• • •
"Mike and Jon, Jon and Mike—I've known them both for years, and, clearly, one of them is very funny. As for the other: truly one of the great hangers-on of our time."—Steve Bodow, head writer, The Daily Show
•
"Who can really judge what's funny? If humor is a subjective medium, then can there be something that is really and truly hilarious? Me. This book."—Daniel Handler, author, Adverbs, and personal representative of Lemony Snicket
•
"The good news: I thought Our Kampf was consistently hilarious. The bad news: I’m the guy who wrote Monkeybone."—Sam Hamm, screenwriter, Batman, Batman Returns, and Homecoming
February 17, 2008
Outtakes From The Lost Kristol Tapes
The March, 2003 C-Span segment with Daniel Ellsberg and Bill Kristol contained far too much Kristolian goodness to fit into the piece I wrote about it. Here's more:
KRISTOL: I've thought ever since [the Gulf War in 1991] it would be great to liberate Iraq. I hoped we could do it peacefully, as many people did, we tried with sanctions and inspections and political pressure on Saddam. That ended up not working.
This is an interesting, impressive piece of honesty. According to the relevant UN resolutions, the goal of the sanctions and inspections was to disarm Iraq, not remove Saddam. But removing Saddam, disarmed or not, was America's goal, and so we wanted to use the sanctions to cause Iraq so much economic pain that Saddam would be overthrown in a coup. For that reason, the US repeatedly said that it would never allow the sanctions to be lifted as long as Saddam remained in power, international law be damned. (The inspections were also used as cover for spying to effectuate a coup.)
So Kristol, in a shocking and rare departure, was telling the truth. Later, during the 2004 presidential debate, George Bush would also be surprisingly honest:
Sanctions were not working. The United Nations was not effective at removing Saddam Hussein.
According to international law, the sanctions had worked. They had given Iraq the incentive to disarm. But according to America, the sanctions had not worked.
Of course, neither Kristol nor Bush will ever tell the whole truth: that Iraq's refusal to cooperate with inspections was due to the fact there was no point from their perspective. It wasn't because Saddam was "bluffing."
—Jonathan Schwarz
Posted at February 17, 2008 06:12 PMI'm sympathetic to that interpretation, but I don't quite buy it. By which mechanism were the sanctions/inspections supposed to remove Saddam? Also missing is a mechanism to ensure that succesion is controlled by the proper forces.
It seems to me that the sanctions especially caused enough hardship on the population that they were forced to rely on the state for food, for example. And the state did in fact do quite a good job of distributing rations as I recall, which you would expect if it was a way for it to sustain itself.
An alernative interpretation is that the sanctions/inspections were there to 1) provide an excuse for military action (and disarm the enemy in the meantime), and 2) keep Hussein in place until such time as (1) is attained.
With this interpretation, Kristol and Bush are in fact complaining that the sanctions and inspections did not provide a casus belli.
Posted by: fluxisrad at February 17, 2008 08:39 PMWow, great find. And I see that the video tally has gone from 4 to 5,000.
Posted by: marbotty at February 18, 2008 05:58 AMDid the US sponsor a car bombing in Baghdad in the mid-90s?
Posted by: Pvt. Keepout at February 18, 2008 10:15 AMThis is what is becoming chilling more evident every day... When we wake up it will be too late...
"What we learn from this dusty vinyl LP is that some of the most powerful men and institutions in our country are genuinely depraved. They provide Kristol with his prominence not in spite of performances like this one, but precisely because of them."
Kill your Television!
Posted by: M.Yu at February 18, 2008 11:09 AMPvt. Keepout: YES
It killed mostly school children on a bus.
Posted by: Susan - NC at February 18, 2008 04:50 PM