Glenn Greenwald catalogs Thomas Friedman's casual support of the war, which, Greenwald
argues, more than anyone else's influenced the "centrist" establishment to go along:
http://utdocuments.blogspot.com/2006/12/tom-friedmans-pre-war-advocacy-for.htmlFriday, December 01, 2006
Tom Friedman's pre-war advocacy for the invasion
Beginning in November, 2002 all the way up until and including the day of the invasion -- March 23, 2003 -- Tom Friedman essentially made every single argument about the war, including many that conflicted with one another, except for one -- we should not invade Iraq. But on the day of the invasion, he mocked the argument of "the French," whose views he said were "unserious" and should result in their removal from the U.N. Security Council ( specifically, "the French argue that only bad things will come from this war -- more terrorism, a dangerous precedent for preventive war, civilian casualties").
And despite having repeatedly said that the Bush administration's pre-war actions were disastrous, Friedman declared on March 23 that the war would produce the outcome the Bush administration argued would result and that The Dreaded Unserious French would be proven wrong:
...
February 2, 2003
So pardon me if I don't take seriously all the Euro-whining about the Bush policies toward Iraq -- for one very simple reason: It strikes me as deeply unserious. It's not that there are no serious arguments to be made against war in Iraq. There are plenty. It's just that so much of what one hears coming from German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder and French President Jacques Chirac are not serious arguments. They are station identification.
They are not the arguments of people who have really gotten beyond the distorted Arab press and tapped into what young Arabs are saying about their aspirations for democracy and how much they blame Saddam Hussein and his ilk for the poor state of their region. Rather, they are the diplomatic equivalent of smoking cancerous cigarettes while rejecting harmless G.M.O.'s -- an assertion of identity by trying to be whatever the Americans are not, regardless of the real interests or stakes.
And where this comes from, alas, is weakness.
...
February 5, 2003
In talking with Bush administration officials of late I am struck by an incredible contrast. It is the contrast between the breathtaking audacity of what they intend to do in Iraq -- an audacity that, I must say, has an appeal for me -- and the incredibly narrow base of support that exists in America today for this audacious project. They are gearing up for the rebuilding of Iraq, along the lines of the rebuilding of Germany and Japan after World War II, and the nation is geared up, at best, for the quick and dirty invasion of Grenada. . . .
I don't care what the polls say, this is the real mood. Now, truth be told, I think I get this war, and, on balance, I think it is a risk worth taking -- provided we have a country willing to see it through. But it is time the president leveled with the country -- not just about the dangers posed by Saddam, but about the long-term costs involved in ousting him and rebuilding Iraq. This is not going to be Grenada.
...
March 23, 2003 (day of the invasion)
Indeed, the French argue that only bad things will come from this war -- more terrorism, a dangerous precedent for preventive war, civilian casualties. The Bush team argues that this war will be a game-changer -- that it will spark reform throughout the Arab world and intimidate other tyrants who support terrorists.
Can this war produce more of what the Bush team expects than the Europeans predict? Yes, it can.
...
March 12, 2003
Saddam Hussein poses no direct threat to us today. But confronting him is a legitimate choice -- much more legitimate than knee-jerk liberals and pacifists think. Removing Saddam -- with his obsession to obtain weapons of mass destruction -- ending his tyranny and helping to nurture a more progressive Iraq that could spur reform across the Arab-Muslim world are the best long-term responses to bin Ladenism. Some things are true even if George Bush believes them.
...
March 2, 2003
And that leads to my dilemma. I have a mixed marriage. My wife opposes this war, but something in Mr. Bush's audacious shake of the dice appeals to me. He summed it up well in his speech last week: ''A liberated Iraq can show the power of freedom to transform that vital region by bringing hope and progress into the lives of millions. America's interest in security and America's belief in liberty both lead in the same direction -- to a free and peaceful Iraq.''
My dilemma is that while I believe in such a bold project, I fear that Mr. Bush has failed to create a context for his boldness to succeed...
<Much more sickening idiocy at the link>
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
