Home Store In Memoriam Deborah Newsletter Forum Topics Blogfeed Blogroll Facebook MySpace Contact Us About

PNAC architect Bill Kristol says it is US responsibility "to do what's necessary" in Iran

Reported by Chrish - January 16, 2006

Chris Wallace hosted the panel consisting of Brit Hume, Bill Kristol, Mara Liasson and Juan Williams on Fox News Sunday yesterday 1/15/06. The second segment focused on the "threat" posed by Iran's restarting of their nuclear energy program, which is being portrayed by FOX as a nuclear weapons program. PNAC Chairman Bill Kristol, often a bellwether for Bush administration policies, was adamant that the US reserve a military option for dealing with the perceived threat, brushing off Juan Williams comment that Israel could be the one to take any action when and if necessary.

After an eerily reminiscent clip of Bush stating "Iran armed with a nuculer weapon poses a grave threat to the security of the world", Wallace said that was Bush saying why it is so important to stop Iran from developing a nuclear capability. Waving the word nuclear (or nuculer) around is a sure way to get most people terrified and ready to go on offense, as we learned from the run-up to the Iraq invasion, and later in the segment the skepticism shared by many due to that breach of trust was brought up, if ever so briefly.

Juan Williams opined that Iranian president Ahmadinejad is a madman and should not be in possession of nuclear weapons, but stops short of committing American troops and wealth to prevent the feared weapons program. When he says to Bill Kristol that he would be more comfortable with Kristol's idea of a while back that Israel handle the Iran problem, Kristol immediately says he doesn't want Israel to do anything. (Of course, that would be counter-productive to Kristol's cherished plan of world domination, er, leadership.) He is aghast that Williams wouldn't commit America to stopping a madman from getting nuclear weapons. When Williams says that we don't know that Ahmadinejad is trying to get weapons, or where he is in that process, Kristol says that we do have a good idea that he is trying to get to that point. We have to go through the diplomatic process, he says, but we have to reserve the right to use military force.

Comment: Look at how this is being framed. We have the media's word that he is a madman, and the neo-con talking points that pursuit of nuclear energy=pursuit of nuclear weapons. Anyone who expresses slepticism or suggests otherwise at this point will be labeled naive, or worse.

Brit Hume interjected, first saying that Williams has it right as far as the threat (talking point), but the problem is "even if you get to the point where the Europeans weaken and fail, as they almost always do, and there are no meaningful sanctions applied to Iran and Iran continues to scoff at the world, as soon as some consensus can be formed between the US and some handful of allies that some military action be taken, nobody really knows what in the daylights that would be." He continues to say that no one knows where the stuff is, it may not be subject to bombing, could be difficult to get at, which raises the question are we going to conduct a full-scale, regime toppling invasion? He thinks the administration is not contemplating that right now - they're worried about it, they're fretting, but right now the policy rests on hope that there will be a toppling from within of the "certifiable, radical extremist at the head of the government", and our government is hoping for a revolution before it's too late.

It is at this point that Liasson says that the bar has been set very high with Iraq - there is a problem with credibility. As is her wont, in her next sentence she dismisses any skepticism by saying that it seems "the world community is of one mind and they are very conviced and the evidence is very clear that they are..." What?? Hume overtalks and Kristol takes over and Liasson doesn't finish. So much for the opposing point of view.

Kristol wraps up the segment with a short speech advocating the hostile takeover of Iran:

"We cannot let whatever bad results were inIraq deter us from doing what is necessary here. We can't ask Israel to do it; it's our responsibility if we care about the future of the Middle East. i think we could do much more to stimulate dissent an to help the democratic opposition , in Iran, but look, the fact that the military action would be hard, doesn't mean you couldn't have a four day Desert Fox- like operation like in Iraq in 1998 which probably did damage Saddam's ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction.

Chris Wallace announces that's it for the week, sure to be continued.

Comment: What is completely overlooked is the Iranian's claim that they are developing nuclear energy for electricity production. From Forbes : Iran this week resumed nuclear research involving small scale enrichment to test centrifuges. It insists this is separate from full-scale uranium enrichment, which remains frozen for the time being. Iran, which has threatened to halt cooperation with the IAEA, insists it only wants to use nuclear technology to generate electricity, but there are widespread fears the clerical regime could divert fuel cycle technology to acquire a nuclear arsenal.

Iran, he said, was a 'civilised nation' that 'does not need nuclear weapons'.
'Despite the technological progress in the world, a few Western countries are mentally living in medieval times and say you don't have the right to scientific progress,' Ahmadinejad fumed, saying 'the time has passed for the language of bullying, domination and relying on your nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.' According to agency regulations and the NPT (nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty), all member nations can have nuclear technology and no excuses or strategies can infringe on these rights, even inspections must not stop them from having their rights,' he said. There was 'not the slightest evidence' Iran is seeking the bomb, Ahmadinejad claimed.

Skepticism is high for two reasons: 1., we have already been led into a deadly disastrous war by these same people under the exact same pretenses: an evil crazy man (who sits on an ocean of oil) wants to nuke us, and 2.) in this country we are bombarded with messages from the nuclear industry about how safe and efficient and desireable it is, which has had the effect of making it more acceptable to a majority of Americans. If that is the case then they are hypocrites to assume that Iran wants anything more than this great energy source.

Comments
Post a comment




Remember Me?


We welcome your opinions and viewpoints. Comments must remain civil, on-topic and must not violate any copyright or other laws. We reserve the right to delete any comments we deem inappropriate or non-constructive to the discussion for any reason, and to block any commenter for repeated violations.

Your email address is required to post, but it will not be published on the site.