From the wise to the absurd
We don’t usually post YouTube clips that have nothing to do with local politics, but I saw this clip of Tom Friedman of the New York Times arguing in favor of the war just after I finished reading retired General John Batiste’s piece arguing against the continued occupation and was struck by the comparison.
The contrast is telling: Batiste’s arguments are grounded in centuries of military and political thinking, Friedman’s is that we needed to tell the Muslim world, in Friedman’s own words, to “suck on this.” Friedman still appears regularly on television, writes a weekly column for the New York Times, and is treated as an authority on the Middle East. General Batiste (who actually commanded troops in Iraq) cannot get an opinion piece published in the Washington Times or Wall Street Journal. This speaks volumes of the depths to which our media has sunk.
[gv data="http://www.youtube.com/v/E7qkZ_w2oxM"][/gv]
At least he’s being honest, here.
We invaded Iraq not because of Saddam’s crimes, or because of 9/11 involvement, or because of WMDs, but simply because we wanted to say F.U. (and I don’t mean Friedman Units) to the Muslim world. That’s all it was, schoolyard stuff. Sure, they gave us all kinds of other reasons…. but it was just bloodlust and revenge.
Part of the reason they won’t give Batiste the time of day is the holy stink the wingers raise whenever he’s allowed to speak (write).
Sheesh. Talk about an Ugly American.
I usually use words like “which part of “x” don’t you understand?” when I think I’m talking to a moron — and the moron usually gets the point clearly.
And I use words like “suck on this” when I … well, nevermind. Actually, I just don’t use words like that, ever. Maybe that’s my problem.
I’m totally confused by Freidman’s comments. I must be missing something. Is he saying that we went into Iraq, because we wanted Arab nations to stop saying that all we care about are Hummers (and other superficial items)? This is confusing to me, because he cites Saudi Arabia as an example. Last time I checked, the rich Saudi oil aristocracy loves its luxury goods. I highly doubt they’d be making such comments. I guess, I’m confused as to whether he’s referring to the leaders of Arab nations, or the word on the street? What exactly does he mean by a bubble, and how was this bubble supposed to balance out power against the United States?
Not to mention that we still support the Saudi regime.
Friedman has a record of saying this kind of thing. He talked about “bombing Serbia back to the 14th century” as well.
It’s kind of amazing that he gets away with saying this kind of thing. Can any sane adult really see war in this way? I’ll bet there is virtually no one high up in the military who thinks along these lines. Because they know what actually happens to people when you bomb their countries.
Exile, this is a local political issue in that ALL of America cares about this and we have many local soldiers and families of those soldiers in this morass. I submit it is hyperlocal as well because we will be sending quite a few of our National Guard troops to fight soon. Spitzer may say we have enough troops to handle it and maintain homeland security, but that is assuming few national disasters. Can’t schedule those so hope he’s right. Thank you for posting it.
And not to go on and on, but what makes him think that a majority of people in “that part of the world” all support Islamic extremism? There’s not much evidence to suggest they do, except possibly in Saudi Arabia.
Plenty of right-wingers are unable to intellectually seperate the government of a country from the people of the country. Read this forum thread.
[...] to complain about the Repugs, and they sure have had their share of slimey ones lately, (also check here and here) but now here’s a chance to become involved in a major way to thwart their evil [...]