Here is the stark choice in Iraq, according to New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman:
“10 months or 10 years. Either we just get out of Iraq in a phased withdrawal over 10 months, and try to stabilize it some other way, or we accept the fact that the only way it will not be a failed state is if we start over and rebuild it from the ground up, which would take 10 years. This would require reinvading Iraq, with at least 150,000 more troops, crushing the Sunni and Shiite militias, controlling borders, and building Iraq’s institutions and political culture from scratch.”
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Late-night laughs
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- Blaidd_Drwg69 on Too many exemptions
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Late-night laughs
49 Comments
So the new increment of Tom Friedman fantasy time is 10 years? At the end of which he gets his pony?
Sorry. We could reinvade Iraq and it wouldn’t do a goddamn thing but make it all much worse. With no pretense of good will or illusions about our motives, I can’t imagine the civilian resistance.
Can’t unring the bell. Can’t unshit the bed. Won’t be able to do in ten years what we can’t do in three.
Who pays morons like Friedman? Man, is the DC / media / security / academic / East Coast establishment out to lunch. Seriously. How fucking stupid are they–Friedman, Fukuyama, Rice, Baker, and the rest? Total incompetence from our power elite.
There’s no choice. Ten years ain’t gonna happen. Which means U.S., out, now.
I hope we , as a nation, have learned the far-reaching consequences of electing a President that has no foreign policy experience whatsoever. The devastating results are readily visible, unfortunately.
gster-If that would have prevented Clinton and Carter, I’m in.
flettwood,
Yeah, peace accords between Egypt and Israel, and the ending the Balkan War were both such disasters.
Numbnuts.
Flettwood- You illustrate the difference between reading and comprehension!Merely sounding out the words won’t suffice.
Hard to tell! We can only see. Democrats were the ones saying that Hitler wasn’t a problem and we didn’t need to help out UK. Once we entered into WWII, they were screaming this would end humanity and end up being a 20 year conflict.
In Vietnam, they said it was just a small conflict and never recognizing it as a war. It was ok in the early years, because they force people to go and those people were the poor and the minorities. Only when Nixon came to office, did they chant baby killers and spit on our soliders coming home and telling the government to get out. It was to make Nixon and Republicans look bad. Because Democrats never forgave Republicans for intergrating the races in America and passing the civil rights and voters rights act.
Let say same circumstances in Iraq and everything remaining equal, with the exception that we had a Democrat as President. The Iraq war wouldn’t be pictures, discussed or reported as nearly as bad as it does now with Bush in office.
It’s all politics and Democrats are on the short end of the stick poking at the side of America!
Thank you Joe that was surreal.
Joe Williams,
Ah, the fantasy ship sails on! Joe Williams, whose lies about racism, one suspects, exist in direct proportion to his subconscious awareness of his own guilt and complicity.
“Because Democrats never forgave Republicans for intergrating the races in America and passing the civil rights and voters rights act.”
Ha ha. And what President saw the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, through the Senate and signed them into law?
Joe Williams still lives in 1965. It’s a convenient fiction that allows him to deny how RACIST the Republican Party became once it picked up all those Southern Democrats who didn’t want to support a party that enfranchised black folks, and how RACIST the REPUBLICAN Party is to this day.
How about Republican Senator-elect Bob Corker’s racist attacks on Harold Ford Jr. in November’s election, Joe Williams, for daring to consort with white women?
Oh, and Joe Williams, many, many Democrats had already turned against Vietnam, and LBJ, by 1967.
Your version of “history” is, to put it charitably, delusional.
“Your version of “history” is, to put it charitably, delusional.”Posted by: CF | December 01, 2006 at 08:49 AM
Ditto
JM,
“Ditto” my denunciation of Joe Williams, or “ditto” to claim that CF’s own use of history is delusional?
Bush? No foreign policy?
How about no foreign KNOWLEDGE???
This is the man who had no clue who the major leaders of the world were before he was “elected” the first time around. I admit I struggle with it myself, as leaders come and go, but he’s a POLITICIAN, for cripe’s sake!
RD- That’s what I meant- you just stated it better!
Vietnam was a multi-party failure, as far as I’ve read anyway. From Truman to Reagan, our policy was communist containment, and Vietnam was a result of this. To blame it on one party or one president would be denying all that history tells us.
Iraq is a different situation. Several, many, key democrates voted for force in Iraq, and have since switched opinions, which is fine, they have the right to do that, but they can’t claim that they don’t have just as much responsibilty for this fiasco. If Bush was able to pull the wool over their eyes and fool them into a war when they have just as much access to information, then the entire congress is composed of fools.
The solution to this problem isn’t “Bush lied and people died.” It’s a failure, once again, of the entire government. If Bush was overstepping his bounds in waging war in Iraq, congress had a RESPONSIBLITY to stop him, it’s called checks and balances. They had the responsiblity to raise hell back when this war started, they didn’t start doing that until the occupation failed, unless my memory fails me, which is always a responsiblity.
I don’t just feel failed by this president, I feel failed by the entire government.
No JB
While I grant that you that many democrats bare some responsibility for giving bush to loose a leash, congress only granted the authority for bush to act.
bush and those who advised him are solely responsible.
It appears the end result will be an Iran-Syria-Iraq regional power. This is ironic. Given that Saddam was more secular, an Iraq senior partner arrangement would have been less a threat of Islamic terror.
One potential solution to Vietnam and Iraq type incursions would be to ensure that the President cannot deploy American troops on foreign soil in combat for more than thirty days without a Declaration of War approved by Congress.
The United States has not had a formal D of W since December 1941.
It may be a moot point in general, but putting the entire country on war footing may discourage future involvement unless the entire country is behind the effort.
Just a thought – any takers?
No matter if it is 10 months or 10 years we do know one thing that is certain. George W. Bush will continue this war “as is” until he is out of office. The man has said as much every time someone questions him.
He has not changed the “stay the course” strategy – his handlers has just tried to change the terminology.
Some Democrats did vote to go to war in Iraq but then what intelligence were they led to believe was really accurate? And maybe Bush and his gang knew the intelligence was faulty?
I think Joe just peaked on some window-pane LSD.
Either that, or he’s really, *really* smart.
By the way Joe, you’re a piece of shit.
WSClark- Ya, I’ve thought about that. How can we have war after war without actually declaring war?
J R- Yeah, a regional power combining iran, syria and iraq is increadibly scary, especially for someone within the potential draft age if it were to come to that.
Maybe you’re right about Bush being solely responsible, I’ve never made claims about being a big fan of Bush, that’s for sure. I just don’t think we should easily dismiss responsibility from others in the government. Never give a politican a pass, I say.
Why is it now, however, that we have some saying that we should use the military action in Dafur? Granted the situation their is aweful, but where do we draw the line about being the international police? How many countries can we liberate before everyone in my age group is in some other country carrying an m-16?
“I think Joe just peaked on some window-pane LSD.”
Joe, can you hook me up with some of that? Apparently, the hallucinations are really killer.
I could tell you some stories!
Poor Joe, he must have never heard of lend lease, or the bases for destroyers plans of FDR a Democrat how’d that help Hitler? And what was the Politacal ideology of the isolationist radio priest who’s name I don’t remember.
First and foremost, Congress did not give Bushs the go-ahead to wage war on Iraq. Congress gave him the okay to use military force ONLY AFTER CERTAIN CONDITIONS WERE MET. One of those was a nod from the U.N.. That didn’t happen. In fact, Dubya and his band of merry warmongers barged right on in without a howdy-do to anyone.
Where Congress is at fault is that they did nothing to rein in this group of shock-and-awers. In fact, once the bombs started dropping, they just nodded in agreement and have kept on doing so for close to 4 years.
Congress (inlcuding both parties) expects to be presented with the truth, especially when putting the lives of men and women at great risk. When did THAT happen in this debacle?
To CF,Tom Friedman is the most respected journalist on the middle east this country, this modern world has. He has a lot more credibility than Rumsfeld, Bush, Cheney, Rice, Kissinger or you, or me.The most I know about you CF – well..C.F.? you must be a cat fart.
Friedman is a huge commie. Where does he write?The NY Times. That, according to many dopes on this blog, is a right wing vehicle. HA! It is to laugh.
Good giddling gosh! If Tom Friedman is the most respected journalist on the middle east in this country, we’re in sad sad shape.
This is the guy that gave us “The Flat Earth” — the bizarrely titled book that harkens back to pre-Copernican dark ages when he’s really talking about the hyper-modern issue of “globalism.”
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/about/friedmanqa.jsp April 06
“I find myself really torn. This is one of the hardest issues I’ve had to wrestle with, because it is a war of choice. And I have great respect for both sides of the argument. I believe liberals, as I wrote, underestimate, as you might be able to understand now after my foregoing talk, that if it should not be the reflexive liberal position to be against this war.”
He says he is for the war because he doesn’t want a failed state that can lead to terrorism.
Unfortunately, BECAUSE of the war, Iraq is already a failed state that is much more likely to to lead to terrorism, duh.
So much for America’s leading journalist on the Middle East . . .
Jim G.
Name calling . . . and UNENTERTAINING name calling to boot.
Readers are instructed to “hit ignore” when encountering Jim G.’s posts in the future.
Thank you,
The Management
HotWoodLicker–
No one shilled for the Bush war like Judith Miller’s front page articles on Saddam’s stockpiled WMD’s.
The NYT was so red-faced over it they had to print a retraction.
Of course, by then, we already had troops in the quicksand . . . oh well . . .
What Friedman apparently ignores is that we were supposed to be building it “from the ground up” for the last 3-4 years.
But companies make a lot more money if they just take the money and don’t do anything.
Long story short, that’s Iraq . . .
I’ve noticed the same thing – we have spent billions of dollars and yet Iraq looks like a war-torn nation that has no hope of being rebuilt.
Besides that, I noticed Maliki last night on the news with George W. This man is always well dressed and looks like he hasn’t missed any meals. If Iraq is in civil war and George W. has to go talk to Maliki – then why all the fancy trimmings for the two big fat cats?
Just doesn’t look right in my way of thinking.
Capnnomerica,Uhh…just by acknowledging your moniker is namecalling. If you were truly who claim to be you would pawn the VCR/DVD and Playstation, burn the comic books, and come out of yuor basement and stand for something other than a fat little toad dressed in a cape. Now, that’s some namecalling.
oh fleetwood…
A politician, speaking to some high school students, said that a girl in high school had started action on an important issue.
He said: “[the girl's issue] — that was the one that you didn’t hear of. But that was the one that started it all.”
The NY Times (and Wa Post) misquoted him as boasting: “I was the one that started it all.”
The RNC “corrected” the grammar, and sent out press releases: “I was the one WHO started it all.”
Al Gore, toxic well water in Toone TN, Love Canal, and the SuperFund.’Al Gore v. the Media’http://www.consortiumnews.com/2000/020100a.html
Jim G.
Since you know nothing about me, the “fat toad” comment is meaningless.
Entertainment value = 0.
Informational value = -5. Reading Jim G. is like watching Fox News, it makes you dumber.
Former conclusion reinforced and reiterated–ignore him.
Thank you,
The Management
Jim G.,
Big fucking deal who Tom Friedman writes for. He has been consistently WRONG for the last six years. Ever read any of this books? They’re a joke. I made it through about two pages of his globalization book. Big time idiot–just like the rest of the East Coast/DC/security “establishment.” Maybe that’s why you like him.
You want Mideast analysis by somebody who can actually speak Arabic and Farsi? Read Juan Cole.
http://www.juancole.com
Jim G., you’re in way over your depth around here. Study harder if you want to try to call ME out.
capn – I think Friedman’s point was NOT that a 10 year occupation was a good idea but rather that, at best, it would be extremely difficult. Read what he says and I think you will see is that he is saying “don’t do it!”
He raises a valid point that because of the destruction done deliberately and with malice aforethought by Bush to Iraq we stand the risk of ending up with a failed state. That, in turn, could end up as a breeding ground for alQuada. (MISSION ACCOMLISHED!)
The preferable path is clearly the shorter one. To do that will require a lot of help from Bush’s enemies. And, AT BEST, it will leave the US severely weakened in the region. (It could be even WORSE). It is likely that Bush has succeeded where so many have failed – Lawrence of Arabia, Gamal Nasser, Hafez al-Assad, Khadaffi and others. He has united most of the Arab world. The Syria-Iraq-Iran alliance will stretch from the Medeterranian to Pakistan and will dominate the region. There will no longer be an Iraq hostile to Syria-Iran as there was under US ally Saddam.
Bush said he intended to totally rearrange the Middle east. Looks like he is succeeding.
It looks like you’re losing ground here, Jim G. You might want to call for back up.
The net result of the War on Iraq is that it was based on lies, processed on the cheap without regard for tribal and religious concerns, and now has descended into a Hell that requires the assistance of Syria and Iran to have any hope of avoiding a regional war.
With ONE more misstep, Bush will have the dubious distinction of igniting the Third World War.
All it will take at this point is just one more stupid move by Bush the Dumber and the bottom will fall out of any semblance of peace in the Middle East.
For all the political back and forth, we have to realize that we are truly on the edge. The fuse has been lit and unfortunately, we have to depend on the guy with the lighter in his hand to put out the flame.
If we allow Bush to fail us at this point, it may be one hundred years before we get back to the point where we were when Clinton left office.
To be very honest, I have absolutely no faith that Bush will do the right thing.
And that scares the Hell out of me.
cosmos and others who link to commie websites-Consortiumnews.com??? Worthless.Where do you find this conspiracy shit? The fact that you even know about sites likes these speaks volumes.
Commie? Isn’t that like, so Eighties? Fifties?
Christ, Fleet, did you opt for the “broken glass” enema this morning?
The leakage DOES seem to have been a problem today.
YOWCH.
Glenn Greenwald takes Tom Friedman to the cleaners. Big time. Read up, Jim G. Your fallacious acceptance of authority because it’s, well, authoritative, is about to take a big ol’ hit. Friedman, and the DC pro-war pundit class, really take it in the shorts, hard.
I’m sick to death of the dishonesty and collusion between the DC enables and those who orchestrated the Iraq disaster. They’ve been wrong about everything, and still I, CF, and those like me who called bullshit at the start, are the ones who can’t be trusted with national security?
How long IS this suicidal DC groupthink going to continue?
**********************************
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/12/tom-friedman-disease-consumes.html
Friday, December 01, 2006The Tom Friedman disease consumes Establishment Washington
(updated below)
“Someone e-mailed me several days ago to say that while it is fruitful and necessary to chronicle the dishonest historical record of pundits and political figures when it comes to Iraq, I deserve to be chastised for failing to devote enough attention to the person who, by far, was most responsible for selling the war to centrists and liberal “hawks” and thereby creating “consensus” support for Bush’s war — Tom Friedman, from his New York Times perch as “the nation’s preeminent centrist foreign policy genius.”
That criticism immediately struck me as valid, and so I spent the day yesterday and today reading every Tom Friedman column beginning in mid-2002 through the present regarding Iraq. That body of work is extraordinary. Friedman is truly one of the most frivolous, dishonest, and morally bankrupt public intellectuals burdening this country. Yet he is, of course, still today, one of the most universally revered figures around, despite — amazingly enough, I think it’s more accurate to say “because of” — his advocacy of the invasion of Iraq, likely the greatest strategic foreign policy disaster in America’s history.
This matters so much not simply in order to expose Friedman’s intellectual and moral emptiness, though that is a goal worthy and important in its own right. Way beyond that, the specific strain of intellectual bankruptcy that drove Friedman’s strident support for the invasion of Iraq continues to be what drives not only Tom Friedman today, but virtually all of our elite opinion-makers and “centrist” and “responsible” political figures currently attempting to “solve” the Iraq disaster.
In column after column prior to the war, Friedman argued that invading Iraq and overthrowing Saddam was a noble, moral, and wise course of action. To Friedman, that was something we absolutely ought to do, and as a result, he repeatedly used his column to justify the invasion and railed against anti-war arguments voiced by those whom he derisively called “knee-jerk liberals and pacifists” (so as not to clutter this post with long Friedman quotes, I’m posting the relevant Friedman excerpts here).
But at the same time Friedman was cheering on the invasion, he was inserting one alarmist caveat after the next about how dangerous a course this might be and about all the problems that might be unleashed by it. He thus repeatedly emphasized the need to wage the War what he called “the right way.” To Friedman, the “right way” meant enlisting support from allies across Europe and the Middle East for both the war and the subsequent re-building, telling Americans the real reasons for the war, and ensuring that Americans understood what a vast and long-term commitment we were undertaking as a result of the need to re-build that country.
Only if the Bush administration did those things, argued Friedman, would this war achieve good results. If it did not do those things, he repeatedly warned, this war would be an unparalleled disaster.
Needless to say, the Bush administration did none of the things Friedman insisted were prerequisites for invading Iraq “the right way.” And Friedman recognized that fact, and repeatedly pointed it out. Over and over, in the months before the war, Friedman would praise the idea of the war and actively push for the invasion, but then insert into his columns statements like this:
And so I am terribly worried that Mr. Bush has told us the right thing to do, but won’t be able to do it right.
But: Despite the Bush administration’s failures to take any of the steps necessary to wage the war “the right way,” Friedman never once rescinded or even diluted his support for the war. He continued to advocate the invasion and support the administration’s push for war — at one point, in February, even calling for the anti-war French to be removed from the U.N. Security Council and replaced by India, and at another point warning that we must be wary of Saddam’s last-ditch attempt to negotiate an alternative to war lest we be tricked into not invading — even though Friedman knew and said that all the things that needed to be done to avert disaster were not being done by the administration.
Put another way, these are the premises which Friedman, prior to the invasion, expressly embraced:
(1) If the war is done the right way, great benefits can be achieved.(2) If the war is done the wrong way, unimaginable disasters will result.(3) The Bush administration is doing this war the wrong way, not the right way, on every level.(4) Given all of that, I support the waging of this war.
Just ponder that: Tom Friedman supported the invasion of Iraq even though, by his own reasoning, that war was being done the “wrong way” and would thus — also by his own reasoning — create nothing but untold damage on every level. And he did so all because there was some imaginary, hypothetical, fantasy way of doing the war that Friedman thought was good, but that he knew isn’t what we would get.
To support a war that you know is going to be executed in a destructive manner is as morally monstrous as it gets. The fact that there is some idealized, Platonic way to fight the war doesn’t make that any better if you know that that isn’t what is going to happen. We learn in adolescence that wanting things that we can’t have — pining for things that aren’t real or possible — is futile and irrational. To apply that adolescent fantasy world to war advocacy is the hallmark of a deeply frivolous and amoral person.
And it is exactly that sickness that is still — almost four years later — the most pervasive syndrome when it comes to our war debates. Greg Sargent and Atrios, among others, have been documenting one instance after the next of serious, sober political “leaders” who (a) recognize that our current course is a failure, (b) acknowledge that no real alternative exists, but nonetheless (c) lack the courage and integrity to advocate withdrawal. John McCain is the worst and most glaring example, as he expressly argues:
(1) It is immoral to stay in Iraq if we don’t send in more troops.(2) We are not going to send in more troops.(3) I oppose withdrawal and think we should stay in Iraq.
Friedman himself continues to play the same repugnant game, arguing: (1) If we don’t do X, we should not stay in Iraq; (2) X is impossible or unrealistic; (3) I do not advocate withdrawal. David Frum has made the same argument — we will lose in Iraq and create far worse damage if we don’t send more troops, which we don’t do; nonetheless, we must remain in Iraq.
The reason for this is as transparent as it is despicable — “withdrawal” is a prohibited belief in Establishment Washington. You can pretty much advocate any course of action other than that. Why is the Baker Commission filled with people who supported this invasion in the first place? Shouldn’t it be dominated by — or, at the very least, be substantially composed of — people who opposed the war from the beginning, i.e., the people who demonstrated foresight and wisdom and judgment?
Establishment Washington is concerned right now with only one thing – saving their own credibility and reputation. The reason why The Washington Post’s David Ignatius said recently that Chuck Hagel was “right about Iraq and other key issues earlier than almost any national politician, Republican or Democratic” — even though Hagel favored the invasion and many “national politicians” opposed it from the beginning — is because the Washington Establishment still thinks that those who opposed the war from the beginning don’t count, that they’re still the unserious, know-nothing losers who should be ignored.
Howard Dean is still a leftist lunatic who is “soft” on national security, as are the Congressional Democrats who voted against the war resolution. Tom Friedman and John McCain and Condoleezza Rice and Charles Krauthammer are the credible, serious foreign policy geniuses.
It is not merely the case that having been pro-war doesn’t count as a strike against anyone. That is accurate. But far worse, the opposite is also true. It is still the case in Establishment Washington that having been pro-war in the first place is a pre-requisite to being considered a “responsible, serious” foreign policy analyst. And having been anti-war from the start is the hallmark of someone unserious. The pro-war Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden are serious national security Democrats but Russ Feingold, Nancy Pelosi and Jack Murtha are the kind of laughable losers whom Democrats need to repudiate.
Establishment Washington really is not interested in how to end this horrendous and despicable debacle we unleashed in Iraq. They are not interested in how to maximize U.S. interests. They are only interested in how to find a way to bring this disaster to some sort of slow resolution that looks as though it is a respectable and decent outcome — anything that makes it seem like it wasn’t a horrendous mistake in the first place. That is what the Baker-Hamilton Commission is about and it’s what all of these Beltway analysts are doing by endorsing these premises:
(1) Things in Iraq are disastrous and our current policy there is a total failure.(2) Our troop presence is not improving the situation; things have gotten steadily worse.(3) There may be goals that, if theoretically met, would improve things, but those goals can’t and won’t be met — either because we lack the resources or because they are just not achievable.(4) No matter what, we absolutely cannot begin withdrawing, and those who want to do so are radical and unserious.
So what is being done now is exactly what Tom Friedman did before the war — we continue to endorse a policy (staying in Iraq) even though we consciously know that no good can come from it and that it will produce nothing but bad results, and we justify that based on the fantasy that we could, in theory, improve things. Tom Friedman is a morally bankrupt narcissist whose only devotion is to the self-love of his own genius. He emphatically advocated the war beforehand but included every caveat possible so that, no matter what happened, he could claim to have been right, which is exactly what he has been doing.
But tragically, there is nothing unique about Tom Friedman. What drives him is the same mentality that enabled the administration’s invasion of Iraq and, so much worse, it is the mentality that is keeping us there and will keep us there for the indefinite future. We stay in Iraq in pursuit of goals we know are fantasies, because to do otherwise requires the geniuses and serious establishment analysts to accept responsibility for what they have done — and that is, by far, the most feared and despised outcome.
The invasion of Iraq was a huge mistake. But the behavior of our political and media leaders after that, and now, reveal that they are not just bereft of judgment but entirely bereft of character.
UPDATE: In comments, J makes an insightful and important point about people like Friedman who always think that their particular criticism of the administration, the war and other similar matters defines the outermost limit of what constitutes acceptable, responsible and permissible dissent. To be unserious, irresponsible, shrill, etc., means to transgress the limits definitionally established by their views.
UPDATE II: Hilzoy, via e-mail, directs my attention to this article from TAP’s Harold Meyerson regarding pundit responsibility for Iraq, in which he says:
“I have to admit I’ve always been ?ghting my own war in Iraq,” Friedman wrote in the summer of 2003. “Mr. Bush took the country into his war.” Was it too much to ask the nation’s most important foreign-policy journalist to focus on Bush’s war — particularly because, well, it was Bush, and not Friedman, who was president?
It’s amazing enough that people like Tom Friedman failed to understand that point. But what is more amazing still — and truly both infuriating and tragic — is that they still don’t seem to be able to digest it.”
Very good post, CF, excellent, in fact.
What drive those of us on the anti-war side crazy is that what has happened is what we predicted would happen. I remember writing an essay on the assumed war, prior to March of 2003, stating that we would unleash a civil war on Iraq, once Saddam was removed from power. I also stated that there would be no WMD found and that there was no connection between Saddam and 9/11 or with al Qaeda.
The right can spin it anyway they want, but the fact remains that the War on Iraq has been a monumental error in judgment from the very beginning. I grieve for every soldier lost to this lost cause. I grieve for every Iraqi that is lost. For the right-wing, death is abstract. For those of us on the left, death is the price of a totally unjust war.
The lessons of Vietnam seem to be lost in the mists of history for the warmongers. The dead are real people, real sons and daughters and they will never enjoy life as we know it again. I grieve knowing that my country is responsible for so much death and destruction.
The right-wing laughs and calls us to task for being stuck in the Sixties – give peace a chance – kum-by-ya, etc – but they never stop to look at what we have done.
We have destroyed a country, we have started a civil war and we have destroyed our claim to any moral high ground.
They laugh at us for being peaceniks, like praying for peace is a bad thing. They laugh at us for wanting life and all it’s blessings for all mankind. They laugh at us for believing that there is a better answer to the world’s problems than to wage war.
When will the madness end?
Uhm, folks, those who are keeping track. . .is that the same Jim G.? Just asking.
P.S. While being ultra-wealthy isn’t a. . . well, okay, not inherently wrong (was going to say “sin,” but the whole “camel/needle” biz came to me), here’s another interesting tidbit about Friedman:
“As the July edition of the Washingtonian Magazine notes, Friedman lives in ‘a palatial 11,400-square-foot house, now valued at $9.3 million, on a 7½-acre parcel just blocks from I-495 and Bethesda Country Club.’ He ‘married into one of the 100 richest families in the country’ – the Bucksbaums, whose real-estate Empire is valued at $2.7 billion.
Let’s be clear – I’m a capitalist, so I have no problem with people doing well or living well, even Tom Friedman. That said, this does potentially explain an ENORMOUS amount about Friedman’s perspective. Far from the objective, regular-guy interpreter of globalization that the D.C. media portrays him to be, Friedman is a member of the elite of the economic elite on the planet Earth. In fact, he’s married into such a giant fortune, it’s probably more relevant to refer to him as Billionaire Scion Tom Friedman than columnist Tom Friedman, both because that’s more descriptive of what he represents, and more important for readers of his work to know so that they know a bit about where he’s coming from.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/billionaire-scion-tom-fri_b_26164.html
I’d kinda like to see his stock portfolio.
fleettwood,
So you believe a site that tries to get media to be accurate and unbiased is a commie site?
At Concord high school, Al Gore was urging students not to be cynical, and to get involved in government.
Tell us why your “liberal” NY Times and Wa Post misquoted him, saying he boasted that he (not Toone) started it all.
Tell us why the Wa Post flubbed their “correction”.http://www.dailyhowler.com/h120799_1.shtml
Tell us why “liberal” MSM made false attacks on Gore — Love Canal, “invented” the Internet, ‘Love Story’, etc.
Was it because they planned to endorse him next year? /sarcasm
‘Price of the ‘Liberal Media’ Myth’http://consortiumnews.com/2002/123102a.html
WSClark, you and many others saw the outcome of the invasion before we ever overthrew the regime. Bush has had his blinders on ever since he took office, now we’ll all pay the piper for the rest of our lives. And if we have it bad, imagine what it’s like for the Iraqis.
Being able to say “I told you so” gives little solace given the current circumstances. Unfortunately, it looks like it is going to get much worse before it gets any better.
Vietnam redeaux…….. with greater political, social and security issues.
GWB – WPE
Countin’ the days!! I’m having one hell of a party when he walks out of the White House.We all need to get together and celebrate on our independance (from stupidity) day!
cosmos-consortium news gets you nowhere. Pure bullshit. What is this deal you are pounding? 6 years ago?Live in the now, man!
Jeez, Fleet, you CONservatives wanted to have Clinton drawn and quartered over a failed land deal that he made seven years before he was elected President. Now you are complaining that we bring up an election that was STOLEN?
Live in the now?
BTW – Ken Starr, the Special Prostitutor, came to the conclusion that Clinton had done nothing wrong on the Whitewater deal.
Okay… I guess fleettwood believes that his “liberal” media made false attacks on Gore ALL during the campaign, because a few of them would endorse Gore shortly before the election. And the same for Kerry.
The “now” has been strongly f’d up by what media did, and did not do, during the last 6 years.
fleettwood, I challenge you to find inaccuracies in Robert Parry’s columns at consortiumnews. Your childish post of “pure bullshit” is pure bullshit.