob | May 25, 2009 12:44 PM | Report abuse

Except global "developments" translate so readily--and almost subliminally, to Kristol--into "global opposition" to what Republicans want so. Take Russia--he's never heard how declaring Kosovo independent upset the Kremlin so much they threatened to make Abzhakia and Ossetia their own provinces then. No, there's never another side to it when global dominance is all you care about, can or do, is there!?!!!

Posted by: tennisist2 | May 25, 2009 12:48 PM | Report abuse

Birdshot bulls__t.

Posted by: pressF1 | May 25, 2009 12:50 PM | Report abuse

"Both Cheney and Gingrich have the background and stature to address credibly national security issues." Have you lost your mind? Cheney has had zero credibility since the build up to, and the invasion of, Iraq. And Gingrish was run out of congress. Like Cheney and Gingrich you are mired in the past.

Posted by: davidbarth | May 25, 2009 1:02 PM | Report abuse

"Russia is testing its ability to bully neighbors...."

Russia the bully? How many thousand Palestinian civilians did the Russians slaughter and cripple in Gaza? How many civilians in Iraq did the Russians slaughter and cripple? It seems Mr Kristol is rather selective in his labeling of bullies whether that applies to neighbouring states or sovereign nations half way round the world.

Posted by: dragutin_dimitrijevic | May 25, 2009 1:11 PM | Report abuse

What background and stature does the writer believe they possess? Trying to impeach a president for oral sex while having a mistress on the side. Going down to Langley until a trumped up WMD charge is made. Or worse yet giving away a state secret in Valerie Plame to get back at Wilson for debunking the Saddam yellowcake claim. Maybe fighting the war on the cheap against Gen. Franks plan so Halliburton could cash out is your idea of security experience. A worn down military fighting a non threat while the real enemy gets stronger is no expert at keeping us safe. It is amazing they pay you for such tripe.

Posted by: jameschirico | May 25, 2009 1:11 PM | Report abuse

Newt Gingrich has credibility?
Are you serious? The guy was run out of congress for SERIOUS ethics violation (of course, it's OK to be criminal if you're a republican), and was cheating on his wife with one of his staffers while attempting to remove Bill Clinton from office, for of all things, cheating on his wife with a staffer.
If the GOP is so myopic that they can't see that the kind of bull spewed by you, Mr. Kristol, and you're buddies Newt, Dick and Rush is going to further alienate moderates, you all deserve to be relegated to the back-burners of history.
As someone who is neither a democrat or republican, but someone who has been appalled by the GOP since the impeachment fiasco, I welcome the GOP to run Newt or Dick for President. Nothing will do more to guarantee the further decline of republicanism.

Posted by: jeffc6578 | May 25, 2009 1:13 PM | Report abuse

If Cheney and Gingrich have the answers to these pressing problems, why were the answers not implemented during 2000-08? Were they silenced? No. Perhaps it's because they have no answers.

Obama's foreign policy is superior in two important respects. Like GW/Cheney, Obama ultimately wants to use other countries to further US interests. The first flaw in the GW/Cheney approach was that they waited until they were in a bind (Iraq) before begging and sweet-talking other people to help. Example: for GW/Cheney/Rummy, Europe was an object of ridicule until we needed their troops. When the need was clear to everyone, the tune changed (to little effect).

Non-Americans are not stupid. They can tell when they are being played. Obama does this playing better. He has begun the sweet-talking long before any need is evident. In the art of manipulation, his way is superior to the former administration's. It's easier to get something out of someone you work with and flatter over a period of time.

The second flaw in GW/Cheney's approach is to try to go it alone. That costs more. International cooperation is better because it's CHEAPER. Good will and love among nations may be some sort of long-term goal, but in the short term, we've got to save American lives and cash. Forming alliances and using international bodies to further American interests makes better economic sense than the GW/Cheney plan of letting America do it all, and pay for it all, on our own.

Posted by: Matthew_DC | May 25, 2009 1:14 PM | Report abuse

There is one thing for sure,Bill. Your neo-con advise to the former POTUS has left this POTUS with very few options other than diplomacy. If North korea choses to test a nuke a day, & Iran blasts off rockets to celebrate every Islamic event, just what can President Obama do? He sure as hell can't send troops. Cheney & Rummyfelt made sure our military would be committed for 10 yrs. in Iraq & probably Afganstan.Maybe we should bring back the draft as Charlie Rangel says. Then some of the neocon children would have the chance to serve along side the less advantaged.In the current state, Cousin Joe was a prophet.Unlike Newt & Cheney, he was aware that the Bush/Cheney committments placed our nation in grave danger from the real bad guys,Iran & N. Korea. Let us all pray that Obama & his advisers who include Colin Powell & many other Bush Sr advisers, can devise policies to neutralize the situation you & your "chicken livered" neo-con buddies, including draft dodger Cheney, got us into.

Posted by: tlrasnic | May 25, 2009 1:30 PM | Report abuse

All the testing by other countries that Kristol references is going happenning on their soil. He forgets to point out that when Republicans were in charge, some of these people tested their brutal ways on OUR soil.
Maybe one of the reasons so many other nations feel they can test is they know Bush/Cheney regime so weakened our country militarily and economically that it will take time for us to rebuild our forces and shore up the economy. So they are striking where they can while the iron is hot.
This is not 1939. Let other nations saber rattle and fight their neighbors. Then, when they are punched out and weakened we will decide who to favor on our terms.

Posted by: noaxe397 | May 25, 2009 1:37 PM | Report abuse

In the immortal words of The Decider, "Bring 'em on."

Posted by: Jimmy17 | May 25, 2009 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Confront? Better question, when was the last time conservatives cooperated with anybody? When did they even acknowledge a common interest, and work for a middle ground compromise? You don't have the vocabulary, let alone the stomach to really govern.

Posted by: pbassjbass | May 25, 2009 1:40 PM | Report abuse

With Kristol, Cheney and Gingrich leading the charge, the party of has-been ideas will just keep dwindling. Good news for all of us.

Posted by: noGOP4me | May 25, 2009 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Who is going to confront Obama ? At the rate the Republican party is going looks like it's going to be two old white guys, sitting on their porch in South Carolina drinking their moonshine with rifles at the ready. Kristol ought to ask will there be anybody left in the Republican party to offer an altenative. The latest spat between Colin Powell (who was their darling not many years ago) and Cheney/Rove doesn't help. It's as bad as when Limbaugh said Powell only endorses Obama because the color of his skin. Their two surviving presidents won't speak out...one is discredited the other won't speak ill of his son (not in public at least). The Republican leadership in Congress is pathetic and doesn't have a clue to what is happening in the country . Gingrich just throws bombs but has no program .
What these guys don't get is that the country has moved on. Gingrich was last relevent in 1997, Limbaugh's average audience is 67 years old, and McConnell looks like the walking dead. Maybe the party ought to go back to teabagging .

Posted by: pb185 | May 25, 2009 1:41 PM | Report abuse

In looking for a young Republican to confront Obama on national security, Kristol should check in on his last protege, the ex-future-mother-in-law of Levi Johnston.

Way to go Billy, pick a big one.

Posted by: HughBriss | May 25, 2009 1:41 PM | Report abuse

Kristol and the rest of ther neocons need to take a break. Time out!

Bush didn't like the way that Clinton dealt with N Korea. It seems that Bush didn't accomplish much either after 8 incompetent years.

The neocons are a piece of work. They are to the United States what the ruling leaders are in Iran. N Korea has its own set of fanatics also. May all of these right-wing zealots learn to cool it.

Posted by: EarlC | May 25, 2009 1:43 PM | Report abuse

Dick Cheney has the stature to confront Obama. Based on what? Halliburton/Blackwater billing chicanery in Iraq? Perhaps the showers built to wash/electrocute our heroes over there.

Posted by: realadult | May 25, 2009 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Neither of these two speak to a wide enough audience to win the Presidency, but both could run interference for a ...? with broader appeal.

Posted by: crossroadsteam | May 25, 2009 1:58 PM | Report abuse

"...North Korea’s testing nukes, Iran’s testing missiles, Russia’s testing its ability to bully neighbors, China’s testing crackdowns on dissidents, Sudan’s testing non-cooperation on Darfur, jihadists from Pakistan to Gaza are testing and re-testing terror and intimidation."
Problems under Obama's watch?
Yes indeed, but they were also there during the whole of the Bush administration.
Any tackling of these international problems should require a clear-headed bi-partisan approach.
Tragically, the tattered remains of the Republican Party still yet offers nothing but unconstructive criticism.
Kristol's editorial only proves my point.
And Cheney’s contribution to the Republican debacle is nothing more than his tilting at the windmills of worlds gone by – or at the very lest – the last four years of the Bush administration.

Posted by: carcassi | May 25, 2009 2:07 PM | Report abuse

kistol, cheney is the sweet talking half of cheney and limpaugh twosome.if you really believe those two fat cowardly wimps can go up against this prez, then why did they let him get elected,since they have so power? keep going against all this prez policies,without any ideas of your own and just watch the 2010 electons.you old coots are out of touch and completly impotent in more ways than one,sit down and shut up, we've got this.

Posted by: ninnafaye | May 25, 2009 2:15 PM | Report abuse

"Will any of them seek to join Cheney and Gingrich in the foreign policy fray? "

---------------------------

Ah, no, NeoCon Nelly, for the same reason you put forth two questions earlier, i.e., any "Republican whose career lies mostly ahead of him -- or her " (nice touch) wants to continue that career instead of committing political suicide on behalf of The Dark Lords of Neoconia.

Wasn't one giant misadventure enough for you Chicken Hawks ???

Posted by: phoenixresearch | May 25, 2009 2:37 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Kristol, It appears you have hit a nerve. Good.

Posted by: kathrynf | May 25, 2009 3:05 PM | Report abuse

Cheney and Gingrich have "standing and credibility"? In what parallel universe do you exist, Billy? Newt is all hyperbole, hypocrisy (especially on the CIA flap)and BS; Cheney is simply the iconic maker of straw man arguments. His sneering visage invites caricature and derision, while the ethically challenged Newt is just an egoist who has fallen in love with his own ramblings. Neither can claim even a meager reach beyond the diehard din machine mouths that are taking the Republican Party down. Cheney, the once and future deferment king, brags about torture and fear mongers about Obama when his true fight was with Bush and Rice--and he lost. Newt just believes our collective memories are either non-existent or malleable; he's wrong on both counts, but just moves to his own discordant beat. Let them both retreat to some secure location.

Posted by: bklyndan22 | May 25, 2009 3:14 PM | Report abuse

Having known Conservative 's and the average Republican Neo-Cons , I can readily say I have noticed they are afflicted with a CRIPPLING DISEASE,--- It"s called , --"Total lack of Courage". The symptoms are , Talking Tough while hiding behind Momma's Skirt, Taking many deferments like Cheney, Frum, Kristol, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Limbaugh etc, and also notice they have a BIG Yellow Streak down their backs.

Posted by: orionexpress | May 25, 2009 3:17 PM | Report abuse

Having known Conservative 's and the average Republican Neo-Cons , I can readily say I have noticed they are afflicted with a CRIPPLING DISEASE,--- It"s called , --"Total lack of Courage". The symptoms are , Talking Tough while hiding behind Momma's Skirt, Taking many deferments like Cheney, Frum, Kristol, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Limbaugh etc, and also notice they have a BIG Yellow Streak down their backs.

Posted by: orionexpress | May 25, 2009 3:19 PM | Report abuse

Why are you writing this in a "liberal" newspaper? You have zero credibility unless you state out front as a disclaimer that nitwit radical conservatives own Fred Hiatt and the Washington Post.

You have to go to the NY Times to find one or two journalists talking about facts.

It is disgusting that you, Gingrich and Cheney still hold forth crying foul to everything our government is trying to do.

Crisis with Republicans? Attack Pelosi--and the journalists buy it and make turn it into headlines. The Conservative movement is finished, finished, on all fronts. Americans are not as dumb as you still hope. Your ideas have crashed into the wall of reality and everyone knows it. Blame it on an exceptionally popular president at your peril. The problem is you and every idea you've had since 1975.

Posted by: walden1 | May 25, 2009 3:22 PM | Report abuse

NEO-CON ; William Shecky Kristolberg does not want to mention the fact that N.Korea was testing Missiles under the Shrubster, Iran was building Missiles under the Shrubster, and Korea built the A-Bomb on the Shrub's watch. Now the AIPAC dirty dozen is still trying to push for a War in Iran. The American Enterprise and Heritage Foundation along with the Weekly Standard is probably the biggest reason for the War in Iraq. The Ogre Kristol and his fellow Ogre Shecky Krautheimer are still pushing.

Posted by: orionexpress | May 25, 2009 3:24 PM | Report abuse

Kristol can't have beer in a pub because he'd get dragged out & beat up by Americans sick of chickenhawk Neocon Zionist trash. That says it all.

Posted by: AIPACiswar | May 25, 2009 3:33 PM | Report abuse

"Mark my words," Joe Biden prophesied in late October 2008, "It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama.”

I'm sure you know as well as anyone that was nothing more than campaign puffery. The world is big enough with enough things going on that some pundit that never held office can call something a "test".

Weren't you one of the brilliant conservatives that picked out Sarah Palin for her brilliance in foreign policy? Astute, really astute.

Posted by: James10 | May 25, 2009 3:43 PM | Report abuse

All of the "testing" you mention seems to be the status quo behavior of said nations, people, and now tribes. Historically, that is. Unfortunately, the US fans the flames of these dramas by professing some "know-how" and then gets involved. So much of it cries out to be ignored - permanently, forever, until they just die out.

Posted by: sellingpencils | May 25, 2009 4:06 PM | Report abuse

Why don't you run, Kristol?

LOL!

Posted by: Supertzar | May 25, 2009 4:21 PM | Report abuse

The only younger political figures who are likely to join forces with the likes of Cheney and Gingrich are those who, like their mentors, put ideology above patriotism.

Posted by: daviddial | May 25, 2009 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Having Gingrich speak on national security is as fatuous as having him speak on ethics, morals or family values.

Pick a subject he knows something about. Serial adultery, for example.

Posted by: pali2600 | May 25, 2009 4:58 PM | Report abuse

In a perfect world, the Republican Party would be as pure as Dick Cheney.

Although perfection is never attainable, it is a goal for which we must strive.

Let us not abandon our quest for purity for the chimera of "electiblity."

I, for one, am proud to be pure!

Posted by: motorfriend | May 25, 2009 5:00 PM | Report abuse

It seems to have escaped Smilin' Billy's notice that only one in five registered voters now admits to being a Republican.

And, in a repudiation of everything that Smilin' Billy and his cabal of PNAC neo-crazies believe in, that the GOP has lost a quarter of its base over the last five years.

Does Smilin' Billy really believe that either Cheney or Gingrich can bring the GOP back from the wilderness?

Or that the American public would put either the reviled Cheney or the reptilian Gingrich in the Oval Office?

It is a sign of Smilin' Billy's desperation, stupidity and denial of reality that he thinks it is even remotely possible.

Posted by: pali2600 | May 25, 2009 5:19 PM | Report abuse

Biden and Obama ANTICIPATED that he would be tested.

On their watch, Bush and Cheney were WARNED of immanent terrorist action and the possibility of using airplanes as weapons, and chose to IGNORE it.

To whom would you entrust national security?


***
Why does a second-rate thinker like Kristol get so much space in the Post? Is it merely a marketing move against the Moonie paper? Or does Hiatt think there is some merit in what he has to say?

Posted by: j2hess | May 25, 2009 5:19 PM | Report abuse

North Korea's actions are PROOF that we need to invade Iran, right Kristol?

You cheap hack, you weren't happy helping lie us into the Iraq war, now you think you have the right to lecture President Obama about this? What a joke. Go back to Fox "News" you jackal.

Posted by: losthorizon10 | May 25, 2009 5:21 PM | Report abuse

As for Gingrich, the comical thing was that an old girlfriend of his, before the divorce papers in the hospital business, told the Atlanta paper that she and Newt had never really had sex. Seems he figured that if she just used her mouth and hands or whatever, he could say under oath that he had not had sex with woman X. Not too many people noticed at the time, typical philandering hypocrite. But Clinton apparently did, or maybe it was just the common dodge in Washington at the time.

The other interesting thing is that these last 8 years, domestically anyway, have been the culmination of the Gingrich revolution. It started in '94, hit a few speed bumps (including Gingrich himself), but the whole, crony capitalist, rent-seeking, no handout too big for our friends, was hatched by Gingrich and Tom Delay in 94-95. Now that we have seen where that went, maybe Gingrich should just fade back into the scenery.

But look at Nixon, he never really did either. Not that Gingrich is a Nixon.

Posted by: bawrytr | May 25, 2009 5:30 PM | Report abuse

Bill,

Looks like the liberals took you to the woodshed for even challenging the GOP to stand up!

You are right. Cheney and Newt have been outspoken advocates for our side. Where are the members of the GOP standing up to Obama. It's sad and very frustrating. And you are right to challenge Capitol Hill to get off the sidelines.

Perhaps the liberal democrats would have been happier is you choose Colin Powel. Would that be a 2012 matchup! Powel ripping into the faliures of Obamas domestic and foreign policy - pass the popcorn.

Posted by: carkrueger | May 25, 2009 5:42 PM | Report abuse

"Both Cheney and Gingrich have the background and stature to address credibly national security issues."

You cannot formulate a sentence, nor can you formulate an idea. For the good of humankind, please stop attempting to influence political thought.

Posted by: mobedda | May 25, 2009 5:43 PM | Report abuse

ah yes, the "tolerant" Obots are out in force today...

Posted by: sold2u | May 25, 2009 5:47 PM | Report abuse

"North Korea’s testing nukes, Iran’s testing missiles, Russia’s t... [yadda yadda yadda]"


Just like when your Bushies were in power eh?

Except now Obama has to deal with the consequences of the Bushie's and Neocon's inept and incompetent execution of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the damage to our military, the economy, and our reputation in the world.

What's spinning out of control is the rhetoric of the Neocons like Kristol and Cheney.

Today is Memorial day, don't just thank a vet, promise you will help keep idiots like Bush, Cheney and Kristol from ever having power again.

Posted by: pclement1 | May 25, 2009 6:06 PM | Report abuse

Kristol is an anachronism.
_________________________

PS- Sometime in the next year I am going to launch a personal suit against FOX News for breaching our Truth in Advertising Laws (in Australia as I am an Aussie).

FOXNews is not 'News'. It is opinion.

Posted by: jamesmmoylan | May 25, 2009 6:26 PM | Report abuse

Judging by many of the comments here, it is clear that Obama's supporters tend, like children, to blame other people for the faults of their leader. Bush overspent, so Obama's 'solution' is to triple the federal deficit in record time. Bush mistakenly listened to liberal critic and followed a "multilateral" approach with Iran and North Korea, so Obama's 'solution' is to give a speech and bask in his own glory. North Korea is obviously preparing ICBMs that could strike the western US, so Obama's 'solution' is to cut our missile defense program and leave our cities naked to attack.

The first rule of the Obama cult is that Barack Obama is never responsible for anything.

Ever.

Barack Obama will not stop Iran, and he will not stop North Korea. He lacks the courage to do so, and he labors under such megalomania that he believes if he gives a speech, the world is thereby changed.

It's not. No one but Obama's sentimental sycophants cares what Obama says. It only matters what he does.

Posted by: SARileyMan | May 25, 2009 6:38 PM | Report abuse

"Both Cheney and Gingrich have the background and stature to address credibly national security issues."
=============================
PROOF?

What are their
REAL
SUBSTANTIVE
and
DOCUMENTED
Successes?


Fei Hu

Posted by: Fei_Hu | May 25, 2009 7:07 PM | Report abuse

Fei:

With respect to foreign policy, where are Obama's real, substantive, and documented successes?

None. Zip. Zero.

Unless, of course, you think giving speeches is a "real, substantive, and documented success." That seems to be the belief of the Obama Cult: "If he says I am change, change has therefore happened."

By the way, Cheney was US defense secretary during the massively successful US-UN defeat of Iraq in the first Gulf War.

Posted by: SARileyMan | May 25, 2009 7:14 PM | Report abuse

The 2 major crisis facing Obama right now are North Korea's recent underground nuclear test and Iran's deployment of 6 warships in the Persian Gulf. Both of these belligerent regimes received "free passes" from Geo Bush these past 8 years... so, why should anyone confront Obama when he hasn't even had time to react to these developments.

Obama is mired in 2 intractable wars that the inept previous President engaged without any foresight, strategy or conviction.

As for China cracking down on dissidents and Russia bullying their neighbors, what the hell did Bush do about those issues when he was in office? He kow-towed to China just as the rest of the President's have because they buy all of our debt. As for Russia -- what was it that Bush [in his infinite wisdom] said about Putin and his baby blues -- something about he is a pure, God-fearing man?!

Billy: you should have been more critical of Bush for the past 8 years instead of sitting on the sidelines waving your pom-poms. Our country was severely mis-managed by Bush, Cheney and the rest of the criminals in the previous Administration, and while I am no big fan of Obama, I bet he can do better than the previous debacle of an Administration.

Posted by: winoohno | May 25, 2009 7:28 PM | Report abuse

I am shocked by the stupidity from the people commenting on this page. Kristol has it exactly right! In fact if the media has been even slightly truthful about this fraud obama, our country would not be in serious trouble. Powerful people did try to warn Americans, the gushing left blocked much of the truth. The fact is you idiots will never admit you were wrong.
Shame on you all.

Posted by: valerie6 | May 25, 2009 7:31 PM | Report abuse

I'm so sick of the image of the Republican Party - old white men grumbling about the days of Reagan. Kristol, Limbaugh, Gingrich, Cheney, and your ilk can all just move to another country...whatever happened to Texas seceding and you guys moving there? I would love to see how that experiment works out. Obama would be just fine; it's you delusional bums that we worry about.

Posted by: ATLGuy | May 25, 2009 7:44 PM | Report abuse

Winoohno writes: "The 2 major crisis facing Obama right now are North Korea's recent underground nuclear test and Iran's deployment of 6 warships in the Persian Gulf. Both of these belligerent regimes received "free passes" from Geo Bush these past 8 years... so, why should anyone confront Obama when he hasn't even had time to react to these developments."

This is misleading. Bush, chastised by Democrats for being a "cowboy" on Iraq, went along with the Euros and the UN for "multilateral" diplomacy. That diplomacy failed, yet Obama will do nothing but that.

Now, it's time to be a grown up: The only solution to Iran and NK is such a credible and imminent threat of force that these countries surrender their nuclear capacities. Note I said "credible threat of force"... not the threat of a really eloquent speech or yet another really stern UN resolution. Force. Those regimes will laugh at anything else, as they have been since the Clinton administration.

Do you see Barack Obama putting fear into these countries?

Neither do I. Neither does anyone else, which is why the Israeli population is moving rapidly in favor of a first strike. (see http://zip9.us/iv1fz60)

You write: "Obama is mired in 2 intractable wars that the inept previous President engaged without any foresight, strategy or conviction."

Iraq is largely won, thanks to Bush's conviction, and Afganistan is what it is. Bush erred with Afghanistan in seeking to create a functioning country where one has really never existed, at least not in the way we think about that. The best we can hope for is neutralization of Pakistani nukes while keeping a lid on the Taliban.

This will require a level of fortitude that Barack "Voting Present" Obama has singularly failed to show at any time in his career.

You write: "As for Russia -- what was it that Bush [in his infinite wisdom] said about Putin and his baby blues -- something about he is a pure, God-fearing man?!"

Yes, Bush was naive there. But "there" was back in 2001. We're now in 2009 and we have a new president. Kristol's article was about today, not then.

You write: "I bet he can do better than the previous debacle of an Administration."

How? By giving speeches?

Posted by: SARileyMan | May 25, 2009 7:45 PM | Report abuse

Indisputably it is Cheney the only one that has risen to defend the many good policies of the Bush administration - as Obama himself can attest since he has adopted them. Furthermore, it is only Cheney that has spoken with bravery in all fronts, including the economic policy of Bush whose tax cuts were extremely successful and nobody, and that includes Gingrich, have bother to defend. Gingrich is no Powell, but he is no Cheney either, taking a few cheap shots at Bush on the economic policies that were off the mark, ignorant, and unnecessary. Cheney is the only Republican with guts, vision, a quick mind and the intellect capable of carrying it all forward to the American people. And he does not take cheap shots at his old boss, which everybody seem to want to do (including Ridge). Until a younger prospect comes along with those qualifications, we should have Cheney as President. Only in America, age and wisdom is a detriment.

Posted by: JohnGalt9 | May 25, 2009 7:54 PM | Report abuse

"How exactly is Gingrich qualified to speak on national security?"

How exactly is Obama?

Posted by: jimtreacher | May 25, 2009 7:57 PM | Report abuse

I forgot; Kristol has it right. Most of the time he does, except when it comes to Rumsfeld.

Posted by: JohnGalt9 | May 25, 2009 7:59 PM | Report abuse

JohnGalt9:

I share many of your sentiments. Gingrich seems to promote himself a lot, but Cheney, one of the better public servants of the last half century, is an embodiment of principle.

While Obama last week gave a speech full of empty platitudes, defensive straw men, and a lawyer's argument for why we should give the most savage people on earth constitutional rights, Cheney demolished Obama's rhetoric with simple and unanswerable facts and logic.

Also, as you note, the proof is in what Obama is doing. His words may give his supporters something approaching a sexual climax, but his words never mean anything. He changes his mind a lot.

He has turned his back on his supporters in keeping open the military tribunals and, I predict, he will never close down Gitmo. Because Barack Obama wants a chance to win in 2012 and if he brings the savage beasts in Gitmo to US soil, the American people will brutalize him at the polls. Even the liberals in the Congress are telling Obama to cool it on Gitmo.

So, ironically, Obama will do the same thing to his left-wing groupies that he did to his long-time pastor: throw them under the bus when politically expedient.

The man has no character.

Posted by: SARileyMan | May 25, 2009 8:06 PM | Report abuse

It shall be clear to US more than anybody else that North Korea is and will continue to blackmail US to get more and more foreign aid. Clinton’s appeasement policy and Bush’s confrontational policy has failed to stop North Korea’s nuclear ambitions. Everyone knows that North Korea’s lifeline passes through Beijing. Only way to stop this continuing North Korean blackmail is for Obama administration to encourage Japan to go nuclear. If and when China hollers against it, US has to demand that China reign in on its client state if China wants non-nuclear East Asia. That is the only leverage that will work against North Korea.

Posted by: simplesimon33 | May 25, 2009 8:20 PM | Report abuse


I think Gingrich is going to run in 2012 and I think he's going to sweep it.

His contract with America led to the first balanced budget in a long, long time. It's perfect timing for a new one.

Posted by: JocBAlt | May 25, 2009 8:24 PM | Report abuse

simplesimon33:

You raise an interesting gambit. However, Obama has called for nonprofileration and even a reduction in existing nuclear arsenals. Therefore, it is doubtful in the extreme that he will let Japan "go nuclear." Even for someone as casual about his commitments as Barack Obama, it would be stunning turnaround.

Moreover, in Obama's morally relativistic eyes, there is no difference between a Japanese nuke and a North Korean nuke. Both are equally bad. By the same token, he will try to pressure Israel to give up its undeclared nukes as part of a bargain with Iran to give up its development of them.

In Obama's warped perspective, Israel or even the US having a nuke is just as offensive as Iran getting one. This goes to Obama's psychology and the whole pattern of his career.

Obama deems himself a world-changing human being, a secular prophet. He (and his supporters) is massively invested in this self-image, up to and beyond the point of delusion. After all, this is a man who has written two books. Both about himself.

Obama is morally incapable of discerning the right thing to do in these crises, but he has enough political savvy to know outright appeasement would be fatal to his career, so he will make speeches and ask the UN to do something. As we know, the UN does not really do anything.

But Obama does not care about results. Preservation of his image is everything. So, he will never let Japan get nukes. After his administration, we'll be lucky if we still have half of ours.


Posted by: SARileyMan | May 25, 2009 8:35 PM | Report abuse

I guess a young Conservative with their political life more in the future than in the past will come forward with credible strategies for national security that challenge the current Presidentiapologeticus as soon as you old journalists come forward with credible strategies for protection of freedom of the press that challenge the current Presslibpropagandus.
Easy to divert attention to politics all the time, but when the heck are you journalists going to get some spine to address the destruction of the free press in the USA???????

Posted by: realitybased1 | May 25, 2009 9:35 PM | Report abuse

"Both Cheney and Gingrich have the background and stature to address credibly national security issues."

give me a break! i'll give them this much, if cheney and gingrich took the same degree of care for our uniformed forces as they did for their own backsides in the 60s, we'd never suffer a casualty.

anyone who looks to two draft dodging shirks for guidance in war is a damned fool, which in kristol's case is a needless repitition.

Posted by: jimfilyaw | May 25, 2009 10:27 PM | Report abuse

Billy, Billy, Billy! If Repubs believe that they can make a comeback with Mr. Cheney in the forefront, they have a rude awakening coming. Gen. Powell could peel off 1/3 to 1/2 of repubs now to form a third party of conservatives who mind their own business. This group would attract many independents and followers of Rep. Paul. Repubs say they want the Gov off their backs, then put a watchdog in their bedrooms and hospital rooms - but no watchdogs in corporate offices. I can't wait for the arguments about no public health insurance when repubs have said that school vouchers will make both public and pvt schools stronger through competition. But with health insurance - not so much LSWonder

Posted by: lswonder | May 25, 2009 10:52 PM | Report abuse

jimfilyaw writes: "give me a break! i'll give them this much, if cheney and gingrich took the same degree of care for our uniformed forces as they did for their own backsides in the 60s, we'd never suffer a casualty."

Cheney was, by all accounts, an excellent defense secretary. He certainly was a strong advocate of the military as vice president. Gingrich, for his part, has been consistent in calling for increasing defense spending.

Never did either Cheney or Gingrich turn tail and run when the going got tough. But the Democratic Party did. And Barack Obama led the retreat.

Obama is slashing military spending in wartime in order, in part, to enable his taxpayer-funded bailout of GM and Chrysler, so he can give those companies to his union pals.

Obama is no friend of the U.S. Military. Indeed, Obama was the main voice of defeatism in 2007 when Bush instituted the surge that led to the current successful situation in Iraq.

If we had followed Candidate Obama's advice in 2007, we would have lost in Iraq. Of course, now that Bush and Cheney and especially the US Armed Forces paid the price for the amazing turnaround in Iraq, Obama is all too eager to do his photo ops with the same troops who did what he said could not be done--the same troops about whom he said disparaging things time and again when speaking in front of left-wing audiences.

Such is Obama's transparent and ego-driven hypocrisy.

If being a friend of the military means standing behind the troops when the chips are down, Barack Obama has forever forfeited that title.

Posted by: SARileyMan | May 25, 2009 11:11 PM | Report abuse

"Who but the self-loathing would want to join these two in doing anything?"

Kristol.

Oh, sorry; you excepted the "self-loathing."

Posted by: thrh | May 26, 2009 12:10 AM | Report abuse

SARileyMan:
Who are you?
I notice you were the first republican voice on this blog, LONG after everyone else who read this vile editorial absolutely savaged 'ol Billy - then you repeatedly post, and a couple of other neo-cons start defending Cheney and torturing people and all kinds of other evilness.
Are you part of some kind of GOP strike force?
Is there some kind of evil organization like something out of James Bond movie, threatening the free world?
Have you formed an organized response to everyday Americans speaking truth to a criminal organization threatening to destabilize the free world (yeah, I mean the GOP!)?
Are you part of America's version of a hard right wing fringe faction that wants to rule our free nation by religious law - our version of the taliban?
I think so - you should move to texas (the lower case was intentional) and fight for secession with the rest of your ilk. I really hope you guys take Rush and Rummy with you - it would be good to have an opportunity to face you in combat.
My guess is there would be preciously few of you with any combat experience, and you would be between the rest of us and Mexico.
I'll take that fight.

Posted by: jeffc6578 | May 26, 2009 12:11 AM | Report abuse

"Never did either Cheney or Gingrich turn tail and run when the going got tough. "

Except for Cheney's five deferments during Vietnam.

And Newt's messy divorce.

Paragons of somethingorother....

Posted by: thrh | May 26, 2009 12:12 AM | Report abuse

The Republicans have always been Cowards. They wrapped themselves around the American Flag and present themselves as Patriots. The same as the Republicans who profess the Love of God and Bible--- only wrapped in Sheep's Wool , but underneath they have a sack full of Deferments. What about it Kristol you AIPAC Pig?

Posted by: orionexpress | May 26, 2009 12:13 AM | Report abuse

The Republicans have always been Cowards. They wrapped themselves around the American Flag and present themselves as Patriots. The same as the Republicans who profess the Love of God and Bible--- only wrapped in Sheep's Wool , but underneath they have a sack full of Deferments. What about it Kristol you AIPAC Pig?

Posted by: orionexpress | May 26, 2009 12:14 AM | Report abuse

"If being a friend of the military means standing behind the troops when the chips are down," note that Cheney and Gingrich stood WAY behind them! [So as to avoid any unfriendly fire.] Check their military records, or lack thereof.

Posted by: thrh | May 26, 2009 12:16 AM | Report abuse

"What if no younger political figure steps forward? If national security remains front and center over the next three years (a pretty safe bet), could the GOP nominee in 2012 be Gingrich...or even -- gasp! -- Cheney?"

I can't imagine a better joke to play on what's left of the Republican Party. It's almost as good as Sarah Palin!

Posted by: thrh | May 26, 2009 12:17 AM | Report abuse

Why is the Washington Post, a once-respected yellow rag, still publishing this idiot? Is he still sleeping with the Publisher's wife?

Posted by: thrh | May 26, 2009 12:20 AM | Report abuse

“If [Hillary Clinton] gets a race against John Edwards and Barack Obama, she’s going to be the nominee. Gore is the only threat to her, then. … Barack Obama is not going to beat Hillary Clinton in a single Democratic primary. I’ll predict that right now.” —William Kristol, Fox News Sunday, Dec. 17, 2006

"I suppose I'll merely expose myself to harmless ridicule if I make the following assertion: George W. Bush's presidency will probably be a successful one.

"The economy first: After the bursting of the dot-com bubble, followed by the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, we've had more than five years of steady growth, low unemployment and a stock market recovery. Did this just happen? No. Bush pushed through the tax cuts of 2001 and especially 2003 by arguing that they would produce growth. His opponents predicted dire consequences. But the president was overwhelmingly right." WK July 15, 2007

"KRISTOL: Ted Stevens, the 40-year incumbent in Alaska, recently convicted of seven counts of something-or-other, hangs on in Alaska. The voters of Alaska are loyal to their man. They don’t believe some D.C. grand jury. (Laughter.) Stevens hangs on, which helps Republicans keep the Democratic margin in the Senate reasonable.

And of course, since John McCain is going to take that narrow path to the presidency..." WK November 8, 2008

Giving Kristol a column is like giving 'performance' bonuses to the AIG crooks... it's more about entitlement than competence.

Posted by: petenflux | May 26, 2009 12:23 AM | Report abuse

"Korea is obviously preparing ICBMs that could strike the western US, so Obama's 'solution' is to cut our missile defense program and leave our cities naked to attack."

How would a so-called missile defense system in central Europe affect missiles fired from Asia that could allegedly strike the western US?

Your geography is as good as Kristol's prognosticating.

Posted by: petenflux | May 26, 2009 12:37 AM | Report abuse

Why is the Washington Post, a once-respected yellow rag, still publishing this idiot? Is he still sleeping with the Publisher's wife?

Posted by: thrh | May 26, 2009 12:20 AM | Report abuse

----------------------------------------

The editor's dog.

Posted by: phoenixresearch | May 26, 2009 12:39 AM | Report abuse

petenflux: Many of the assets of the US missile defense program are based in Alaska, to guard against attack from North Korea.

Posted by: SARileyMan | May 26, 2009 12:41 AM | Report abuse

jeffc6578: I (and doubtless a great many other people) have noted your complete failure to respond substantively.

Posted by: SARileyMan | May 26, 2009 12:45 AM | Report abuse

thrh wrote: "Except for Cheney's five deferments during Vietnam. And Newt's messy divorce."

What possible significance does that have to American politics in 2009 or to anything discussed here?

If you have to resort to bottom-feeder comments like that, you've already lost the argument.

Posted by: SARileyMan | May 26, 2009 12:55 AM | Report abuse

barkleyq- "Don't you find it disgusting that we are having a debate on torture, in 2009, and we are discussing TORTURE done by Americans, wholeheartedly endorsed by Dick Cheney."

Not really. Since John McCain gave cover to the Left by agreeing with them, we never had the debate about enhanced interrogations being torture or not in the Presidential Campaign. Or whether it worked or not, or whether it saved thousands of lives.

Or whether waterboarding and shoving around 3 Islamoid mass killers was beyond the pale, but requiring it be done to some 85,000 American soldiers and CIA agents in the past few decades is OK..(Given studies show soldiers and CIA agents experiencing this showed no short-term or long-term psychological harm)

And it appears the same Americans are still being slapped around and waterboarded under Obama.

Posted by: ChrisFord1 | May 26, 2009 1:29 AM | Report abuse

ChrisFord: Well said.

Note also that Obama has reserved the right to carry out the same techniques (as well as other, unspecified ones) on terrorists, if saving American lives is at stake. This was actually uncharacteristically intelligent of Obama.

Thus, while trying to appease his left-wing groupies, Obama has largely continued or kept available to him the very policies that his minions call "evil."

This is probably because Obama has read the CIA memos on how effective these techniques were, while at the same time denying the American public that information for self-serving political gain.

Rather than have an informed public debate on the subject, Obama wants to have it both ways. Appease his donation-raising, leftist supporters, while keeping his options open. He can only do that by suppressing the memos. Clearly, if the memos contradicted Cheney's assertion that the interrogations worked, he would have released them.

What's strange is how his own supporters are so easily manipulated and defrauded.

Posted by: SARileyMan | May 26, 2009 1:42 AM | Report abuse

For amusement I read a Kristol diddy or Kagen, or Will or Gerson...whatever. none have shed of integrity. All of them have proved themselves either incompetent or hopelessly corrupt. Sadly I cannot figure which by reading their inane musings.

Posted by: jpenergy | May 26, 2009 1:54 AM | Report abuse

Dear SARileyMan, please stick your head out the window and give it a shake. The US did not "win" in Iraq, and there is a considerable difference between comparing the record of Obama, who has been in office 4 months or so, with Cheney, who was in high power since 3 decades. That doesn't mean Obama can't fail in future, but it certainly means Cheney can be judged on his past, as can Newt Gingrich, who after all helped impeach a president for something he was doing at the time.

Posted by: realadult | May 26, 2009 2:00 AM | Report abuse

Obama is slashing military spending in wartime in order, in part, to enable his taxpayer-funded bailout of GM and Chrysler, so he can give those companies to his union pals.

ChrisFord:
Note also that Obama has reserved the right to carry out the same techniques (as well as other, unspecified ones) on terrorists, if saving American lives is at stake
****

Obama has asked for an increase in military spending.

No one making ChrisFord's claim has yet given source for this information.

As long as the opposition is led by Bill Kristol and the followers can't get the simple facts straight, Obama's hold on the presidency is secure.

Posted by: j2hess | May 26, 2009 2:04 AM | Report abuse

Chicken Hawks: Cheney. Gingrich. Kristol.

Had "better things to do", so failed to serve in Viet Nam.

Love to send other people's kids to war for Israel and Big Oil.

Posted by: wthu | May 26, 2009 2:07 AM | Report abuse

SARileyMan
HA!HA!HA!HA!
HA!HA!HA!
Seriously, do you REALLY think for a second that the future of the republican party is Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gingrich, Limbaugh, or any more of the old school republicans?
Man, you guys are so in a fog...
You guys are throwing Powell under the bus in favor of draft dodger like Cheney...
A decorated veteran with more credentials than Cheney, Bush II, Rumsfeld, Limbaugh, Rove, and Krisol put together....
the republican party has effectively become the party of the chicken hawk.
With W leading the way.
And you wonder why the republican party is in decline.

Posted by: jeffc6578 | May 26, 2009 2:07 AM | Report abuse

SARileyMan :
Sucks, eh?

Posted by: jeffc6578 | May 26, 2009 2:09 AM | Report abuse

realadult: "Dear SARileyMan, please stick your head out the window and give it a shake. The US did not "win" in Iraq"

You mean, Saddam Hussein is back in power? The terrorists won? The insurgents overthrew the democratically elected government in Iraq? The Iraqi armed forces were not successfully built by the US military? And we did not kill a whole of lot of terrorists in Iraq?

Sorry, the facts are against you. We won in Iraq.

..."and there is a considerable difference between comparing the record of Obama, who has been in office 4 months or so, with Cheney, who was in high power since 3 decades."

Well, it depends on the four months, doesn't it? Obama's first four have been, if not disastrous, then disturbingly close. He's tripled the federal deficit, for example. He has let dictators walk all over him. He has completely muffed up on the auto bailout. He has proposed more added spending than anyone in history at a time when he said, as he did the other day, "we're out of money."

That Obama is indeed an overachiever!

"That doesn't mean Obama can't fail in future, but it certainly means Cheney can be judged on his past, as can Newt Gingrich, who after all helped impeach a president for something he was doing at the time."

By all means, let's evaluate Cheney. But on the facts, please, not the Left's heated hyperbole.

Release those memos that Obama is suppressing. Give us the facts on how many lives were saved by subjecting three terrorists to a few minutes of fear.

Please.. let's hear the facts on that.

Posted by: SARileyMan | May 26, 2009 2:10 AM | Report abuse

jeffc6578: I did not endorse anyone as the "future" of the GOP. It would help you, I think, to read before writing in your sophisticated all-caps.

Posted by: SARileyMan | May 26, 2009 2:13 AM | Report abuse

SARileyMan :
At a loss for words?
Are you going to defend draft dodging?
Are you going to defend utter disgusting hypocrisy?
Are you going to defend torture?

Posted by: jeffc6578 | May 26, 2009 2:13 AM | Report abuse

SARileyMan :
At least you have the nuts to respond...
I think the record will reflect that my use of caps was selective...
don't go all revisionist on me!!!

Posted by: jeffc6578 | May 26, 2009 2:16 AM | Report abuse

Yes!

Please oh please Republican party, let William Kristol convince you to run Dick Cheney as your next Presidential candidate.

Or Sarah Palin.

Either one. The important thing is, listen to Bill Kristol, just like you did about the idea of invading Iraq.

I mean, what could possibly go wrong?

Sincerely yours,

-The Democratic Party

Posted by: BillEPilgrim | May 26, 2009 2:21 AM | Report abuse

SARileyMan
Really ... Do you think Cheney or Newt or any of the old school are viable?
I'm fascinated by this. I'm a moderate to right veteran who has been completely disgusted by the conduct of the GOP since the Clinton impeachment.

Posted by: jeffc6578 | May 26, 2009 2:24 AM | Report abuse

j2hess: Unfortunately, we're not your librarians, but the facts are in the public domain. I'd suggest Googling "Obama defense cuts."

While in the aggregate, Obama will spend more on defense than last year, what matters is what he spends it on. Analysis of that is key.

Missile defense, in particular, is hard hit, as are programs like the F-22. Both seem particularly stupid since it is American technological advances that will negate the threat incoming missiles.

You can argue the merits of those cuts, absolutely, but it's false to contend they're not happening.

Meanwhile, Obama, to confront a recession in 2009, had Congress pass a "stimulus" bill that, for the most part, won't be spent until 2010 and well beyond.

That Obama guy, he's a genius.

Posted by: SARileyMan | May 26, 2009 2:27 AM | Report abuse

SARileyMan :
Are you even remotely aware that these programs had to be cut because W spent so much treasure (not to mention life) on a war in Iraq just to vindicate his daddies name?

Posted by: jeffc6578 | May 26, 2009 2:34 AM | Report abuse

SARileyMan :
Do you have a problem finding a real defense for your people and positions, or what?

Posted by: jeffc6578 | May 26, 2009 2:37 AM | Report abuse

SARileyMan :
W T F ?

Posted by: jeffc6578 | May 26, 2009 2:39 AM | Report abuse

SARileyMan :
If you think I'm rough, wait until the next election.
Give me Nwet, Sarah, dick, or any more of you're POS candidates.
We're going to eat you lunch.

Posted by: jeffc6578 | May 26, 2009 2:42 AM | Report abuse

Both Cheney and Gingrich are speaking to the echo chamber - of which Billy K. is a charter member. Their arguments are only effective to their supporters who dare not challenge their deeply flawed logic. To Obama, they are like gnats who are annoying but have no real impact or influence. If their arguments are so effective, why haven't any Republican's picked up on them? It's simple, their positions are old-fashioned, quasi-neocon and completely against the direction the vast majority of the country is headed. For a Republican to join the dynamic duo would be certain death from a political standpoint.

Neither Gingrich or Cheney have subjected themselves to any significant cross-examination about their positions although Gingrich has been on the talk shows and always seems to end up backpedaling for criticizing the left for the same things he used to do - like claiming the CIA provides incomplete information.

Their positions are not the future of the Republican party. For Gingrich, it is an opportunity to shine up his conservative credentials so he can get back into politics. For Cheney, it's a very sophisticated and serious power struggle to protect himself from being punished legally and publicly.

Newt's latest position is illustrative of the Republican dilemma. On MTP this week, he lamented bringing the Guantanamo prisoners into the U.S. and "releasing them into the streets" These fear-based histrionics have worked in the past for the Republicans since the public has been willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. It seems to be different this time. The public was taken for fools by the Bush administration and they aren't buying it anymore.

We know that we have some of the craziest people in the world in our prisons and we should be able to not only imprison these terrorists, but to keep them there safely for as long as we want. Chances are, if they were ever released into the general prison population, they would be killed. At the very least, they are in a far more dangerous situation for their own personal safety within the U.S. prison system than in some military prison in Cuba. We've seen Lockup - we know some of our own citizens are treated way worse in prison than the terrorists in Guantanamo.

America has discovered that the Republican leaders are a bunch of chickenhawk cowards who would be willing to sacrifice their values for their safety. This is not what we remember about America on Memorial Day as we think about the fallen. Those who have fallen in battle to protect these values are worthy of so much better from our Government than what Cheney and Gingrich are offering.

Posted by: pricetheo | May 26, 2009 2:43 AM | Report abuse

SARileyMan :
Are you soooo... chicken sh*t you can't respond?
Or are you already on your way to texas???

Posted by: jeffc6578 | May 26, 2009 2:45 AM | Report abuse

jeffc6578: I'd say they're not viable.

I am pretty sure the economic effects of Obama's overspending will be the main issue in 2010 and 2012--unless Obama's cavalier and callow approach to national security causes a catastrophe.

Obama's overspending is really Bush's overspending, but on steroids, and that does not even include Obama's plans to federalize healthcare, impose whopping energy taxes, etc. Obama is clearly and ostentatiously bent on having the government dictate much of our lives.

So, I think the GOP will surge back to power over the next two cycles once the inevitable inflation occurs from Obama's fiscal mismanagement. As Jimmy Carter found out, Americans hate inflation, and Obama's grosteque spending spree has pretty much guaranteed high inflation 18-24 months from now. That's really going to hurt Obama, as it did Carter.

The leader(s) of that GOP resurgence will probably be as little known to us today as Obama was in 2005. In my opinion, that's a good thing. It's time for new faces.

Posted by: SARileyMan | May 26, 2009 2:46 AM | Report abuse

jeffc6578:

In round numbers..

Bush's largest budget deficit:

450,000,000,000

Obama's first budget deficit:

1,800,000,000,000

Obama's is four times larger.

In fact, it's 1,350,000,000,000 dollars larger.

The spending on Iraq to date is just a fraction of Obamas *one-year* increase in the federal deficit.

So, it's a false canard to assign the fiscal fault to Iraq. It's plainly ignorant.

Posted by: SARileyMan | May 26, 2009 2:54 AM | Report abuse

SARileyMan :
So finally someone from the right is willing a little to talk.
Man, no one likes where we are, but we gotta stick together. At this point Obama is our President... and that most of us less right wing moderates thought Terry Chiavo was a government intrusion into the most profound aspects of our lives.
What do you want to be?

Posted by: jeffc6578 | May 26, 2009 2:58 AM | Report abuse

SARileyMan
I was really trying to have a REAL discussion, but your last post is crap.
FU dude... I hope I see you In texas.

Posted by: jeffc6578 | May 26, 2009 3:04 AM | Report abuse

One part vile of Newt. One part bile of Cheney. Add a splash of Kristol. Now there's a brain freeze waiting to happen.

Posted by: mawheelz | May 26, 2009 3:33 AM | Report abuse

WTF?

Seems the "tests" are repetitions of the same that occurred under Bush, No?

Or didn't you notice with your tongue so far up Cheney's A$$?

You are like the mealy nerd on the playground trying to instigate confrontation between the Genetically Superior.

Your smug smile, your squinty, cheese-eatin' face...

You're a poor man's Don King.

Get a Job, Kristol.

Posted by: LeftwithNochoice | May 26, 2009 4:35 AM | Report abuse

"Perhaps the liberal democrats would have been happier is you choose Colin Powel. Would that be a 2012 matchup! Powel ripping into the faliures of Obamas domestic and foreign policy - pass the popcorn.

Posted by: carkrueger"

Might even be hapier if yu chuse someone who knew how to spel. But that wouldn't be true to your Republican "base", would it "car"?

Were you named for the place where you were conceived?

Posted by: thrh | May 26, 2009 4:40 AM | Report abuse

Amazing crop of Yahoos posting tonight! Is it a full moon, or just the neocon mating call of Kristol?

Posted by: thrh | May 26, 2009 4:43 AM | Report abuse

"Get a Job, Kristol.

Posted by: LeftwithNochoice | "

He had one, before the NY Times canned him. Now he's doing the best he can....

Posted by: thrh | May 26, 2009 4:45 AM | Report abuse

Yonkers, New York
26 May 2009

What? Dick ("Rasputin") Cheney or Newt Gingrich in 2012?

Conservative pundit William Kristol must be dreaming.

Does Mr. Kristol expect whole swaths of the U.S. population to simply forget that Dick Cheney had a lot to do with the illegal preemptive and unilateral invasion and occuption of Iraq on false pretenses? With the illegal because warrantless spying on Americans on U.S. soil? With the actual use of torture on detainees, another illegal act proscribed not only by U.S. but also by iternational law because it is cruel, sadistic, inhuman and barbaric?

Newt Gingrich? This is a man whom Americans will forever remember as the hubristic and arrogant and power-mad Speaker of the House who shut down the Federal government years back. He is precisely the personification of a man vested with power whom Lord Acton wisely warned against: "Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely."

The Republican Party now finds itself in a kind of limbo or political wilderness, leaderless and rudderless. If it picks either Cheney or Gingrich its presidential candidate for 2012, it will surely only hasten its own demise.

Compared to these two discredited politicians, media personality Rush Limbaugh has a better chance of guiding the G.O.P. out of where it is right now. His battlecry, which resonates with what's left of the G.O.P. is "I want Barack Obama to fail!"

Mariano Patalinjug

Posted by: MPatalinjug | May 26, 2009 6:16 AM | Report abuse

Kristol is paid the big bucks to whine.

Posted by: Marcaurelius | May 26, 2009 6:34 AM | Report abuse

Wow! Kristol hit a nerve with all you Obama loving socialist appeasers. Believe it or not, there's a lot of folks out here who see the fraud we have in the Oval Office for what he is. Great choice folks.

Posted by: rbpjlh5 | May 26, 2009 6:49 AM | Report abuse

Kristol, Cheney, Gingrich, Wolfowitz, Etc., Etc. Your "brilliance" in foreign policy brought our country to it's knees. We have no further need for your "services"

Posted by: DaveMiner | May 26, 2009 6:55 AM | Report abuse

Dear Mr. Kristol,

Regarding North Korea's nuclear test, might what is being tested be not President Obama's foreign policy, but rather that of former President George W. Bush?
Remember the "Axis of Evil" speech? What better deterent to U.S. "imperialist aggression" than an arsenal of nukes? (Especially after seeing what happened to nuclear-free Iraq.)

Posted by: GaryPeschell | May 26, 2009 7:40 AM | Report abuse

And what did Cheney do about North Korea?

Or Clinton before him?

Or Bush The Smarter before that?

More droning from the RNC Fox New club in their never ending Obama bashing.

Posted by: coloradodog | May 26, 2009 7:42 AM | Report abuse

Go Shecky! Go Schecky! Maybe you could be Cheney or Gringrinch's Chief of Staff and teach one of them how to spell "potato" this time.

Please God, let Limbaugh's dwindling 22% remain in their state of delusion believing America will vote for Cheney again or for Gringrinch. Let them nominate one of these hateful old white men to run with her evangelical holiness, Annie Oakley The Moose Slayer of the North.

Posted by: coloradodog | May 26, 2009 7:50 AM | Report abuse

May God Himself save us from that nightmare! Where is the true Republican Party? Have they all died off and left us with this abomination? Please, people, I know there have to be true Republicans left out there. Those who extol the same ideals and virtues set forth by such greats as Lincoln, Roosevelt (cousin Teddie), and Eisenhower.

America needs to regain its two-party system and purge the kooks from both parties. Democrats, flush the socialists and communists in your midst. Republicans, do not tolerate Libertarians and Fascists seeking to parade as something they are not just to gain legitimacy and control. Find your way back to middle where the majority of us are, just left and right of the middle.

Posted by: old_sarge | May 26, 2009 7:59 AM | Report abuse

May God Himself save us from that nightmare! Where is the true Republican Party? Have they all died off and left us with this abomination? Please, people, I know there have to be true Republicans left out there. Those who extol the same ideals and virtues set forth by such greats as Lincoln, Roosevelt (cousin Teddie), and Eisenhower.

America needs to regain its two-party system and purge the kooks from both parties. Democrats, flush the socialists and communists in your midst. Republicans, do not tolerate Libertarians and Fascists seeking to parade as something they are not just to gain legitimacy and control. Find your way back to middle where the majority of us are, just left and right of the middle.

Posted by: old_sarge | May 26, 2009 8:00 AM | Report abuse

Cheney '12? But of course! Who could resist electing a president with the life expectancy of cottage cheese?

Posted by: misterjrthed | May 26, 2009 8:06 AM | Report abuse

"How exactly is Gingrich qualified to speak on national security?"

He is smart enough and he listens to the right people. Why not? It is not rocket science.

Posted by: GaryEMasters | May 26, 2009 8:11 AM | Report abuse

"How exactly is Gingrich qualified to speak on national security?"

Gingrich is far more qualified to speak on national security than the present occupant of the White House.

Posted by: fenoy | May 26, 2009 8:27 AM | Report abuse

The best test for O'Bama will be whether he will tell the Israelis to shape up or ship out. Did you know, Kristol, that when George Bernard Shaw heard about the Balfour Declaration he lamented that we don't need another Ulster!

Posted by: ravitchn | May 26, 2009 8:36 AM | Report abuse

During the Reagan era, the Moral Majority decided it would take over at least part of the Party rather than build it's own because they knew a small minority could control a larger group provided the larger group was "cohesive and like minded."

Seeing the Moral Majority's success, the neo-cons copied it and pushed the Moral Majority to the bleachers. The neo-cons proved "conservative" is a relative term. Neo-con candidates were more "moderate" (neo-cons knew only a moderate could win a National election). It worked for Bush, but not McCain. Now neo-cons are being marginalized by Rush and Palin.

Kristol wants his crown back. Kristol and Krauthammer were both Princes of the neo-con Kingdom. Now they are Court Jesters. Neither will give up until both are restored to their thrones.....

Won't happen. Rush is purging "moderates" from the Party, even those who "con" other Republicans by calling themselves neo-cons.

Posted by: wmboyd | May 26, 2009 8:37 AM | Report abuse

Unless the US is fighting a war, preparing to fight a war, or threatening to fight a war, conservatives will say the US is "soft". kristol, gingrich, cheney...none of them joined the service let alone fought.

Pathetic people.

Posted by: LeftGuy | May 26, 2009 9:05 AM | Report abuse

Jewish American Neocon with ethno-centric worldview.

Posted by: Doubter1 | May 26, 2009 9:16 AM | Report abuse

Mr. Kristol , that would be former disgraced speaker of the house Newt Gingrich . And , the former disgraced speaker is a known liar , just saying .

Posted by: grammy29649 | May 26, 2009 9:19 AM | Report abuse

Somebody needs to confront the idiot boy messiah before he gets us all killed.

Posted by: zjr78xva | May 26, 2009 9:23 AM | Report abuse

"Both Cheney and Gingrich have the background and stature to address credibly national security issues."

You're obviously using a definition of "credibly" that I'm not familiar with.

Posted by: SteinslandRune | May 26, 2009 9:26 AM | Report abuse

The whole world tests every single US President, and has done so for a generation. Why Mr. Kristol thinks this is news is something the Post's Editorial Staff may want to ponder. Meanwhile, most thinking Americans are quite pleased to have a thoughtful, articulate and sincere man serving as our President, rather than the prior cowboy and his sidekick, Quick-Draw Cheney. Mr. Kristol is simply jealous that he has never and will never be capable of playing in the big leagues with his tough-guy heroes.

Posted by: jamesgshannon | May 26, 2009 9:27 AM | Report abuse

Gingrich? Credibility? The man couldn't answer a factual charge from Dick Durbin (not exactly a Lib, Dem standard bearer) on Sunday; rather he tried to parse words like Bill Clinton.

He's a hypocrite on the level of John Boehner and Peter Hoekstra.

Posted by: hamptontonyc | May 26, 2009 9:36 AM | Report abuse

Why is Kristol allowed to put forth his opinion? He has been wrong on every major issue since he was Quayle's lap-dog.
Oh I forgot, he is Jewish. So Wa Post will pay him no matter how ridiculous his crap is.

Kristol, Coen and Kraphammer. Proof positive that WaPo prefers dumb jews to smart Blacks, Asians and Hispanics.

If these clowns typed "All work and noplay makes Jack a dull boy" 500 times wa Post would print it.

Posted by: torro67 | May 26, 2009 9:36 AM | Report abuse

Ahhh, once again, the lovely Mr. Kristol looks into the vapidness that is the Republican Party and tries to find meaning.

That he can only find that meaning in a pair whose combined acceptance/popularity level rates below Colin Powell's should tell the lovely Mr. Kristol something.

Sarah Palin, anyone? You betcha, with the thinkin' and the knowin' and the golly-if-the-good-Lord be willin'. . .

A political party based on keeping the wealthy wealthy and on sending the not-wealthy Americans' sons and daughters to war doesn't seem to have much of a deserved future.

Posted by: patty2 | May 26, 2009 9:53 AM | Report abuse

And again: This lack of even the semblance of careful thought is why Kristol Jr. was sacked from the New York Times.

"Newt Gingrich (has) the background and stature to address credibly national security issues."

What background and what stature, exactly, Billy?

You pathetic milquetoast joke.

Posted by: OctoberLanguage | May 26, 2009 9:56 AM | Report abuse

Little Lord Fauntleroy hath spoken.

Posted by: patriot76 | May 26, 2009 10:17 AM | Report abuse

Democrats need to attend to Mr Kristol's needs and make sure that he is looked after well so he still continues to write such incredible columns (OK, not too well that he doesn't need to write !)

Having been kicked out of the leadership of the House, Senate, White House and the majority of state governorships in 4 years, one would think that the Republican party would do some soul searching and try to understand the reason for their catastrophic performance in the polls.

But astonishingly, the Republicans are still in denial and looking towards the past to redeem themselves - the same past that got them here in the first place !!

The Democrats in a similar situation would have eaten each other alive (that too openly !)

I truly believe that we need two strong parties to keep each other from running amuck. The natural tendency of each party if they are in power for a while is to increasingly pander to their base and move towards the extremes.

Posted by: Gaithersburg1 | May 26, 2009 10:31 AM | Report abuse

The ASSUMPTION is: there will be elections in 2012.

Posted by: AndreiBA | May 26, 2009 10:46 AM | Report abuse

Am I mistaken or have these exact problems been around for many more than the last say 126 days?

You see Kristol, thanks to the last administration, our country is in hock up to its ears, so we can't put economic pressure on any of these countries, and our military is spread so thin, we're unable to use in a way to put any military pressure on any of these countries.

So what would you suggest? A game of acey-duecy, winner taking all?

Gosh you guys are truly pathetic!


Posted by: helloisanyoneoutthere | May 26, 2009 10:53 AM | Report abuse

"...jihadisis testing Obama from Pakistan to GAZA"...?

The only Gaza test was the savage
warmongering Israelies who are the greatest test...

and the reason for most of our problem in the area. So way the leaders of the ME and the rest of the civilized world.

Kristol thinks he passes this truly stupid sentence past the unwary? Or are his only readers left Israel firsters who contenance anything the barbarians want.

Posted by: whistling | May 26, 2009 11:14 AM | Report abuse


The post at 3:04 a.m. looks like a threat to me...

but the Washining Post, which lets Kristol write columns would let something like that
pass.

Because he parrots the Israel centric Kristol in the ISrael centric paper. And praise Gingrich. Who supports Israel.

Posted by: whistling | May 26, 2009 11:23 AM | Report abuse

Dear Billy: When Oh when will you go the way of your dodo bird dad? He and I clashed back in the 1960's when he spoke in Cleveland and I took exception to his ridiculous worldview. You share a particularly crude, "robust," view of how things must be, rather than how they can be. I think perhaps Norm Podhoretz and his son John may be among lesser lights in the neocon community who are just as dumb as you. Buit then anyone who is a neocon shares a dumb worldview. With whom? Why, with Dick Cheney, of course. I would include George W. Bush except I am not sure he is capable of thinking up a world view for himself.

Posted by: andygrossman | May 26, 2009 11:32 AM | Report abuse

Please, PLEASE let there by a Cheney/Palin ticket in 2012, with Newt as Secretary of the Ministry of Virtue and Vice. With Leno going off the air, America needs the laughs.

Anything that can be done to encourage Dicky and Sarah should be done, post-haste. And offer Rush the press secretary's job. Hannity can be Secretary of Steaks.

Posted by: sheehanjc | May 26, 2009 11:39 AM | Report abuse

Hey Kristol, "It's over!" You neo cons just don't get it. You guys think you're just a little down on your luck, but that you'll be back. But you guys won't be back Bill, because you guys don't have any new ideas, and your old ideas have been exposed for being cartoonishly shallow and morally bankrupt. Neither Cheney, Gingrich, nor Bill Kristol have any discernable credibility left.

Posted by: sonny2 | May 26, 2009 11:40 AM | Report abuse

How exactly is Gingrich qualified to speak on national security?

Posted by: stanwood1 | May 25, 2009 12:43 PM

How exactly is Obamaa qualified to speak on national security???
Being Speaker of the HOuse trumps Community Organizer.

Posted by: thornegp1 | May 26, 2009 11:45 AM | Report abuse

It is absurd to consider Cheney (worse Gingrich) mounting a "challenge" to Obama. Thoroughly discredited for his blustering foreign policy and arrogance in going it alone projecting US power across the globe, a policy that has landed the US in a quagmire, Cheney should keep his trap shut for now. Let Obama's policy run its course and Cheney will have his say should it fail.

The more Republicans let the discredited Cheney high jack their agenda the longer will they defer their restoration. The Republicans should choose a leader who understands the pain ordinary Americans experience what with job losses, overdue mortgage payments, credit card debts and bleak employment prospects and supports policies that alleviate their misery rather than the likes of Cheney or Gingrich who have no empathy with the suffering common man and dogmatically want the Government to keep away from direct intervention to redress market abuses / failures that have led us into disaster. And to cut back on needless involvement in foreign adventures to invest in America for a better tomorrow.

Posted by: padmanabhan40 | May 26, 2009 12:05 PM | Report abuse

Kristol should go back to editing his fathers papers. Cheney and Gingrich both have had their chance on the world stage and blew it big time. Credibilitly? The Repubs have not even begun to mount a convincing campaign to get the attention of most voters. They are still out in the woodshed where they belong after their criminal pursuits and constitution bashing days in power.

Note to Washington Post editor: Kristol is a voice of the past. Get some one young with interesting new Repub. ideas to write this column. Surely they are out there in the great white way of Republican thinking. Or perhaps they should ask Colin Powell for some suggestions on who can develop more inclusive ideas for the party.

Stick a fork in them, the Repubs are done.

Tony Gillotte
Vacaville, CA

Posted by: gillotte43 | May 26, 2009 12:06 PM | Report abuse

Cheney, Grinrich and... Well, delete the first two and add Colin Powel and maybe we got something here...

Posted by: zzapynys | May 26, 2009 12:08 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Kristol. You were one of the main cheerleaders on the weapons of mass distruction and all of that. You don't have the right to talk anymore.

Posted by: jimmyjoe1 | May 26, 2009 12:09 PM | Report abuse

Kristol still has a job? The WP should downsize him immediately and save a few $$ - who says good things can't happen during a depression?

Posted by: rm-rf | May 26, 2009 12:15 PM | Report abuse

Try to dress up your slimy campaigning with fancy words but what you and the few remaining Conservative spokesmen have to offer America can be summed up in one word: Hatred. You want Obama and America to fail so badly it shows in every word you write. Sad and intellectually sick!

Posted by: walden1 | May 26, 2009 12:28 PM | Report abuse

I do hope the GOP run Dick 5 Deferrment Cheney or Newt the Adulterer in 2012. What a joy it will be to hear these two paragons of bravery and fidelity ramble on about national defense and morality. I love your columns Bill, you're zany notions are a hoot! Keep 'em comin'.

Posted by: JKJ88 | May 26, 2009 1:25 PM | Report abuse


Cheney ignored intelligence and killed 3000 innocent Americans on 911.

Yup, that's credibility, Billy Crystal style.


(Cheney also allowed NK to acquire nuke weapon tech--bolstering his "credibility," fer sure!)

Posted by: lichtme | May 26, 2009 1:35 PM | Report abuse

Until this unqualified naval gazer we have in the Oval Office, has reality his his forehead like a two-by-four, he will continue with his dangerously naive view of the world.

Obama has forever existed in a fantasy world constructed by the far left echo chamber. He has little real world experience. Harvard and his little affirmative action politico jobs don't really count.

Unfortunately, our trainee intern of a president is so far behind the power curve, that even after a heavy dose of reality, Obama's skill set is so completely lacking, that the only action I envision him taking, is calling David Axelrod.

Posted by: NoDonkey | May 26, 2009 1:45 PM | Report abuse

Bill, you forgot to mention the confrontation building between Obama and Netenyahoo. Obama told Bibi to stop settlement building on all stolen Palestinian land and Bibi said to hell with you, we’ll do what we want. I have to say that’s no way to treat the biggest, dumbest and most slavish sugar daddy of all time. Don’t you agree?

Posted by: iforgotmyid | May 26, 2009 1:51 PM | Report abuse

"Obama told Bibi to stop settlement building on all stolen Palestinian land"

I wasn't aware Israel was building settlements in Jordan.

I recommend Hamas stage a sit in, as blowing up pizza joints in Ammam might seem so 5 minutes ago.

Posted by: NoDonkey | May 26, 2009 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Cheney had 8 years to do something right. He failed miserably at every step and every turn. Now he comes out with the fact that he has the answers? Kristol, you must have been working on global warming in the Arctic if your memory is that short.

The man allowed 9/11 to happen. He was part of a team that had a chance to truly defeat the terrorists, when there was a true coalition in Afghanistan, and went after the Iraq because he was part of the team that put Saddham in power.

And Ginfrich? Come on, isn't he the family values guy? Now you want him to be the security guy? When non-military people knock folks like Colin Powell, John McCain, and John Kerry you need to start doing some more research.

Cheney is a failure and a miscreant who will do anything for a dollar. He'll throw folks like Libby under the bus, shoot a friend by accident but try to hide the facts, and lie to support his wrong decisions.

Anybody can cry that there will be another terrorist attack. What does that prove? And if it happens, Cheney will be hailed as prescient, don't fall into this stupid trap. Because the next thing you will be doing is writing how all the waterboarding responsibility should fall on Pelosi.

Posted by: fide | May 26, 2009 2:00 PM | Report abuse

Not sure why commenters here consider Obama the "navel gazer" when the man is doing more to set the course of this country on the right path. The blustering fools who ran the ship over the last 8 years have put us into more harm's way than you can count.

The diplomacy that is occuring today will reap much greater rewards in the future. Forget that idiotic Texas swagger and Cheney sneer; those two have been mocked the world over by friend and foe and if you didn't know that I'd say you have been stuck in Cheney's bunker, but Cheney doesn't let anyone in but himself.

By the end of Obama's first term, the world powers will once again be in a more harmonious position.

Posted by: fide | May 26, 2009 2:17 PM | Report abuse

We see a lot of internecine strife in the Republican party about reaching out, re-branding etc, in order to win back some of the power lost. But the reality is not that the Republicans are so out of touch with American values. The reality is that they are so hypocritical about anything and everything. I think it is a human and also an American value not to lie, yet they seem to do nothing but lie. This is why they are shrinking so fast. Newt philanders, Rush was a drug addict, and Cheney is no more than a criminal, and these three are allowed to go on every media outlet there is and spout so-called Republican values. Figure it out fellas. You have some good ideas, so find some good people to represent your party.

Posted by: voldenuit123 | May 26, 2009 2:20 PM | Report abuse

"Not sure why commenters here consider Obama the "navel gazer""

Because besides praise himself, recite his autobiograpy, reaffirm that Bush was right by adopting Bush national security policies (except for this dippy idea to close GITMO that even the Dem dopes in Congress rejected) and throwing trillions at this worthless "stimulus" package that has done NOTHING for the economy, Obama has accomplished NOTHING.

And yeah, it's been just a few months, but it's easy to see that Obama will accomplish nothing new that will benefit the country. All of his "new" ideas are basically warmed over Carter policies that have failed time and time again, both domestically and overseas.

The guy makes pretty speeches, but that seems to be the extent of his skill set, that and blaming Bush. We need more than that in the Oval Office.

Posted by: NoDonkey | May 26, 2009 2:31 PM | Report abuse


"I wasn't aware Israel was building settlements in Jordan."

Deflect, excuse, confuse and spin it however you want, but in effect Netenyahoo, with his statements, effectively gave Obama and the United States the finger. Not that there’s anything new in that, mind you, but it’s just not the way to treat your super sugar daddy.

Posted by: iforgotmyid | May 26, 2009 2:40 PM | Report abuse

The Bush-Cheneyphiles continue their usual florid rants; let them, because three things will occur during Obama's first - and, therefore, only term: 1. Iran will have nuclear weapons 2. North Korea will have the bomb as well as the ability to hit the West Coast (Good Bye Pelosi!) 3. Both of these rogue states will be delivering these weapons to the terrorists. Let's hear Obama talk his way out of this one.

Posted by: CubsFan | May 26, 2009 2:49 PM | Report abuse

OK. So there's no 'Obama Doctrine' yet.... There will be. As far as the GOPs future leader goes... will it really matter? Evidently, anyone can fund a campaign without ten thousand dollar a plate dinners or the olde world TV outlets. Remember.....? Cordially, The Web.

Posted by: deepthroat21 | May 26, 2009 2:50 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Kristol is correct the GOP is now in the business of recycling. Recycle Newt Gingrich after he was thrown out of Congress and Dick Cheney whose stewardship of the Bush Administration made America less safe, eroded our moral credibility and left the country on the brink of economic collapse. Strangely enough there seems to be no one in the republican party who can defend the party. What a pity that these two gentlemen Cheney and Newt continue to blabber on TV for second chance. They will perhaps sway some voters who are easily aroused against a real or perceived foreign enemy and wish to be seen as strong. Unfortunately national strenght does not come out of arrogance, beligerence or cheap rhetoric. America was respected throughtout the world for our consientious dealing with global problems and keeping our national interests front and center. Now it seems that National interests take a backseat to political power and ambition and idealogy. The role of the opposition is not to thrust their idealogy on the new incumbent, which he will obviously reject, but to challenge and improve their ideas so that these can serve national interests better.

Posted by: amathur16 | May 26, 2009 2:51 PM | Report abuse

Cheney? A proven war criminal and traitor who avoided serving himself - FIVE TIMES?

Gingrich - don't get me started.

Posted by: WillSeattle | May 26, 2009 2:53 PM | Report abuse

Oh, Mr. NoDonkey, you seem to be forgetting your history lessons. Everything Obama is doing today is to fix the things broken by Bush and Cheney. Why aren't the Repbulicans in power anymore? Why hasn't bin Ladin been captured? Were your feckless leaders incapable of taking care of the basic necessities?

Please continue to support Cheney, your choice for a real fighting man (Shoots his friends?) is quite comical. The democrats couldn't pick a finer choice for you in the next election -- Gingrinch and Cheney!

And it sure is funny how the economy is starting to make a rebound. Hope that stimulus package doesn't scare you too much, it ain't for the Republican wealthy cigar brokers...but they aren't in power anymore, are they?

Posted by: fide | May 26, 2009 2:58 PM | Report abuse

As long as the Republicans remain the party of rich old whites they will lose. They elect a black party chairman and shoot down everything he says. They have an eloquent speaker in Colin Powell and accuse him of betraying the party. After the set-up job Bush-Cheney did to him he still tries to support republicans and they bash him. The 08 election was the tsunami washing away Old White Power. You can't argue with numbers and soon whites will be the minority. Rich old whites already are. Cheney & Gingrich can dance & sing on the talk shows all they want and who's watching them? Other old white guys. They will have the nascar vote, the redneck vote, the skinhead vote, the gun-nut vote, and be woefully outnumbered by the young, the intelligent, the technically advanced, the forward thinking, those who want to build a future, not live in the past.

Posted by: jbtrim | May 26, 2009 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Is North Korea the place where you and Cheney and Gingrich plan to kill your next million people? Is that is what is on your drawing boards along with the "new Pearl Harbor" you had a hand in planning.

Posted by: repudar711 | May 26, 2009 4:24 PM | Report abuse

"Oh, Mr. NoDonkey, you seem to be forgetting your history lessons. Everything Obama is doing today is to fix the things broken by Bush and Cheney."

You're correct, I failed to learn the lessons taught to us by Professor Jon Stewart, Doctor Keith Olbmermann and Markos Moulitsas, PhD.

In contrast, the drooling neo-Marxist ranters on this site learned their lessons all too well. I can just see them pounding that nonsense out on their Mac Books instead of listening to their remedial English TA.

"And it sure is funny how the economy is starting to make a rebound."

Yes, it's downright hilarious, as it isn't. And we'll get all sorts of investment in this country by people who think it's just grand that the Obama Administration illegally stole the private property of GM/Chrysler investors as well as the Democrats inane plan to institue cap and trade.

Posted by: NoDonkey | May 26, 2009 4:26 PM | Report abuse

I love the Right thinkers like No Donkey who would love to see more Bush & Cheney in the WH. It's so predictable to call Obama a Marxist - I'm sure they will also start to complain about illegal wiretapping and government secrecy now that the shoe is on the other foot.

I see a lot of personal and ad-homonym attacks and few ideas. That's what happens when an ideology has nothing left to offer. All that is left is a hard, pitiless, and angry group - not a very attractive club to join. I would expect that the fortunes of the party will start to change when they start to be open to consider the lives and perspectives of all Americans and put forth serious proposals to problems that don't depend on the "trickle-down" theory of economics or some fear-based straw man argument in order to gain popular support.

And by the way, NoDonkey, Obama didn't steal GM/Chrysler property, he bought it with our tax dollars - that's capitalism Kirk Kerkorian style. We gave them both over $17 Billion in bailout money and they want $22 Billion more.

On May 26th, GM's share value was $879 Million, Chrysler is estimated to be worth $6 billion. Now you tell me who got ripped off.

Posted by: pricetheo | May 26, 2009 11:21 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company