Thomas Friedman has taken a lot of heat for supporting the U.S. invasion of Iraq. I don’t criticize him for that. I initially took a similar stance to Friedman. After the axis-of-evil speech I was 100% convinced that our country would invade Iraq in the spring of 2003. If I had had any hope that war could be averted, I might have spent time trying to convince the government that this was a bad idea. By my read of the landscape told me that we would invade, and that nothing could prevent it.
My first concern was practical. If we are going to invade, what do we need to do to make it work? How can we justify it? How can we get the U.N. to approve it? How can we get Turkey and France to assist us? What kind of government should we create? What kind of civil service and policing forces do we need?
At every step of the way, the Bush administration pushed their potential allies away. They ignored the advice of moderates, they avoided the advice of Friedman.
By the fall of 2003, it had become clear that the Bush administation had no plan for Iraq, and it became clear that they were not going to adjust course, or make any conciliatory gesture to those of us here, or abroad, that might want to lend a hand in rebuilding Iraq.
I had to admit to myself, and all my friends and acquaintances that I had been wrong. I had to admit that the only wise and moral choice, from the beginning, was to oppose this war.
Friedman never did this. He continued to make apologies and to try to offer constructive advice, long after it became clear that none of his advice would be heeded.
But today, he seems to have finally realized the error of his ways. If his advice in today’s column is not heeded, I call on Mr. Friedman to join me in renouncing this war and calling for a war crimes tribunal for the architects of our torture and rendition policies.
This is the crux of it: we have over two dozen dead POW’s on our conscience, and countless others who have survived their brutal treatment.
‘Impressions’ is not the word I would use. ‘Spin’ and ‘prevarication’ are the words I would use. We tortured people, sometimes to death, as a result of guidance set forth by Donald Rumsfeld. That’s criminal by any standard.
:::More below:::
When it takes ownership of its flagrant violations of the Geneva Conventions and U.N. Convention Against Torture give me a call, Tom.
And if they fail to fire them, Tom? What will you do then?
OhTom. Firs,t Booman, this is such a well-written, thoughtful essay by you. Like you, I was dead sure we’d go to war and while I thought the protests were marvelous and awe-inspiring, knew there was nothing that would stop Bush et al.
Friedman, whom I’ve also seen a lot on Charlie Rose over the years, has always struck me as having something of a Pollyana-ish complex. He has practically chirped with optimism on Rose’s show. It was revolting to this ol’ cynic.
I’m afraid he still has that Pollyana-ish outlook. There is ZERO chance that this government or Congress will address its human rights violations. I fear that that may never happen or, if it does, it’ll be long after I’m dead.
Also: I sense he has very little grasp, beyond the intellectual salons of his environs, of the typical attitudes of most Americans who could give a damn if any dark-skinned person is harmed.
I love how different your take on this article is than another prominent take on it today in another prominent blog.
You must stop this nonstrident reasonable analysis, boo. I’ll have to start respecting you, and then all the fun in your mailbox will go away…
Armando opposed the war in every way from the beginning. He has more standing than I do to be strident.
I just want Friedman to follow through on his very tough editorial today, which may have finally stung this White House.
They create and live in their own delusional reality, the rest of us just study what they do. Nothing stings them.
Ron Suskind
that goes without saying.
But they rely on Friedman to nod and go along.
Today’s editorial was a hard slap.
I was not making a comment on policy positions, I was making a comment on the nature of contructive criticism and politics.
I was praising your ability to rationally separate a particular editorial from any preformed bias about the author, and contrasting that with the tendency prevalent in other circles of engaging in irrational total-warfare.
There are too many echoes on the Left of Bush’s “you are either with us or agin’ us”, and too much intolerance for the nuances and complexity of opinions on our nuanced and complex world. Your comentary was a refreshing difference, as was Friedman’s, while others seem to drive with their Friend-or-Foe detector first, their reason second.
Take the fucking compliment.