...and the horse Friedman rode in on
Yet again, Friedman is forced to admit our predicaments four months too late and attacks the people who raised them four months too early, as he makes excuses for the ones who would rather not ever talk about our predicament at all. Yet again he props up the ones who got us here as he vilifies the ones who warned him from the beginning that this is where he'd end up if he didn't change course. "Onward!" Bush screams and onward Friedman goes, waxing about how there's still time to turn around, if only we'd listen to him and not those of us on shore.
Like I said, I can't blame him. No doubt he's considering his place in history, and looking back at the naivete of his past columns, no doubt he has glimpsed the uncomfortable fact that things have played out exactly as his harshest critics had warned him they would.
Here's this critic's next prediction: Bush won't do anything to increase the number of soldiers in Iraq. It would cost him politically, and Bush will never do anything that costs him politically, even when a war is at stake. He would rather let our army hemmorrage and bleed than risk alienating his base. That's right, Tom. Bush would rather we lose. And you're going to help him.
Don't say we didn't warn you -- again. Can't wait to hear the insults you throw at us when you're forced to admit it.
Let's not forgot Friedman's favorite company from The Lexus and the Olive Tree - Enron! Their innovative use of commodity markets are going to remake the American economy! Imagine a school selling its broadband capacity during summer vacation. Well, Enron is working on that!
Oops...
June 16, 2005 1:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Friedman never ceases to amaze me. Our soldiers and thousands of Iraqis continue to die with no end in sight thanks to the illegal immoral war that he helped promote, and yet somehow in his enchanted brain he remains morally superior to the people who knew better all along.
Our soldiers are continuing to die for Bush/Cheney's sinister goal of bludgeoning Iraq into a subservient client state, permanent U.S. bases, and leverage over the region's oil. This murderous immorality is being enabled by deluded pious fuckheads like Friedman. The guy is such a tool he makes me want to vomit.
June 16, 2005 9:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pro-war driver: Hey, there's a cliff, let's drive off'n it. If we go really fast, we'll land smooth like evel knievel 'nit'll be great!
Anti-war passenger: Bad idear, Clem. How bout let's not!
Pro-war driver: Damn defeatist! No vision, no idealism! Here we go! Woo hoo! Woo hoo! Woo hhoooops. Sheeit. Them rocks comin up fast now--Now how you gonna git us outta here?
Anti-war passenger: Git us wha--?
Pro-war driver: You want us to fail dontcha! Anti Murkan sumbitch!
June 18, 2005 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Considering that we said before the invasion that this would be a disaster with no foreseeable positive outcome, I'm amazed that he thinks it's up to us to come up with a way to achieve a positive outcome. No, Tom, there isn't one. As we told you alll along.
June 19, 2005 4:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Friedman wants to solve our problems in Iraq by doubling the number of US forces there. I suppose it's being defeatist and just plain snarky to point out that it's problematic just where these troops are supposed to come from, especially since recruitment is down. The behavior of our troops was bound to provoke resentment, the non-throwing of flowers, and the throwing of other things, but some instances where more troops would have helped in the beginning, like preventing looting and crime, you don't get to do over. More troops won't help with some of those things now, even if they did exist.
Gradually raising troop levels didn't help turn any corners in Vietnam. It just threw more people into the meat grinder.
Friedman is in denial. He's still trying to save to save his lovely vision of a thousand flowers blooming and he's blaming the messengers for the grisly reality. Too bad the NYT keeps giving him a pulpit, but what do you expect?
June 21, 2005 10:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
The New York Times and Friedman deserve each other.
June 24, 2005 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink