Yesterday, in his column in The Weekly Standard, psycho-lunatic, Israel-firster neocon Bill Kristol said that we should - shortly after we approve an authorization for the use of military force in Syria - just go ahead approve one for Iran too ... while we're at it ...
And he wasn't joking - he was completely serious ...
The man is advocating for unprovoked aggression - and the initiation of war - against two (Muslim) countries ... neither of which have attacked us ...
It's utterly insane ...
It's not unprovoked aggression when we invade a "Muslim country," it's "
liberation."
He's been loudly banging that particular drum for a while now. Remember the Israel–Hezbollah War back in 2006? Because Iran gave military aid to Hezbollah, Kristol said such an act of Iranian aggression should be met with,
"a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. Why wait?"
He wants to "liberate" Iran so bad he can't stand it.
He's real big on false dichotomies, too. A couple of years ago he wrote at the Weekly Standard, "The real question is what form of instability would be more dangerous--that caused by this Iranian regime with nuclear weapons, or that caused by attacking this regime's nuclear weapons program. It's time to have a serious debate about the choice between these two kinds of destabilization, instead of just refusing to confront the choice."
Because, you know, that's the only choice, between those two things.
