Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Speak for America, President Obama

On September 2, 1939, in the wake of Hitler’s invasion of Poland, the British House of Commons met to rush through a military service bill. But the House was stunned when Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain said he wasn’t ready to ask for a declaration of war, that he was still working on a time limit for Hitler to respond to demands that the German army withdraw from Poland. As the Labour Party’s Arthur Greenwood rose for the Opposition, the anti-appeasement Conservative Leo Amery dramatically called out from the Tory backbenches: “Speak for England."

This isn’t September 1939. But the developments in Tehran are a potentially big moment, signaling the possible transformation or at least reformation of the Iranian regime. American principles and American interests argue for support of the Iranian people in this crisis.

And where is the American president? Silent.

Some argue that the brave Iranians demonstrating for freedom and democracy would be better off if the American president somehow stayed out of the fight. Really? But Barack Obama is president. His statement wouldn’t be crafted by those dreaded neocons who vulgarly thought all people would like a chance to govern themselves and deserved some modicum of U.S. support in that endeavor. It would be written by subtle liberal internationalists, who would get the pitch and tone just right. And the statement wouldn’t be delivered by the notorious George Bush (who did, however, weigh in usefully in somewhat similar situations in Ukraine and Lebanon). It would be delivered by the popular and credible speaker-to-the-Muslim-world, Barack Obama. Does anyone really think that a strong Obama statement of solidarity with the Iranian people, and a strong rebuke to those who steal elections and shoot demonstrators, wouldn’t help the dissidents in Iran?

I don’t believe it. I don’t believe Barack Obama believes it. As he put it in The Audacity of Hope: “We can inspire and invite other people to assert their freedoms;...we can speak out on behalf of local leaders whose rights are violated; and we can apply economic and diplomatic pressure to those who repeatedly violate the rights of their own people.”

This makes President Obama’s silence over the weekend and so far today about Iran all the more puzzling. So if I may be presumptuous, I say to President Obama: Speak out. Speak out multilaterally and carefully and sensitively. Speak out kindly and gently. But speak out. Speak for liberty. Speak for America.

By William Kristol  | June 15, 2009; 2:12 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: My Mother, the Jew Judge
Next: Obama, the Less-Than-Great Defender

Comments

"So if I may be presumptuous, I say to President Obama: Speak out. Speak out multilaterally and carefully and sensitively. Speak out kindly and gently. But speak out. Speak for liberty. Speak for America."
******************

Bill, your disingenuous hate for America is showing.

Posted by: abqcleve | June 15, 2009 2:35 PM | Report abuse

Kristol is the affirmative action hire at the WAPO, how else can you explain it. This guy has been wrong about everything forever.

Posted by: calif-joe | June 15, 2009 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Kristol...You can't even find credibility in a dictionary...

Posted by: willandjansdad1 | June 15, 2009 2:38 PM | Report abuse

President Obama is undergoing some on-the- job training. Foreign policy is not his strong suit.

Waiting to see how the cards play out first is central to his approach to leadership.

Posted by: gowen1 | June 15, 2009 2:39 PM | Report abuse

On September 2, 1939, in the wake of Hitler’s invasion of Poland, the British House of Commons met to rush through a military service bill. But the House was stunned when Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain said he wasn’t ready to ask for a declaration of war, that he was still working on a time limit for Hitler to respond to demands that the German army withdraw from Poland.

So Ahmadenijad is Hitler and Obama is Chamberlain? I know this...You're a neocon stooge.

Oh...Thanks for pushing Palin on us. We need some comedy in these tough times.

Posted by: willandjansdad1 | June 15, 2009 2:41 PM | Report abuse

Ah, the pompous Fox "News" slimeball who helped lie us into the Iraq war has some foreign policy advice for President Obama! How fascinating!

Perhaps Kristol's time is better spent down at the nearest VA hospital begging forgiveness from those whose lives were ruined by his lies. Traitor!

Posted by: losthorizon10 | June 15, 2009 2:42 PM | Report abuse

See the Charles Krauthammer hate crowd has logged on on to the Kristol column. Rather boring stuff from these folks.

Posted by: Tupac_Goldstein | June 15, 2009 2:50 PM | Report abuse

Not even the Iranians yet know exactly what happened, and the information is still simmering. A better quote from Obama:

"There was a delay because I like to know what I'm talking about before I speak"

Posted by: trident420 | June 15, 2009 2:57 PM | Report abuse


abqcleve spewed:
"Bill, your disingenuous hate for America is showing".

op cit Nah... Bill Kristol is a great American. His knowledge of world affairs is exceeded only by his ability to seek out the truth. His insight has been a beacon of light for those in need of guidance, and his cool in dealing with detractors is legend. He’s the big dog little dogs bark at. May his days be many, and may his teachings serve as a road map for those lost in the jungle of ignorance.

.

Posted by: Billw3 | June 15, 2009 3:02 PM | Report abuse

Your analogy is nice, but falls apart pretty quickly.

The circumstances are night and day. While the Iranian elections will have ramifications on the U.s. and U.s. interests, they wouldn't be nearly as close-to-home or intense as England and Germany in 1939.

Hitler's next moves could immediately result in war for England, or at least an attack on the country (which, of course, they did). Secondly, the attempts of appeasement came largely from the fact that another devastating, bloody European war was being barely held back by the fragile armistice after WWI. It was little more than a cease-fire, not a complete acceptance of defeat by anyone. And, there were many who fought against Germany who thought the terms were too crushing to Germany and its economy. A prevailing notion was that if Germany got a slightly fairer shake, they'd hold up their end of the armistice.

In the case of Iranian elections, a little prudence can go a long way. We've got close to zero credibility in that region - isn't it possible that calls to action or even some sort of intervention from the U.S. could cause anti-U.s. populations to solidify around our "meddling," strengthening them against the protesters? Also, what happens if the elections weren't fraudulent, or not fraudulent enough to prove that the protesters were cheated out of the leader that actually should have been appointed? We'd immediately move from "empowering democracy" to "trying to install a puppet regime" in some people's eyes.

I do hope and expect a well-measured, effective, inspiring response from Obama on the subject, one that will help both the Iranian people and the U.s. Based on his record so far I think he's got a 50/50 shot of pulling this off - but under the circumstances I'm not yet disappointed that it hasn't already been made.

Posted by: MrJack | June 15, 2009 3:03 PM | Report abuse

Bill kristol put a uniform on and stop letting other fight your wars.Fight them yourself. Because of you and all the other the Neocons I have lost a number of friends base on a war that you all lied the American people into.

Posted by: leftoflarry | June 15, 2009 3:04 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps Shecky would have liked it better if Obama had renounced free elections in Iran and called them names like George the Dumber did

He probably wants Obama to call Ahmadinejad the son of satan's female dog or maybe "Mr Potatoe Head"

Posted by: coloradodog | June 15, 2009 3:08 PM | Report abuse

For a witless Neocon failure any world event, any statement, any happening, is an opportunity to attack Obama. Read the WaPo witless idiot, it is TOO EARLY to jump in like a Neocon and start breaking the china.

Posted by: gposner | June 15, 2009 3:11 PM | Report abuse

kristol you repugs are always so full of advice to this prez, where were all your advice to bush to not start a war over untruths and LIES. a better time to give advice was then.this is another country's situation. this prez is very busy handling the bungling the cheney-bush misadministration handed to this country. we want him to take care of the cheney-bush fiasco, iran can take care of themselves.

Posted by: ninnafaye | June 15, 2009 3:11 PM | Report abuse

I don't suppose it's ocurred to Kristol that a U.S. president voicing support for for these people could backfire and give Ahmadinejhad even more legitimacy.

Posted by: gregdn | June 15, 2009 3:12 PM | Report abuse

Bill Kristol is like a drone, he just buzzes on with his world view that has been shown to be consistently wrong. The misguided policies he advocates have cost the US and the world enough in blood and hatred. For once we have a sensible president in the White House and Mr. Kristol should stop spouting in the wind.

Posted by: drne | June 15, 2009 3:13 PM | Report abuse

Bill,

It's called "Waiting for the dust to settle." The situation in Iran, which is volatile on a good day, is unstable enough; it doesn't need a shoot-from-the-lip display of patriotic machismo from the Great Satan to muck things up even further.

Posted by: drazen1 | June 15, 2009 3:14 PM | Report abuse

Unbelieveable. Kristol says President Obama should support oppressed people who want democracy and free elections, and people turn up from under the rocks to condemn him because he's a "neocon."

Would you people listen to yourselves? You're saying the President of the United States of America should not speak out on behalf of liberty and democracy.

You're saying the President of the United States of America should not speak out on behalf of liberty and democracy, because someone you disapprove of says he should.

Y'all probably think Reagan shouldn't have stood in Berlin and said, "Mister Gorbachev, tear down this wall."

Unbelieveable. I didn't think it was physically possible to get one's head stuck that far up one's behind.

Posted by: gilbertbp | June 15, 2009 3:18 PM | Report abuse

Bill Krystal says, "I say to President Obama: Speak out. Speak out multilaterally and carefully and sensitively. Speak out kindly and gently. But speak out. Speak for liberty. Speak for America."

Hey Bill... Obama can't speak out now. His speech writers haven't decided which way he should go yet and don't have anything prepared for his teleprompter.

Give it another day or two and when Ahmadinejad has all of the protestors either killed or in jail, Obama will know which side to suck up to.

Posted by: skabootchie | June 15, 2009 3:21 PM | Report abuse

Bill, was it not President Bush's strong words in support of the reformist candidate in the last Iranian election that caused a whiplash resulting in Ahmadinejad's election?

Perhaps that's exactly what you want... more confrontation, more strife, and for America and Iran to inch ever closer to armed confrontation.

I think the Obama administration is playing it exactly right - give the Iranian reformists room to capture the hearts and minds of their people, overturn the extremists in the government, without being linked to American interventionist idiocy.

Incidentally, your sarcasm is unbecoming. Act like an adult, please.

Posted by: BABucher | June 15, 2009 3:21 PM | Report abuse

If you go over to Drudge Report you will notice they are citing the "study" that validates Ahmadinejad's "victory". The cons very badly need him to win so that their grand plan for an attack on Iran (by Israel) can be borne out. If it turns out that Iran is a more nuanced and complicated place than Kristol, Limbaugh and Drudge make it out to be, then careful diplomacy might seem to be in order. They want Mousavi to fail and they want the people's revolution to fail. They think that if Barack speaks up it will harden support for Ahmadinejad. Remember how Bush recognized the coup against Chavez less than 24 hours after it was set in motion, only to have it deflate almost immediately? That was one screw up lost in the welter of worse screw ups to follow. But guess what? Barack is smarter than Bush, or for that matter, Kristol, Limbaugh or Drudge too. Sit tight Barack and don't show your cards.

Posted by: PJTramdack | June 15, 2009 3:24 PM | Report abuse

One fine morning in June 1942 ... it was june 15th 1942 in fact, Adolph Hitler went into his bathroom and took a dump.

Obviously, president Obama was aware of the importance of this anniversary; and in the sincerest form of flattery performed this same activity, in homage to one of the most astonishingly evil men ever to have existed.

Kristol, you could not be more an idiot.

Posted by: khote14 | June 15, 2009 3:24 PM | Report abuse

Can you imagine Obama accusing somebody who won an election of voter fraud? Can you say "ACORN"?? Obama knows that he and Achie baby won in the same fashion. Besides, if a moderate Iranian got elected, then that guy might not be willing to try to nuke Israel. Then Obama's plans would go right down the toilet.

Posted by: don_johnson8 | June 15, 2009 3:25 PM | Report abuse

If I believed that Mr. Kristol's column was actually written due to his own convictions, it might be readable.

But being that Mitt already pressed this same point yesterday on the Sunday morning talk shows, we know it's just this weeks neo-con master plan. Rush and the rest of the neo-con state sponsored radio propaganda machine are in full force today with this same message.

Obama already spoke for America in Cairo. Why do u think hundreds of thousands of people showed up today? This would not have happened under GW.

I remember when GW "spoke" for America. He called Iran Evil. That caused exactly no improvement in the situation. Sorry Mr. Kristol, but cowboy diplomacy only works in the movies, and the reality challenged world in which Republicans live.

It's ok though, I finally understand. Being Republican at the moment means taking no responsibility for past actions, promoting revisionist history and fueling racial discord behind the guise of being a real American.

Might I suggest you do a column on the current workings of the neo-con movement. In that article, compare Hitler and his regime to that of the current Republican Party. You'll have more similarities to write about, and your logic will contain-- well more logic.

Posted by: magicInMiami | June 15, 2009 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Why is this sniveling coward given a forum here? He's the most incompetent, shortsighted, poisonous s*****g imaginable. The Wapo is spineless and pitiful for giving him any of their precious space.

Posted by: H1000 | June 15, 2009 3:29 PM | Report abuse

Smirking Billy,

Try thinking more. If Obama openly supports Mousavi now, there will be unintended consequences and they probably will be counterproductive to our interests. Remember all the unintended consequences you, Bush, Cheney etc caused by not thinking through the invasion of Iraq?

Posted by: 1observer | June 15, 2009 3:29 PM | Report abuse

There is nimber of countries worldwide, which have considerable amount of population ready to take just everything labeled "US" as a threat. And if US president comments in public any this country inner event - that is double threat. So may be to remain silent is best for Obama this case.

Posted by: IWH_rus | June 15, 2009 3:30 PM | Report abuse

So it's shoot first and ask questions later? I guess we have cowboys with us still.

But it wasn't cowboys who settled the west - it was farmers who cultivated the land and made long term investments and wanted the benefits of a legal system.

And just what would a premature statement by Obama accomplish except to make us all feel tough and righteous? The reformers of the Middle East by and large concluded that Bush screwed it up for them and wished he'd just shut up.

The Cairo speech was one of the most carefully-crafted statements in recent history. It takes time to consult and consider.

But Kristol isn't having any of it. One day after the results were announced, he's uncovered the real significance of the Iranian election: It can be used to attack Obama.

Even while we're trying to manage the catastrophes unleashed by the last administration's neocons, they're in our face to push us into the next one.

Posted by: j2hess | June 15, 2009 3:31 PM | Report abuse

don_johnson8

It takes some doing but you win the dumbest m**********r on the board prize. Congrats!

Posted by: H1000 | June 15, 2009 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Maybe Obama is smarter than you? Give up the crocodile tears, Mr. Kristol. You hate Iranians, and you want a lot of them to die. Why do I think you'd be cheering if and when an Israeli air strike kills thousands of them.

Posted by: August30 | June 15, 2009 3:31 PM | Report abuse

kristol. you rock and roll man. so glad we still have people with intestinal fortitude to speak up for what's right and the right way to do things. thanks from a cconservative christian american -- steve husein

Posted by: harbinger317 | June 15, 2009 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Really, Neville Chamberlain? Again? Really??!

Oh, woe is me who is surprised when old discredited arguments are rehashed by this gentleman.

Mr. Kristol, this is not appeasement, but a calculation of risk vs. reward. What does the President have to gain by coming out against the Iranian elections at this time? Do you naively think it will change Friday's outcome? Or do you suggest he take action - intervene - so that this apparent wrong is righted? (That would be a fun international incident, fun because I would love to be drafted to fight some ridiculous war of non-necessity… NOT). Or are you still upset that he won the election, therefore you offer ridiculous claims to make yourself feel better/relevant? (BINGO).

No, Mr. Kristol, President Obama is speaking for America by saying nothing at all. The age of belligerence is over. He sees that we have nothing to gain by calling that election a farce before we have all the evidence. You see, we study history so we may learn from our mistakes, and recent history dictates that you should understand the facts before you aggressively posture in the Middle East.

Posted by: Ed-wisco | June 15, 2009 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Ys absolutely we must speak out. First, whom do we torture, though? Can you please tell us oh great Kristol? Second, let's make sure that we declare the election void simply because we disagree with who the winner is. Oh yes, we must speak out!

This is advice from the Bush/Cheney cheerleaders. I hate to say it, but after cheering torture and a war base on false premises, the LOUDEST speech is silence.

Above all, the Kristols should just shut up and disappear.

Posted by: AMviennaVA | June 15, 2009 3:32 PM | Report abuse

We can't even accurately determine who wins elections in our own country - just look at Franken and Coleman - so how are we supposed to tell who won a close election in a foreign country. What if Ahmadenijad legitimately received the majority of votes? Wouldn't democracy promotion call for supporting that result, even if we don't like it? Or is a contested election simply an opportunity to good to pass up?

Posted by: jack34 | June 15, 2009 3:32 PM | Report abuse

retard.

Posted by: khote14 | June 15, 2009 3:34 PM | Report abuse

Here Billy, I've got something for you...

...here, it's a big steaming mug of STFU!

You discredited hater!

Posted by: Heerman532 | June 15, 2009 3:35 PM | Report abuse

Bill Kristol's crisis response strategy: Fire, Ready, Aim

Posted by: MaryAnnEvans1 | June 15, 2009 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Wow... a call for the President to speak out in defense of liberty ? maybe democracy ? maybe tolerance ?

And all I read is venom directed at the author ? Are these posters embarrassed at the President ?

Are these presumably liberal Democrats really happy that President Obama is voting "present" on this unfolding tragedy ?

Posted by: pvilso24 | June 15, 2009 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Thank You WaPo for running Kristol's drivel! It reminds me how lucky we are to be rid of him and his ignorant neocon pals who have only one loyalty...Israel. How stupid can you get? What the Iranians DO NOT NEED is U.S. meddling in their elections. Do Kristol & Co. have any sense of history? Mousadek? the Shah? the Iraq/Iran War? Axis of Evil? ring a bell?

Posted by: joy2 | June 15, 2009 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Kristol you really are ignorant. Why do you think Ahmadinejad got elected in the first place. Remember Bush's Axis of Evil speach? That was not diplomacy. That was strengthening the hardliners in Iran. Bush did not know diplomacy and your comparison of a land invasion of another country to an election shows you know nothing of diplomacy.

Obama is properly waiting this out. I've read two studies that show the results could be true. Its not up to America to decide the outcome or whether it was rigged without a lot more evidence. We need to let the Iranians handle this.

So far one protestor has been shot. If Obama had come out after the election talking about an axis of evil rigging the vote and calling on Iranians to rise up, the Iranian government could blame Obama for the uprising, saying it was caused by "foreign elements" and not official rigging. But everyone knows these are Iranians rioting, and they know they are mad, and they know no foreign government whipped this up. The Iranian officials have to handle this directly and not use America as a foil as Bush allowed them to do for so many years.

No Kristol, you do not know diplomacy. What do you know anyway?

Posted by: bevjims1 | June 15, 2009 3:39 PM | Report abuse

Are you really this dumb Mr. Kristol? Seriously, are you stupid or are you smart as a fox? If Obama speaks out, that will give Ahmadinejad fodder for his anti-US propaganda. So, Obama speaking out BOlSTERS Ahmadinejad. That is where your notion is stupid. Or indeed is that what you want? Ahmadinejad to succeed? Perhaps that's your plan. If so, you sir are as evil as "the mad man" of Iran himself.

Posted by: AB68 | June 15, 2009 3:41 PM | Report abuse

How about the sensical approach Bill. Determine the extent of election fraud and then speak for America. Unfortunately, even Obama "speaking up" (which I assume you mean "man the battlestations!"), won't do much for the good guys over there.

Posted by: dougdupin@yahoo.com | June 15, 2009 3:42 PM | Report abuse

We have already seen the rest majority of the rest of the world and show their disdain for the Iran elections. What do we get, Joe Biden simpering that since the fella is in power we have to deal with him. Maybe Hillary will get up and scold him to review the voter fraud and we all know that Lord O will only speak when it is time to spit on this country.

Four and out baby for the Big O and hopefully we'll avoid too much of his aspiring huge deficit before he and his Chicago croonies spend too much of our money.

Posted by: zendrell | June 15, 2009 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Unbelieveable. Kristol says President Obama should support oppressed people who want democracy and free elections, and people turn up from under the rocks to condemn him because he's a "neocon."

Would you people listen to yourselves? You're saying the President of the United States of America should not speak out on behalf of liberty and democracy.

...
Y'all probably think Reagan shouldn't have stood in Berlin and said, "Mister Gorbachev, tear down this wall."

Posted by: gilbertbp | June 15, 2009 3:18 PM | Report abuse

Kristol is saying more than that "President Obama should support oppressed people who want democracy and free elections", he's also specifying how and when - and making a recommendation that, however symbolic it might be, has been proven ineffective time and again.

We are not "saying the President of the United States of America should not speak out on behalf of liberty and democracy", we're saying that timing, context, and message may be important.

And Amadinejad is no Gorbachev. Gorbachev has already initiated revolutionary change in the USSR. Reagan challenged him to take it further. In fact it was Gorbachev's realization that he could trust Reagan to not take advantage of the chaos of change that gave Gorbachev the assurancer he needed to push farther - not the challenge. The entire context was different; you offer a deeply flawed analogy.

Our main goal re Iran is to block the development of nuclear weapons in order to protect the security of Israel and the rest of the region. The decisions there will be made by the clerics, not Amadinejad. The only way the clerics will make that decision is if they do not believe that we will challenge their rule.

So let me put this question to you: which is your preference: A nuclear Iran ruled by the mullahs but the satisfaction of knowing the president denounced their elections, or a non-nuclear Iran in which the mullahs have decided they can take a softer line on internal reforms because the US is not planning to attack?

Posted by: j2hess | June 15, 2009 3:50 PM | Report abuse

It's hard for Obama to disagree with the Iranian mullahs. After all, just like him, the mullahs hate America and hate George Bush.

Posted by: spincut | June 15, 2009 3:54 PM | Report abuse

You venomous Posters should be ashamed for attacking Kristols plea to Obama....

At least the President is listening !

Just in from Huffington Post at 3:53EST:

" Obama Expected To Address Iran Unrest At 5PM ET "

Thanks Bill Kristol for asking the President to do the right thing.

Posted by: pvilso24 | June 15, 2009 3:55 PM | Report abuse

What an idiotic column. Of course, the President should NOT say anything!! Can you imagine what the pro-gov forces would say?! Did you see the protests at the UK and French embassies when they did? Let it play out...choose your moment wisely...unlike our last cowboy...

Posted by: davidrand1 | June 15, 2009 3:55 PM | Report abuse

Notwithstanding the hate-spewing against Mr. Kristol evident in too many of these comments, I would argue that since Obama does not speak for America on any other subject, why should he start now?

This man is a charismatic empty suit. No wonder he appeals to so many others just like him--vapid, empty, but plenty ready with hot air and invective.

Posted by: jshaver001 | June 15, 2009 3:57 PM | Report abuse

Put a sock in it, Kristol. I don't remember you leading any protests when the vote count was stopped in Florida so your guy could win. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I sincerely doubt making sure my vote ever counts is a cause you would die for.

Posted by: SarahBB | June 15, 2009 3:57 PM | Report abuse

I guess Kristol missed Obama's speech to the Muslim world. That is what inspired so many young people to speak out against Ahmadinejad. The majority of voters in Iran is under 30, which is why the mullahs are worried. What does Kristol want Obama to say now..."bring it on!"????

Posted by: joy2 | June 15, 2009 4:01 PM | Report abuse

kristol. you rock and roll man. so glad we still have people with intestinal fortitude to speak up for what's right and the right way to do things. thanks from a cconservative christian american -- steve husein
___________________

Husein? Husein? Did you say Husein?

Withe Husein in your name you must be a commie and a Muslim

I heard it on Fox News!

Posted by: coloradodog | June 15, 2009 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Can you imagine Obama accusing somebody who won an election of voter fraud? Can you say "ACORN"?? Obama knows that he and Achie baby won in the same fashion. Besides, if a moderate Iranian got elected, then that guy might not be willing to try to nuke Israel. Then Obama's plans would go right down the toilet.

Posted by: don_johnson8 | June 15, 2009 3:25 PM

Not to put too fine a point on it, but you need to stop the gibberish about ACORN. They simply register voters. They received funding while Bush was in office, for chrissakes. Their alleged fraud was reported by themselves, and involved less than 5 of their workers. You believe that they engineered a 10 MILLION vote majority? what is in that pipe you cling to?

Posted by: bklyndan22 | June 15, 2009 4:05 PM | Report abuse

Such vitriol from the left! As it happens, shortly after Kristol wrote this, the White House did in fact issue a statement regarding their "concern" for events in Iran. You libs are such chumps, and think everyone is so stupid, well, what do you think of Barry now?

Posted by: tnorling | June 15, 2009 4:05 PM | Report abuse

Ummmm...Let's see...its Bill "the Great Conservative Oracle" Kristol again. Giving his two measly cents and simple anecdotes on yet another complex issue. You sure do get it right Billy...
NOT!

Posted by: hayden1 | June 15, 2009 4:05 PM | Report abuse

" Obama Expected To Address Iran Unrest At 5PM ET " quite stupied, but we`ll see... Obama possible will say a lot and nothing. "We all Iranians" - something alike - americans will be proud, Iran will feel self-righteous, world will have fun. Go ahead :)

Posted by: IWH_rus | June 15, 2009 4:09 PM | Report abuse

Kristol has little or no credibility as a commentator and yet WAPO insists on providing the means for him to disseminate his nonsensical drivel. I doubt whether Republicans find him credible.

Posted by: Diogenes | June 15, 2009 4:10 PM | Report abuse

You libs are such chumps, and think everyone is so stupid, well, what do you think of Barry now?

Posted by: tnorling | June 15, 2009 4:05 PM | Report abuse
---------------
Couldn't be more prouder of my President.

Not everyone is stupid...just you...snotling...or whatever name is...and you can take a flying leap off the Fox News building!

Posted by: hayden1 | June 15, 2009 4:10 PM | Report abuse

Kristol is such a frigging jerk. But he is well coordinated with CNN and FOX and other AIPAC subordinates screaming bloody murder, without one shred of evidence, that the Iranians didn't just have an election.

You got some proof Bill? Then shut up. All you care about is inventing an atmosphere conducive to us quickly obeying Netanyahu without much thinking about it. And tell Fareed Zakaria to shut up, too. Very sad to see him toadie up to the AIPAC line.

Posted by: AIPACiswar | June 15, 2009 4:15 PM | Report abuse

You can always tell when to ignore an historical analogy coming from the Neanderthal Confederate Israel lobby Republican Party. When ever a country is compared to Nazi Germany and the Third Reich and a leader and their actions are compared to Adolf Hitler. Iran is not Nazi Germany. Mahmoud Ahmadenjinad is not Adolf Hitler. America is not threatened existentially nor substantively by Iran. This is not serious.

Perhaps the Iranians still rememeber America overthrowing their democratically elected government in 1953 and replacing it with a dictator the Shah of Iran. America encouraged Saddam Hussein to attack Iran using American WMD's. Then America invaded and is still occupying Iraq after declaring that country and Iran both part of an axis of evil.

What would America do if the history was reversed and it was in Iran's position?

Posted by: blackmamba1 | June 15, 2009 4:17 PM | Report abuse

Thank you Mr President for listening to Bill Kristol and quieting down these hate-Kristol types on the Left.

We'll be listening in rapture !

Warm up those teleprompters ! : )

Posted by: pvilso24 | June 15, 2009 4:18 PM | Report abuse

What makes Mr. Kristol think the election was stolen? He doesn't provide any evidence of this assertion. According to Post polling, Ahmadinejad was the 2 to 1 favorite before the election. Of course the Iranian left is mad about his victory, but simply because people are rioting doesn't mean the election was stolen.

So what kind of statement would the President make? All he can really say is that if the people of Iran believe in democracy, then they must accept the election results and stop protesting.

I'm sure that would give Bill Kristol plenty of ammo with which to attack him.

Posted by: squier13 | June 15, 2009 4:20 PM | Report abuse

'Some argue that the brave Iranians demonstrating for freedom and democracy would be better off if the American president somehow stayed out of the fight.'- Kristol

Hyperbole. The Iranians are demonstrating against election results many perceive might have been rigged between two pre-approved, pre-chosen candidates by the Ayatollah which the people of Iran were then 'free' to vote for.

The fastest way to shut this genuine grass roots effort down is for the U.S. to interfere giving the hardliners an excuse to cry 'foul' ... geez

Remember the staged psych op of Saddam's statue removal?
The Arabs and Persians remember ...
If the U.S. weighs in now we will be accused of meddling.

Let Iranian citizens have their unique moment. They need a lot of these moments before they can then one day demonstrate for 'freedom and democracy.' as you assert.

You remind me of a child- 'Are we there yet? Are we there yet?'

Posted by: Gracefulboomer | June 15, 2009 4:23 PM | Report abuse

Hey! Great idea Kristol! Obama should speak up! To the Israelis! What's good for the goose is good for the gander!

Obama should make a grand speech extolling moderate Israelis to toss out Netanyahu and the hard right wing! They should accept our notions of peace with two states and accept Jimmy Carter as a mediator.

Talk directly to the people, in Israel, genius Bill! Skip the hard right leadership as corrupt and bent on perpetual war and land theft.

Posted by: AIPACiswar | June 15, 2009 4:28 PM | Report abuse

Hiya,

Where applicable, can we all please promise to take our meds before posting?

If you can't argue a point, and can only respond by telling someone to shut up, calling them names, or going wildly off-topic, please shout into a pillow or something instead of drowning out the rest of us who can form coherent thoughts and stimulate conversation and meaningful dialouge.

If all you're going to do is jump and b*tch out Kristol and Krauthamer, you're doing no one any service. Those who are persuaded that you're right merely end up parroting without doing any critical thinking, and those who think these pundits are on to something see your line in the sand and respond with similar vitriol.

Everyone in this equation gets to go home patting themselves on the back for schooling the fools on the other side. But the truth is they're all the more ignorant for their efforts - forcing themselves to take hard-line opinions against their opponents, themselves losing perspective of nuance and "shades of gray" in the situation.

In the case of both Kristol and Krauthamer, they both have a tendency to state an opinion on how to handle something, provide what's supposed to be a slam-dunk, real-world example that drives their point home, and then tie them both together. Problem is, those examples rarely add up to the points they're supposed to be supporting.

Watch for that nut in the middle - it's the lynchpin that holds their argument together. Pull it out and it all falls down.

Posted by: MrJack | June 15, 2009 4:32 PM | Report abuse

I agree the silence is curious . . it seems our support for freedom, liberty and democracy is shrinking.

Posted by: sarno | June 15, 2009 4:41 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, that Obama. Always wanting to think before speaking. What is it with him? Why can't he be like our last President?

Posted by: jonawebb | June 15, 2009 4:43 PM | Report abuse

Advise from Iraq War Bill

Advise to Obama, don't follow them. The guy is wrong everytime.

Irani election is for Irani's decide. They don't need American support to claim their rights. They don't need spoon feeding of freedom.

Posted by: SeedofChange | June 15, 2009 4:43 PM | Report abuse

Anyone notice the Ballerd & Doherty piece on the same opinions page supporting the idea that Ahmadinejad may have won legitimately? It seems that your advice to President Obama, Mr. Kristol, is not only unwise and imprudent but actually dangerous. What, sir, would happen to the credibility of Mr. Obama should he support your version of fairness but be wrong? Do you really believe that a comparison to Chamberlain is appropriate? Evidently President Obama knows when to be silent, but you do not.

Posted by: bensade | June 15, 2009 4:52 PM | Report abuse

Unbelieveable. Kristol says President Obama should support oppressed people who want democracy and free elections, and people turn up from under the rocks to condemn him because he's a "neocon."...
Unbelieveable. I didn't think it was physically possible to get one's head stuck that far up one's behind.

Posted by: gilbertbp | June 15, 2009 3:18 PM | Report abuse
**********************

Ya see, the problem is when Mr. Bill say's, "Speak for liberty. Speak for America," he doesn't mean anything like, "do the right thing. Help out innocent democracy lovers around the world."

He means, "I wish you'd jump in like a bull in a china shop like our previous guy did and build even more internal support in Iran for Ahmadinejad." He means, "meddle some more. Stir the pot so things get really heated. We (meaning neo-cons) need a pretext to bomb Iran."

He also thinks he's building opposition against Obama in this country my making it appear as thought Obama is doing nothing. Obama is doing exactly the right thing at the moment by shutting up.

BTW, word is he'll give a statement on the situation in a few minutes. You have to go to the HuffPo to get that: the WaPo writers are all still at lunch.

Posted by: abqcleve | June 15, 2009 4:52 PM | Report abuse

This "election" just occurred. Obama won't speak without considering what he's saying, unlike Kristol's hero, Mr. Bring It On.

Posted by: nita3 | June 15, 2009 4:53 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Kristol,

The NeoCONery era is over. Thank God it's over.

Posted by: natirvin | June 15, 2009 4:53 PM | Report abuse

It's ok, I wouldn't expect you to understand nuance.

Posted by: glitch83 | June 15, 2009 4:54 PM | Report abuse

Obama gave Ahmadinejad a huge popularity boost when he legitimized him through "unconditional negotiations" - as McCain warned him not to do.

Posted by: pkhenry | June 15, 2009 4:55 PM | Report abuse


911, be-heading, taking hostages, hating Israel, suicide bombers, hate speeches, derogating women, gassing detractors, intolerance of other religions, always fighting among themselves.

These are the people Obama has been apologizing to for America's conduct. Note he doesn't condemn their behavior. Look's like he's more than half Muslim.

.

Posted by: Billw3 | June 15, 2009 4:56 PM | Report abuse

A good rule of thumb for anyone is to take what Kristol says and do the opposite. You're much more likely to be right that way.

Posted by: fan1 | June 15, 2009 4:59 PM | Report abuse

Comparing 1939 Germany with 2009 Iran is silly. Iran has not invaded its neighbors. Obviously, the U.S. invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. This is more similiar to what Germany did when it invaded France, Belgium, Italy, etc.

So if we were to apply the Kristol "historical test", Obama could speak out for Freedom and Liberty, etc. within the U.S. Oh wait, he already did speak out for America and he was elected to the high office of President of the United States.

Since Obama won a landslide election, speaking out for America's legacy of Freedom and Liberty, we could conclude that the vast majority of Americans voted for "More Wag, Less Bark."

Kristol's prescription for foreign policy is more of the same old "American Bark", attempting to freighten any foreign government by threat of economic sanctions, bombing, and invasion. IN other words, Kristol's message is "beware of dog."

Obama's prescription for foreign policy is "more wag", a dog-friendly behavior. Thousands of years of "breeding" teaches us that "friends don't kill each other."

Friendship begins with qualities such as, obedience, loyalty, and caring. Friendship does not begin with "beating your dog."

Posted by: rmorris391 | June 15, 2009 5:02 PM | Report abuse

This from the man who was all for invading Iraq and toppling the government (not that Saddam Hussein was good) so he and his friends could engage in nation building.

Look at where that got us. The Axis of Evil had three countries in it: Iraq, still home to 130,000 wonderful American troops; Iran, even further along towards a nuclear bomb; and North Korea, with more nuclear bombs now and more missile capability now than when Bush became President.

With Kristol's record of accomplishment, it is no small wonder that only a few even take him seriously any more!

Posted by: duanelaw1 | June 15, 2009 5:16 PM | Report abuse

there is just no way that obama is going to fall into the neo-con "trap" of condemning iran before the proof is in the pudding. while mr. kristolnacht is nervously chomping at the bit to get at all of that oil ang gas in iran, obama will be exhibiting the patience and wisdom to await the full outcome of this situation which all can for the most part agree is dissapointing to say the least.however, who could be suprised that ahmajinedad actually won? after all, there was a lot to be learned from americas own election fiasco of 2000.

Posted by: wa_idaho_lonewolf | June 15, 2009 5:18 PM | Report abuse

Come on, Billy:

Just how many Muslim Hitlers are you going to promote?

How about, say, Netanyahu the fanatic with 1200 nukes and millions of tons of bio-horror weapons?

Posted by: ISHMAEL309 | June 15, 2009 5:21 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Billw3:
911, be-heading, taking hostages, hating Israel, suicide bombers, hate speeches, derogating women, gassing detractors, intolerance of other religions, always fighting among themselves.

These are the people Obama has been apologizing to for America's conduct. Note he doesn't condemn their behavior. Look's like he's more than half Muslim.

==================

Obama regularly condemns this behavior - unfortunately it's usually cut out when certain news and pundit shows air clips of his recent foreign speeches.

And really? The Muslim thing? Even McCain himself shot that down during the election.

Posted by: MrJack | June 15, 2009 5:21 PM | Report abuse

This is an Iranian election. President Obama is right not to comment on the situation, considering we really do not know for a fact wether the election was rigged or not. So Obama's silence is another sign that the US has given up the bully pulpit and is not willing to make undiplomatic comments about a situations that is not ours to meddle in. I am sure the White is keeping close watch on what is going in Iran and will make an announcement when appropriate.

Posted by: henryhoople | June 15, 2009 5:21 PM | Report abuse

That's right, "speak out". Speak out and give the fascists trying to hang onto power what they most need: the opportunity to propagandize the real struggle against their own repressed citizenry into a struggle against the meddlesome US. Anyone wonder why the neocons have run out of credibility?

Posted by: keller1 | June 15, 2009 5:24 PM | Report abuse

Mr Kristol, I assume that you are writing this from your new home in Iraq, that shining beacon of democracy in the middle east, right? It is sad when other countries elections don't go the way that we might hope isn't it. Palestines for instance, or Venezuela, or China, oh wait, China our big trading partner doesn't even have elections do they? Whats worse a country that has a fair election which elects someone America doesn't approve of, or a country that has a crooked election and elects someone America doesn't approve of, or...a country that doesn't even bother having elections? Apparently if you buy enough US treasuries, elections and human rights are optional. As for Mr Kristol trying to gin up some more hatred toward Iran, we all know what you want.

Posted by: bokannon | June 15, 2009 5:30 PM | Report abuse

Mr Kristol,
You are NOT presumptuous. It is a sign of the times, we are engulfed in so many BIG moments lined up, you need a scorecard.
I am also one who believes (changed my view after more thought and got more information) Obama should choose his words in a careful manner, since any words is quick to bring a much worse crackdown and most likely the collapse of the nation, emboldening the Insurgents from the neighboring countries (they are likely on their way from the regime's leader's office, terrorists in tow). They will blame it on the people who oppose this dinghead dictator and they will blame any other ACTION, on the U S.

I want to be blamed when we are legitimally supporting with Leadership from the White House.
If it IS too much for him to stomach, I'd actually be surprised. People forget it was OBAMA that laid it on thick to Pakistan to do something and kick some Taliban and Al Qaeda behind.

It was Obama that said NO to his original thinking to shorten the tours in IRAQ and asked GATES to stay. A major shift from the Left!

If he intends to weaken us at the right moment, it passed. We have since picked up our pace and this isn't a show we need to dance in, but a careful and approving supporter by other means to opposition of the current regime. I am not a "cat" (lack of a better word). I believe we can support a change as it will come from the Iranian people.

However, a "too quick" to speak Obama, will draw a yawn and may get more scorn, because we got no mail when Bush had a contested election in 2000. We must remember how the psyche of the region is.

Posted by: kurtbw | June 15, 2009 5:30 PM | Report abuse

Why should Obama talk about Iran? It is only Israel he wants to sell out. The Arbas he needs for his oil and money!
As a sale-man for the USA he cannot sell anything if he talks now: one side or another will not like it.

Posted by: roby3926 | June 15, 2009 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps Mr. Kristol should bear in mind that any criticism from any US official would be twisted by Ahmadinejad to claim persecution and stoke anti-American fires, thus sabotaging any attempt to investigate voter fraud, as called for by the leading cleric. The man is well on his way to hanging himself with his own petard; there is no need to provide him with the knife with which he will free himself.

Posted by: JLErwin3 | June 15, 2009 5:34 PM | Report abuse

I fail to see how this is puzzling? If America makes an overt show of support for Mousavi then that plays right into the hands of Ahmadinejad and his ilk who say that this is all a foreign media driven plot.

What happens next is entirely up to Mousavi and his supporters because at some point or rather now, the hard liners are going to get violent and at least one person has been killed. Will they be able to hold?

I hope to god this doesn't end like the Burma protests.

Posted by: Liebercreep | June 15, 2009 5:35 PM | Report abuse

"This isn’t September 1939":

Looks like Kristol's been woken up by his AIPAC pay masters with a kick in the shin.

No, Kristol, this is not 1939 and Iran is not Nazi Germany. It's crystal that you are jumping on the Netah Yahoo bandwagon of trying to demonize Iran as the new Nazi Germany. Spreading lies again in Israel's behalf, are we Billy?

Oh btw, where were you when Hamas won the elections in a democratic manner. You werent championing American values then, were you Billy? Didnt suit your AIPAC masters well then did it?

Posted by: RandomGuy | June 15, 2009 5:36 PM | Report abuse

Bill,
Just saw a news flash on MSNBC that Obama's been working on a new design for a soon to be released Gvt Motors vehicle (all green,even the tires) and as soon as he finishes this up, his aides will brief him on what's happening in both N.Korea and Iran.

Posted by: whitehousewatcher | June 15, 2009 5:36 PM | Report abuse

"So if I may be presumptuous"

Nothing has stopped you yet.

Posted by: martymar123 | June 15, 2009 5:41 PM | Report abuse

If it's not 1939 then why bring it up? I would presume to the group think radical right this is some not so subtle way if trying to paint President Obama an appeaser. My guess is anyone who doens't mindless talk tough and shoot first at the wrong countries, torture second and never question the rightness of anything they've done would be labled an appeaser.
The only answer to Mr. Kristol and the rest of the radical right is the measured rational words and actions that beliea the nonsense that issues daily from the radical right. This is probably why they can't stand President Obama. He speaks clearly and with measure. Foreign policy speaches are meant to be heard by foreign countries. Unlike President Bush who only spoke to radical right here at home. Mr. Kristol and the radical right do not wish dialogue. They see only enemies and the overweening need to justify the last 8 years.

Posted by: kchses1 | June 15, 2009 5:44 PM | Report abuse

Puzzling? Hardly.

Unlike William Kristol, President Obama is not an armchair quarterback. He is the head of the most powerful government in the world. Unlike Kristol's, Obama's words have real, direct consequences. Anything Obama says will instantly be seized upon and used by the various factions in Iraq. If he strongly criticizes the election results, he risks undermining the very protesters he seeks to suppport, by identifying them with America. So -- and I know this is a complicated thought for some people to get their heads around -- probably the worst thing Obama could do for the reformers right now is to strongly criticize the mullahs.

Of course, Bill Kristol knows this. But of course, he's not interested in actual analysis. For him, it's just a chance to take a free swing at Obama.

Posted by: mattcliff | June 15, 2009 5:49 PM | Report abuse

"So if I may be presumptuous"

I find Mr.Kristol's words not only presumptious, but insulting, obnoxious, and bumptious, all in the extreme. Who does this gentleman believe he is? He clearly
cares nothing either for the United States or the people of Iran. He has an ax to grind, and is allowed by the Washington Post to use this space to grind it in, to the detriment of all. The need to have people on each "side" both left and right does not equal the necessity to give buffoons a place to spout such transparent nonsense. Thank you.

Posted by: martymar123 | June 15, 2009 6:01 PM | Report abuse

I am not puzzled that Obama has not chosen to speak out yet, given that he would be accused (by you and others) of being shrill or meddling ineptly.

I am also not puzzled that you, arguably the most tedious neo-con wag in the nation, are mystified that real people actually know how to keep their mouths shut.

Posted by: yellowtavern2 | June 15, 2009 6:01 PM | Report abuse

Thank goodness President Obama is confident enough in himself and his staff that he doesn't have to do things just for show. He is engaged, he doesn't have to prove it, the American people see it. He has already told people he likes to know what he's talking about before he says something. I just wonder how these people who are whining that he hasn't said anything would do if Iran had inserted themselves in any of our elections?

Posted by: catmomtx | June 15, 2009 6:04 PM | Report abuse

If Mr. Kristol simply remained silent until there was come clear evidence that the Iranian election was in fact fraudulent, or violated anybody's civil rights, or any of the other atrocities mentioned in Kristol's impetuous screed, then his competence as a journalist would not be subject to suspicion. My own guess is that Kristol is one of the Israeli stooges who is paid by Tel Aviv to keep the old Bush,Cheney,Rice,Rumsfeld anti-Iran campaign alive. Mr. Kristol, please be aware that Bush is gone and we now have a new President who is not in the thrall of outdated Zionism. The tired old Bush policy of "Israel, right or wrong whatever the cost is" is also gone.

Posted by: gargoyle22 | June 15, 2009 6:04 PM | Report abuse

"If it's not 1939 then why bring it up?

Because for William Kristol, like Charles Krauthammer, it is ALWAYS 1939 -- will always be 1939. All of history reduces to this one single moment. The ugly clouds of war will always be gathering, their opponents will always be cast as Neville Chamberlain, and they will always see themselves as the Churchillian heroes standing between civilization and doom.

Why? Because the real world is much more boring. And so much harder to understand.

Posted by: mattcliff | June 15, 2009 6:06 PM | Report abuse

willie 'wrong-way' kristol memo to self on how to write 'hard-hitting' op-ed pieces:

"the names 'Hitler', 'Chamberlin' and some (any) democrat should be put in the same paragraph as often as possible -- even if it requires a bit of a stretch!"

Posted by: ithejury | June 15, 2009 6:16 PM | Report abuse


"Obama regularly condemns this behavior - unfortunately it's usually cut out when certain news and pundit shows air clips of his recent foreign speeches."

Oh sure, the media's against Obama, and cows fly too.

.

Posted by: Billw3 | June 15, 2009 6:19 PM | Report abuse


Mr Jack said:
"The Muslim thing? Even McCain himself shot that down during the election."

Right, and it cost him.

.

Posted by: Billw3 | June 15, 2009 6:21 PM | Report abuse

Yonkers, New York
15 June 2009

It is quite possible, nay probable, that conservative pundit William Kristol was one of several high-profile neocons who succeeded in getting President George W. Bush to invade and occupy Iraq as a way to get rid of a regime that in their view was oppressing the Iraqi people.

Never mind that the act would be illegal--and hubristic, reckless and totally uncalled for.

Now comes the same William Kristol excoriating President Barack Obama for being silent on the recent presidential elections in Iran where Mahmoud Ahmadinejad apparently won 62+% of the votes.

Because Mr. Mousavi, Mr. Ahmadinjad's opponent is crying foul, obviously Mr. Kristol is expecting Mr. Obama to support Mr. Mousavi one way or the other. Does he expect Mr. Obama to invade and occupy Iran?

Mariano Patalinjug

Posted by: MPatalinjug | June 15, 2009 6:30 PM | Report abuse

The President's support of the reformers can only make the situation worse for them. The Iranian government is already blaming foreign forces for the protests.

Why always the rush to criticize the President? Obvious answer: you want to undermine the Administration whenever possible regardless. Hope the GOP continues to crumble with this strategy.

Posted by: StanColeite | June 15, 2009 6:37 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps Mr. Kristol would like to ponder how much good was done by President Bush "speaking out". Or perhaps he hopes President Obama will say something so silly and stupid we'll have another war with another Muslim nation to deal with.

In fact, President Obama has put a good deal of pressure on the clerics who really run the show by ignoring their bilge, seeking reconciliation, and making them look as extreme as they always have been.

It's called diplomacy. It's called nuance.

It's not called Republican.

Posted by: kcbob | June 15, 2009 6:39 PM | Report abuse

Kristol you are wrong. A US president should stay the hell out of it.


Jesus Christ, you war mongering neocons won't be happy until Tehran is a sea of glass.

Posted by: artmann11 | June 15, 2009 6:43 PM | Report abuse

'Hitler,chamberlain,blah,blah,encons loe America,blah,blah...."

Am I the only one who has noticed this moron has been writing the same article since September 12th,2001?

Posted by: NoMoCons | June 15, 2009 6:48 PM | Report abuse

Bill, why this right wingnut idiotic lunacy?
_________________________
Archarito wrote:
Obama spends millions $$$$ on lawyers to hide his:

1.) Grammar school records
2.) Occidental College Records
3.) Columbia University Records
4.) Harvard Law School Records
5.) University of Chicago Scholarly Articles
6.) Obama Passport Records
Key witness murdered.....
7.) Medical Records
8.) Files, Records & Schedules from term as Illinois State Senator....
9.) Client list from work @ Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Gallard...
10.) Illinoios State Bar Assoc. Records
11.) Baptism Records
12.) Obama/Denham Marriage License
13.) Obama/Denham Divorce Records
14.) Soetoro/Denham Marriage License
15.) Adoption Records
16.) Birth Certificate

All of this pointedly conveys Barack Obama is not an American citizen!

Posted by: opp88 | June 15, 2009 6:52 PM | Report abuse

No two historical events are ever the same, but the old line about "learning from history or you may be doomed to repeat it" is an apolitical commentary that no one can disagree with.
Most people of both sides can agree that Neville Chamberlain's feckless and pacific "diplomatic" approach towards Hitler is the signature example in the 20th century of the dangers of appeasement towards dictators.
Kristol's admonition is a prescient one. History tells us of masses of people huddled around radios and transcipts as President Ronald Reagan spoke to the hopes and aspirations of these freedom-yearning people. After they were freed, they all spoke about the hope and strength they received from knowing that America was a beacon of light in their dark world.
More recently, in a recent interview with an anti-American Canadian Leftist, Hirsan Ali crystallized my view and the view of most conservatives...she says, "you grew up in freedom so you can spit on freedom; I did not have that luxury growing up in my country (sharia-law Nigeria)....Bill Kristol is saying nothing controversial, only that the President should not stab these freedom yearning peiople in the back with post-modern moral relativism...and silence....

Posted by: rich365 | June 15, 2009 6:54 PM | Report abuse

Mr Kristol, Obama shooting his mouth off would play right into the Mullah's hands. Sadly the only thing your ilk are good at is calling names and blowing smoke. As you've been wrong in almost every prediction you've ever made and every policy you've advocated has failed, maybe you ought to STFU.

Posted by: marcedward1 | June 15, 2009 7:09 PM | Report abuse


Ya know, even as the Iran election was saturating the media...

even as it is clear that the world and certainly the US is cheering for and very interested in Iran...

Kristol's fellow NPACer. the neocon Bolton was screaming, in an op ed in the WSJ for the bombing of Iran...right now.

Someone named Clifford Levy was writing in the WAPO about Israel's "foreign minister" the ultra right wing Lieberman (Israel's other Lieberman) was in Russia....

suggesting that Israel would hop to Russia for support if the US doesn't give Israel everything it wants.

My God, what a great idea.

Posted by: whistling | June 15, 2009 7:17 PM | Report abuse

Anything Bill Kristol and the unpatriotic neocons say has got to be wrong.

Tell them to go enlist instead. Neocons are big on talk and short on doing.

Posted by: WillSeattle | June 15, 2009 7:28 PM | Report abuse

Wonder what Kristol would have said if Iran had commented on the election results of 2000? Maybe their Interior Ministry (responsible for vote counting) is another version of our Supreme Court who ruled for Bush in 2000.

This fool was the same one who was one of the first to shill about the pirates. Sometimes, it is wise to think before shooting off from the mouth.

This is from a proud Liberal Christian!

Posted by: hadelaide | June 15, 2009 7:30 PM | Report abuse

Kristol is right. Let this be a lesson and a warning to would be fighters for democracy and freedom of speech: you stand alone for the American President is too scare to offend your would be oppressors.

Posted by: JohnGalt9 | June 15, 2009 7:33 PM | Report abuse

I love the way Kristol tries to twist and contort the Munich metaphor to fit even here.

"And when Obama went to the CVS and they refused to grant him the next place in line, it was reminiscent of when Neville Chamberlain bowed before Hitler in Munich..."

Bill: In Munich, Chamberlain was responding to the prospect of a general European war over Hitler's threats to invade Czechoslovakia.

Here, there is an electoral dispute. No imminent (to use a word that you and your colleagues know and love) threat of invasion--as much as you might wish one, and have wished one, to your serious detriment, before.

Stop waving the flag of your father(s).

Posted by: caraprado1 | June 15, 2009 7:46 PM | Report abuse

And, in September 1939, the invasion of Poland threatened the near certainty of general European war. Hitler expressly threatened to invade Poland over Danzig and the corridor, and France and Britain had pledged to go to war if he did so.

This is a intranational electoral dispute.

Let's see where Kristol uses the Munich metaphor next!

Spin the big wheel...

And it's...Health care! Health care is the next target for the metaphor.

"When Obama called for a private version of a health care plan, he was falling to special interest groups on the Left...just like Neville Chamberlain fell before Hitler in Munich, and before Poland..."

Posted by: caraprado1 | June 15, 2009 7:50 PM | Report abuse

The LAST thing the Iranian opposition needs right now is to appear to be the pawns of US. So STFU Kristol, you are clueless.

Posted by: dogsbestfriend | June 15, 2009 7:56 PM | Report abuse

The LAST thing the Iranian opposition needs right now is to appear to be the pawns of US. So STFU Kristol, you are clueless.

Posted by: dogsbestfriend | June 15, 2009 7:56 PM | Report abuse

zendrell wrote: "We have already seen the rest majority of the rest of the world and show their disdain for the Iran elections. What do we get, Joe Biden simpering that since the fella is in power we have to deal with him. Maybe Hillary will get up and scold him to review the voter fraud and we all know that Lord O will only speak when it is time to spit on this country."

Well, we do have to deal with those in power. Bush turned his back on the NK dictator and the next thing we knew he set of a nuke. Talking big and swaggering about got us nothing for the last 8 years except a lot of hate and dictators using America as a reason to build up their arms.

But Obama makes one speech in Egypt and next thing you know an 80% turnout in Iran forces the rulers to fake the election results. Now that's how America leads, not by talking big about bombing a country but by applying diplomacy surgically. Its about time we had diplomats in the business of diplomacy again, and the results are already showing. Let Obama do his job and judge him on results, not how much the bravado makes you feel. Bush had a lot of good sounding bravado and look where it got us.

Posted by: bevjims1 | June 15, 2009 8:02 PM | Report abuse

You have got to be kidding. I'm sick to death of these false comparisions. To open with Hitler's invasion of Poland to an article about an election in Iran is disingenuous at the least.

There isn't a thing President Obama can say to change the election in Iran nor should he.

I gather some posters on this board think we should invade since the elections didn't turn out the way we wanted them to. Iran is a sovereign nation and must deal with it's own problems. Let the warmongers howl. They want blood, nothing more.

Posted by: arancia12 | June 15, 2009 8:07 PM | Report abuse

Why don't you just shut the hell up Kristol. Haven't you and your ilk done enough damage to the United States and the rest of the world.

Go crawl back in your hole and stay there.

Posted by: rcubedkc | June 15, 2009 8:09 PM | Report abuse

Obama is too busy undermining America and implementing his "legal framework for redistributive economics." Wasn't Joe Biden on the ticket because of his vast foreign policy experience? I can't wait to see Joe Biden spring into action. What's he waiting for? I guess he doesn't want to peak too early.

Posted by: get_it_right | June 15, 2009 8:14 PM | Report abuse

Oh, I understand now. The Teleprompter is down for maintenance. Obama should be back to normal as soon as the Teleprompter is up and running.

Posted by: get_it_right | June 15, 2009 8:19 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Kristol,

Since nearly all rational commentators have pointed out that any OFFICIAL U.S. response of the nature you're requesting to the situation in Iran would be disastrous, your call for Obama to speak out now simply is more "shoot now, ask questions later" strategy. Kinda like your pronouncements leading up to the Iraq war. A majority of Americans seems to prefer a president who thinks before he speaks.

While I'd bet that an even bigger majority of Americans (most certainly including Obama, you, and me) hopes that the reformers in Iran win the day, an Iranian Tiananmen Square massacre is the last thing that anyone needs (except perhaps for Mahmoud Ahmedinejad and the Ayatollahs). Obama's apparent "reticence" on this issue is good foreign policy. So was his speech in Cairo. Or perhaps you would like a little more swagger with your heapin' helpin' of cowboy diplomacy? . . . How'd that work out for you?

Don't break the silence unless you can improve on it, Bill.

Posted by: post_reader_in_wv | June 15, 2009 8:22 PM | Report abuse

911, be-heading, taking hostages, hating Israel, suicide bombers, hate speeches, derogating women, gassing detractors, intolerance of other religions, always fighting among themselves.

These are the people Obama has been apologizing to for America's conduct. Note he doesn't condemn their behavior. Look's like he's more than half Muslim.

Posted by: Billw3
__________________

This is exactly the sort of bigoted ignorance that is gleaned from the likes of Limbaugh and O'Reilly.

What you've done is blame all Muslims for something you've seen a few do. How about we say all Americans shoot doctors or shoot up schools and churches?

President Obama has apologized for nothing and I challenge you to find an apology in any of his speeches. Please don't be so lazy as to cite where he has admitted the US has made mistakes. That is not an apology.

If you had listened to President Obama's speech in Cairo you would know he already condemned violent extremism. But that would be too much to ask.

Posted by: arancia12 | June 15, 2009 8:24 PM | Report abuse

Hey! Great idea Kristol! Obama should speak up - To the Israelis! What's good for the goose is good for the gander!

Obama should make a grand speech extolling moderate Israelis to toss out Netanyahu and the hard right wing! They should accept our notions of peace with two states and accept Jimmy Carter as a mediator.

Talk directly to the people, in Israel, genius Bill! Skip the hard right leadership as corrupt and bent on perpetual war and land theft.

Posted by: AIPACiswar | June 15, 2009 8:28 PM | Report abuse

There you go again Kristol, always trying to foment a war! You must love death and destruction. Seems like you just can't be happy unless we're bombing and killing people. Just as long as it's not you or your wealthy neo-con friends.

Posted by: CrzKat | June 15, 2009 8:31 PM | Report abuse

To all the Obama trashing neocon scum: We really don't give a FF about what you think of our President. Pack your bags and LEAVE.

Posted by: dogsbestfriend | June 15, 2009 8:32 PM | Report abuse

It's puzzling how easily puzzled Kristol is.

Posted by: jpsbr2002 | June 15, 2009 8:33 PM | Report abuse

Repubs puts all their wits and brains into idiotic nonsense... lol.
---------------------

Archarito wrote:
Obama spends millions $$$$ on lawyers to hide his:

1.) Grammar school records
2.) Occidental College Records
3.) Columbia University Records
4.) Harvard Law School Records
5.) University of Chicago Scholarly Articles
6.) Obama Passport Records
Key witness murdered.....
7.) Medical Records
8.) Files, Records & Schedules from term as Illinois State Senator....
9.) Client list from work @ Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Gallard...
10.) Illinoios State Bar Assoc. Records
11.) Baptism Records
12.) Obama/Denham Marriage License
13.) Obama/Denham Divorce Records
14.) Soetoro/Denham Marriage License
15.) Adoption Records
16.) Birth Certificate

All of this pointedly conveys Barack Obama is not an American citizen!

Posted by: opp88 | June 15, 2009 8:45 PM | Report abuse

Mr Jack said:
"The Muslim thing? Even McCain himself shot that down during the election."

billw said:
Right, and it cost him.
=========

what a cop-out response!

Whether or not people liked him for saying it has absolutely no bearing on its veracity. In fact, seems to me he felt so deeply about clearing this misconception that he put his own popularity on the line to do it. That's a pretty ringing endorsement.

Posted by: MrJack | June 15, 2009 8:50 PM | Report abuse

Obama is too busy undermining America and implementing his "legal framework for redistributive economics." Posted by: get_it_right
--------------------

correction... Obama to busy undermining America's old racist economic system!

Posted by: opp88 | June 15, 2009 8:54 PM | Report abuse

He spoke out, today as a matter of fact. You, as well as others were to quick to post your hasty opinions.

Posted by: lcarter0311 | June 15, 2009 8:58 PM | Report abuse

Bill Kristol is such a pathetic whiner.

Posted by: fletc3her | June 15, 2009 9:00 PM | Report abuse

One great thing about Twitter et al. is that it will remove the false prominence of voices like Kristol and make them all but invisible.

Posted by: caraprado1 | June 15, 2009 9:04 PM | Report abuse

Go away Kristol. You had your neocon run now you'll be the butt of historian's ridicule. It doesn't matter how much you try to disavow neo-conseratives in hindsight that is your legacy. You are an ignorant half-wit. Look back at your own writings and you will see a pathetic war monger, who has been wrong about virtually every import foreign policy opinion in the past eight years.

If Obama does speak out it will be after all of the facts are in. You neocons just want to sabotage and possible diplomacy with Iran, and skip straight to the bombing. Good thing you don't have the president's ear any long.

Posted by: luvisia777 | June 15, 2009 9:05 PM | Report abuse

Speaking of stolen elections, highly ironic for a conservative Republican not to mention the presidential election about eight and a half years ago in this country. No one can credibly declare Bush II won the election in a democratic manner. Al Gore won the plurality of the popular vote.

A plurality of Florida voters clearly intended to vote for Gore, but a confusing ballot led to thousands miscasting their votes, leading to a contentious result. Many Democrats and independents still believe a narrow majority of Supreme Court justices annointed Bush.

Gore supporters did not riot in the streets and no foreign governments condemned the lack of democracy in the ultimate election result.

Conservative Republican, and some from the Democratic side too, administrations in this country have a long history of ignoring massive fraud in elections in many countries. Obama is correct in his stance so far regarding the Iranian election.

Posted by: Aprogressiveindependent | June 15, 2009 9:06 PM | Report abuse

Hey! Great idea Kristol! Obama should speak up - To the Israelis! What's good for the goose is good for the gander!

Obama should make a grand speech extolling moderate Israelis to toss out Netanyahu and the hard right wing! They should accept our notions of peace with two states and accept Jimmy Carter as a mediator.

Talk directly to the people, in Israel, genius Bill! Skip the hard right leadership as corrupt and bent on perpetual war and land theft.

Posted by: AIPACiswar | June 15, 2009 9:23 PM | Report abuse

"President Obama is undergoing some on-the- job training. Foreign policy is not his strong suit. Waiting to see how the cards play out first is central to his approach to leadership. Posted by: gowen1 "

Since right now even Allah isn't sure what the ? is happening, for a President to sghow patience until somebody can at least tell him who really won but who ended up in office is merely one more demonstration of the common sense and level headedness we ought to expect from Democratic Presidents.

We realize that Republicans shoot from the lip and thereupon cease eer to reconsider their idle words lest they accidentally discover that they were wrong, but more is expected of adult leadership.

Yes, Mr Kristol, from you it is exceptionally presumptuous, since you presume to give your usually worthless advice to a man who needs the best advice he can get. Could you perhaps go back where you so briefly disappeared to back in those halcyon days when you couldn't call a dog fight between a pit bull and a bratwurst, and perhaps write for some faux news rag out there in the Hamptons?

Posted by: ceflynline | June 15, 2009 9:26 PM | Report abuse

All these years on, and you're still the dumbest man on the planet. These guys may be pissed at the leadership, but many of them are still anti-American, especially the ones not on the street protesting. Any major sign that we are meddling in the process would play right into the hands of Ahmadinejad and Khemeini, who would declare the whole thing to be the work of the CIA and part of a plot to overthrow the Islamic Republic, and all would be lost. The best course of action, as everyone with half a brain (clearly excluding yourself) knows, is to make general statements about the inspiration of the protests, but overtly to back off while possibly working stuff low level behind the scenes.

Of course, that assumes you want the protests to succeed. But why would you want that when clearly yo have your heart set on bombing that nation and killing many of these hopeful protesters in the process of waging another dumb war?

Posted by: kreuz_missile | June 15, 2009 9:27 PM | Report abuse

My biggest surprise is why Kristol still has a column after being canned by the NYT. He wrote horrible articles much like this one. The guy has been wrong on everything. As one commenter here described, Kristol is an affirmative action pick for the right.

Posted by: h1duong | June 15, 2009 9:30 PM | Report abuse

Bill, your pathetic cynicism and sarcasm are all that remains of the Republican party. You guys deserve to be out of power for the next generation or two!

Posted by: bmenassa | June 15, 2009 9:39 PM | Report abuse

President Obama released a stmt today. Guess it wasn't fast enough or obnoxious enough for the radical right. Nothing President Obama does will ever be good enough. They should be ignored as irrelevant.

Posted by: kchses1 | June 15, 2009 9:40 PM | Report abuse

op cit Nah... Bill Kristol is a great American. His knowledge of world affairs is exceeded only by his ability to seek out the truth.

YOU HAVE GOT TO BE JOKING!!!

Are you forgetting this is one of the neo-cons who promoted us going into Iraq? He does not know what he is talking about...period.

Posted by: WAWatcher | June 15, 2009 9:41 PM | Report abuse

What? These are the people you're just itching to bomb!
What is wrong with you?
This is the enemy you're talking about.
Solidarity with the Iranian people?
Which ones? The ones who voted like you want them to?
Or the ones who voted the way you DIDN'T want?
How about you show some solidarity for the good old U.S.A.?
And I mean ALL of the U.S.A.
No. I forgot - You're part of the OBAMA MUST FAIL crowd and you're more than happy to grease the skids anyway you can.
Here's my suggestion: Why don't you lead an armed march on Washington?
You want trouble?
I'm all for it.
Lead the way you quisling SOB!

Posted by: Tomcat3 | June 15, 2009 9:42 PM | Report abuse

Unbelieveable. I didn't think it was physically possible to get one's head stuck that far up one's behind.

...That is hardly a constructive comment. Obama is doing the exact right thing in not meddling with the Iranian election. It is better to keep our 2 cents out of it at this point---and not give the hardliners any more fodder for their propaganda machine.

Posted by: WAWatcher | June 15, 2009 9:45 PM | Report abuse

All this talk by Western Media about rigging Iran election is nothing but propaganda.

Ahmadinejad won fair and square as he had the popular support in the provinces, villages, etc rather than the younger urban wanna-be-elite.

CIA and Mossad are behind the riots.

We like democracy but if someone gets elected whom we do not like, we hire few thugs and tell them to riot.

Posted by: Rubiconski | June 15, 2009 9:49 PM | Report abuse

Kristol is right. Let this be a lesson and a warning to would be fighters for democracy and freedom of speech.

Yeah, let's go start another war and free the people of Iran! Or should we just talk tough? Yeah, that'll surely change the equation....GET REAL.

Posted by: WAWatcher | June 15, 2009 9:51 PM | Report abuse

Exactly the wrong thing to do.

Posted by: Tim_G | June 15, 2009 9:57 PM | Report abuse

The very LAST thing moderate voices in Iran need right now is for an American President to provide Ahmedinejad with an opportunity to turn the internal political discussion within Iran into a debate about U.S. attempts to "meddle" in Iran's internal affairs. President Obama is, I believe, wisely holding back here, not least because we do not, in fact, have all the facts as to what happened.

Posted by: markpkessinger | June 15, 2009 9:57 PM | Report abuse

President Obama's "soft" speech at Cairo University is at play in Iran today . But Netanyahu and the other top Israeli war criminals and the neocon Zionists of DC seem to be unhappy to see their "man" in Tehran in trouble today !

Posted by: editor4tonio | June 15, 2009 10:02 PM | Report abuse

Why don't you just shut up Neocon Kristol. You don't speak for any part of America except the murderous Iraq invading fools who did such a despicable thing.

Haven't you help damage the world enough?

Give it a rest.

Posted by: notfooldbyW | June 15, 2009 10:21 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Kristol seems a bit premature. Just because we don't like the result doesn't mean fraud occurred. Perhaps Iranian voters like Ahmedinejad though the world dislikes and distrusts him. Speak up liberty and democracy? Let's wait to see what really transpired in Iran.

Posted by: rodgersd1 | June 15, 2009 10:23 PM | Report abuse

Iran hasn't invaded anyone (directly at least). In fact, the US helped Iraq invade Iran and further invaded Panama, Iraq and Afghanistan. By this standard the US is run by Nazis and the Iranians are appeasers, and have been for decades.

Perhaps Iran's democratically elected government should condemn the US for its invasions of non-threatening nations.

How would we feel if after every election we would get a bombardment of criticism for our electoral system? Certainly after Bush-Gore and Franken-Coleman we can't admit to be perfect.

Obama's silence is totally reasonable. Getting involved as a US president would not help internal conditions in Iran at all. It's a powderkeg right now and any comments by President Obama could make things worse for the very people he may support.

Kristol's op-ed is his usual partisan tripe. Thanks for trying to be so helpful. Next time, have some class and talk to the President in private instead of airing your dirty laundry out in public.

Posted by: nolaman1 | June 15, 2009 10:41 PM | Report abuse

This is the first time that I can recall William Kristol calling for an American president to speak out against an election in another country. Bill never spoke out about the inaction of George W. Bush when there were questionable election results in many countries and countless atrocities committed during the Bush terms. Bill also did not speak out during George H.W. Bush's one term when Bill was working for Dan Quail. Fox News in general and Bill Oreilly and Sean Hannity in particular, must be very proud of Bill. Fox & all of the aforementioned have made no secret of their desire to do all they can to work against President Obama and to oppose every initiative of his administration, even though they must be aware that he is working diligently to implement policies that are in the best interests of the American people. Fox carried a "Court TV" show today during President Obama's major address to the American Medical Association on health care reform, making Fox the only network that did not carry the speech. Get over it--Obama and the Democrats won in 2008 whether you like it or not. It would be refreshing to see Bill Kristol & the other Rush wannabees at Fox support some Obama initiative.

Posted by: richardtag | June 15, 2009 10:59 PM | Report abuse

Kristol is nothing if not entertaining. Always wrong, but always entertaining. His idea that Obama should start tub thumbing in condemnation of Iran elections is on par with his pushing war with Iraq.

Posted by: TexasJim | June 15, 2009 11:02 PM | Report abuse

"Speak for America, President Obama" ~ Kristol.

__________________________________

"Shut up for America, Grinning Idiot" ~ Thanks.

Posted by: pali2600 | June 15, 2009 11:07 PM | Report abuse

Why did the WAPO hire this idiot after he got fired by the NYT for being wrong on so many issues?

Posted by: sgtpepper23 | June 15, 2009 11:11 PM | Report abuse

Hey Bill, the Post says on its opinion page that the election is consistent with the polls not supporting the rigging hypothesis. Should the President make a fool of himself if the facts don't support "speaking out" in the way you claim is necessary. We know that the facts never get in the way of your thinking especially if there is war to be started.

Posted by: Bowerguy1 | June 15, 2009 11:17 PM | Report abuse


If the previous U.S. president, and various(mostly Republican) presidents before him, didn't have a long history of intervening in Iran's internal affairs, with mostly disastrous consequences for the Iranians, perhaps the opinion of the current US President might have sway in Iran.

Kristol knows that the worst thing that could happen for any movement or party in Iran is for the US President to support them openly and loudly. It would give Ahmadinejad instant justification to deal harshly with his political opponents. Kristol also knows that this situation might turn into yet another blood soaked revolution that would set back any hope for reform by a decade.

Not even Obama's brilliance, eloquence, and integrity can make up for decades of oil profit inspired avarice and sheer stupidity by thinkers like Kristol.

Posted by: pclement1 | June 15, 2009 11:17 PM | Report abuse

What a slimy piece of dishonest trash William Kristol is. Just look at this disingenuous line in referring sarcastically to himself and the other scoundrels who ushered us into Iraq:

"...dreaded neocons who vulgarly thought all people would like a chance to govern themselves..."

As if every reader with a pulse these days is not well aware that the Iraq invasion had nothing whatsoever to do with spreading "democracy" to that country. As if the entire country does not know it was for a combination of Bush/Cheney/Rice's oil friends getting their hands on the world's second largest reserves AND Kristol's AIPAC crowd getting a hegemonic lever into the middle east militarily. Kristol has the sniveling gall (that's pronounced "chutzpah" in his think tank's native tongue) to pretend it had ONE IOTA to do with concern for the Iraqi people.

This isn't FauxNews here, Kristol. The people who read the Washington Post, as sorry a piece of neocon propaganda as it has degraded into, are educated and informed. Your shameful PR phrases fall on stony ground here.

I'll put this nicely, though you surely do not deserve it. You and your fellow war criminal voices are not needed here anymore, you are not wanted here, and you had best slink away back under the rock whence you slithered. You are a blight and a sad reminder of a failed eight years of American foreign policy. The vast majority of the American people rightfully hate your intestinal entrails. The families of the 4,000 soldiers and marines who were sacrificed for your imperial dreams are disgusted by you. The survivors of nearly 1,000,000 dead Iraqi civilians who would be alive today were it not for your crowd despise you with every fiber of their grieving beings.

You are nothing but a walking disease, and you should get yourself hence from these pages.

Posted by: B2O2 | June 15, 2009 11:21 PM | Report abuse

They STILL publish this lying sack of $h1t?!?! Incredible. Kristol has no honor, no integrity, no ethics -- nothing. He is one of the few people who, if he said "X", any sentient being would have to conclude, "not X".

Yet this "newspaper" continues to publish this KNOWN pathological liar. The WaPo simply cannot die soon enough.

Posted by: SGlover910 | June 15, 2009 11:45 PM | Report abuse

Bill, how long have you been deaf?

Posted by: billgerat | June 15, 2009 11:47 PM | Report abuse

With this post there is no need for further proof that Bill Kristol is a total moron, only worthy of paper like the Washington Post, also known as Washington Inquirer for all the right wing imbaciles it has its on payroll. All the serious expet would tell you that administration should let the events play out without meddling and intereference by the USA who must deal with Iran one way or the other. They would not change the Iranian leadership just to please Washington. In fact, Obama's support for the opposition in Iran would virtually cement the electoral victory and sap the opposition of any strength. But the right wing idiots like Kristol either do not understand it or they just want to be contrary to whatever Obama administration does.

Posted by: kevin1231 | June 15, 2009 11:53 PM | Report abuse

Thanks you guys for responding so well and with great clarity to Bill Kristol's lunacy. If the editor's of the Post actually read their readers responses they would fire him and the other neocon idiots that make up so much of their staff.

Posted by: Bowerguy1 | June 15, 2009 11:56 PM | Report abuse

This is the second position Kristol has taken on this question in a day, and the two are mutually exclusive. Not only that, Kristol didn't even wait for the close of business to see what Obama may in fact have had to say about the situation once he got done a) making a major health policy address in the morning, and b) receiving the Italian prime minister at the White House. The man is president, after all, which is something I know Kristol knows because he said as much. Of course, another president whom Kristol supported went AWOL for the day as his country was being attacked. But this crisis is happening in a foreign country whose leadership "we" don't like, so of course Obama has the affirmative obligation throughout the day to offer non-neutral running public commentary that places the U.S. government squarely on one side (likely the losing one at that) of a foreign political process.

This guy is a joke.

Posted by: michaeljamesdrew | June 16, 2009 12:05 AM | Report abuse

Dear Mr. Kristol,
why must you mingle in affairs of other countries before we really know how the Iranian people have decided? Only because you and your friends do not like that other people eventually do not like the way you handle democracy does not give you the right to mingle in affairs of other countries. As American government did this many times the reputation of the US is damaged. Let the Iranian people do what they want to do. In the end true freedom will win, America's model of democracy is not the only one in this world.

Posted by: mixedbreed | June 16, 2009 12:45 AM | Report abuse


Kristol's reduction of this touchy situation to a political "gotcha'" moment is yet more proof that he, his unrepentant Neocon cabal, and similar types should be kept as far away from deciding or influencing U.S. foreign policy as possible.

Posted by: pclement1 | June 16, 2009 2:07 AM | Report abuse

No, thank you. We tried your Neocon approach for the past eight years, and look where it got us:

(1) A "pre-emptive" war based on manufactured evidence: You Neocons won the United States a reputation as a militaristic aggressor which lies.

(2) Torture (notably Abu Ghraib): You Neocons won the United States a reputation as a country which tortures and commits atrocities, often against ordinary Iraqi citizens who were wrongfully denounced.

(3) Guantanamo: You Neocons won the United States a reputation as a country which tramples on the law, declaring that the executive can indefinitely detain (and torture) *anyone* it wants to, without judicial review or due process.

(4) Spying on U.S. citizens without warrants, etc. etc. The list goes on ...

The greatest irony of all is to hear the shrill voices from the far right now attempt to brand Obama as a "fascist", after the Constitution trampling of the past eight years.

The last thing that other countries want is to have the United States lecture them. This is counterproductive at best, and ludicrous after our reputation has been so thoroughly soiled after the past eight years of Neocon rule.

Posted by: PaulG2 | June 16, 2009 3:55 AM | Report abuse

Bill: My distinguish NEOCON friend. You are totally wrong. Are you suggesting the grandiose of a PREMPTIVE STRIKE. Hell No!! Enough is enough! We have paid a huge price for chipping out a proxy war in Iraq. No more! I am a Republican and I am a Muslim American. I want my Party to be reformed without the ultra NEOCONS. May God Bless America!!

Posted by: Golam | June 16, 2009 4:09 AM | Report abuse

I have read Kristol only rarely, certainly not here, but if he draws such a rabid reaction as on this board, if he attracts the embittered and demented, the unreasoning and lunatic in such numbers, as these comments suggest, then this William K must contain good stuff. The crazy have a talent for sniffing out the sane and resenting them bitterly

Posted by: nacllcan | June 16, 2009 5:20 AM | Report abuse

Bill: What a hornets nest you stirred up!
I think you are right. Any utterances from Obama has to be diplomatic, gentle and supportive. BUT SAY SOMETHING! AND ABOVE ALL 'SPEAK FOR AMERICA' FOR A CHANGE!

Posted by: Mecarswell | June 16, 2009 6:08 AM | Report abuse

As always, one should do the precise opposite of what Bill Kristol suggests. Thankfully, Obama seems to realize this. But keep writing those columns, Bill, as if anybody respects you or cares about your opinion. I imagine your WashPo tenure won't be much longer than the one at the Times. On the bright side: the New York Post could probably use you.

Posted by: wbgonne | June 16, 2009 6:24 AM | Report abuse

Kristol, the cheerful warmonger, pretends to advise President Obama. "Speaking for America?" Kristol has no idea what that means.

Posted by: Marcaurelius | June 16, 2009 6:32 AM | Report abuse

Thankfully, you, Mr. Kristol, don't speak for America.

Posted by: lycg | June 16, 2009 9:16 AM | Report abuse

After the two rigged elections that gave us Pres Bush--Florida and Ohio respectively, we hardly have the credibility to say anything about it.

I for one was ashamed when I saw the people in Tehran take to the streets. They have more guts than we do.

Posted by: rlritt | June 16, 2009 9:25 AM | Report abuse

nacllcan wrote: "I have read Kristol only rarely, certainly not here, but if he draws such a rabid reaction as on this board, if he attracts the embittered and demented, the unreasoning and lunatic in such numbers, as these comments suggest, then this William K must contain good stuff. The crazy have a talent for sniffing out the sane and resenting them bitterly."

Another neocon myth, that the tiny minority of neocons are right and the vast majority of Americans are wrong. Kristol is getting the thrashing here because he is wrong, as usual. He, like all neocons, believe neocons are always right and might-for-right is America's destiny. Neocons believe America's might MUST be used to tame an untame world and turn it to our liking and any laws be damned. It is Kristol that is demented, like his neocon buddies who have proven over the past decade that they are as dangerous with power and weapons as any demented person would be.

Last November Americans stripped them of power yet they have not accepted that fact. Like any delusional person they act as though they are always right, ignore any facts to the contrary, rewrite history to make their mistakes go away, and continue to think they know better than anyone else. How he landed a job with the Post I have no idea since this article, if a high school kid wrote it, would get a C- for so many non-sequitors. Obama=Chamberlain, what a doofuss.

Posted by: bevjims1 | June 16, 2009 9:25 AM | Report abuse

Mr. Krstol has perfected his role as a flea crawling up an elephant's hind leg with intent of rape.

Posted by: stevestone88339 | June 16, 2009 9:38 AM | Report abuse

Ah... and President Obama should take Bill Kristol's advice because Mr., Kristol has such a sparkling record on his foreign policy suggestions? Wow... talk about a waste of space in the Post.

Posted by: CardFan | June 16, 2009 9:45 AM | Report abuse

speak for america..??? or speak for israel...???

Posted by: tyrell_corp | June 16, 2009 9:48 AM | Report abuse

Bill,

Speak for yourself. The President spoke about the violence and emphasized the same alarm you have.

Iran has become a fractured state. Yes, reform is desired by many. That is confirmed by the size of the crowds.

The Iranian people want no part of this Holocaust deniar. His current status is shaky and there's no guarantee he survives the angry mobs. So how do you compare the angry crowds with Hitler's Germany? Perhaps the mobs in Italy approaching Mussolini's doorstep would be a better picture?

Posted by: larrybuchas | June 16, 2009 9:58 AM | Report abuse

Bill Kristol, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Dick Cheney, Michele Malkin what would this bunch of cowardly overpaid neocons have us do, invade Iran? Not a one of these cowardly loud mouthed idiots has ever served their country in a positive way. They spew their lies to make money and do not give a damn about the future of our country or the future of the people who make them rich. The middle class fools who support these people and I use the term people loosely don't even realize that the last thing any of them care about is the middle class, they will all retire in luxury and should they have their way those same middle class supporters will be selling pencils on the street corner. Someday the people who buy a Coulter or Limbaugh book will wake up and realize those same people are hoping for our eternal poverty and misery, Kristol is no better. These are the same people who let the let two illegal Bush elections go unchallenged and called anti-Iraq-war protesters "focus groups" and unpatriotic! If people in this country had any brains they would boycott this unholy and unpatriotic bunch instead of increasing their wealth.

Posted by: davidbronx | June 16, 2009 10:03 AM | Report abuse

The hate and anger that is spewed in these comments is shocking. Guess I've held my tongue too long but it always seemed right to be patient and listen to the other side; then either dispute or disagree with the facts. Most of the comments are still angry about the war in Iraq. Go back and get the facts straight! Most of these comments are simply personal attacks with not a shred of truth to stand on. What has happened to our people?...Our Country? I'm crying for you.

Posted by: janetmt633 | June 16, 2009 11:25 AM | Report abuse

Kristol tells it as it is. Obama is a man of many well-crafted speeches and one of little, if any, action that is helpful to the United States. Hurtful, yes; helpful, no.

Posted by: murzek1 | June 16, 2009 11:33 AM | Report abuse

I wish that those who had America rush to invade Iraq would have thought about removing a counterweight to the mullahs in Iran. Now with Shi'a control in Tehran and Iraq, the job of opposing Mahmoud A... is much tougher.

Obama could make the situation for Iran's dissidents worse by speaking up, but I hope that through back channels he's telling the mullahs that Israel won't be told to hold back if further threats are made in conjunction with further nuclear weapons preparation.

Posted by: sperrico | June 16, 2009 11:47 AM | Report abuse


murzek1 said:
"Obama is a man of many well-crafted speeches"

Obams followed Lincoln's advice "To win the election, impress the ignorant". Too bad.
.

Posted by: Billw3 | June 16, 2009 11:51 AM | Report abuse

"Foreign policy is not his strong suit."

Actually, the Republicans best informed about foreign policy (Sen. Dick Lugar, for example) give Obama very high marks for his foreign policy so far. Ill-informed trolls differ, but really, who cares?

Kristol is a nimrod who consistently misinterprets events. I can't imagine how he manages to get paid for it.

Posted by: nodebris | June 16, 2009 12:07 PM | Report abuse

After reading all these comments I understand why Barack Obama won the election. He got 100% of the vote from the unemployed and underemployed English majors including those who dropped out of college.

Posted by: johnson0572 | June 16, 2009 12:58 PM | Report abuse

What a fool this Krystal fellow is. If the President says anything positive about the protesters, then he gives ammunition to the hard liners that helps them to portray the protesters as unpatriotic. I can't believe that the Washington Post pays for commentary as idiotic as this. The protesters are drowning, and Krystal wants Obama to throw them an anchor.

Posted by: steelsil2 | June 16, 2009 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Honestly, I'm very happy that the president hasn't come out with any rah rah talk about freedom and liberty. Wouldn't be right. Better let the Iranians be the ones championing the message, I say. It may be a conservative viewpoint (ironic, given my own liberal leanings), but not getting involved in another nation's internal affairs seems like a good idea to me.

Posted by: ninjagin | June 16, 2009 1:20 PM | Report abuse

What is it with these southern white and very racist politicians? Last week a SC politician refers to Michelle Obama as a gorilla, today we hear of a Diane Black from Tenn. sending out a racist photo of Obama as a "spook" president. Someone should tell these southern SOB's that the Civil War is over, that they just can't own black folk anymore, or at least make them use the "colored water fountain" or sit in the back of the city bus. You simply cannot be a Racist and a Christian.
These southern stupid redneck racist politicians are far from being a true Christian. Far from it.

Posted by: logcabin1836 | June 16, 2009 1:23 PM | Report abuse

This is the first and last article I will read by this person-he has been mentioned in every book I have read on the Iraqi invasion-as a STRONG advisor for invading (illegally)Iraq. Does anyone out there remember 2000 & 2004 and the sight of storm troopers keeping back the protesters for the inauguration? How about the headlines in Nov. '04 when the British (our #1 ally) paper "THE DAILY MIRROR" read "How can 59,054,087 Americans be so dumb?-on the morning after OUR presidential election? crystal-let it be.

Posted by: kml | June 16, 2009 1:31 PM | Report abuse

After reading all these comments I understand why Barack Obama won the election. He got 100% of the vote from the unemployed and underemployed English majors including those who dropped out of college.

Posted by: johnson0572
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Interesting opinion, but obviously wrong. For example, according to WikiAnswers (Google "what was the demographic breakdown of the 2008") 53% of voters who earned $200,000 or more in 2007 voted for Obama.

Posted by: bensade | June 16, 2009 2:03 PM | Report abuse


logcabin1836 ask:
"What is it with these southern white and very racist politicians?"

A question please. How different are they from Obama, who for 15 years supported racist Wright, who preached racism from the pulpit?

.

Posted by: Billw3 | June 16, 2009 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Kristol, why does everything remind you of Hitler and Chamberlain?

Posted by: bensonbark | June 16, 2009 3:34 PM | Report abuse

Bill,

I did not even bother to read your trash. Not worth a minute of my life. Just a question though? How can you continue to show your face in public after being so wrong on everything? Have you no shame?

Posted by: gtennant | June 16, 2009 3:48 PM | Report abuse

Mr Kristol:
The time for our President to make a careful speech to Iran, among the other Muslim nations/people, regarding our potential relationship with Iran, was before the election. He did.

The time to speak publically, forcefully, about the results of the election is after the results are known. He will.

In case you missed it, the (agreed upon) results aren't in yet.

For Obama to speak now, before final result is acepted and announced, would be arrogant, foolish, stupid, and dangerous--like throwing gasoline on fire. Something you neocons are so adept at.

You had your chance William, for far too many years, to influence national and foreign policy. Without any accountability being required of you, I might add, because you held no electable office. Easy to advise and take shots when you are accountible to no one.

Obama may not be speaking for YOUR America, but he IS speaking for my America.

It's past your bed time. Go conspire with some other country's shadow government.

Posted by: bmckenzie46 | June 16, 2009 5:51 PM | Report abuse

First Bill Krystol wanted to drop bombs on Iranian people and now he is admonishing Obama for not supporting Iranian people. This guy's hypocricy is nauseating.

Posted by: davar314 | June 16, 2009 6:07 PM | Report abuse

The presidents book "The Audacity of Hope" has a very nice message in it. Too bad the president has changed his mind on the message he presents in his book. We really can't get involved now, right?

Posted by: SeniorVet | June 16, 2009 8:11 PM | Report abuse

The presidents book "The Audacity of Hope" has a very nice message in it. Too bad the president has changed his mind on the message he presents in his book. We really can't get involved now, right?

Posted by: SeniorVet | June 16, 2009 8:12 PM | Report abuse

Based on the comments I've read here, the Washington Post readership does not deserve William Kristol's words of wisdom. They (you) are mentally and morally clueless.

Iran has been at war with the US since the 1970s. A regime change now would make it possible for this conflict with Teheran to end without the deaths of millions. Unfortunately Mr Obama seems to thing that dialogue with the mullahs is possible or desirable... when they clearly prefer nuclear war. Mr Kristol understands this, but most WaPo readers prefer to see the world other than the way it is.

Posted by: JBaustian | June 16, 2009 10:21 PM | Report abuse


Blah blah blah
the mulla
Obama
Muslims
Iran

I say fart in their general direction.

.

Posted by: Billw3 | June 16, 2009 11:03 PM | Report abuse

Bill -- try listening to NPR. Listen to academics and pro-Democracy supporters THANKING this administration for staying out of their internal politics so that they are not branded as "pro-Western" forces of evil. If Barack Obama were, like George Bush, flogging the Iranian government at this moment, how easy it would be for them to point to "Western agitators" as the impetus for these spontaneous demonstrations. Now is not the time for the US to interfere -- now is the time to let true democracy be expressed from the ground up. Not to mention that right now we have no more evidence of vote tampering and a stolen election in Iran than we did in 2000 in the United States. Oh. Never mind.

Posted by: Omyobama | June 17, 2009 12:28 AM | Report abuse

So, why in the heck should President Obama have any conversation now? His silence is correct. Commenting now would only add fuel to whatever fire going on.

And some of you would just love for him to speak so you can pounce on every word. He said this and he said that. Good! He is wise to see the final outcome and all are praying for the people there. It is their election. Did the Iranians speak when President Obama was a candidate and offer to converse with them?

Some laughed and some were silent and some disagreed so now you want hime to speak-wow!

Posted by: Scar1 | June 17, 2009 3:57 AM | Report abuse

You want him to speak now. Oh so everyone can pounce and say this and that. He offered to converse and listen to them but, did you see the response early on?
Some thought him crazy-talk to the Iranians? Some disagreed. Some were silent and now you want President Obama to speak-isn't that interesting?

Posted by: Scar1 | June 17, 2009 4:02 AM | Report abuse

Kristol's exhortation to Obama to bash the Iranian regime is an invitation to do something stupid.

There was an editorial in the Post a couple of days ago by Ken Ballen and Patrick Doherty, a couple of pollsters who predicted the sort of win Ahmanadinejad got last weekend. In Der Spiegel, Flynt Leverett, an American expert on Iran, also described how the election results corresponded with trends before the election.

Face it, the election was legitimate. So why bash Iran for holding a 'sham' election when it wasn't. The reality is that most Iranians, especially those living in rural areas, support the regime and believe that Ahmanadinejad is doing a good job. Iranians, like Turks and Russians, are a fundamentally conservative people.

So when Obama deals with Ahmanadinejad, he will be dealing with one who truly represents the interests of the Iranian people. How Ahmanadinejad is treated is how Iran is treated, regardless of what Kristol (or Kagan in another editorial today) says.

Posted by: blankinships | June 17, 2009 7:10 AM | Report abuse

Already got your "Obama screwed it up by making the protesters appear to be American puppets" column written, Bill?

Don't fret too much if it goes to waste. I mean, you didn't lose all that *much* work when you allow for the fact that "Obama screwed it up" is programmed into a single function keystroke....

Posted by: smbrinich | June 17, 2009 7:52 AM | Report abuse

Kristol has been consistently wrong about most everything from the economy to Iraq. This column is yet another example of his foggy, ignorant thinking.

Posted by: Continuum | June 17, 2009 8:36 AM | Report abuse

This is neoconservatism in a nutshell. It is always 1939, and every enemy is a new Hitler, getting ready to conquer the world. So, naturally, the right answer is always instant war.

If all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

Posted by: SteinslandRune | June 17, 2009 9:13 AM | Report abuse

Mr. Kristol asks that President Obama speak for America and condemn the recent fraudulent election in Iran. Well, the president has spoken, eloquently and clearly and only his most persistent critics could have missed this. For the neocons who believe that war is simply "diplomacy by other means", maybe they really do believe that the bully pulpit can mold the entire world to our way of thinking. For the rest of us who think of war as a last resort and the last option when facing immediate peril, diplomacy not only represents the more civilized and effective option, but also has less of a downside, i.e. massive death and massive debt. For all the armchair warriors (otherwise known as cowards) please live your own Rambo fantasies rather than send my boys to die for your war profiteering.

Posted by: wilsonjmichael | June 17, 2009 9:16 AM | Report abuse

I translate this as: "Do what the neocons would have done, only say it smarter, because you're like, eloquent and they trust you!"

F*ing idiot.

Posted by: JustJss | June 17, 2009 9:30 AM | Report abuse

Reading the opinions of the warmongers who got everything about Iraq so woefully wrong is a good way to gauge the value of the President's approach. If Kagan and Kristol think he's getting it wrong, he's undoubtedly doing the right thing...

The last thing the opposition in Iran needs is any sign of overt support from "the Great Satan"...it's just what he hardliners need in order to discredit them in a Persian version of the Red Scare tactics so popular with these witless American right wingers. Their belligerent approach to Iran gave Ahmedinijad the leverage he needed against the reformers last time around.

You people need to shut up and go do some sort of penance for your misguided, destructive opinions.

Posted by: AHermit | June 17, 2009 9:34 AM | Report abuse

Mr. Kristol gets it right and those folks who flunked high school English attack him for his thoughtful comments.

Posted by: Kansas28 | June 17, 2009 9:57 AM | Report abuse

Respectfull I disagree with Mr. Kristol. The analogy is wrong. Nazi Germany in the instance he cited attacked Poland. Iran has not attacked anybody. I ama Holocaust survivor , and then lived in Belgium in l939 atage 7. I survived the Holocaust therafter in hiing. Further, I have a master of arts of the School of Advanced Internatonal Studies of The Johns Hopkins University and attended the JFK School of Governmemt at Harvard. I also taughtat Howard University. Why all that backghround? Simply to indicate my credentials. If President obama would intrude on the currrent imbroglio in Iran , he would be accused of interfering in the internal affairs of Iran. And, those whop oppose the current President of Iran would be tainted as American stooges. In other words, President Obama wisely keeps mute, for if he would not his words would backfire on those who are protsting. I am sure Mr. Krisol means well and is a good American; howevrer, he may be tainted with tunnel vison. I suggest that he take a few courses on diplomatic history as I have done and then maybe his perception would be wider. Nobody is questioning anybody's personality bcause one may disagree witha pron,. Let us keep it cil and discuss the issue in a polite manner. There is no need to engage in name calling which is, in my view, a sign of mental laziness. The best policy sometimes is yo keep silent and ognore the repeated name calling by the President of Iran against the US. Ignore him!

Posted by: lejeune421 | June 17, 2009 10:34 AM | Report abuse

As he always does in cheerleading for his Neocon chickenhawk strategies, Kristol missed the point that Obama actually created the environment for the current protests in his speech to the Arab world a week BEFORE the election. He offered an open hand, not a clenched fist (much to the horror of Kristol) that the youthful and intelligent majority in Iran has seen as a beacon of hope and support to change their own future. The opposition candidacy of Mousavi gained it's greatest traction AFTER the Arab world was shown by example that transformation might be realized thru supporting a leader who represents a thoughtful, reasoned approach to governance and diplomacy rather than hardlined demagoguery and rodeo clown antics. It is the young population of the Muslim world, with all of life ahead of them, that Obama was talking to from Cairo, and this week's demonstrations show that they were listening.

Has it ever occurred to Kristol that Obama is quietly handing Mousavi the rope with which to hang Ahmadinejad, rather than the other way around? George Bush may not have had the brains to play smart politics in the previous Iranian election in which his actions helped elect Ahmadinejad, and thankfully, the remaining neocon faithful can only baby-whine from the safe studios of Fox News and offices of the Weekly Standard and the AEI.

Posted by: rpasley | June 17, 2009 11:55 AM | Report abuse

It seems that almost every time Mr. Kristol disagrees with someone, it becomes time to trot out the well-tested Chamberlain or Hitler analogies. This has been done so often, on matters great to matters vanishingly inconsequential, that it simply becomes impossible to hear Mr. Kristol's point over the roar of the tired cliches.

Then again, maybe weak points benefit from the cover of absurdly melodramatic rhetoric. If you're wandering around naked, you might as well shout, no?

Posted by: darius2 | June 17, 2009 12:33 PM | Report abuse

Obama speak for America? He and his friends are card-carrying liberals, and part of liberal catechism is that America is evil. Basically they agree with the Iranian mullahs' description of America as the 'great satan.'
Obama has spoke about Iran. He has apologized, and even said they have a right to nuclear power. Now why would a nation awash in oil seek nuclear power?

Posted by: scvaughan | June 17, 2009 2:10 PM | Report abuse

Bill, why don't rent some war movies and get your jollies that way instead of wanting to start real wars all over the world.

Posted by: creatia52 | June 17, 2009 2:55 PM | Report abuse

More nonsense form the neocon in chief. Please, have some dignity and spare us your ridiculous opinions. You and you neocon buddies have blood on your hands. In the name of God, go!

Posted by: crm1951 | June 17, 2009 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Is this some type of satire on the standard neocon bluster.......Hitler...Chamberlain...? Sober up Bill.

Posted by: glynnjp1 | June 17, 2009 5:44 PM | Report abuse

I'd love Obama to comment on the election. But if he did he'd be inserting himself in an internal battle that would probably backfire. Maybe that is what you folks would like. After all, if Iran can manage a democratic transformation they'll be no reason to bomb the smithereens out of them or scare the bejeezies out of Americans and get more money for the war machine.

He's not a sucker.

Posted by: chris_holte | June 17, 2009 10:10 PM | Report abuse

Billy,
It's not Shah's oil any more and the Iranian's are not going to give Exxon the oil for nothing either!

Posted by: knjincvc | June 17, 2009 11:18 PM | Report abuse

Shot up Kristol. We know what you're objective.

Posted by: aattallah | June 18, 2009 12:23 AM | Report abuse

But wait, Mr Krsitol. Pres. Obama is doing nothing more or less than most of his predecessors. I remember when the Russian people, after 70 years of tyranny, stood up and faced their dictators, when Yeltsin faced off against the Red Army from the top of a tank. Bush the senior, the pragmatist, kept his mouth shut. The same Bush who encouraged the Ukranians from their own capital to stick with bolshevism. The only national leader with balls to join with Yeltsin was German Chancellor Kohl. So where is America when we need principles? Nowhere, except when by some fluke you elect a man with the courage to stick with his principles.

Posted by: icheney | June 18, 2009 6:28 AM | Report abuse

But wait, Mr Krsitol. Pres. Obama is doing nothing more or less than most of his predecessors. I remember when the Russian people, after 70 years of tyranny, stood up and faced their dictators, when Yeltsin faced off against the Red Army from the top of a tank. Bush the senior, the pragmatist, kept his mouth shut. The same Bush who encouraged the Ukranians from their own capital to stick with bolshevism. The only national leader with balls to join with Yeltsin was German Chancellor Kohl. So where is America when we need principles? Nowhere, except when by some fluke you elect a man with the courage to stick with his principles.

Posted by: icheney | June 18, 2009 6:30 AM | Report abuse

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA'S APPEASEMENT FOREIGN POLICIES WEAKEN THE U.S.!!!

Coward liar Barack HUSSEIN Obama "Apologist in chief", how can he keep his nonsense promise during his campaign, that is, negotiating with U.S. enemies such as North Korea and Iran, which have never respected any treaty with U.S., especially when North Korea just launched many missile and nuclear tests and planned to fire missile toward Hawaii, not mentioning illegally arrested and sentenced two American journalists Laura Ling and Eunu Lee to twelve years of labor, while Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, an extremist who called for Israel to be wiped off the map and denied the holocaust, was just re-elected by fraud. Is Obama going to bow to Kim Jong Il and Ahmadinejas as he did to King Abdulla of Saudi Arabia to gain his peace deals? Is he willing to convert to Islam, his Kenyan father and Indonesian step father's religion, to meet Osama Bin Laden's requirement that in order to end the Iraq war, U.S. troop withdrawal is not enough, Americans must reject their democratic system and embrace Islam? Just recently, Obama said that he would support Iran's right to peaceful nuclear energy with rigorous inspections, giving a green light to Teheran's ambituous uranium enrichment program, which can be used for its discreet nuclear bomb development program as well, without suffering sanctions and economic isolation as it currently endures. Does Obama want Iran to become another North Korea using its nuclear power to terrorize the U.S and its allies? Worst still, Obama refused to show support for pro-democracy protesters and denounce the brutal regime for the deaths of seven demontrators, fearing to be seen as interfering in Iran's internal affairs so that he could not pursue a nuclear deal with Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the country's supreme leader. In fact, Obama sided with the regime, citing that there was not a bit of difference between the two candidates, a moderate Mir Hossein Mousavi and hardcore extremist Ahmadinejad. Is he going to turn a blind eye to another Tianamen Square massacre committed by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard? As for a Palestinian state demanded by Obama, it will undoubtedly soon become a TERRORIST state under control of terrorist militant group Hamas, which is the most powerful and popular force with its goal to destroy Israel and which won a majority seats in the current Palestinian National Authority in 2006 election and ousted Fatah militant group of Palestinian President Mahmud Abbas of Gaza in 2007. Last but not least, Obama ordered to stop waterboarding tactic used by CIA, even it worked well on terrorist suspects like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the self-describer planner of 9-11 attacks who provided CIA with valuable information, preventing more 9-11 attacks and saving thousands of American lives.

Posted by: TIMNGUYEN1 | June 18, 2009 7:10 AM | Report abuse

On June 5, 1967 Israel invaded the West Bank. They are still there nibbling away and taking land illegally.

We know why a neocon like you wants Obama to confront Iran. So Iran can unify against US meddling and keep your boogieman in power.

Posted by: timothy2me | June 18, 2009 7:23 AM | Report abuse

What exactly do you want Obama to say?
The Iranian had an election and the result, although overwhelming, brought this candidate called Mousavi to cry wolf.
There is nothing concrete to show that there was foul play or fraud and all indications, including the massive majority in Ahmadinejad favor which is almost 2 to 1.
Do you seriously suggest that Obama should put America reputation and credibility on the line for the sake of a man who cannot graciously accept defeat?
Yes tens of thousands had taken to the street on the urging of Muosavi and their equivalent of Ahmadinejad had supporters had done so as well but that does not alter the fact that Mousavi was beaten and beaten badly.
Just look at the figures, 12 million votes for Mousavi against 24 million for Ahmadinejad, 34% against 63%. Can you imagine what a fraud on that scale means?
It is clear case of “sour grapes”.
While one would agree that America with the rest of the world has a moral responsibility to take a stand on issues relating to democratic principles and human rights one can hardly consider the latest Iranian elections to warrant such a stand.
The defense of human rights and democratic principle requires that you apply that defense and protection universally and not selectively.
You cannot very well defend human rights in Iran and close your eyes to what Israel is doing the Palestinian in Gaza. You cannot call for upholding democratic principle for the Iranian and tread upon those principle when comes to the Palestinians as it is the case with the victory of Hamas in the Palestinian elections.
Being selective in your defense of this principle becomes hypocrisy unworthy of a nation that wants to claim the moral high ground.

May be Obama is being sensible here. The fact that Mousavi is standing against someone who is considered to be a foe of the United States, doesn’t necessarily make s him right, especially when all the odds are stashed against him.
Obama is the president of the United States, a position that carry some responsibility not least ensuring that he doesn’t appear stupid or gullible as to take sides in an purely internal dispute that could very well have adverse affect and be counter productive especially in the absence of any serious evidence to prove that there was foul play.
Doing so may serve the agenda of certain regional parties but certainly will not serve the interest of the United States.
After all: “it is better to shut up and be thought a fool rather than open your mouth and remove all doubts”
Ezzat Tamimi-London

Posted by: iztamimi | June 18, 2009 7:45 AM | Report abuse

TIMNGUYEN1 says: Coward liar Barack HUSSEIN Obama "Apologist in chief", how can he keep his nonsense promise during his campaign, that is, negotiating with U.S. enemies such as North Korea and Iran?
------------------------------

TIMNGUYEN1, is your classic zionist who refuses to see the world through anyway other than from the Israel vantage point.

I don't know about south Korea but, as far as Iran and the Middle East is concerned, It was Israel who introduced the menace of nuclear weapon into the region and such responsible for driving others to go down that route.
Iran is perfectly entitled to develope nuclear technology, and the fact that Israel has massive stockpile of nuclear weapon,no can moraly or legally argue against Iran developing nuclear weapon. The Iranian leadership is duely bound to become nuclear power in the military sense as long as Israel possess that capability.
Zionist should live in the real world and not assume that Israel has a devine right to terrorise the region.
They have to accept that the world is dynamic and that Israel military supriority is not something sustainable.
Shouting abuses against Obama and urging others to do their dirty work will not alter that fact.
Sanctions or no sanctions Iran had crossed the threshold and there is nothing that can stop Iran from achieving parity with Israel. zoinist must learn to live with this fact and change their ways accordingly. Neither America nor the world could ensure Israel survival if the region refuses to accept it.

Posted by: iztamimi | June 18, 2009 8:15 AM | Report abuse

Herr Kristol, I understand after 8 years of Bush/Cheney you are use to impulsive irrational moves on the part of the President without considering long term implications. But in case you have not realized that type of Hitlerian thinking was voted out of office. Obama is doing exactly the right thing. If he speaks up it only strengthens Ahmadinejad. It seems you are unaware of the history of the United States and Iran. Thank God that you and your storm-trooper mentality are no longer in power.

Now get busy defending Ensign for your next article.

Posted by: rcc_2000 | June 18, 2009 9:38 AM | Report abuse

How did this moron ended up with WAPO?

Posted by: AdamRahman | June 18, 2009 2:04 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps President 0bama would be more willing to quote from 'The Audacity of Hope' if he'd actually written.

Perhaps we could elicit a nautically-analagous quote from William Ayers?

Posted by: NeverLeft | June 18, 2009 2:48 PM | Report abuse

No covert U.S. involvement from the COMMUNITY ORGANIZER IN CHIEF or his key adviser who was born in Iran and has ties to the Iranian expats, eager to return to a secular Iran?

No electronic sabotage of government blocking of satellite cell phone connections?

How can you people be so naive and simplistic to think the U.S. White House is an innocent bystander?

How can you people believe that the doubts over the legitimacy of the election weren't sewn over the internet through social networks just like the personal slander of Sarah Palin?

Wake up! ...the Obama administration is controlling your destiny.

Posted by: poppadata | June 18, 2009 5:57 PM | Report abuse

Do you meddle in your neighbor's affairs, also? Do you stop every morning to counsel them on what they should think, how they should act, and what they are permitted to say? Would Iran's opinion of the 2000 election been graciously received. Who reared you? Do you fail to understand how to mind your own business?
Or do you just want President Obama to take on the shame of the past administration and be perceived as the great Satan?

No one who is reporting from the area, who has had diplomatic relationships with Iran, or who can speak with authority on appropriate response to the situation in Iran believes that it would benefit anyone for the U S not to mind our own business.

Now if you must meddle in an election, why not take on the one in Minnesota. Seven months has elapsed without resolution. I am sure the citizens of Minnesoto would welcome your interference.

Posted by: xclntcat | June 18, 2009 6:25 PM | Report abuse

Lose Kristol, bring back Froomkin!

Posted by: imback | June 18, 2009 8:49 PM | Report abuse

Obama IS speaking for America, Billy! You just want him to speak for Israel, and for Fox News and whatever publication is gullible enough to hire you next to pander to the right wing.

Get lost!

Posted by: thrh | June 18, 2009 9:14 PM | Report abuse

Kristol loses sight of a very simple, and obvious fact:

The United States and GB from 1910-1941 had FAIR to EXTREMELY POOR intelligence. By the end of WWII and a blue ribbon study on the causes and effects of Pearl Harbor, Harry Truman issued Executive Orders creating the large intelligence apparatus we have today.

The technology is good, the information sound, and so one must assume that the intelligence Obama has received on Iran is the result of this current stance.

Yes the system can sometimes be flawed ... vital information may not flow to the right people when they need it. Or they may interpret it incorrectly ... it happened at Pearl Harbor, it happened at 9-11.

But the capabilities are there. And if used properly it can be used to the end of helping to create effective diplomacy.

A lot rides on Iran's choices. If she is perceived as threat to the survival of Israel, that nation very well could launch a first strike against her, as Israel often has in the past. And this time it could be nuclear.

Posted by: periculum | June 18, 2009 9:52 PM | Report abuse

It really must be incredibly nice to be Bill Kristol.

You develop an international political theory, develop it with some of the "most respected" political minds that agree with you, get to see it completely embraced by a sitting president and put into action, watch it FAIL SPECTACULARLY, get a job at the NYTIMES, get fired for basic incompatence, and then geta at ANOTHER formerly respectable newspaper.

All while not ONCE taking even the slightest responsibility for your actions which have cost the lives of hundreds of thousands.

fact free analysis and judgement of a petulant child-doesn't matter Fred Hiatt says WELCOME HOME

Explain to me why I should listen to even the slightest thing this moneumental jackass says. What single action has Bill Kristol EVER done that has given him the slightest bit of credibility to talk intelligently about ANYTHING?

Posted by: jbanks979 | June 18, 2009 11:20 PM | Report abuse

Bill the comedian had me in stitches when he compared Obama to Chamberlin. What a riot!

But seriously Bill, aren't these freedom-loving Iranians the same people you were advocating we bomb just a short time ago? I guess that was then and this now. Whatever.

Posted by: dave20144 | June 19, 2009 1:49 AM | Report abuse

Wow. The most rediculous excuse for a human being wants to tell President Obama what to say. Instead of hiding in shame for being the most discredited individual in our country's history, "Bloody" Billy Kristol wants to contribute his 2 cents. Good job WaPo. Fire Froomkin and keep the clown prince of neocons around disgracing your war screed hack rag propaganda peddling even further. Rock on!

Posted by: koolaid1 | June 19, 2009 10:45 PM | Report abuse

Obam's Cult of the Personality and his Revolting Guard. What happened to Freedom of Speech? What happened to an open and respectful exchange of Ideas? Big Brother Is Tweetering You. Guilt by lack of absolute acceptance. This is what McCarthyism was like. This is what the Salem Witch trials was like. This is how Mao, Stalin, Hitler and other tyrants quenched free speech.
Now as Iranians are being beaten and shot in the streets of Iran our great leader finally criticizes those champions of hate he so desperately wanted as his friends.

Posted by: djfeiger | June 20, 2009 4:34 PM | Report abuse

So Obama should utter loud platitudes about freedom and democracy FOR YOU to make you feel good about yourself, however much those loud platitudes would endanger the protestors half a world away in Tehran?

It is quite likely that the Ahmadinejad/Khamenei faction really did win against the other, slightly more liberal, but equally rabid other Muslim faction that Mousavi represents. If they now shout "Death to the dictator" for a while in place of "Death to America", what progress is that? It's still radical rhetoric, blowing off steam. You will also have heard them reciting the Shahada, the Muslim declaration of faith, during the demonstrations, and shouting "Allahu akbar", and heard about Mousavi's willingness to martyr himself. Don't deceive yourself that the Mousavi faction somehow "represents" progress and democracy in any sense that would correspond to Western definitions of those words. It doesn't.

And, no, it is not 1939. Iran hasn't invaded any neighbors on the basis of a pack of lies and in the run-up to a war of continent-wide conquest, as Hitler did with Czechoslovakia and Poland. Illogic and hyperbole just hurts your argument.

If one super-rich Mullah in Iran is or is not replaced by another super-rich, but slightly more liberal mullah, what business is that of ours?

Posted by: jochebed | June 22, 2009 10:06 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company