In Thomas Friedman's column in the New York Times today he falls into the same traps of moral relativism that were so disastrously wrong for him in the run up to the war in Iraq. Back then he excused the previous administration of lying us into a costly, clumsy war where Iran so far is the only clear winner. Friedman argued that regardless of Bush/Cheney's motives, Iraq will be our Israel, a flower of democracy in the desert of middle eastern dictatorships.
And today he argues that U.S. government-issued torture is just water(boarding) under the bridge.
Friedman's reasoning is uncharacteristically weak:
The president's decision to expose but not prosecute those responsible for this policy is surely unsatisfying; some of this abuse involved sheer brutality that had nothing to do with clear and present dangers. Then why justify the Obama compromise? Two reasons: the first is that because justice taken to its logical end here would likely require bringing George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and other senior officials to trial, which would rip our country apart; and the other is that Al Qaeda truly was a unique enemy, and the post-9/11 era a deeply confounding war in a variety of ways.
Would the country actually be ripped apart if American ideals of democracy and the rights of man were actually upheld instead of forgotten? As I wrote last week, I totally agree with the president in not prosecuting the individuals at the CIA, however the lawyers need to be held accountable. Targeting the lawyers is the best way to make sure that when a right-leaning government again comes into office -- and sooner or later it will -- we will have on the books clear historical precedent of punishing misdeeds. The investigation would not necessarily have to go beyond the lawyers to send the message that our Constitution is bigger than party politics.
Friedman's second point is even more clearly wrongheaded. He is actually saying that because Al Qaeda is a scary death cult they could not have been "deterred by normal means." Exactly! They are actually looking forward to dying, especially at the hands of their enemies. They are the last people you should be walling or waterboarding. If you're gonna torture somebody, geez, at least pick somebody with something to lose. Torturing a suicidal maniac makes as much sense as stuffing a gourmet with appetizers before the main course.
Finally Friedman actually repeats this ridiculous Bush-era mantra:
I believe that the most important reason there has not been another 9/11, besides the improved security and intelligence, is that Al Qaeda is primarily focused on defeating America in the heart of the Arab-Muslim world -- particularly in Iraq."
He actually believes that fighting them over there means that we don't have to fight them over here? Does he really think that Al Qaeda can't spare a dozen psychos? Are they all really too busy training in Pakistan to get on a boat? Does the author of, The World Is Flat, really not understand that terror cells, be they Al Qaeda or just Al Qaeda wannabes, can travel the globe as easily as a virus?
After Katrina he stopped Hurricanes from attacking again didn't he?
Friedman question:
http://therockhopper.blogspot.com/2007/09/pick-out-who-is-worse.html
The American people are now on the rise, with the election of Barack Obama, and there is no turning back.
The Rethuglican Party will be relegated to having been one big nightmare.
Pelosi, Dodd and the other Dems are just as in the tank with Wall Street as Bush and the GOP. Why do you think we have this Treasury Secretary? Wall Street donates more money to the Dems than the GOP, and the Dems are making sure their friends are taken care of.
So, you're not going to "put up with their treating this country as their own personal money sandbox."
You might want to check the Dem's donar list.
It needs also to be said that Bush didn't keep america safe: Bush killed nearly 6,000 americans for no good reason. He just did it over there, as Friedman notes.
1. We have a voluntary Army now and their support of their mission is high.
2. Most of the Iraqi deaths, which the actual number is unknown, are between themselves, not from coalition action; and even those are mostly defensive responses to attacks from the insurgents.
3. Would you also say that in WW2, our leaders didn't keep us safe because of all the soldiers who died defeating fascism and Imperial Japan? They "just did it over there."
4. 2003 was the resumption of the Persian Gulf War in the early 90's, which was sanctioned by the UN. There are 17 UN Resolutions documenting Saddam's violation of the 1992 cease fire.
http://ugaliberal.blogspot.com/2009/04/because-we-could-thomas-friedmans-sick.html
It infuriated me so much.
As I remember, it only outraged Bill's supporters.
Kind of like what would happen with Bush/Cheney supporters;
especially the NRA and the gun totin' rednecks.
But then again, maybe we're due for another civil war.
Is your butt still sore? How is that cream working?
The only people in recent history who made America put its money where its mouth was on its founding principles were African Americans, who held America to its stated principles on civil rights and equality.
It's time to do that again, hold America to its principles. Either we believe in our founding principles and our Constitution, or we don't. If we don't stand up for these ideals NOW, we will lose them.
We have the laws. WHY are they not being enforced?
Calling his argument "uncharacteristically weak" misses the point. Friedman's arguments have always been weak. It's just he's always had cabbies in India or the occasional executive in _______ to help support his arguments and make them look strong.
Tom Friedman without a random anecdotal source is... well... just a void.