Video: vanden Heuvel tells Kristol to enlist in Iraq army “if you feel so strongly”

posted at 6:31 pm on June 29, 2014 by Jazz Shaw

Another Sunday and another great moment in liberal logic. On ABC’s This Week, the subject turned to the chaos currently engulfing Iraq, and liberal thought leader Katrina vanden Heuvel was paired up with Bill Kristol. After making her case against a new US ground war in Iraq, vanden Heuvel decided to take a shot across the bow at Bill. Andrew Johnson has the details.

“I have to say — sitting next to Bill Kristol, man, I mean — the architects of catastrophe that have cost this country trillions of dollars, thousands of lives, there should be accountability,” she said on This Week. “We don’t need armchair warriors — if you feel so strongly, you should, with all due respect, enlist in the Iraqi army.”

“That’s a very cute line, Katrina,” he quipped back.

There’s a difference between wanting to start another war and feeling strongly about the decaying situation in Iraq. But the smarmy looks that vanden Heuvel provides tell you all you need to know.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

No, it did not. What Iranian hardliners, for example, want to kill the Iranian clerics for being less than anti-American?

Pincher Martin on June 30, 2014 at 12:51 AM

awww, c’mon. No need to break with the clerics yet, right?

WryTrvllr on June 30, 2014 at 12:54 AM

If they were unified, there would be no difference.

WryTrvllr on June 30, 2014 at 12:51 AM

If they were unified we could threaten retaliation if they did not control there militants. We cannot do that with Libya which doesn’t control the tribes, or its own territory. We are also played as suckers by nations like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan against other states in the region.

sharrukin on June 30, 2014 at 12:55 AM

We should have decided that before we set foot in Iraq. Sending our military out on a limb and then cutting it out from underneath them is unconscionable. Regardless, the big price was already paid. Bases in the Kurdish north, the fortified green zone as proposed would have been safe zones for troops, it wouldn’t have been necessary for them to patrol the veldt, just to back the Iraqi army / supply air cover when they got in trouble and lean on the politicians to see to it that they don’t behave exactly as they did when we bugged out.

V7_Sport on June 30, 2014 at 12:50 AM

You mean our multi-billion dollar embassy….

William Eaton on June 30, 2014 at 12:55 AM

Bases in the Kurdish north, the fortified green zone as proposed would have been safe zones for troops, it wouldn’t have been necessary for them to patrol the veldt, just to back the Iraqi army / supply air cover when they got in trouble and lean on the politicians to see to it that they don’t behave exactly as they did when we bugged out.

V7_Sport on June 30, 2014 at 12:50 AM

To what purpose?

What is the purpose of this effort?

sharrukin on June 30, 2014 at 12:52 AM

To back the Iraqi army / supply air cover when they got in trouble and lean on the politicians to see to it that they don’t behave exactly as they did when we bugged out.

V7_Sport on June 30, 2014 at 12:55 AM

We should have decided that before we set foot in Iraq. Sending our military out on a limb and then cutting it out from underneath them is unconscionable.

V7_Sport on June 30, 2014 at 12:50 AM

It’s unconscionable to continue with a losing strategy just because of your initial decision. As Eisenhower once said, know when to cut your losses.

Or, to stick with your business analogy, a smart investor never throws good money in after bad.

Pincher Martin on June 30, 2014 at 12:55 AM

awww, c’mon. No need to break with the clerics yet, right?

WryTrvllr on June 30, 2014 at 12:54 AM

My point is that your analogy is flawed. The clerics initiated the anti-Shah movement in Iran. Hirohito did no such thing with the militarists in Japan. He was not an ignitor of political action; he was a follower and a symbol.

Pincher Martin on June 30, 2014 at 12:58 AM

To back the Iraqi army / supply air cover when they got in trouble and lean on the politicians to see to it that they don’t behave exactly as they did when we bugged out.

V7_Sport on June 30, 2014 at 12:55 AM

Why should we give a damn if the Iraqi army falls, or stands?

What is the purpose of this effort?

So we can drop bombs isn’t a rational answer.

sharrukin on June 30, 2014 at 12:58 AM

Well, anyway, it’s time to quit. As usual, I have learned far more here than I ever could have from watching the box.

Much thanks.

WryTrvllr on June 30, 2014 at 12:59 AM

It’s shameful that such childish arguments resonate with so many voters in this country.

anuts on June 30, 2014 at 1:00 AM

You mean our multi-billion dollar embassy….

William Eaton on June 30, 2014 at 12:55 AM

Heh… Krak des Chevaliers. Are you deliberately trying to compare us to the Crusaders or did you just google “Big Castle” ? The Knights Hospitaller was once a family business but comparing us to the Crusaders is borrowing their argument.
Yes, the embassy was pretty well fortified, it started off as one of Saddams palaces after all.

V7_Sport on June 30, 2014 at 1:02 AM

We should have decided that before we set foot in Iraq. Sending our military out on a limb and then cutting it out from underneath them is unconscionable.

V7_Sport on June 30, 2014 at 12:50 AM

It’s unconscionable to continue with a losing strategy just because of your initial decision. As Eisenhower once said, know when to cut your losses.

Pincher Martin on June 30, 2014 at 12:55 AM

Couldn’t find that quote: Eisenhower +”know when to cut your losses”… The strategy wasn’t “losing” when before Obama was put in charge of implementing it. It may have been not worth it, that’s debatable, however the hard part was over. What was done was deliberately done to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory for domestic politics.

V7_Sport on June 30, 2014 at 1:08 AM

Why should we give a damn if the Iraqi army falls, or stands?

What is the purpose of this effort?

sharrukin on June 30, 2014 at 12:58 AM

To not leave al quada in charge of a large swath of territory in the dead center of the middle east with endless oil wealth to fund their attacks on civilization.
‘Nite.

V7_Sport on June 30, 2014 at 1:23 AM

This is extremely OT, and really random, but:

There are probably a number of commenters on here that know BK personally, but I don’t, and a few years ago, I found myself standing next to him in line at some espresso place off K Street.

When you live in DC, you get used to seeing pundits around, and me, being a nobody, I usually try to just leave them alone when that happens, and let them go about their lives.

I personally am completely against BK’s neocon BS. Same with Ed’s. I’m a proud anti-jihadist. But, for what it’s worth, despite our differences of idea, as a matter of record, the guy seems like a really nice guy.

I looked at him, and I was like, ‘hey, that’s BK. I’ll leave him alone.’

But he actually initiated contact with me. Nothing much, just neighborly small talk — weather, ‘wow the line’s taking long,’ that sort of thing.

Like Ed, (or GWB) when it comes to foreign policy, the guy’s well-intentioned, but just completely wrong.

WhatSlushfund on June 30, 2014 at 1:38 AM

Then again, this is getting thousands (including our own) slaughtered and maimed and tortured and raped. So maybe I’m being too kind. This is serious stuff. Now I’m getting angry.

END ISLAM NOW

And there can be no forgiveness for collaborators, whether they can figure out that they are or not.

WhatSlushfund on June 30, 2014 at 1:46 AM

In fact, the more I think about it..
Grrrr

WhatSlushfund on June 30, 2014 at 1:46 AM

Our attention span is so short.
Our politics are so divided.
The United States’ enemy is terror.
The liberals enemy are Republicans.

Connecticut on June 30, 2014 at 6:54 AM

OK, I’ll throw in my two cents: Yes, she’s smarmy and it’s a silly liberal throw-away line. But, it’s also true when it comes to the idea of intervening in another state’s affairs. If it’s so important to you, then go join their army and do your part. Go form up an Abraham Lincoln Brigade. Don’t sit on your behind here and agitate for the power of our government to put our young men and women in harm’s way for something that isn’t in our nation’s highest interests.

I don’t think we should be involved at all, given that the American public won’t let us do what needs to be done over there. As long as that fact holds true, let ‘em kill each other and Allah can sort it out. The minute they step out and attack American interests directly, we turn them into dust.

GWB on June 30, 2014 at 9:01 AM

I don’t think we should be involved at all, given that the American public won’t let us do what needs to be done over there. As long as that fact holds true, let ‘em kill each other and Allah can sort it out. The minute they step out and attack American interests directly, we turn them into dust.

GWB on June 30, 2014 at 9:01 AM

Absolutely, I would further add that we do not have an administration with the resolve or vision required in war time. Either you fight to win, or don’t fight. This “hearts and minds” BS in a war effort, IMHO, is useless and dangerous.

kawfytawk on June 30, 2014 at 9:34 AM

Hate to say it but she is right.How easy it is for the McCain’s,Graham’s,Kristol’s and all the other neocons to send other people’s sons,daughters,fathers and mothers into a fight to protect Islamist pigs who wish us harm.The cost has been way too high and the gains way too little.Let these animals kill each other off.The army should be at our own border,protecting us at home.Stop the invasion of illegals and God only knows what kind of assorted terrorists from getting into America the easy way,across an essentially unprotected border,encouraged by a President who has failed miserably in the oath he took to defend this nation,and who should have been impeached,convicted, and hanged a long time ago for being the traitor he is.

redware on June 30, 2014 at 10:10 AM

…another great moment in liberal logic.

The logic seems perfectly valid to me, Jazz. We have no interests in Iraq. We don’t buy their oil and they are buying arms from Russia. You war mongers should all go signup to fight if that’s what you want to do. Why should any of us send our husbands fathers, sons, brothers, relatives or friends to fight the fight YOU think needs to be fought. F you – go your own damn self and leave the rest of us in peace.

Our forces were never over there fighting for “our freedom” which was never threatened. Once we had our revenge for 911, we should have brought our forces home. You want to build nations, go ahead on your own. My policy is kick ass and leave but only for real reasons, not the government propaganda you’ve swallowed that all these “police actions” and foreign civil wars the US gets involved in have anything to do with fighting for our freedom. They don’t and never have.

earlgrey on June 30, 2014 at 11:04 AM

Couldn’t find that quote: Eisenhower +”know when to cut your losses”…

Eisenhower let others say it for him.

The strategy wasn’t “losing” when before Obama was put in charge of implementing it. It may have been not worth it, that’s debatable, however the hard part was over. What was done was deliberately done to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory for domestic politics.

V7_Sport on June 30, 2014 at 1:08 AM

You keep lying to yourself. We had lost long before Obama came to power. The hard part was not over.

If you have to keep 100,000 troops in country to prevent sectarian violence, to encourage revenue- and power-sharing, and to prop up a regime which is fundamentally hostile to most of our ideals and best of friends with our sworn enemies (Iran), then keeping 100,000 troops in country is not a victory – no matter what temporary lull in violence you can achieve with them.

Pincher Martin on June 30, 2014 at 11:13 AM

her attack on Bill was typical left-wing nonsense. But she’s absolutely right about the situation.

Iraq has failed. the US military gave the country a chance to stand up and fight for its future and they did not.

air support? sure. but sending more Americans into that country is ludicrous

Opinionnation on June 30, 2014 at 11:26 AM

What we know NOW……
Is that the Iraqi people, although probably wanting a Freedom based society, were always incapable or even unwilling to fight for THEIR liberty. It is apparent now that, for whatever reason- and their maybe many- that they were never going to be able to repulse the bad guys that would eventually creep back in.
We have to resign ourselves to the fact that we play no role, ever again, in the middle east.
.
And someone needs to remind this lady- $18 trillion is fast approaching- just how concerned are these dishonest liberals?

FlaMurph on June 30, 2014 at 11:42 AM

Why should we give a damn if the Iraqi army falls, or stands?

What is the purpose of this effort?

sharrukin on June 30, 2014 at 12:58 AM

To not leave al quada in charge of a large swath of territory in the dead center of the middle east with endless oil wealth to fund their attacks on civilization.
‘Nite.

V7_Sport on June 30, 2014 at 1:23 AM

Thanks, V7 for making your points. You’re right, though the short attention span, myopic libs will never be able to think strategically and get it. I still think that the Saddamectomy was done, only minimally for tactical reasons directly involving Iraq–it was principally strategic, part of a larger plan to build a secular Arabic ally and base of operations in the greater ME–all of which has now been scuttled and all that went into it wasted by <0bama and his code-pinko and caliphate supporting cadres. We won't hear about the big strategy for a long time, if ever. Of course I could just be giving our strategists too much credit–in which case we'er in deeper do-do than ever.

Ay Uaxe on June 30, 2014 at 8:47 PM

Pincher Martin on June 30, 2014 at 11:13 AM

Couldn’t find that quote: Eisenhower +”know when to cut your losses”…

Eisenhower let others say it for him.

That was the lamest attempt at backing what you wrote in human history.

You keep lying to yourself. We had lost long before Obama came to power. The hard part was not over.

And the only difference between you and vanden Heuvel is the crows feet, a pantsuit and nappy hairdo.

If you have to keep 100,000 troops in country to prevent sectarian violence,

30,000 was the figure.

to encourage revenue- and power-sharing, and to prop up a regime which is fundamentally hostile to most of our ideals and best of friends with our sworn enemies (Iran), then keeping 100,000 troops in country is not a victory – no matter what temporary lull in violence you can achieve with them.

Guess we lost WW2 by that metric.

the short attention span, myopic libs will never be able to think strategically and get it.
Ay Uaxe on June 30, 2014 at 8:47 PM

Thanks- One would have thought 9/11 would have gotten their attention in a more permanent way.

V7_Sport on July 1, 2014 at 7:21 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3