Friedman is back

From Sunday NYT:

Each time the Bush team had to choose between doing the right thing in the war on terrorism or siding with its political base and ideology, it chose its base and ideology. More troops or radically lower taxes? Lower taxes. Fire an evangelical Christian U.S. general who smears Islam in a speech while wearing the uniform of the U.S. Army or not fire him so as not to anger the Christian right? Don't fire him. Apologize to the U.N. for not finding the W.M.D., and then make the case for why our allies should still join us in Iraq to establish a decent government there? Don't apologize - for anything - because Karl Rove says the "base" won't like it. Impose a "Patriot Tax" of 50 cents a gallon on gasoline to help pay for the war, shrink the deficit and reduce the amount of oil we consume so we send less money to Saudi Arabia? Never. Just tell Americans to go on guzzling. Fire the secretary of defense for the abuses at Abu Ghraib, to show the world how seriously we take this outrage - or do nothing? Do nothing. Firing Mr. Rumsfeld might upset conservatives. Listen to the C.I.A.? Only when it can confirm your ideology. When it disagrees - impugn it or ignore it."

•  So, Old Tom Friedman

  the oh so reasonable architect of installing democracy in the arab world by force of arms thinks it could have been done better? And John Kerry has been "too political" about it? Somebody buy this man a stiff drink. His crap reinforced the Bushies through the run up and into the war while Democrats in the senate had a sincere debate. I thought Robert Byrd was right but my opinion was purely political. I live in Texas and I don't trust anybody named Bush. But Kerry, Biden, Clinton, et al really tried to "leave politics at the waters edge" because so called "moderate" intellectuals like Friedman thought it was a  good idea to march to Baghdad. Throw this bum out.  

  by johnmorris on Sun Oct 03, 2004 at 05:14:47 PM PDT