May 16, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist
Failing by Example
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
If you want to know why we are losing in Iraq...[Bush/Cheney's] degree of partisanship — loyalty over competence — was destructive in a much bigger way...
Democrats need to be careful, though, that they don’t let their rage with the hypocrisy of Mr. Bush make them totally crazy, and blind them to the fact that they — we — still need a credible plan to deal with the very real threat to open societies posed by Islamist terrorism...
Thomas Friedman again.
I can't believe that this guy still has a job.
How long do we have to read/watch some worthless hack with a zero average on the Iraq disaster pretend to have any credibility on the subject?
He solemnly states what was obvious three years ago, and then, to demonstrate his obligatory "centrist"/"bipartisan" beltway bona fides, dutifully regurgitates the old Broderist Sunday talk-show "Democrats must be careful to not overreach" trope.
Because in Tom's world he's still right about "Islamo-fascism" and all that..even if he's been wrong about everything else (every four-to-six months) for the past five years!
Here's what I think about his wretched piece...
What is Tom Friedman talking about?
Who exactly should not go "totally crazy" with "rage"?
Pat Leahy? Russ Feingold? Hillary Clinton?
Who the crap is he talking about? Who is "blinded" by anything?
Who's not taking terrorism seriously?
Wes Clark? Chuck Schumer? Jim Webb?
The Democratic party line on Iraq seems to be this:
John Tester, US Senator, Montana:
http://www.cqpolitics.com/...
Tester hailed the initial version of the midyear war funding bill — the one vetoed because it set a timetable for a troop withdrawal — as "a plan to get our troops out of the middle of the civil war and back to fighting terrorism."
Jim Webb, US Senator, Virginia:
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Democratic Response of Senator Jim Webb
To the President's State of the Union Address
There are two areas where our respective parties have largely stood in contradiction, and I want to take a few minutes to address them tonight. The first ... The second regards our foreign policy - how we might bring the war in Iraq to a proper conclusion that will also allow us to continue to fight the war against international terrorism, and to address other strategic concerns that our country faces around the world.
Russ Feingold, US Senator, Wisconsin:
http://www.latimes.com/...
"Congress cannot wait for the president to change course," said Feingold, one of the war's harshest critics.
"As long as the president's Iraq policy goes unchecked, our courageous troops will continue to put their lives on the line unnecessarily, our constituents will continue to pour billions of dollars into this war, our military readiness will continue to erode and our ability to confront and defeat Al Qaeda will be jeopardized," Feingold said on the Senate floor
Hillary Clinton, US Senator, Democratic Presidential Candidate, New York:
http://www.clinton.senate.gov/...
Letter to Constituents on Iraq Policy
November 29, 2005
Criticism of this Administration's policies should not in any way be confused with softness against terrorists, inadequate support for democracy or lack of patriotism. I am grateful to the men and women of our armed forces and have been honored to meet them twice in Iraq. They honor our country every day with their courage, selfless dedication, and success in battle. I am also grateful to the thousands of unknown men and women in our security forces and around the world who have been fighting the larger war against terrorism, finding terrorists’ cells, arresting them and working to prevent future attacks. And I applaud the brave people who have been risking their lives every day to bring democracy and peace to Afghanistan and Iraq.
I recently returned from visiting Israel and Jordan, seeing first hand the tragedy of spreading terrorism. As a New York Senator, I believe New York has a special bond with the victims of such terrorism, and we understand both the need to fight terrorism and the need for a clear plan in Iraq so that we can focus our resources in the right ways to prevent it from again reaching our shores.
Barney Frank, US Congressman, Massachusetts
http://www.boston.com/...
Whether or not one subscribes to the geopolitical aims that motivated the Bush administration's intervention in Iraq, it is clearly invalid to assert that support for that war is the indispensable badge of one's willingness to confront terrorism. Only by adopting the techniques of the big lie can the vice president make his case that those opposed to the Iraqi war fail to understand the importance of a firm response to terrorists. In fact, given the deleterious effect it has had on our effort in Afghanistan, and the enormous boost it has given to anti-American forces around the world, the big truth is that the Iraq war has damaged our ability to fight terrorism.
To what Democrat could the genius Tom Friedman possibly be referring?
For God's sake--even the Republican's nemesis Barney Frank is clearly on record in the Boston Globe stating that his opposition to the administration's Iraq policy has to do with our hampered efforts to stop internationally-sponsored terrorism!
At best, it means that Tom the Prize-winning "journalist" might need to pick up a paper or watch television once in a while.
At worst, it's a straw man that allows all of the Friedmans currently dominating our elite political discourse to disingenuously position themselves as piously above the partisan issues dogging the national effort in Iraq, whilst obscuring the devastating and systemic role they have played in perpetuating that calamity.
SO:
The old saw that says Democrats need to endlessly demonstrate that they take international terrorism seriously by never, ever reacting to shameless Republican incompetence/jingoism with justifiable anger/resolve needs to be debunked every time Friedman and the rest of the discredited Beltway pundit class trot it out for their own purposes.
If the intrepid reporter Friedman needs assurances that the Democrats have a serious plan for countering international terrorism, I guess all he'd have to do would be to talk for 90 minutes with Jim Webb--you know, the guy who rebutted the President's last State of the Union address.
My guess is that the reason he hasn't done so is that he might be confronted with factual discrepancies contradicting the neo-con fantasy to which he still subscribes (that, prompted by US military/economic intervention, the Middle East will soon be transformed by some mystical wave of modern pluralist democracy and inevitably self-correct its Jihadist/terrorist tendencies), and then Tom Friedman might have to admit that he, in fact, cannot be considered serious by anyone in any way with respect to any "credible plan to deal with the very real threat to open societies posed by Islamist terrorism".
This is Friedman's actual "plan" for ending Islamic terrorism in his own words, from a January 2004 article in Slate magazine entitled "Liberal Hawks Reconsider the Iraq War":
http://www.slate.com/id/2093620/entry/2093763/
From Thomas Friedman:
...
"The real reason for this war—which was never stated—was to burst what I would call the "terrorism bubble," which had built up during the 1990s.
This bubble was a dangerous fantasy, believed by way too many people in the Middle East. This bubble said that it was OK to plow airplanes into the World Trade Center, commit suicide in Israeli pizza parlors, praise people who do these things as "martyrs," and donate money to them through religious charities. This bubble had to be burst, and the only way to do it was to go right into the heart of the Arab world and smash something—to let everyone know that we, too, are ready to fight and die to preserve our open society. Yes, I know, it's not very diplomatic—it's not in the rule book—but everyone in the neighborhood got the message: Henceforth, you will be held accountable. Why Iraq, not Saudi Arabia or Pakistan? Because we could—period. Sorry to be so blunt, but, as I also wrote before the war: Some things are true even if George Bush believes them."
...
That a man this wrong still has a job writing opinion for the Times is indicative of many, many things gone awry.
Once again, Tom does more harm than good. By framing the issue in such a fraudulent way, he is able to set himself up to be the voice of reason necessary to calm partisan Republicans and Democrats.
That he happens to advance the Rush/Hannity lie that Maxine Waters and Dennis Kucinich are somehow in charge of Democratic foreign policy platform...eh, oh well. At least he got to come out in favor of bi-partisanship!
Here's an excerpt from the Times Select firewalled piece:
May 16, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist
Failing by Example
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
If you want to know why we are losing in Iraq...
...But this degree of partisanship — loyalty over competence — was destructive in a much bigger way. It also deprived the Bush team of the support it needed when things in Iraq didn’t turn out to be as easy as it expected.
Only a united America could have the patience and fortitude to heal a divided Iraq — and we simply don’t have that today. Why? Because George Bush and Dick Cheney asked everyone to check their politics at the door when it came to Iraq, because victory there was so important — everyone but themselves. They argued that the war in Iraq was the central front of the central struggle of our age — an unusual war, a war against terrorism and the pathologies that produce it — but then they indulged in the most rancid politics as usual at home.
They actually thought they could unite Iraq, while dividing America.
Whenever Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney had a choice between seeking political advantage at home or acting in a bipartisan fashion to buy more unity, time and space to do all the heavy lifting needed in Iraq, they opted for political advantage.
When Franklin Roosevelt fought World War II, he made a conservative Republican, Henry Stimson, his secretary of war and did all he could to hold the country together. The Bush- Cheney team, by contrast, summoned us to D-Day and then treated it like it was just another political wedge issue, whenever it suited them.
It has not worked. As Leon Wieseltier, literary editor of The New Republic, put it: "You cannot govern like Winston Churchill some of the time and like Grover Norquist most of the time."
Democrats need to be careful, though, that they don’t let their rage with the hypocrisy of Mr. Bush make them totally crazy, and blind them to the fact that they — we — still need a credible plan to deal with the very real threat to open societies posed by Islamist terrorism. But I understand that rage. After all, who can ask more soldiers to sacrifice their lives in Iraq for an administration that wouldn’t even sacrifice its politics?