Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Yeah, Tom ("Suck on this") Friedman has come a long way. He originally pushed the Iraq invasion as a means to show Iraq that we're bad-ass tough guys. Now, Friedman has changed his tune--we invaded Iraq to bring 'em Truth, Justice and The American Way.
Friedman, like his fellow neocons, is a chickenhawk douche bag.
Tom Friedman has twisted himself into a pretzel - no far more complex, we have to go into knot mathematics to figure it out - with each phase of anything he sticks his nose in. This man is a fraud, and yet, like Mr Kristol, is given his NYTimes page to pontificate the latest revision of his ever-wrong stances. He is emblematic of the utter corruption - moral, fiscal, social - into which the USA has fallen. Friedman, like the others (including Bush) is evidently shameless and incapable of introspection or self-criticism. To pretend this man is an "intellectual" is the worst fallacy. He is a self-justifying fool.
www.jonjost.wordpress.com
www.jon-jost.com
Glenn,
I'm reminded of something Foucault said shortly before his death along the lines of "allow me the capacity to be human and to change my mind from time to time." I feel that people don't hold this quality to politicians and other public figures, and instead want to treat them like robots that live a life according to a constant and unwaivering personal precedent. That's not fair, and it's certainly not 'human.'
--BUT--
One has to admit, when changing a stance on an issue, how and why he/she was wrong before. This is what does NOT ever happen -- literally never happens -- in American public discourse. I see that as indicative of something much more tragic and, in a way, morose -- that there is something endemic to American culture, something about the majority of our collective and individual attitude(s, that doesn't allow us to openly admit when we are wrong. I see it daily and in all types of conversation; whether on television, in politics, or at the bus stop. It may not be uniquely American, but it's certainly an American quality. And it's the source of much ill, as far as I can tell.
Personally, I try as much as possible to admit when I'm wrong about something.
Seems like an exercise in pluperfectionism - a lot of pointless picking of even more pointless nits.
Surely ... to a Tom Friedman apologist.
For those who abhor the direction our foreign policy has taken over the past 8 years, it's closer to wrapping crime scene tape around an influential mouthpiece of one of the debacles, and posting a large DANGER . WARNING . KEEP OUT sign on Friedman's doorstep.
Seems like a public service to me.
Steven Emerson has an interesting piece, up today on the Daily Beast.
"I'm not debating every deletion with you. "
CENSORS don't have to tell you a fucking thing...
(li'l peeps aren't for shit...)
hee hee hee
"I've given you my views on this already."
CENSORS don't have to explain themselves...
(dissenters are so demanding and unpleasant...)
ho ho ho
"I can't make it any clearer."
CENSORS don't have to clarify every instance of CENSORSHIP...
(they know better than li'l peepers...)
ha ha ha
"Please don't re-post things I've deleted."
CENSORS are nice and civilized...
(loudmouths are mean barbarians...)
ak ak ak
"If I deleted something, I had a reason for doing it."
CENSORS are ever-so-reasonable...
(they are only protecting us...)
oh oh oh
"You don't have to agree with the reason, but re-posting deleted posts just makes me have to go delete them again, wastes my time, and inclines me to just start deleting indiscriminately."
CENSORS are powerful and heroic...
(readers are weak and pathetic...)
wow wow wow
oh, and CENSORS who 'believe' (sic) in fwee speech are NOT hypocrites, either...
naaaaah
naaaaah
neh
naaaaah
naaaaah
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
(CENSORS are the epitome of pwogwessivism...)
A link to Steven Emerson's 12/01/08 piece:
http://www1.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-12-01/theyre-winning/1/
Glenn,
Please keep stories like this to remind the public about the truths of the Iraq war. A sincere thank you.
On another note, this story and your criticisms of Friedman are examples of why Americans should strongly consider revising or amending the Constitution to take the Commander-and-Chief title and powers out of the hands of the executive branch.
http://voxvocisrespublica.blogspot.com/
Thanks again!
There were 2 main reasons that we went to war in Iraq.
First, as the Spanish Ambassador very eloquently explained when announcing that country's support for the war, it was because, when Saddam was told (after his venture into Kuwait) that there would be severe consequences if he did not abide by certain internationaly-mandated requirements, and then failed to abide by them, the UN and the West--if they were to maintain any credibility or maoral authority, had to step in and do what they said they would do.
Secondly, check the newspaper archives from 2002 and 2003. It is quite clear that Saddam--who had and had used WMD in the early 90s, would not allow the weapons inspectors to conduct unhindered searches for WMD. This is why almost every country and politician at the time thought Saddam had WMD. Look it up and see what Bill Clinton and others had to say back then. In short, because there was no way to verify that Saddam did not still have WMD, it was reasonable to believe that he did.
These two reasons were sufficient to support going to war.
The left has been in all-out revisionist mode since then. They have argued--without a shred of evidence or even logic--all sorts of crazy things like Bush went to war to avenge his father; he went to war for oil (whatever that means); he went to war for Haliburton; he knew there were no WMDs but "lied so millions died."
If Iraq becomes a democracy of sorts in the middle east--and there seems to be a pretty good chance it will, Bush's reputation will fare much better down the road than it does now. Especially when the books come out--and they will come out--detailing the reasons for the current economic crisis. In short, the notion that a few rich Republicans were the reason will be shot down and the connection between the Dems and laws and policies allowing people who could not afford a mortgage to take them on. There is much blame to go around but so far only a few have shared in it. That will change.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
