THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN: My mistake: Bush isn't above politics

t is time to ask this question: Do we have any chance of succeeding at regime change in Iraq without regime change here at home?

"Hey, Friedman, why are you bringing politics into this all of a sudden? You're the guy who always said that producing a decent outcome in Iraq was of such overriding importance to the country that it had to be kept above politics."

Yes, that's true. I still believe that. My mistake was thinking that the Bush team believed it, too. I thought the administration would have to do the right things in Iraq -- from prewar planning and putting in enough troops to dismissing the secretary of defense for incompetence -- because surely this was the most important thing for the president and the country. But I was wrong. There is something even more important to the Bush crowd than getting Iraq right, and that's getting re-elected and staying loyal to the conservative base to do so. It has always been more important for the Bush folks to defeat liberals at home than Baathists abroad. That's why they spent more time studying U.S. polls than Iraqi history. That is why, I'll bet, Karl Rove has had more sway over this war than Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Bill Burns. Burns knew only what would play in the Middle East. Rove knew what would play in the Middle West.

I admit, I'm a little slow. Because I tried to think about something as deadly serious as Iraq, and the post-9/11 world, in a nonpartisan fashion -- as Joe Biden, John McCain and Dick Lugar did -- I assumed the Bush officials were doing the same. I was wrong. They were always so slow to change course because confronting their mistakes didn't just involve confronting reality, but their own politics.

Why, in the face of rampant looting in the war's aftermath, which dug us into such a deep and costly hole, wouldn't Donald Rumsfeld put more troops into Iraq? Politics. First of all, Rummy wanted to crush once and for all the Powell doctrine, which says you fight a war like this only with overwhelming force. I know this is hard to believe, but the Pentagon crew hated Colin Powell, and wanted to see him humiliated 10 times more than Saddam Hussein. Second, Rummy wanted to prove to all those U.S. generals whose Army he was intent on downsizing that a small, mobile, high-tech force was all you needed today to take over a country. Third, the White House always knew this was a war of choice -- its choice -- so it made sure average Americans never had to pay any price or bear any burden. Thus, it couldn't call up too many reservists, let alone have a draft. Yes, there was a contradiction between the Bush war on taxes and the Bush war on terrorism. But it was resolved: Bush decided to lower taxes rather than raise troop levels.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/2566514

These sniveling, backpedaling columns from these fucking chicken hawks make my blood boil.

It's pure insanity that anyone even listened to them in the first place when we were screaming our heads off in opposition, but to sit back and listen to them do the whole "Golly Gee, Iraq really IS a quagmire...who woulda thunk it?!!!" is fucking INFURIATING.

It seems like every week one of these worthless warmongering slime writes some column distancing themselves from this failure and making idiotic excuses for the administration.

It's pathetic and sickening. It's really the thing that has been especially pissing me off lately. I just want to grab these assholes by the throat and make them look these dead soldiers in the eyes.

If the conservative writers are distancing themselves from Bush and telling their readers that, yes, the emperor really DOESN'T have any clothes, that's a GOOD thing.

Maybe they're late to the enlightenment, but better late than never, and it's happening in an election year...

And their credibility should be shot. They should be laughed out of their "profession"...they don't know shit....they are worthless whores who will write anything for a dollar and they are trying to slink away from their insane ramblings they have been spewing for the last threee years.

Nice to know that some people on this board are forgiving of these fuckers...I'm not.

...then I'll take a story like this any time.

Pretty soon, every *reasonable* voice is going to depart the Bush camp, leaving them only with the Limbaughs and Hannitys and Coulters.

and ostracized.

That's the fucking alternative. They are all accomplices in this fucking nightmare that was shoved down our collective throats, and they should all be shunned not welcomed.

Here's a good political rule to remember: Only winners get to have an "Enemies List." After we've shown the current administration to the door, then you can shun whoever the hell you want. Until them, welcome any defectors graciously

if you read the article he implies that it's all Karl Rove's fault.

Take help where you can get it. If people have made mistakes and they are repentant, we should let them make amends. David Brock may yet end up saving liberalism by exposing the right wing media scam for what it is, and yet he was not long ago a media whore extraordinare. Obviously some people read and respect Friedman, if he can convince some of his readers that * is harming America then we are all helped.

Friedman was a thoughtful resource immediately after 9/11, but he was still living in a different tower than chimpy. Might have been the same subdivision, but it was a different tower. Unfortunately, he renewed his lease.

I don't have a tower or a column that compells or pays me to make moral pronouncements. I just have a gut feeling that told me from the getgo, this was a false war.

Tom is welcome to board our ark of freedom, but he's going to have to row and lift and tote with the rest of us. There's no caviar here.

I can't accept the idea that they didn't see the wisdom in what were saying before the war or that they bought Bush's lie hook line and sinker.

It's like the rats on a sinking ship. Their jumping and hoping they land in the right place to keep their incomes intact.

Political Bent?

Amazing!

And this asshat still receives a paycheck? Jesus H Christ!

Hire me! I've been right about the whole fucking war! Where are my awards!

Fucking clown ass Friedman.

He sees all the real political reasons behind everything Bush is doing. Why does he see them today and not yesterday?

It does make one real frustrated knowing what we have been going through for the last two years trying to get these pundits to use their brains.

that some large fraction of the public has been supporting this administration because they couldn't bring themselves to believe that they could have been so utterly wrong about something so important.

I guess it's pretty much the Big Lie theory. Big lies work best because most people are very slow to consider the possibility that someone would actually try to get away with a lie that big.

People are slow to realize that BushCo is a bunch of screw-ups, because they couldn't get their heads around the idea that people so incompetent could acquire that much authority and power.

Nobody likes to get stiffed after they've whored their soul to sell your war and enrich all your corporate cronies...

he chose not to see it

I don't usually read Friedman's opEds other than to get a handle on what sort of slant the people I have business dealings with will be carrying this day. I was very surprised to read his broad mea culpa and was especially surprised at its apparent candor and what appeared to be the results of genuine self examination.

Somehow, it appears that others may have read a different opEd.

Every thing that I have ever counted - golf scores, voter registrations, number of 2 x 4s in a house- every list begins with the number ONE.

If Friedman has indeed seen the light, wouldn't he be considered as a pretty big number ONE? My especially slow connection today gave me a lot of time between reading his column, going to this forum, and checking to see if others were as pleasantly surprised at his apparent conversion and confession as I was.

I cannot understand why earlier posters are so upset at this. For me, the list of converts to seeing things more clearly started with a very big ONE today.

only if his columns take on this tone consistently. Far too many write one item that appears to be the "aha!" only to return to writing in glowing terms about the policies of this administration in ways that fly in the face of the reality of said administration.

If he continues to be critical - then I will be pleasantly surprised.

He just said that he doesn't like the way that BushCo is running it.

In this column I don't see a mea culpa or apology or acknowledgement that we were wrong to invade and occupy Iraq - just blame that Bush is doing it all wrong.

This column is part of the broader movement to "dump Bush" (and Rummy and Cheney) so that the Republicans in Congress can save their a$$es. That's what has clearly influenced Friedman. The Republicans are starting to make Chimpy the fall guy for their own failed agenda.

Don't let them get away with it. Winning the White House but strengthening the position of the Republicans in the House and Senate would be winning a battle but not the war for progressives.

We need to hold their feet to the fire. We need to make sure that the stupidity, xenophobia, and greed of with their immoral agenda is revealed to the light of day.

Don't let them get away with blaming it on poor execution.

but if they want to dump *, has anyone floated a viable alternative? Since nearly all repubs have been meek sheep for nearly four years, is there anyone (other than McCain, possibly) who has any national viability who might be so nervy to go against PNAC and the cabal.

These thugs have hijacked the entire country- not just us. It IS good that the republican party is splitting- increasingly visibly- as it shows that even they are beginning to think.

Don't get me wrong. I am still working very hard to get as many anti * voters as possible. I don't see any way they can pull this off if * is not the candidate.

As for Friedman, I was celebrating a crack in his unwavering devotion to *. Does anyone recall any other anti * editorials coming from him? This is a good start.

Well, so far this week I have seen John McCain on the Daily Show and David Letterman and in both instances he looks remarkably like a candidate for public office.

Do you think this is a conspiracy theory of mine or a coincidence?

"...the White House always knew this was a war of choice — its choice — so it made sure that average Americans never had to pay any price or bear any burden..."

He's not quite there yet, but he's getting close. This is a major turnabout from his previous positions. He goes on here:

"...Why did the administration always — rightly — bash Yasir Arafat, but never lift a finger or utter a word to stop Ariel Sharon's massive building of illegal settlements in the West Bank? Because while that might have earned America credibility in the Middle East, it might have cost the Bush campaign Jewish votes in Florida..."

He has always had a problem thinking rationally about the Israeli/Palestinian issue, but again he's moving closer to a realistic view of the US role over the last several years. This is big. If Friedman is saying this stuff, Bush is really in trouble.

Maybe it's safe now for a few more Democrats to come out against the war.

Karl Rove has an office in the White House? The fact that a political operative was brought in sort of tells you something. Could you imagine the furor if Bill Clinton had moved James Carville into the White House?

(OK, except the democratization one, which was a FANTASY...)

Now THAT'S what I call an understatement!

Tommy, you're not just slow, you'r a myopic, weasely, opportunistic, gullible fucking idiotic whore who shares responsibility for the deaths of thousands. And even that's still and understatement.

let's run that again:

"Tommy, you're not just slow, you'r a myopic, weasely, opportunistic, gullible fucking idiotic whore who shares responsibility for the deaths of thousands."

:hi:

agreed with the Bush Administration with the way they were handling things but he was trying to be bipartisan and make the best of a bad situation. Who does not, in their gut, agree that changes needed to be made in Iraq? I don't agree with invading a country but they did it so make the best of it. That is what Friedman has been saying all along.

Friedman admits being a "little slow" -- which is a little bit of an understatement. He's just now realizing the nature of the Bush administration?

And even now, he doesn't quite get it. He sees this debacle being the result of Bush putting politics above doing the "right things" in Iraq -- of shoring up his conservative base to get re-elected.

Sure, that's part of it, but "part of it" is apparently all that Friedman ever sees. You'd think he never heard of PNAC, or read any position papers written by the neoconservatives behind the Bush foreign policy.

Despite the obvious hype and outright lies employed to get this country behind their war, it never dawned on Friedman that maybe nothing good would come of this "preemptive" war. He still makes no mention of the neocon's stated goal of U.S. global hegemony, and if he mentions oil it is in the context of his pathetic recent column in which he argued the Arabs are cursed by oil because it stifled their creativity and entrepreneurial acumen.

He NEVER seems to consider that oil might be a curse because it has attracted imperial domination, or that the Bush cabal might have some ulterior motives other than domestic poltics.

Friedman is either living in his own little fantasy world, or he's been fully aware all along and is finally turning on his neocon pimps because Iraq has reached a tipping point and to do otherwise would destroy the last few shreds of credibility that might still be clinging to some remote crevice of his character.

OK Tommy boy, join the growing chorus who are finally questioning their president. If your scribblings in the opinion page can turn a few votes away from Bush, then you may yet have some small positive effect.

But you've previously carried so much water for this war, don't expect us to drown you in anything but derision.

this is certainly a NEW path for tf to tread just ask DU...

he is now just try'n to cover his tracks because it was NEVER a good idea to INVADE IRAQ.

:hi:

peace

THAT is the essence of DEMOCRACY, the only point of this exercise that had any leg to stand on. And if we want to have oil, or militarty bases in IRAQ, the Iraqis should be the arbitrators!

Because if Thomas L. Friedman is finally waking up and smelling the coffee, the rats are going to start fleeing the ship pretty soon.

Here's what I hate about Friedman, apart from him being a self-deluded warmongering Bush-bootlickin' idiot who can't figure out that you don't liberate a country by conquering it: he is so fucking concerned about his OWN EGO.

Seriously. It seems like every column he's written since the war started to go bad has been all about hand-wringing and soul-searching about whether or not he was right to support the war, usually winding up with some comforting self-justification that allows him to go on believing that this war is doing the opposite of what it's doing.

You just want to grab him and shake him. "Dude! Nobody in Iraq fucking CARES whether you were right or wrong!" I swear it's as if he thinks that the biggest fucking tragedy of this whole tragic situation is that Thomas L. Friedman is losing face. I just cannot imagine what it would be like to have THAT inflated a sense of my own importance.

On the other hand, since my mother apparently waits for him to tell her what her position on the war is from day to day, his abandoning ship will lead to a little more peace and harmony in the Plaidder family.

C ya,

The Plaid Adder

is still so high on the page after a couple days. I don't recall such a careful parsing of an editorial.

When I opened the LTTEs titled "The War and Shattered Illusions", on the Times website this morning, I expected a group of diverse thoughts about Berg and Abu Grhaib. All of the letters are about Friedman's column. They make very interesting reading.

<http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/14/opinion/L14FRIE.html>

by a (relatively!) mainstream and major figure, mentions this country's taboo on discussion of 1. energy conservation and 2. illegal Israeli settlements. There is such a dearth of discussion on these topics, I am heartened to hear that you think people are raising their eyebrows. Andrew Sullivan and Bill Maher also discuss energy conservation sometimes. Why such silence elsewhere? :wtf: :wow: :nuke: :shrug:

Bush has put politics above principle from the time before he was governor of Texas. When did the pundits think he changed? Sept 11, 2001? Yeah, right.

Seriously.

Bill Clinton was so adept at getting foreign intervention right - in Kosovo, Haiti, Bosnia-Herzegovina, etc. - he made the practice not only acceptable, but in many ways, moral.

On the international stage, his greatest failure and most heartfelt apology was for not intervening - in Rwanda. And he built so much political capital that America became trusted by many otherwise sane leaders and commentators (such as Blair and Friedman) to always get things right militarily. As if the actual man holding the Office of President didn't matter.

In this way, Clinton is much like Claudius - the good Emperor who singlehandedly revived Roman's faith in their system of government after the disastrous reign of Caligula. Claudius was followed by Nero, who promptly made an even greater disaster.

Of course, there is a difference between the Roman Empire and the American one. Dubya isn't talented enough to play the violin.

- C.D.

in the last sentence:

"Add it all up, and you see how we got so off track in Iraq, why we are dancing alone in the world -- and why our president, who has a strong moral vision, has no moral influence."



Moral vision? Show any real evidence of a moral vision.

It took me about 3.5 minutes to realize that these bozos were either 1) stupid, 2) evil, 3) possessed by demons 4) somebody else's puppets 5) all of the above.

please go back under whatever rock you came from!