I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
Duck pit. There is nothing else to say.
errr... has Mr Friedman ever heard of the IRA? Or that staggeringly anonymous conflict that went on for 20 years in Northern Ireland? Pathetic...
Goddam limeys... after we pulled their fat out of the fire during WWII! ohwaitaminnit...
Ummmm..... He said they were never through a 9/11. Nowhere does he say that the British never experienced terrorism.
Read more closely next time.
That's all that Friedman does: he maneuvers. One minute he's against the war, the minute he is for the war, the next minute he believes the lead up was hyped, and the minute after that he thinks Saddaam's crimes justify this whole thing. He is the most confused editorialist in decades and I wish he would just shut up.
I once thought I wanted to be a NYTimes columnist.
Oy.
How retrograde of those Brits to demand UN approval before Iraq is bombed to smithereens. What possible motivation could they have for wanting to ensure that the bombing was not a power grab meant to distablize the mid-east and allow the US to run willy nilly wherever they want?
Even so, they lived with the threat of being blown up in the subway or at the airport or on the street every fucking day for years. Excuse me. A great deal of the horror of 9/11 was the realization that we Americans might have to live in constant fear like the British did.
No no no, of course he meant terrorism by BROWN SKINNED PEOPLE! Oh you silly liberals with your revisionist history.
Btw, Lockerbie, Scotland doesn't exist.
Yes, Friedman did say " ...British public had not gone through 9/11...", not that they had never experienced terrorism. Nevertheless, I think Atrios' implied criticism is still valid. The British know all about mass civilian casualties. IRA terrorist attacks are one thing. The London Blitz of WWII is perhaps a bit more analogous, and makes 9/11 pale by comparison.
Plus I am mighty tired of hearing the "wimpy European" meme. Maybe their bad experiences with colonialism and total war have given them a more cautious perspective.
it's also a total non sequitur - that the brits were unwilling to go on an essentially humanitarian mission because Canary Wharf hadn't been blown up.
Silly people-- they just won't go to war when you want them to. Shouldn't they know better? We should just listen to Uncle Tom.
Not to demean anyone here or Atrios for that matter but seriously, does this column mean something? Anything?
It's chickenshit equivocating for lying and deception. It's the parental "this is going to hurt me a lot more than it's going to hurt you" on a national, well, intermational scale.
So much for the oft vaunted but seldom seen "conservative" minimalism.
"But kids, dad just had to lie to you. You would never have taken your medicine otherwise..."
Bah.
Into the duck pit with the lot of them.
We Need Bigger Ducks!
To suggest that the Brits don't know terrorism is just dumb.
It's just been going on so long they're used to it.
Like America will be someday if W continues to ignore Al-Qeada with this Iraq crud.
Free the Guildford Four!
Never experienced terrorism?
What about the decades long IRA bombings?
Friedman is brain-dead; babble on, babble on, babble on. He comes up with his own reality that no one signs on to and keeps working it. I think that he thinks that he is weaving some sort of intellectual, reasoned path between the left and right. He's out there all by himself with no one listening.
Fabulous David E,
WE ARE the bigger ducks.
Makes ya think about "billable hours" in a whole new way, donnit?
Outside of Krugman, Friedman's my favorite columnist at the NY Times. I think his take on Iraq is complicated, yes, and confusing. But that's because the situation is complicated. Yes, Bush and his cronies overhyped the war. Yes, we probably shouldn't be there with the evidence that was given to us. But there's no way in hell that taking out Saddam Hussein was a bad thing. It's a risky gamble, but instilling a more democratic Iraq will help the region in the long run. That is definitely something worth fighting for.
Do I wish we were in Iraq? No. Like I said, it's a risky gamble, one that we weren't prepared for. The burgeoning North Korea threat was way more worrisome during the run-up to war. Bush never entertained a way outside of war to bring about regime change. And the cost! I knew the cost in both human and dollar terms would be higher than Bushit said. Bush was loose with the facts, and didn't communicate a viable and honest justification.
I guess Friedman is trying to keep this in perspective. It's a crappy situation, but also a wonderful opportunity all rolled up in one. After we crucify Bush and get someone decent and responsible in office, then we can work towards that goal.
I griped about the Abrams tank-sized holes in Friedman's logic when he pulled the same crap in a previous column.
He acts like we've taught the entire Arab world some mighty lesson by tying down an enormous chunk of our active military in a quagmire.
And to assume that the current mess ends with a democratic Iraq that will serve as a guiding light for the entire region requires a leap of faith so enormous that Evel Knievel would shake his head and back away.
Contrary to some of the comments here, Friedman was always consistent in his position on the war, and he argued it rationally and persuasively: that it should be fought, and for very specific reasons (which were not the same as those stated publicly by W's coterie). I disagreed with Friedman, but I respected the way he went about it. However, he also seemed incredibily naive to believe that the administration would do the right thing in Iraq after the war, rather than pay mere lip service to democracy.
Goddamn f**king asshole.
However, Adam 4-4-2 finds him surprisingly reasonable and incisive.
I don't give a rat's fuck about Saddam Hussein. 130 plus Americans are dead because of bunch of chickenhawk motherfuckers wanted to play arm chair stragist. Saddam Hussien can spend the rest of his life jerkin' off for all I care. If I were the mother or father or somehow related to one of the dead, I would carry a hatred not known by civilized people for sometime. For all that think it was a good war, and a worthwhile gamble, go fuck yourself. You have fuckin' near as blood on your hands as the piece of shit residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
"I defend empire no matter what the cost. And they pay me for it!"
Well, Iraq makes one hell of a good jumping off point for invading SA, don't it?
Yes. Yes I do. It's my and his opinion. The pitfalls of being a centrist.
I wonder if those that are so dead set against deposing Saddam support intervention in Liberia?
"Yes, what takes me aback here is the degree of European-style anti-Americanism and anti-Bushism in Britain — which Mr. Blair's personal and overt pro-Americanism has disguised."
Especially considering the popularity of the last elected president, and the great wave of sympathy for the United States after September 11--a sympathy squandered by the quacks and clowns installed in the White House and Pentagon.
But then I suppose Friedman gets taken aback more often than the mate of the Good Ship Venus.
Adam 4-4-2...I would be a lot more sanguine if we had accomplished this in Vietnam (though admittedly there is a case for South Korea). However, our ADD attitude toward foreign policy isn't promising.
Melanie...Billable hours. Brilliant.
A friend of mine that has gotten pissed at me a few months ago for saying bad things about Bush has just told me she "has lost respect for that man."
Happy times, they are a'comin'!!
Speaking as a Brit (and a European as well, because Britain is in Europe, both geographically and politically, though Friedman et al tend to forget this) these sort of articles really piss me off with their 'good doggy, do as you're told' attitude towards us and the general 'well, we couldn't tell you the real reasons for the war because you wouldn't support it' line...all wrapped up in a 'anyone who opposed the war is objectively pro-Saddam' shell, of course.
"Mr. Blair knew the real and good reasons for ousting Saddam Hussein: First, he was a genocidal dictator, who aspired to acquire weapons of mass destruction — even if he did not have them yet."
Makes one wonder what Blair knew when his government claimed "45 minutes".
"It's a crappy situation, but also a wonderful opportunity all rolled up in one." -- Adam 4-4-2
I think that statement deserves some kind of award for Pollyanna-esque metaphor mixing.
Although I do have some questions: Is the wonderful opportunity coated in crap? Does the crappy situation have a silver lining? Is the glass half-empty or half-full, and if it's full of crap, which is good and which is bad?
Regarding the Friedman column: Blair seeking advice from his file cabinets reminds me of Nixon strolling the WH corridors talking to the portraits of his successors.
Friedman complains there is "European-style anti-Americanism and anti-Bushism in Britain" while displaying an all too American ignorance of history. His comment about the British suffering no 9/11 is the best example, as others have pointed out (IRA bombs, the Blitz, V-1s and V-2s). He also forgets that they (and other Europeans) are only too familiar of what happens when you try to make people from other cultures you don't understand in far away places jump to your commands.
"Only future historians will be able to sort out this war's ultimate validity. It is too late or too early for the rest of us."
The first sentence in that passage was probably used by Rod Serling in about a dozen "Twilight Zone" episodes. As for the second, aside from the hackneyed banality, what really strikes me is that it is completely meaningless.
God, what a pompous horse's ass he is.
I think 9/11 revealed Americans as the wimps rather than the British. Look at what the American people let itself get buffaloed into as a result- the saving powers of bluster, bravado, picking on third parties, and mindless childishness. Don't even try to tell me the Manichaeanism and haughty supremacy that followed, and which Friedman subscribes to (he admits to it), is moral or courage, let alone moral courage.
I wonder if those that are so dead set against deposing Saddam support intervention in Liberia?
Not this one "dead set against deposing Saddam". At least, not militarily. Color me non-violent.
How a man who's so full of shit he can't sit down unless an engineer does a perc test where he's planning to sit first manages to keep getting published in the Times is beyond me...
Is there nobody in the columnist equivalent of Triple-A ball down in Columbus or Pawtucket the Times can bring up?
Atrios must get a kick out of watching you little droogies jump on the red meat and call Friedman an idiot based on a lie. And the religious right thought their audience was easy to command 
"And second, removing Saddam and building a more decent Iraq would help tilt the Middle East onto a more progressive political track and send a message to all the neighboring regimes that Western governments were not going to just sit back and let them incubate suicide bombers and religious totalitarians, whose fanaticism threatened all open societies."
The underlying assumption in his second primary motivation is the assumption that Saddam's regime was "incubating suicide bombers and religious totalitarians".
- Saddam did not incubate suicide bombers as far as I've seen - he did 'donate' a decent chunk of money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, but this was another craven attempt to insinuiate himself into the good graces of the Arab (and particularly Palestinian) public.
The suicide vests found during the invasion are certainly proof that there was some idea of using suicide attacks in a regimented fashion, but these atacks never materialized, and the disorganized suicide attacks that did were very much expected in any US invasion of an Arab country.
- Saddam "served" the interests of the US in the second statement, because of his cruel oppression of the religious opposition. In a true democracy, it's likely the Shi'ite majority will elect the formerly oppressed religious fanatacists to office.
I have a love/hate relationship with Friedman. I saw him at St. Mike's College in Winooski, VT, last summer after reading his "Lexus and the Olive Tree", and found him quite engaging and thoughtful. I think anti-globalization folks are a bit naive, but Tommy's POV is equally naive IMNSHO. Dunno if anybody else will think this funny, but last year TAP had a funny parody called The Datsun and the Shoe Tree which I found hysterical. Your mileage may vary. Heh.
And the Brits survived the Blitz, when Hitler (the REAL Hitler, not the comic-opera Hitler we are thisclosetocatching) bombed the shit out of London. So I think they know something about threats from dictators.
Bush defenders will grasp at any straw that presents itself, won't they?
At least we have identified one of the 50% of Americans who believe Iraq participated in 9-11. Friedman thinks the rest of us and most of the English are "morans."
Matthew - real horrorshow. For some reason I feel an urge to listen to a bit of the old Ludwig Van...
>But there's no way in hell that taking out Saddam Hussein was a bad thing.
Sorry, but this is a very dumb thing to say given that we don't know what the outcome is going to be in Iraq. That country and the region might yet be WORSE off than if we left Saddam in power.
Friedman is an obnoxious blowhard. He vascillates, wallows in duplicity, and just flat out lies, and then passes it off as being "measured" and "centrist" (and people like Adam eat it up).
He's an apologist for global corporate rule, Israeli brutality, and most recently, U.S. empire building. It's not "centrist" -- it's called "establishment." Nothing "reasoned" about it. He knows on which side his bread is buttered.
The Brits lost over 200 nationals when the towers collapsed. Can't remember exact number, but was large. As did other countries who had brokerage representatives in those buildings.
Regardless, the Brits know terror. Ask any who lived through the blitz. They know terror far better than we do, 9/11 notwithstanding.
Hey, who are you calling morans? Put down the bong and watch TV!
As for Liberia, I will point out that Taylor himself seems to think America should intervene.
And for all you Clockwork fans, I'm producing a killer stage production that goes up this fall here in LA. Please, come to the show.
has Tom Friedman ever served in the armed forces?
so far as I know Mark Sheilds is the only pundit to have worn our country's uniform. (Here I exclude Dave Broder and the rest of the WWII generation, who nearly all served.)
The difference between Iraq and Liberia is that Charles Taylor actually is connected to Al-Qaeda.
I guess all those IRA bombs going off alll over Britain a while back were Halloween firecrackers.
What a moron. All the more hilarious cause there's idiots out there that take this smarmy cretin seriously.
Safire lite, a Sharon apologist for the Oprah crowd.
bigger ducks are geese and they are far far far MEANER.
GOOSE PIT!
I wonder if those that are so dead set against deposing Saddam support intervention in Liberia?
To answer your question, no, some of us don't.
The war in Iraq could not have been about "deposing Saddam" than invading and occupying the country and giving away contracts to American companies - we don't even know if he's alive or dead, and if alive, where in hell he is right now.
Looks like there's no rush to find out, either.
What a racket.
As of last reporting 250 american soldiers have died in Iraq. They are dying one to two per day, every day, with no end in near sight.
What a "wonderful opportunity" my ass.
Eeech. Tom Friedman, - I too, have a love/hate relationship with him but lately it's turned more to hate. WHAT a load of horsepuckey this is.
The trouble is, trying to get out what we know beyond the Blog/Internet world. Howard Dean has had some success at it, but the rest of us? The media is bought and paid for, and Greg Palast, the most superb investigative reporter ever to come down the pike, can't work in this country because of it---- or well, he can, but why would he want to?
The problem is, Tom Friedman is the guy who's read in the local newspaper - and he sounds REASONABLE - and BELIEVABLE - because he says just enough bad things about the current wack job administration to make himself sound non-partisan.
It's disgusting.
"The difference between Iraq and Liberia is that Charles Taylor actually is connected to Al-Qaeda."
And also that action there is sanctioned by the UN. Unlike in Iraq.
As for not knowing Terrorism, well we may not have suffered a 9/11 in purely identical terms... no planes have been smacked into Canary Wharf. However, we DO know that sending troops to Northern Ireland to combat terrorism simply DOESN'T WORK. Hence the Peace Process, finally... after 30 years, and just over 3,000 dead.
And of course, we also know that massacring those brown skinned chappies, replacing their rulers with people we like, or simply ruling them ourselves didn't defeat terrorism (or independence movements) either. Lessons of empire, old boy. Nothing to do with being soft on Johnny Foriegner. Like most other European nations, we've given everyone everywhere a slapping at some point or another. The British Empire covered a quarter of the globe at one point... yet we still have terrorism. Odd isn't it, wouldn't you say Jeeves? 'Indoubitably sir.' Perhaps there's lessons to be learnt from History, what? 'I couldn't agree more, sir'
Having said all that... Some of us Brits keep making the same mistake over and over though, it's fair to say. That Blair bounder is trying to put God back into government it seems;
"The Observer can reveal that Blair is to allow Christian organisations and other 'faith groups' a central role in policy-making in a decisive break with British traditions that religion and government should not mix."
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/
p...1011460,00.html
Well, I suppose he does already believe in the Divine Right of Kings, I mean Prime Ministers...
Liberia needs intervention because people are dying while Bush makes up his fucking mind. In Iraq, people didn't die until Bush invaded. It is that simple. Bush seems to like death, that is for sure.
"Unless real W.M.D.'s are found in Iraq ..."
What does an unreal WMD look like?
The difference between Iraq and Liberia is that Charles Taylor actually is connected to Pat Robertson.
Has Chucky T joined Pat's pray-a-thon for God to off three Supreme Court justices? Or is he too busy praying that Pat will offer him amnesty at the 700 Club?
Friedman sometimes forgets to think. I imagine this column was written on a red-eye flight back home from one of his speaking engagements.
I understand his point, but his premise is completely illogical. Pseudo-intellectualism at its finest.
"What does an unreal WMD look like?"
A gas centrifuge buried at a residence for 10 years? Two trucks?
Although I suppose the unreal part is more the claim that they represent WMDs....
What does an unreal WMD look like?
Town Drunk - a deathray?
I, of course, know nothing about terrorism (apart from the fact the Bishopsgate bomb exploded about 200 yards from where I worked) because if I did, I'd support the war wouldn't I?
Why, Mr Friedman, which way is the sky? "Down!". And the colour of this lump of coal? "White!"
Has idiot Friedman ever considered that UK has not had a 9/11 because they are more skilled and able to deter that kind of action. 9/11 happened due to intelligence admistrative wrangling over policy and priorities between the CIA and FBI. The Bush administration had other more important things to do other than track terrorist cells.
I think Friendman steppen on his own pecker not seeing that British intel is more competent in this area due to their IRA experiences. Geesh Tom.... get a clue.
Friedman's position is very close to the neoconservatives.
He supports the neocon remaking of the Middle East, despite his criticisms of how the plan has been executed.
He also seems to have little respect for public opinion and comes close to endorsing the Administration's use of deception.
Are these people Americans or Israelis?
"Because the British public had not gone through 9/11"
Turn that around...
Because the American public had not gone through a Middle Eastern quagmire...
The British have, in Aden and Iraq and Palestine. They may have learned their lessons about nation building in the Arab world.
If you read Friedman's earlier columns, in which he expounded his theory of the US bringing the pixie dust of democracy to Iraq, from which it would magically spread to the rest of the Arab countries, you would logically expect that by now he would be there on his book tour, discussing deep thoughts at the local cafes & literary salons.
To Friedmans credit, he did go to Iraq after the takeover, and from what I could glean, never left his military escort, just did well-protected drop=bys. His column in the Times subsequently was about the wonders of Google....go figure.
Now, he's still sitting pretty, as he can just blame the SNAFU on the poorly thought out follow up on occupation.
Others, who are REAL experts in the region, have written or said, finally, that the notion of bringing democracy to the Middle East on the point of a bayonet, is just "goofy."
Ya gotta admire the guy -- if it works he wins, and if it doesn't he wins by blaming the execution of his plan. The sad thing is that in these times, he's considered a respectable source.
Happy times, they are a'comin'!!-Adam 4-4-2
Adam, you sound like a Lieberman supporter to me and if that's the case this is about as good as it's going to get for you, enjoy.
Yes the British have lived with terrorism for years, and they also terrorized Ireland for years, just the way the US has terrorized Iraq.
I don't think too much of the British, to be honest. In some ways they make the most natural ally for Bush in this madness.
"Mr. Blair knew the real and good reasons for ousting Saddam Hussein: First, he was a genocidal dictator.."
So was Pinochet
"Augusto Pinochet, the former Chilean dictator, was allowed to escape extradition to Spain on 2 March last year because of plans worked out over many months by Tony Blair and Foreign Secretary Robin Cook in collaboration with Eduardo Frei, then President of Chile, according to leading Chilean sources. José María Aznar, the conservative Prime Minister of Spain and his Foreign Minister Abel Matutes, were involved in the planning. "
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/
P...4113538,00.html
Remember him??
a
The problem with Friedman's column is that the American people weren't willing to go to war with Iraq for purely humanitarian reasons either.
Hence the hyping of WMD and Al Queda connections which were done as much for the benefit of the US public as the British.
WillieStyle - Americans weren't even given the option of going to war for humanitarian reasons, because they didn't arise until WMD weren't found. They came along rather late in the game, near the end of a string of ex post facto reasons for a pre-emptive war.
Aria - Pino-who? You don't mean that sweet, dottering old man, best of buddies with Kissinger and Poppy's CIA, do you?
pre-emptive war
It was *preventive*. Preventive (or as some people say "preventative"), not pre-emptive.
Of course, I can't find any average American who knows the diff, so why should I care? Sigh.
Alex wrote:
"In Iraq, people didn't die until Bush invaded."
I don't think you quite meant what you wrote, did you?
NTodd - what's the difference between pre-emptive war, in which you pre-empt another's attack, and thus prevent it, and a preventive war?
"In Iraq, people didn't die until Bush invaded."
I don't think you quite meant what you wrote, did you?
Perhaps he meant, "In Iraq, people didn't die from US guns and bombs until Bush invaded."
Which also isn't true, given that we never really stopped bombing Iraq since Gulf War 1.
Nope... I'm pulling for Kerry or Dean. Even Edwards seems intriguing. Lieberman's too much of a Republicrat to me, although he's way better than Bush still.
Graham's boring. Braun... I'd rather she be my senator. Sharpton is way out there, though he's amusing (in a good way!). Kucinich is too liberal, but I admire him. He seems honest. Gephardt. He's a perennial loser and prone to rolling over for Republicans. There... didn't leave anyone out.
I'm sorry I have these conservative ideas on foreign policy, but we can't roll over and play dead for our enemies. That's a folly we cannot fall into. The Middle East probably needed a bit of a wake-up call. They're going to hate us anyway. They indoctrinate their children to hate American and the West. No small part of their hate is from our actions, of course. But, no small part of it is the corruption and authoritarianism that's rampant in the region. And you're right, "nation-building" in Iraq has a small chance of succeeding. But, if we play our cards right, get Bush outta here (main prerequisite), we do have a chance. The left has an opportunity to turn this into a victory.
We need to sever ties with Saudi Arabia, instead of being chummy with them. Uhhh... duhr?! We're financing Saudi terrorists? Indirectly, yes, but the fact remains.
A hands-off approach will do with Iran, instead of hard-liners wanting to induce a regime change. A home-grown democracy movement in Iran might help or be helped by a burgeoning democracy in Iraq. At the same time, however, we must prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear bomb.
Yes, all of this might seem slightly wacko. These might not be the right answers. But like it or not, we're in Iraq for the long haul, baby. We cannot waver. Instead of focusing on the problem, focus on the solution.
Friedman's position is deeply racist, he essentially thinks we need to teach the brown people a lesson.
WillieStyle - Americans weren't even given the option of going to war for humanitarian reasons, because they didn't arise until WMD weren't found. They came along rather late in the game, near the end of a string of ex post facto reasons for a pre-emptive war.
Exactly right, Tena. That's Bush's biggest deception, lie, mistake, whatever in hyping the war. He was geared up so much for war, that he couldn't trust Americans with honest reasons. Why was he gearing up so much? *cough cough Cheney cough Halliburton cough cough oil*
FWIW, I just sent a letter to the editor:
By saying that Tony Blair's current problems arose '[b]ecause the British public had not gone through 9/11 and did not really feel threatened', Thomas Friedman exposes the flaws of his argument. The British people had experienced IRA terrorism at their doorsteps for three decades, and seen how hard negotiation, led by Blair and President Clinton, helped diminish that threat. As for the impact of mass civilian casualties, while Blair is too young to remember the Blitz, his father's generation certainly does. Perhaps the British opposition to the war is, in fact, an indication that the populace has more experience upon which to draw when measuring the real threat of both terrorism and dictatorships?
NTodd
exactly!
Oh the irony! Blair's gov is busy demonising Saddam while a couple of years back they offered monster-Pinochet first class hospitality in Britain....on (wait for it) humanitarian grounds.
a
Friedman says, "...the British public never would have gone to war for the good reasons alone. Why not? Because the British public had not gone through 9/11 and did not really feel threatened."
Whereas many Americans were traumatized by 9/11 and their guts went into fight or flight mode, overriding their higher brain functions. So therefore it didn't matter to many that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Judging by this and other columns, Friedman doesn't seem to grasp this lack of connection between Iraq and 9/11. He's sort of like Bush in that he'll sometimes acknowledge that there's no link there, but then he'll go on to spin arguments that imply or assume that there actually is a connection.
Friedman's a moron. I never used to read his columns, but everything I've seen him write about Iraq is just stunning in its lack of factual basis. He wrote a column a while back positing a "terrorism bubble", which he argued necessitated an invasion of Iraq. Again with the 9/11 - Iraq theme. What the fuck is a "terrorism bubble"? Is that what happens when Osama farts in the bathtub? I don't know. Friedman's an idiot.
"Are these people Americans or Israelis?"
neither. they are rent boys for the American Enterprise Institute,
BIGGER DUCKS!
MORE BILLABLE HOURS!
IF IT WEREN'T FOR TEH SCLM TEH MORONIC BROWNSHIRT RETHUGLICANS LIKE FREEDMAN WOULD GET KILLED IN TEH DUCK PIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111
KILLIN PPL IN TEH DUCKS PIT IS WHERE ITS AT!!!!!!!!!!!1111
Friedman... Friedman...
How far over the edge are we as a society when someone can publish an op ed in the NY Times whose premise is, yes, the president distorted the evidence to provoke an unnecessary war, but it's the people who have a problem with this who are immoral?
Moral clarity, my left nut.
NTodd - what's the difference between pre-emptive war, in which you pre-empt another's attack, and thus prevent it, and a preventive war?
Well I'm not NTodd, but I remember from some of the debates before the war, that a pre-emptive war is intended as a response to an actual imminent attack before its otherwise certain commission, whereas preventive war is undertaken to prevent a potential future threat--the 'gathering storm' argument. BushCo chose to argue the former but is now trying to get by with the latter. I don't know the legalities, but it's not empty semantics, there is some policy precedent. FWIW.
People, people- Friedman is tying 9/11 to Saddam. But Friedman knows there isn't any connection.
Friedman is helping Bush spread a lie.
No one in this thread has mentioned this little gem yet, so I will:
So what Mr. Blair (and Mr. Bush) did was to make a war of choice — but a good choice — into a war of necessity. Because people in democracies don't like to fight wars of choice.
duh? Once upon a time, wasn't it the bad guys who fought "wars of choice"? Like, say, Hitler invading Poland, Saddam invading Kuwait, ...
Can it now be said, once and for all, that Tom Friedman is objectively insane?
Aria- Thanks for not letting the Pinochet "incident' go down the memory-hole.
Tom Friedman is objectively insane. And so is anyone who agrees with him.
I wonder if those that are so dead set against deposing Saddam support intervention in Liberia?
I wonder if those who are so convinced that turning Iraq into an American colony was such a moral imperative even realize what is going on the Congo right fucking now?
Quack.
Will history remember Friedman as an apologist for slimeballs who lied to bypass rightful civilian control?
It's too soon to tell and we really shouldn't speculate, because that would be unhelpf---
Aw fuck it, Friedman has left his apologist role far behind and is now the nation's Bootlicker Laureate.
(I should read all the posts ahead of me before I post.) dm, that is a great point to make, and there is at least one other aspect to Friedman's statement that comes off with a bad smell...So, apparently its o.k. to turn a war of choice into a war of necessity (by lying) because, well, the end justifies the means. Besides, we needed to burst the terrorism bubble.
I think that this bad smell is what is causing Bush's and Blair's poll numbers to fall. (And, by the way, yes, he is insane, 9-11 pushed him straight off of his rocker.)
That should have read:
... lied to bypass rightful civilian control of the miliary?
I'm sorry I have these conservative ideas on foreign policy, but we can't roll over and play dead for our enemies. That's a folly we cannot fall into. The Middle East probably needed a bit of a wake-up call. They're going to hate us anyway. -Adam 4-4-2
You need a wake-up call, you've been indoctrinated and you can thank the likes of Tom Freidman keeping you stupid, ignorant and on the whole quite pleased with yourself, you amoral little prick.
From Friedman's article
Alas, Mr. Blair never really made this case to his public. Why not? Because the British public never would have gone to war for the good reasons alone. Why not? Because the British public had not gone through 9/11 and did not really feel threatened, because it demanded a U.N. legal cover for any war and because it didn't like or trust George Bush.
When I read the above section, I feel like you could substitute "the anti-war Left" for "the British public" and it would still be correct. I'm not questioning anyone's patriotism or love for their fellow Americans, and I'm not saying the anti-war Left didn't suffer along with the rest of America when the towers fell. I simply mean the anti-war Left seems so different from me that I can't even begin to understand their motivations, beliefs or responses to the events of 9/11.
I don't understand how continuing with the status quo of our pre-9/11 foreign policy was going to do anything to address future terrorism. I have not yet heard any alternatives from the anti-war Left, since 9/11, that seemed like they had any hope of making this country safer. I haven't heard the strategy the anti-war Left would employ that sounded as if it would reduce the likelihood we would get attacked again. For those who choose to blame Bush for everything, let's remember that the plan for September 11th was created during the Clinton years. I'm not blaming Clinton for 9/11. I'm just saying you can't say continuing with the Clinton foreign policy would have prevented 9/11, nor would it prevent future attacks.
The reason the Brits never experienced brown-skinned terrorism is because they were too busy committing it themselves.
The sun never set on the British empire.
That is, unless you were an Arab or an Indian living in your own lands under a British flag.
I'm sure Ghandi never called them terrorists, but he terrorized them with shame. What a guy!
MYOB'
.
I'm not blaming Clinton for 9/11. I'm just saying you can't say continuing with the Clinton foreign policy would have prevented 9/11, nor would it prevent future attacks.
Eric, who here said it would?
I am glad you are not blaming Clinton, because for the record, there is simply no way of knowing whether or not 911 would have happened under another president - that is an "unknowable".
But the fact remains that it did occur during Bush's presidency.
Further, please show us the evidence that Bush's "foreign policy" slapstick act has made the US any safer since 911. A head start: you can't; there isn't any.
I disagree with Adam 4-4-2, but also disagree with insulting him. His position is not indefensible.
Erik C.
You want a solution from someone from the anti-war left. How about this one, why don't we try killing uh..you know, our enemies? Remember Al Queda? Remember Bin Laden? Do you remember the nationalities of the hijackers who crashed the planes into our buildings? That would be 15 Saudi Arabians and 4 Egyptians. That would also be not 1 fuckin' Iraqi. So now I have a question. Why are you so mystified by the thinking of the anti-war left when you are apparently not so mystified by the thinking of the Bush administration? I personally hate everything that Al Queda stands for, so can you see why many on the left are suspicious of Bush when he ties up so much blood and treasure in this useless occupation, (I won't even refer to it as a war.) Its not because he didn't prevent 9-11, Its because of what he did (or did not do) after 9-11. As for what happened before 9-11, you will find as many on the right blaming Clinton as on the left blaming Bush.
Erik, is there something Europeans have found out, then it is that violence doesn't stop terrorism.
Countries like England, Italy, Spain and France have all experienced terrorism within the last 10 years, and while the Goverments in those countries are harsh against the actual terrorists and their organizations, they try to ensure that the gounds for terrorism are removed. For Italy it is a little complicated though, as the terrorists are crimminal organizations.
While 9/11 was pretty unique in scale (one might argue that the Russian apartment buildings that were blown up were comparable), most European countries have experienced much more terrorism than USA, even in recent years.
This is one thing that pisses me off: some US right-wingers tend to insinuate that Europeans are soft on terrorists because they have never experienced terrorism.
Bull-shit.
Even my home-country Denmark, have had terrorist attacks. Heck I've lived less than 300m (or 1000 feet) from places that have been bombed (when they were bombed).
Europeans are not soft on terrorists.
But there is no real evidence of any link between Saddam Hussein and any terrorist organizations.
I disagree with Adam 4-4-2, but also disagree with insulting him. His position is not indefensible
OK Thersites do you want to defend his position? I consider his position to be beyond an insult. It's looks like a rationalization for genocide to me. I'll agree not to insult you in the conventional sense. Let's hear it.
Erik(conservative)
All right, I'll bite.
First, I think that seen in the cold light of day, 9/11 was not a turning point and should not be seen as such. Why? Because we knew AQ was trouble before that--they had attacked the WTC before. Anyone who thought differently about them, or who was naive enough to think that we wouldn't be attacked in the future by some lunatic fringe group with an imaginary grievance, was misguided. I have to say, there is not a great deal of practical ideological differnce between a McVeigh and an Atta, except that one of them was able to figure out how to exploit a particular weakness to cause more deaths. McVeigh would have flown a plane into the Pentagon, if he'd have thought of it. The key point is, that we face no more serious long-term threats than we do from our home grown maniacs (ever read the Turner Diaries?) than from radical Islam. The elements from either with the capacity, willingness, and resources to harm us, however, are relatively minimal. I find the typical comparisons between the Cold War and the current situation idiotic. Our opponent in the former had nukes. Our opponent in the latter has box cutters. 9/11 was the Hail Mary pass that got through. The casus belli for a clash of cultures? No. The reason for a tighter security apparatus and better international police and intelligence coordination? Yes.
What is the nature of the threat we face? It's actually more in line with the threat we face from international gangsters than from a new Red Menace. What we need is a better coordinated international police agency; more specialists in local issues with linguistic expertise (something sorely lacking) giving us better information; much better coordination & cooperation between nations on intelligence issues; a willingness to put security over diplomatic convenience (see Saudi Arabia); and a better utilization of the goodwill we received after 9/11 to help us run a decent international police operation.
I have to say, it's a little messed up, BTW to expect a good answer to the question of what will prevent another 9/11 before we get the full & unabridged explanation of what went wrong before 9/11.
Incidentally, if we'd attacked Iraq in 99, I don't see how that would have stopped 9/11... Neither do I see how the Iraqi adventure makes us better secured from the depradations of wealthy, disaffected, crazy, fanatical, spoiled Saudi zealots.
When I read the above section, I feel like you could substitute "the anti-war Left" for "the British public" and it would still be correct. I'm not questioning anyone's patriotism or love for their fellow Americans, and I'm not saying the anti-war Left didn't suffer along with the rest of America when the towers fell. I simply mean the anti-war Left seems so different from me that I can't even begin to understand their motivations, beliefs or responses to the events of 9/11.
The problem with this argument is that there is no evidence Iraq was involved in 9/11.
Why are we even discussing 9/11 with regard to the invasion? I know why Friedman brought it up: because he's a willing tool.
But we hardly need to perpetuate the amazing stupidity he's built his argument on.
Whether a population had experienced its own 9/11 or not is only relevant to the Iraq problem, if one bothers to point out that the attacks on our country were cynically manipulated by the most corrupt White House since Nixon.
Security Grandmother,
His position is reasonable, to me, insofar as Bush needs to be defeated in the next election; all those who agree with this exigency should refrain from tearing each other down. It's too important this time.
The remainder of the defence I'll leave to himself, if he chooses to take it up.
Adam: ever hear of the Blitz?
The problem with Friedman's argument even at its literal level is that it's bullshit. The notion that Brits (or the French, or the Swedes or the Russians) didn't ``get'' the meaning of 9/11 or lacked empathy with it is absolute nonsense, utterly unsupportable. There was overwhelming sympathy for the U.S. after the attacks. The problem with Krugman and all the true believers in this pie-in-the-sky scenario for a kinder, gentler Middle East post-Saddam is that it ignores the root cause of the deep hatred of the U.S. in the first place. That isn't going to go away because we destroy Saddam for ``good reasons.'' Unless you come out the other side of a momentous action like a first-strike war with solid worldwide support you can count on things getting worse, not better. The U.S. efforts at ``diplomacy,'' trying to line up support before the war were hollow and arrogant, this country indulging its very worst tendencies.
It is now rivetingly clear that Saddam did NOT have WMDs and at best was years away from attaining them. BUT, because the U.S. and British were complicit in subordinating the so-called ``good reasons'' for going to war they're stuck with justifying the bullshit they didn't think they'd have to justify because their fantasy scenario hasn't worked out.
And Krugman is stuck in the same goo.
it's also a total non sequitur - that the brits were unwilling to go on an essentially humanitarian mission because Canary Wharf hadn't been blown up.
Atrios
again since since 1996?
Thersites, the problems we are dealing with now are bigger than Bush. Without a doubt the Bush administration has raised the stakes and sped up the process but they did not create our dilemma from scratch. If we are to have a sane relationship with the rest of the world we've got to give much more consideration to foreign policy and we need accurate analysis of real conditions around the world.
It's not enough to decry unilateralism and militarism, we've got to build consensus for a viable alternative and I'm not talking about isolationism or pacifism. We have to demand that candidates talk about this, we have to demand reporting and analysis that's more than a hollow shell consisting of a few facts, stuffed with ideology. The pressure to continue business as usual in the political arena is relentless. The forces driving our current model are a nearly autonomous grid of interlocking incentives and interests that will continue to produce hells on earth.
We know this is not inevitable. We know that democracy, when fully operational, distributes power to prevent the interests of the few from trampling the interests the many. The narrowing of information concerning our relationship with the world leaves us ripe for exploitation and manipulation. I happen to have a low tolerance for regurgitated, predigested foreign policy bullshit spewed forth by smug, privileged members of the current ruling class who don't want to rock the boat too much, so pardon my dust.
Don't worry about Tony, he has a faith-based plan to make everything better.
How I wish today were April 1.
Ack!
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/
b...1011478,00.html
Fucking Haloscan.
again since 1996?
Well sac666, You have to ask yourself what the RealIRA have been doing since 1996?
Omagh comes to mind 1998. (Which in proportion to populations killed more people than the percentage death toll of NY.)
There was also the BBC Bombing of last year.
There have also been the numerous discoveries of Militant 'Islamic' terror cells and plots.
It doesn't matter when these attacks took place because here in Britain we have faced on going terrorism since the 1960s. So we are used to it.
I guess we also figured since there was no Iraqi link to 9/11 and we know what colonialism entails. The majority of the population where instictively against war. After all if you argue for war on humanitarian grounds there are a couple of leaders who should have been taken out on greater humanitarian ground before Saddam.
sac,
I meant successfully blown up.
GeorgeG - your contrast between pre-emptive and preventive was just what I would've said. Thanks.
The import of that is pre-emptive war is considered a legitimate form of self-defense, such as when Israel saw Arab armies getting ready to attack before the Six Day War (I'm not going to argue about whether this was actually true or not, just an example). Most people agree that this would still be considered defensive warfare under Article 51 of the UN Charter. Attacking France because some day they might not be our ally and could possibly be a threat to us in the future would be an example of preventive war. This amounts to aggressive warfare and has been condemned by the community of nations.
Alas, Mr. Blair never really made this case to his public. Why not? Because the British public never would have gone to war for the good reasons alone...
When I read the above section, I feel like you could substitute "the anti-war Left" for "the British public" and it would still be correct.
I feel you could substitute "the American public". Let me direct you to Failed States and Casualty Phobia, a paper I blogged about a few weeks ago (I'm just linking directly to the paper). It says one reason we conduct war the way we do today is due to casualty aversion, which:
has been especially pronounced with respect to intervention in small wars, because such wars rarely involve direct threats to manifestly vital U.S.interests. Intervention is usually conducted in the general interest of global order and stability
and often involves politically messy military enforcement of “peace” on those who have no vested interest in it. As such, public tolerance for such interventions and their potential for casualties is dramatically lower...than for war on
behalf of “real” interests.
“What is crucial for maintaining public support is not [the incursion of] casualties per se, but casualties in an inconclusive war, casualties that the public sees as being suffered indefinitely, for no clear, good, or achievable purpose.”
The contingent nature of the public’s casualty tolerance, heavily influenced by presidential leadership in mobilizing public opinion, is supported by study after study...
Polls before Bush started his war marketing campaign in earnest showed Americans were reluctant to invade, certainly not without the UN. But BushCo kept up their deceptive tactics, tying Saddam to AQ and implicitly to 9/11, creating a sense of imminent threat, and people bought into the idea.
Further, does anybody recall how dodgy BushCo was regarding expected costs, casualties and length of occupation? We never got direct answers about any of that, not even right before the war. It was always presented as a "cake walk" and we would be in Iraq for just a few months and then the Iraqis would govern themselves, and therefore this wouldn't be a long and costly (in blood or treasure) war. Why? Precisely decause of those 2 quoted grafs above.
And why the focus on WMD? Because according to polling data:
the “mass public says that it will accept casualties” in such scenarios as...stopping Iraq from acquiring weapons of mass destruction.
Even after 9/11, Iraq was a hard sell because it has nothing to do with the war on terror. But BushCo wanted the war and sold it to us, not based on the "good" reasons (which I think are not good, but that's another thread) but based on a thus far unproven imminent threat.
I'm sorry I have these conservative ideas on foreign policy, but we can't roll over and play dead for our enemies. That's a folly we cannot fall into. The Middle East probably needed a bit of a wake-up call. They're going to hate us anyway. -Adam 4-4-2
Adam, the trouble is that the grand plan has to be accomplished and funded by an American public that doesn't buy it and won't let the politicians stick with it even as long as Vietnam. The Middle East has to be "transformed" in like 5 years, right? And people who have come to hate Israel for good reason have to make some kind of intellectual decision to put aside that hatred not because they are wrong but because its "in their best interest."
Having had a few close brushes with IRA terrorism (financed by Americans - thanks for that) this article makes me v f**king angry. When we were getting attacked by the IRA, were we dropping daisy cutters on innocent people in Ulster. No we weren't.
Us British know that marching into other countries and installing your army where they're not wanted can be a huge mistake. Looks like some of you Americans are about to find this out.
Oh and why wasn't the humanitarian case put forward for the war? The reason is because it would have been hugely embarassing for the British and American governments.
Journalist: "So Mr Bush, since you're now fighting a humanitarian war in Iraq does this mean you'll now withdraw funding from Saudi, Turkey, Uzbekistan and any other countries that abuse human rights?"
GWB: "Errrr. Ummm. I know Saddam Hussein is a bad man."
Barkingstars:
I'm not too keen on Americans funding the IRA, either, especially when the IRA deliberately targets obviously non-military, non-police targets.
When you say "Us British know that marching into other countries and installing your army where they're not wanted can be a huge mistake", though, are you saying that you recognize that British dominion over Northern Ireland is a mistake?
From the Telegraph (registration required) this is an ABSOLUTE must-read on the future of the Iraqi occupation by Edward Luttwak of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opini...3/
ixportal.html
It's the second item in the Opinion section. Time's like this make me wish I had my own blog. That article would be a week's worth of entries.
But Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and Bush felt the need to use the same lies to convince Americans to go to war.
Northern Ireland is somewhere between 55% and 2/3 Protestant. They want the British Army there. Nobody I knew in my 20 years in the UK wanted to be there. Why would they? Have you been to Belfast?
Recall Giuliani's comment on receiving his knighthood that the British people had gone through a 9/11 day after day for years.
Maybe the British were smart enough to know that waging war is not an effective means of making people like you or accept your values. This was the first war to have been fought to make people love you.
ratty - thanks for the link. Speaking of the CSIS, I blogged on Thursday about a recent report of theirs called IRAQ AND CONFLICT TERMINATION, which is enlightening as well.
Secularhuman: You began talking about Friedman yet ended up citing Krugman twice. Did you mean Friedman throughout? Your argument would make more sense under that reading.
It is funny the way the war has served as a kind of watershed in which you have either diminished respect for, or outright contempt for, people who disagreed. Friedman and Lieberman are the great examples for me. Those with the courage of their convictions, ie Dean, Graham, Kucinich have extra respect.
Has anybody noticed that it took the Brits about 30 years to silence the majority of the guns, in a quarter of an island about an hour's flight from their mainland, where 2/3 of the population regarded themselves as British, where the British had been involved one way or another for 800 years, and where the whole population spoke English as its birth language? And they only got to that point by giving the guerillas a free pass on disarmament and seats in the government. Like making an al-Tikriti minister for education in Iraq while letting his brothers hold on to their RPGs, I suppose. Maybe in 40 years.....tough luck Iraq
tom friedman is a whore.
a lemon-suckin whore.
How come no talk about the other column in NYT today?--This one
America and the U.N., Together Again?
There is also not much money available to cover reconstruction efforts that will most likely cost more than $100 billion. With the United States spending almost $4 billion a month on its Iraqi military operations, and with this year's budget deficit ballooning to more than $450 billion, neither the Bush administration nor Congress is eager to tap the Treasury for more reconstruction aid. Yet only $2.5 billion has been appropriated so far — a grossly inadequate amount given the desperate need to modernize basic services like electricity.
The White House would love to get more help, financial and military, from our allies, but so far they are coming up with only a pittance. There are just 13,000 non-American soldiers in Iraq, most of them British. A Polish-led polyglot division of 9,000 more is set to arrive in September. But potential major contributors like Egypt, Germany, India, Pakistan, Russia and Turkey — to say nothing of France — have hinted they would help only if the occupation carried more of a United Nations imprimatur.
Are they serious? Who knows? They may not want to get involved at any price as long as a nasty guerrilla war is going on. But there's no harm in testing their sincerity. If another United Nations resolution could reduce the strain on American forces and wallets, why not seek it? We have worked well with the United Nations in Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and many other places. Why not in Iraq?
Today on Meet the Press, Russert mentioned that WMD might be found? That's possible, and that Saddam maybe be found? Yes, but then Russert said that Iraq would stabilize. Without UN help there is NO chance of that happening.
Again yesterday the oil pipeline to the North was bombed. Wasn't it Anthony Zinni who said that if we went into Iraq we won't be coming out knowing it would be quagmire.
Time is running out, because Bush lied the US into this war on some flagrant pretenses, as Bush always lies about everything, this war in Iraq will be the hallmark of Bush's bad decision/policies that is and will cost this nation more blood and money. This also reflects badly on congress who knew Bush didn't have any evidence prior to this war and yet gave Bush a resolution anyway.
Bush is one of the most costliest problems a nation every ignored. This is why I don't think Bush will make it to 2004... The US simply can't afford Bush's bad decisions and as such gives the US reason to impeach him.
I believe that Friedman's fact checker must be Jayson Blair.
I always get a kick out of how, once they've FUBAR'ed whatever the hell it is they've got their mitts on, the wingnuts then expect the "left" to bail them out by coming up with "constructive solutions."
You broke it - you fix it.
bad link, here.
The British haven't experienced terror in spades? Hitler's V-1 and V-2 rockets weren't terror weapons meant to bring home the war to British civilians? (As if the Blitz hadn't done that already.) Mr. Friedman is a truely sloppy historian.
Oh and this bit of news;
Why we need $ 60 per barrel oil
Petroleumworld.com, Venezuela - 6 hours ago
... At the time, in dollars of 2003 corrected for inflation and purchasing power parity, the oil price range for daily traded volume crudes was $57-$65/barrel....
Hey why stop there, why not $80 per barrel?
Boy it sure is nice to NOT have a politician connected to big oil. We should do to the oil companies what the courts are doing to Microsoft. The consumer is definitely being hurt by those monopolies.
NASHUA – Democratic candidate Howard Dean said President Bush wants critical pages inside a congressional report on the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks kept secret because they reveal the extent of how the country’s energy policy continues to make Americans unsafe.
“He is covering his unwillingness to stand up and defend America,’’ Dean said outside the south Nashua home of Peter and Gloria Henry. “Defending America is not just about having a strong military, it’s also about having a strong oil policy. He does not have one. It’s hurt this country terribly.”
Meanwhile, Dean struck back at a primary rival, Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, who warned on Friday that Dean’s opposition to the war in Iraq and his push for complete repeal of the Bush tax cuts could be a “ticket to nowhere’’ for Democrats on Election Day 2004.
“I disagree with Joe,” Dean said. “He’s served this country well, but he’s been on the wrong side of a lot of issues and I simply disagree with his assessment. I think my policies are a ticket to the White House.’’
I think "The Nation" magazine was right - Liberman is a DINO.
Another nasty thing about Friedman was when he said in one of his columns that it was alright if the Bush' oil friends benefited.
This is WHY this Iraqi liberation line is just BULLSHIT
The immunity is unconstrained. The opening sentence decrees that "any judicial process" is "null and void". Section 1 (b) shields the value "of any nature whatsoever" if it is "related to" the "sale or marketing of . . . all Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products" or "interests".
According to Devine: "That means all corporate activities with roots or any connection to Iraqi oil. It covers everything from extraction through transportation, advertising, manufacture, customer service, corporate records and payment of taxes. It covers compliance with contractual obligations involving Iraq that industry enters into with the US Government in postwar Iraq. The scope can be further expanded to virtually all oil-related commerce, by blending Iraqi oil with domestic supplies for any commercial transaction."
The executive order applies to US "persons" (including corporations or other organisations) who "come into possession or control" of anything relevant to Iraqi oil or oil products. Devine comments: "Translated from the legalese, this is a licence for corporations to loot Iraq and its citizens."
Friedman doesn't give a F--- about Iraqis. Friedman is just to embarrassed to admit he was wrong about the reasons for war with Iraq.
More According to Devine: "Under the executive order there is no accountability to the taxpayers for taxpayer-supported spending by . . . firms with US contracts . . . It cancels liability for civil fraud in government contracts under the False Claims Act, the most effective anti-fraud statute. In short, the order is a blank cheque for pork-barrel spending."
It is also a recipe for intensified conflict between the occupiers and the occupied.
The question is, for how long will US troops be prepared to risk death for Bush's Texas oil mates?
This war was about oil.
This why Dean is on the right track people with talk about controlling energy policy and why you should NOT support Liberman. Because Liberman couldn't pry his lips of Enron as a campaign funder in fact I say Liberman protected Bush by locking up those Enron papers and his own sorry ass too.
The British (and, by extension, the Northern Irish who have suffered the brunt of the conflict) have never had a terror act on the scale of 9/11? Maybe in loss of life at one time, but I've got one word for Tommy Boy.
Omagh.
More Friedman sophistry...
The UK public rejected a unilateral, pre-emptive invasion and occupation of Iraq for the stated purpose
of regime change on the merits.
They heard all of the evidence and arguments --alleged WMD's, ties to al Qaeda, re-making
the Middle East, liberating Iraq-- but were not pursuaded that the potential benefits outweighed the
risks and costs.
They overwhelmingly wanted forced UN inspections to continue, but would have supported military action sanctioned by the UN, as in the Gulf War (Freidman maligns this as a desire for "legal cover," as if UN sanction confers no practical or moral value).
He spins the Brits as petty, irrational and "anti-Bush," despite the fact their view was the reasoned concensus of the overwhelming majority of the world's nations and people, including many of Bush's & Blair's own intelligence experts.
But Bush & Blair said the threat from Saddam was so immediate and direct, we couldn't wait months or even weeks.
We now know --as most of the world suspected before the war-- that this was a lie.
So the invasion was launched with insufficient troops, no exit strategy, no post-war rebuilding plan, and no plan to secure WMDs. Indeed, it may have prompted exactly what it proposed to stop: the proliferation of now-missing WMDs into the hands of terrorists.
Incredibly, Friedman judges this outcome "the right choice."
Cheryl, thanks for mentioning the McKillop piece in Petroliumworld. It looks like a shortened and updated version of what was posted at Vheadline.com on June 29. Check it out, it’s long but worth the effort.
http://new.vheadline.com/readnew...ews.asp?
id=8987 (just in case the link doesn't work)
The invasion of Iraq only relates to 9/11 (or similar incidents in Britain) insofar as the Bush junta put forth an enormous effort to deceive the public into a conception that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11.
That the article fails to mention this at all exposes the writer as nothing more than a meat puppet for the regime.
While oil prices even well above $60/barrel would do little to harm the world economy????
Oh that's bullshit--with this windmill production would be in full gear. Those new windmills going up on Ranchs thoughtout the country are suppose to be cheaper than oil and coal produced power and could supply 80% our electrical power needs here in the nation and the Indians put these windmills up on some of the reservations like some indicate we could do this.
One things for sure. Prices that high would make renewable resouces the only answer.
We would go from 2.00 a gallon to 4.00 at that rate of 60+ a gallon.
How about this one.
Higher oil prices restore world economic growth:
Jeebus, that isn't what economist are saying. They saying that recession always follows a price increase in energy cost.
In 1886 when the 0il prices crashed that's how we covered in first place. Bush loves to tell people that we started to head into a recession in March of 2000 but fails to mention the fact that's when oil prices strated shooting up.
Conversely, each time the Euro gains against the US dollar, oil exporters lose buying power. An open shift to the Euro by more members of the cartel, but no doubt without Saudi Arabia in the very near term, will by the magical irony of the oil market translate to considerably higher prices. Under almost no possible scenario can we return to oil at $18/barrel (or about €15.50)
This why the economy is never going recover under the Bush cartel and why IS is so important for Al Gore to have been president. WE NEEDED RENEWABLES YESTERDAY.
Andrew McKillop is full of Bullshit.
The Saudi's still made plenty of money on 18.00 per barrel. Oil companies have plans for you. IMPEACH BUSH NOW AND SAVE YOURSELF A LOT OF MONEY AND GRIEF.
HOWARD DEAN IS SO RIGHT.
When you say "Us British know that marching into other countries and installing your army where they're not wanted can be a huge mistake", though, are you saying that you recognize that British dominion over Northern Ireland is a mistake?
Rich White
What John Isbell said...
If "Rich White" knew anything about "The North of Ireland" or "Northern Ireland" (depending on the side of the divide you come down on) he'd know better - but obviously doesn't.
Try reading up on the Good Friday agreement and the peace process... oh and several hundred years of history - then try not to distill the process down to the barmy meme that the British are occupying Ulster ! For the record - 3/4rs of my grandparents were Irish Catholics from the Republic, and 1/4 of them was a Scottish proddy...
I think that saying that national trauma of 9/11 justifies waging a war of aggression that is justified by slander is like saying that it is OK to beat up your wife after a painfull accident. Especially if the latter was a collision with a vehicle driven by a woman. One has to burst this bubble of reckless driving and reckless nagging.
A few less than complete thoughts about tom Friedman: Friedman is not easy to figure out, but a good place to start is his From Beirut to Jerusalem in which he reflects on his experience as a correspondent for the NYT. There he clearly states that his hatred for Ariel Sharon and what he saw in Israel's occupation of Lebanon made it impossible for him to be objective. What also is revealed is that he sees a different standard between Arabs and the West (particularly Israelis and the US). He accepts a certain violence and irrational passion as part of the cultural mileau of the Arab world, but condemns what he sees as cold manipulation on the part of Sharon and others. His fallacy is not expressed as simply paternalism against Arabs and others, but a strange mixture of idealism about the West and pragmatism about what it will take to bring security to the region and civility and prosperity to the rest of the world. In other words he sees himself as holding Israel and the U.S. to a higher standard and is deluded sometimes into thinking that the Bush policy actually meets that standard.
Saddam had a "dirty" radioactive bomb: "Designed to cause cancer and birth defects, the radiological weapon could have been used by terrorists to create panic and widespread contamination in a crowded city," as reported in The Sunday Times.
Bush administration critics (I'm looking at you Howard Dean - and all the Democrat Presidential candidates with the exception of Joe Lieberman): eat crow. The article from The Sunday Times follows.
* * *
Dead scientist revealed Iraq dirty bomb
By Nicholas Rufford / The Sunday Times
London - David Kelly, the British weapons expert at the centre of the Iraq dossier row, had amassed firm evidence to show that Saddam Hussein built and tested a "dirty bomb."
Designed to cause cancer and birth defects, the radiological weapon could have been used by terrorists to create panic and widespread contamination in a crowded city.
Kelly, who committed suicide last month, presented evidence of the bomb to the government in 1995 and recommended to Foreign Office officials that it feature in the government's intelligence dossier on Iraq. However, despite secret Iraqi documents being produced to prove its existence, it was not included.
In an interview with The Sunday Times in June, Kelly said the dirty bomb was originally built by Saddam for use against Iranian troops during the Iran-Iraq war as a tactical weapon and an instrument of terror.
He said Iraq still "possessed the know-how and the materials to build a radiological weapon." The threat was potentially more serious than some other weapons of mass destruction, he said, because Iraq still retained the main ingredients - nuclear material and high explosives.
Asked why it had not formed part of the government's case against Iraq, Kelly said he did not know but said there were people
in government who were skeptical about the potency of such a weapon.
In the wake of Kelly's death, further questions are likely to be asked about the bomb. One reason it may have been left out of the dossier was that Iraq ended the trials in the late 1980s and there was no evidence they ever restarted. But a defence source suggested an alternative explanation: that in 1987 when Iraq conducted the trials, British military scientists were interested in the results. At that time Britain still had unofficial friendly relations with Saddam.
During evidence to the foreign affairs select committee in July, in remarks which have been largely overlooked, Kelly told John Maples, a former Conservative spokesman on defence and foreign affairs: "On one inspection that I led ... the acknowledgment was made by General Fahi Shaheen, together with Brigadier Hassan (two senior Iraqi weapons specialists), that they
[continued from above]
During evidence to the foreign affairs select committee in July, in remarks which have been largely overlooked, Kelly told John Maples, a former Conservative spokesman on defence and foreign affairs: "On one inspection that I led ... the acknowledgment was made by General Fahi Shaheen, together with Brigadier Hassan (two senior Iraqi weapons specialists), that they had undertaken experiments with radiological weapons in 1987."
Maples asked: "Do you think that is true?" to which Kelly replied: "Undoubtedly it is true."
Maples pressed Kelly on why details had not been included in the dossier, saying: "A dirty nuclear bomb, I would have thought, was pretty significant." Kelly said: "You cannot include everything."
Maples said this weekend he remained puzzled and uneasy over why the government had excluded evidence of the dirty bomb from its dossier: "It is a mystery why this issue (of the dirty bomb) was not picked up by the government and why Kelly gave me the answer he did - that there was lots of other stuff that had to be included."
"They (the government) were obviously looking for ways of making the dossier as attractive as they could, and as threatening as they could, and you would have thought Iraq's ability to let off a dirty nuclear weapon was pretty serious."
In private, Kelly thought the evidence worthy of inclusion in the dossier because of the possibility that Iraq could reactivate the programeven after it had been stripped of other non-conventional weapons.
Iraq's dirty bomb was made from a material called radioactive zirconium which was packed into a bomb casing with high explosives. Iraq had access to zirconium stored at its Al-Tarmiya reactor site - under United Nations safeguards - ostensibly for use in its peaceful nuclear power program.
One of the main reasons cited by British and American governments for invading Iraq was the danger that Saddam could pass weapons of mass destruction to al-Qaida terrorists.
* * *
Reprinted in the The Halifax Herald Limited.
Via Instapundit.
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
