Kristol threw up his hands and didn't answer. Watch it:

Full transcript:

KRISTOL: Look, our coddling of Iran - if I can use the neutral term like that - over the last six to nine months has emboldened them. I mean, is Iran behaving like a timid regime that's very worried about the U.S.? Or is Iran behaving recklessly and in a foolhardy way?

WALLACE: But isn't that the result of what's happened in Iraq?

KRISTOL: No, it's a result of our deducing from the situation in Iraq that we can't stand up to Iran. I mean, when we stand up over and over and say Iran is shipping Improvised Explosive Devices into Iraq and killing U.S. soldiers, and Syria's providing a line for terrorists to come into Iraq and kill U.S. soldiers, and that's unacceptable. That's not helpful. And then we do nothing about it. When Ahmadinejad says provocative things, continues to ship arms to Hezbollah, and we say, okay, maybe now we'll give you direct talks. That, unfortunately, that weakness has been provocative. Ahmadinejad feels emboldened. Now we need to show him, and I think the administration has done a good job the last couple of days of showing him, that he miscalculated. And indeed, this is a great opportunity. I think our weakness, unfortunately, invited this aggression, but this aggression is a great opportunity to begin resuming the offensive against the terrorist groups. Israel is fighting four of our five enemies in the Middle East, in a sense. Iran, Syria, sponsors of terror; Hezbollah and Hamas. Al Qaeda doesn't seem to be involved. We have to take care of them in Iraq. This is an opportunity to begin to reverse the unfortunate direction of the last six to nine months and get the terrorists and the jihadists back on the defensive.

WILLIAMS: Well, it just seems to me that you want...you just want war, war, war, and you want us in more war. You wanted us in Iraq. Now you want us in Iran. Now you want us to get into the Middle East, where I think there's a real interesting dynamic at play. I think it's psychological on the part of Israel and many of its supporters, and I'll throw you in here. Somehow you see Israel as weak, and you see Ehud Olmert as weak -

WALLACE: He's the new prime minister -

WILLIAMS: The new prime minister of Israel. And the defense minister as weak. Everybody is weak in the aftermath of Sharon, and so everybody has to prove what a man they are in the Middle East, including - you're saying, why doesn't the United States take this hard, unforgiving line? Well, the hard and unforgiving line has been, we don't talk to anybody. We don't talk to Hamas. We don't talk to Hezbollah. We're not going to talk to Iran. Where has it gotten us, Bill?

And here's Kristol now on Fox News channel today talking about how we need more war, a wider war, a bigger war. He says it's "a great opportunity." You could almost see him drooling. Watch this clip:

Bill Kristol on Fox News Channel

First of all, I'd like to congratulate Juan Williams for finally calling him out on this nonsense. Second, I loved Kristol's reaction to Williams. Shrug it off -- yes, of course, I want more war. No skin off his ass.

For those of you lucky enough to not know Bill Kristol, he is the top neocon intellectual (how's that for a gigantic oxymoron) in the country. He is the editor of The Weekly Standard, the bible of neo-conservatism and warmongering. He is in effect their propaganda minister. And like all good propaganda ministers, he will never bring his pampered, powdered soft ass anywhere near a battle line. But he can't wait for your kid to die in the wars he starts.

He goads the country by calling it weak and does what all people trained in propaganda do - unless you attack the country I tell you to, I will call all of you weak and cowardly. The oldest trick in the book. Read it for yourself in his latest article here.

The chickenhawk is calling the rest of us chickens. How's that for rich irony?

In the video clip, Kristol mentions that Israel is now fighting four out of five of our enemies. He says that the only enemy of ours not in this current battle is Al-Qaeda. He neglects to mention that they are the only people who actually attacked us! The other four are only our enemies because the neocons have convinced this administration to threaten them. Those people never attacked us -- we threatened to attack them.

Frankly, I don't give a damn what Kristol's motivations are. I don't care if he has some other interests in mind or if he just loves blood. Maybe the sight of other people bleeding for his ideas turns him on. But anyway, you slice it, it's maniacal and unacceptable.

Right now, we should be spending all of our time and energy trying to figure out a way to avoid a broader Middle Eastern War, a war that could suck us into World War III. We have 130,000 troops waiting in Iraq like sitting ducks. What happens when Israel and Iran start exchanging bombs? It's obvious -- we get sucked into fighting Iran ... and the Iraqi Shiites, and the Iraqi Sunnis, and the Syrians, and the Lebanese and ...

That's a world of pain. If you thought the Iraq War has gone poorly, wait till you get a load of the broader Middle East War -- where everyone in the region is against us.

How haughty and arrogant could we be? What are we going to do, bomb, fight and occupy the whole Middle East? We couldn't even handle Iraq. How in the world are we going to handle Iran, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon at the same time? We are asking for a terrible war we can't possibly win.

We wouldn't even know what winning means. Since it's not our interests we're fighting for, when do we know we won? When we obliterate the whole Middle East? When they bow down to our military might? When they stop fighting us? There is no winning because there's nothing to win.

Yet, instead of calling for calm and a halt to the bombings our President encourages Israel to go further because of dangerous neocons like Kristol whispering in his ear (notice how Kristol gave Bush a little pat on the head on Fox by saying he likes the administration's reaction from the last couple of days - good boy, good boy). If we don't do something right now, we are going to be in the middle of an intractable, bloody war before we know what hit us.

Don't get me wrong, I think Hamas and Hezbollah started the hostilities in this case. They sent a terrible message to Israel by attacking from territories Israel withdrew from. That precedent can only do tremendous damage to their own people because it encourages occupation. Then Israel overreacted and has killed far more civilians than necessary in a foolhardy effort to send a message. What's the message? We'll kill your women and children if you keep it up?

But at this point, it's futile and unproductive to be worried about who started it. Instead, we need to focus all of our energies on how to stop it. Unfortunately, we have a couple of roadblocks here at home preventing us from trying to come up with a peaceful and productive solution. One of those roadblocks goes by the name of Bill Kristol.

Few Americans know Osama bin Laden cited the 9/11 attacks as payback for Israel's 1982 bombardment and siege of Beirut that killed up to 18,000 Lebanese and Palestinians and left the city shattered.

Hezbollah, from my experience, is no mere cat's paw of Syria and Iran, but a fiercely independent-minded movement that is Lebanon's dominant political and military force. Though backed by Tehran and Damascus, Hezbollah pursues its own local interests, sometimes in opposition to its allies.

Ironically, Hamas in Palestine is a democratically-elected government now battling the only other Mideast democracy, Israel. Hezbollah has elected members in Lebanon's ruling party, including cabinet ministers.

Why did Hezbollah grab Israeli soldiers and ambush rescuers, knowing Israel's habit of often reacting to attacks by harsh collective punishment?

Hezbollah's leader, Sheik Hussein Nasrallah, made clear his attacks were to support the embattled Palestinians in Gaza, who have been ravaged by Israeli air, land, and sea attacks after militants kidnapped an Israeli soldier. Hezbollah's offensive was also aimed at securing release of hundreds of its supporters and 10,000 Palestinian prisoners held by Israel.

So far, Hezbollah is the only Arab force that has made even a gesture to help the embattled Palestinians. The price has been heavy: Israel's destruction of key portions of Lebanon's infrastructure and hundreds of civilian casualties.

Yet Hezbollah keeps firing rockets into northern Israel, a futile gesture that only further infuriates Israelis. Palestinians did the same thing, lobbing homemade rockets into Israel that brought crushing retaliation. None of these pinprick attacks served any useful military or political purpose. They give Israel an excuse to further vent its fury and play to worried voters.

All parties involved are to blame for this frightful mess: The Palestinians and Hezbollah for provoking Israel, and Israel for its continuing brutal repression of Palestinians and assassinating their leaders. But most at blame is the Bush administration whose catastrophically misguided Mideast policies have fed this crisis.

The Palestinian-Israeli conflict lies at the heart of Mideast troubles, and is the primary generator for anti-Western violence known as terrorism. It is a weary truism that no nation can bring about Mideast peace except for the United States.

But the Bush administration has been too obsessed by its losing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to pay attention to the Levant. U.S. Mideast policy is dominated by neoconservatives and Protestant fundamentalists aligned with Israel's expansionist right wing, leaving would-be peacemakers in Israel and the Arab World out in the cold.

A green light

The White House has given Israel a very public green light to go on pounding Lebanon. What deja vu. In 1982, the Reagan administration also gave Israel's Ariel Sharon a green light to invade Lebanon. The result was 15 years of mayhem, the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, and Hezbollah.

Israel and its enemies will eventually talk. It's only a question of how many civilians on both sides will die before this happens.

The Russian president urged the return of two Israeli soldiers, saying "we would very much like to see the speedy return of the kidnapped and a stop to the bloodshed."

"But I am also not confident that the return of soldiers will stop the conflict," said the G8 summit host.

Putin declined to confirm whether Russia would participate in international stabilization forces in the Middle East, saying it is too early to discuss.

He also said that it was only for the United Nation's Security Council to decide whether sending international peacekeeping forces to Lebanon.

"And it also requires the consent of all countries involved in the conflict," he said.

And then the Nation speaks of "disproportionate" response. Zionist propaganda has infested both words here: "disproportionate" and "response." Who is responding to whom? Arabs claim that they have been responding to Zionist infliction of violence on Arabs which started long before the creation of Israel, and yet Israel is always perceived to be responding, even responding to Arab audacity for living in Palestine for centuries. How dare they, argues the Nation. The second key word here is "disproportionate," which means that the Nation does not disagree with Israel over the principle of aggression and murder, but over the number.

So the Nation is saying to Israel that it would not mind if Israel kills scores of Arab civilians, but that it should kill less than a certain number. So 100 Lebanese civilians, instead of 200. Is that it, Nation magazine? How many Arab children do you permit Israel to kill, o editor of the Nation magazine? Please let me know so that we know where we stand with you.

The racism of the Nation magazine and its editor then gets revealed more clearly in the following sentence: when the article speaks of "proving counterproductive to Israel's own security". This is the racism of Tikkun magazine that is embedded in many American leftist discourse on the Middle East.So the criterion and the term of reference is always what is good for Israeli Jews; the rest are a footnote to the narrative. A sideshow, really.

So the Nation would really support massive bombings and massacres of Arab civilians IF it is in Israel's interest. This is the crux of the Nation magazine's position. And notice that the editorial of an ostensibly leftist magazine expresses more concern for the right-wing governments of Lebanon and PA than for the civilians of Lebanon and Palestine. At least we know where the Nation stands: with Dahlan and Hariri Inc. And the paragraph ends with a plea similar to that of Husni Mubarak: that Israeli murders are bad because they radicalize the sand niggers of the regions.

And then the Nation sheds a tear or two over the "Cedar Revolution"--and I can't believe that they used that silly propaganda term to describe a demonstration or two that had sectarian, right-wing and racist agenda, and where demonstrators hit and killed Syrian workers on their way to "Cedar" square. Notice that the word "deplorable" first appeared to describe the Hizbullah rockets on Israel. But I understand. These are the precious and expensive people of Israel, who belong to the superior race.

At least, we really know where you stand, o Nation magazine. And what a disgusting decline of the Nation magazine when it expresses concern, over the plight "of moderate Arab regimes." This only proves my theory--or one of them anyway--that deep down, the Nation magazine is as racist toward Arabs and as hostile to Muslims as the New Republic. And it also proves that the foreign policy of the Nation is motivated solely and exclusively by concern for Israel.

So the Nation is now aligned with the House of Saud and Mubarak, because they are friendly with Israel. But I can't accuse the Nation of heartlessness. In one sentence, it expresses concern for rising oil prices. That is called sympathy and compassion.

Washington used its veto last week to block a Security Council resolution calling for end to an Israeli offensive in the Gaza Strip.

A similar draft on Israel's onslaught in Lebanon was never put to the vote amid clear US opposition and the Security Council instead issued a statement backing a UN diplomatic mission to the region.

"The international response to the full-scale war launched by Israel... shows the laxness of the international community, which is turning a blind eye to Israeli crimes," said the cabinet statement carried by the official Saudi Press Agency.

"This inappropriate policy besieged the Palestinian Authority politically, economically and financially ... and led to extremism and despair," it added, referring to Western suspension of direct aid to the Authority after a Hamas-led government took power in March.

The strong comments from the cabinet against Israel's six-day-old offensive against Lebanon came after the Saudi authorities drew widespread criticism in the Arab world by joining pro-Western Egypt and Jordan in speaking out against the "adventurism" of the Hezbollah operation that sparked the Israeli action.

The Syrian- and Iranian-backed Shiite militant group captured two Israeli soldiers last Wednesday in a deadly cross-border raid that sparked the Israeli onslaught which by Monday evening had killed more than 200 Lebanese.

She accused Hezbollah - widely believed to receive support from Tehran and Damascus - of deliberately sparking hostilities by firing rockets into Israel and kidnapping its soldiers.

Asked if she believed strings were being pulled by Iran and Syria, she told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme: "I think there is a very real anxiety about that.

"Hezbollah wantonly poured petrol on the bonfire. It is very clear that their intervention was intended to create an infinitely worse situation of the kind that we have now.

"One can only ask oneself whose interests are served by that? It is certainly not the interests of the people of Lebanon."

Mrs Beckett said it was not "helpful" for her to say whether she regarded Israel's response to Hezbollah provocation as proportionate or not. And she added: "It's not proportionate to be firing rockets into Israel all the time either."

She said: "It is clear that Israel has been under attack and is now responding in Lebanon. It is also clear that this is inflicting huge damage both on civilians in Israel and civilians in Lebanon.

"This is exactly what was intended by, in particular, Hezbollah, who poured petrol on the bonfire."

Her remarks were made as Royal Navy warships off the coast of Lebanon prepared for what could be the biggest evacuation carried out by British forces since Dunkirk. Plans are being made to evacuate as many as 12,000 UK nationals as well 10,000 dual nationals by sea, amid continuing Israeli airstrikes.

New York Times reported that Saudi Arabia, Jordan and several Persian Gulf states chastised Hezbollah for "unexpected, inappropriate and irresponsible acts" at an emergency Arab League summit held on July 16 to discuss the "Lebanon" crisis.

The newspaper described Arab leaders' criticism of Hezbollah, instead of blaming Israel, which has been killing civilians in Lebanon, as "unusual."

The shift in attitude was attributed to the "Iranian threat," although hostility towards Israel has escalated following the Israeli attacks on Lebanon and the Gaza.

Shiite influence on balance of Powers

Washington's pressure to "oppose Hezbollah" is a significant factor in the Arab leaders' stance against the Hezbollah.

Furthermore, New York Times claimed that if Arab governments continue to ignore the public opinion, they may face the danger of "being overthrown."

The British newspaper Times wrote recent clashes will affect the power balance in the region deeply.

Clashes between Israel and Hezbollah will also affect not only Israel but also pro-Western countries such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan as well, the news reads, adding that countries with substantial Shiite majority like Iran, Iraq, Lebanon and Syria, make a "Shiite crescent."

Iran gains prestige in the region

Los Angeles Times put Syria and Iran on one side, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Gulf countries, which are concerned about increasing Shiite influence, on the other.

The newspaper qualified Shiite Hezbollah as a significant factor in this division.

Widespread Sunni public support for Hezbollah opens a new avenue for Iran, Hezbollah's principal patron, the paper wrote.

Mouin Rabbani, a Jordan-based analyst with the International Crisis Group, told the paper that Sunni leaders are concerned that Shiite influence may increase if Shiites seize power in Iraq.

LA Times wrote that Hezbollah has gained popularity in the recent crisis, and added even in the predominantly Sunni Syria people are carrying posters of Nasrallah on car and shop windows.

Imam Hamdi, a political scientist at the American University in Cairo, told the paper, "Hezbollah managed to do something for Palestinians that all the Arab governments with their huge armies haven't been able to. It very much discredits these regimes in the eyes of the people."

So will it work this time? According to Uri Avnery's analysis, it has just as much chance of succeeding, that is, not much.

[It] is clearly impossible under the present Lebanese regime, a delicate fabric of ethno-religious communities. The slightest shock can bring the whole structure crashing down and throw the state into total anarchy - especially after the Americans succeeded in driving out the Syrian army, the only element that has for years provided some stability. [ibid]

Of course such subtleties escape the blinkered gaze of the Western media, it is after all, too intent in pushing the propaganda that justifies the terrorist operation of the Zionist government.

And according to the latest reports coming out of the Occupied Territories, whilst everyone is mesmerised by the events in Lebanon, Israel has stepped up its terrorist attacks on the Palestinian people.

"3 Killed and 11 Injured, including 2 Journalists & 2 Paramedics; Forced Exodus of Families in Rafah & Beit Hanoun; and the Gaza Strip is Isolated from the Outside World" - 'IOF Occupy & Isolate Beit Hanoun, and Destroy the Palestinian Ministry of Foreign Affairs Report', PCHR, 17 July 2006

And what of the alleged aim of freeing the captured soldiers? This is what at least one voice from Israel has to say about the effect of the bestiality that is Israel's attack on Lebanon

"What is Israel's running wild likely to achieve? Not much. As for the captured soldiers, any action other than negotiations is gambling with their lives, as their families now start to say out louder. As for the missiles shot from Gaza, the military could not stop them when it was sitting inside the Strip - obviously, it cannot stop them by casual incursions and air bombing. As for Lebanon, the disproportional Israeli reaction made Hezbollah fire missiles at the whole of northern Israel, both at communities that had enjoyed relative quiet since 2000 and at places that had never experienced any Lebanese missiles before." 'The Army Wants Action: The great fiasco' Ran HaCohen, 16 July 2006

As before the real target is firstly Syria and then no doubt at some point, Iran. What is truly incredible about the media coverage is that in their rush to 'prove' that it's all Syria and Iran's fault, they neglect to mention that what Israel is doing is not only immoral to the nth degree but breaks every law in the book.

Here's Jon Snow from his so-called Snow-mail

"As I write, Prime Minister Olmert is about to speak to Parliament so I've been asking people on the street what they think of him. Three to one they seem to be pretty enthusiastic about what he's done."

I just love Snow's offhand "pretty enthusiastic". Have you lost your marbles Mr Snow? Hundreds of people have been killed and mutilated. Clearly Western 'civilisation' has hit rock bottom when slaughter gets reduced to a flip remark such as the one made by Mr Snow.

But Snow is just the tip of a blood-stained iceberg of what laughably tries to pass as media coverage. What is lost in the scramble to please their masters is firstly their humanity but more importantly, the truth. It doesn't take a degree in library science to research the fact that every previous capture of an IDF soldier has been resolved through a prisoner exchange, that destroying Lebanon will only make Lebanese hate the Israelis even more than they probably already do. It won't get the prisoners returned but then that was never the objective.

Ultimately, it's Israel's last, desperate gamble to produce a 'Palestinian Solution'. No need of gas ovens, F-16s, phosphorus bombs, 1-ton bombs, vacuum bombs and the rest of the awful US-made and supplied armoury will do the job.

Noted Mideast expert Juan Cole put the ramifications from what is taking place on every American doorstep. "Americans have to understand that when Israel goes wild and bombs a civilian airport and civilian neighborhoods in Beirut," wrote Cole, "a lot of the world's Catholics (Lebanon is partially a Catholic country) and its 1.4 billion Muslims blame the United States for it. Israel is given billions every year by the United States, including sophisticated weaponry that is now being trained on the slums of south Beirut."

"It should also be remembered," continued Cole, "that Bin Laden said, at least, that he started thinking about hitting New York when he saw that 1982 Israeli destruction of the skyscrapers or "towers" of Lebanon. How many future Bin Ladens are watching with horror and rage and feelings of revenge as Israel drops bombs on civilian tenement buildings? When will this blow back on Americans?"

It is all quite terrifying, but most frightening of all are the voices being raised in support of widening this crisis into total war. William Kristol, editor of the far-right periodical The Weekly Standard, has openly stated that the crisis should be used as an opportunity to attack other Middle Eastern nations. "While Syria and Iran are enemies of Israel," wrote Kristol in an article titled "It's Our War," "they are also enemies of the United States. The right response is renewed strength - in supporting the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan, in standing with Israel, and in pursuing regime change in Syria and Iran. For that matter, we might consider countering this act of Iranian aggression with a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities."

It should be noted that Kristol was one of the most vociferous cheerleaders for the invasion and occupation of Iraq, which has been working out splendidly thus far. One hopes there are some wiser heads somewhere who will remember this, and take Mr. Kristol's advice with a large grain of salt.

Even so, it is disturbing to hear these kinds of things. The last several years have established, beyond doubt, that the Bush administration is at best inept, and at worst deliberately destructive. Watching Bush observe the carnage with a "What me worry?" look on his face has been disgusting, if not terribly surprising. The United States has abandoned its position of leadership on the world stage, and the mayhem erupting in the Middle East, combined with provocative actions from North Korea, is a direct result of that.

If further proof of this is required, look no further than the exchange between Mr. Bush and Russian president Vladimir Putin on Saturday. Bush offered a critique of Russia's so-called democracy, and Putin shot back, "We certainly would not want to have the same kind of democracy as they have in Iraq, I will tell you quite honestly." Bush tried to laugh it off, but his face purpled with rage. And so the president of the United States is publicly slapped by the leader of Russia, and we are all lessened and shamed by it, because Putin was correct.

Much of what is happening has come about, simply, because the Bush administration is run by, and heeds the advice of, stone cold crazy people. Inside the administration lurks Dick Cheney, who with his proxy Don Rumsfeld engineered the Iraq fiasco. On the outside, and enjoying far more credibility than is deserved, are voices like William Kristol's.

And then, of course, there is the Republican base, the people who stand by Mr. Bush because they believe him to be the right arm of Jesus Christ. The fundamentalist far-right branch of Christianity that has established itself as the most powerful force in electoral politics is heeded by this administration because they owe their tenure to these people.

A lot of them are thrilled by what is happening in the Middle East. An internet forum called "Rapture Ready" offers some insight into that particular breed of right-wing Christian who cannot wait for the Apocalypse. "Gosh!!!" writes one poster, "Here we are making plans to move to the east coast and we might not even have to move after all. I say, come quickly Lord!!!"

"Israel is not a land of un-walled villages so this is probably a war that will result in that," writes another poster. "Then Gog and Magog will come. But I believe we could be raptured before. I believe before Damascus is destroyed God may rescue His children out of there." Yet another poster writes, "In another thread, someone brought up the fact that the kidnapping of the first Israeli soldier that started this whole thing was on June 25th, and if you count from that day to August 3rd ... it is EXACTLY 40 days!!!!! I find that to be a HUGE coincidence."

Etc.

Mr. Bush is accounted as the unofficial leader of these people, listens to them, and has surrounded himself with violent men who share violent dreams. An analysis of apocalyptic scripture could, perhaps, reveal the manner in which a combination of stupidity, extremism and a total lack of morality is the key which will unlock the end of days. In the meantime, I am reminded of those bumper stickers which can be seen on the roads from time to time. "In case of Rapture," they read, "this car will be empty." Once, I saw a witty rejoinder to this sentiment on another bumper: "In case of Rapture, can I have your car?"

If I were making bumper stickers, I might add a new wrinkle: "In case of Rapture, can I have my country back?"