From today's NYT Dancing Alone By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN It is time to ask this question: Do we have any chance of succeeding at regime change in Iraq without regime change here at home? "Hey, Friedman, why are you bringing politics into this all of a sudden? You're the guy who always said that producing a decent outcome in Iraq was of such overriding importance to the country that it had to be kept above politics." Yes, that's true. I still believe that. My mistake was thinking that the Bush team believed it, too. I thought the administration would have to do the right things in Iraq — from prewar planning and putting in enough troops to dismissing the secretary of defense for incompetence — because surely this was the most important thing for the president and the country. But I was wrong. There is something even more important to the Bush crowd than getting Iraq right, and that's getting re-elected and staying loyal to the conservative base to do so. It has always been more important for the Bush folks to defeat liberals at home than Baathists abroad. That's why they spent more time studying U.S. polls than Iraqi history. That is why, I'll bet, Karl Rove has had more sway over this war than Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Bill Burns. Mr. Burns knew only what would play in the Middle East. Mr. Rove knew what would play in the Middle West. I admit, I'm a little slow. Because I tried to think about something as deadly serious as Iraq, and the post- 9/11 world, in a nonpartisan fashion — as Joe Biden, John McCain and Dick Lugar did — I assumed the Bush officials were doing the same. I was wrong. They were always so slow to change course because confronting their mistakes didn't just involve confronting reality, but their own politics. Why, in the face of rampant looting in the war's aftermath, which dug us into such a deep and costly hole, wouldn't Mr. Rumsfeld put more troops into Iraq? Politics. First of all, Rummy wanted to crush once and for all the Powell doctrine, which says you fight a war like this only with overwhelming force. I know this is hard to believe, but the Pentagon crew hated Colin Powell, and wanted to see him humiliated 10 times more than Saddam. Second, Rummy wanted to prove to all those U.S. generals whose Army he was intent on downsizing that a small, mobile, high-tech force was all you needed today to take over a country. Third, the White House always knew this was a war of choice — its choice — so it made sure that average Americans never had to pay any price or bear any burden. Thus, it couldn't call up too many reservists, let alone have a draft. Yes, there was a contradiction between the Bush war on taxes and the Bush war on terrorism. But it was resolved: the Bush team decided to lower taxes rather than raise troop levels. Why, in the face of the Abu Ghraib travesty, wouldn't the administration make some uniquely American gesture? Because these folks have no clue how to export hope. They would never think of saying, "Let's close this prison immediately and reopen it in a month as the Abu Ghraib Technical College for Computer Training — with all the equipment donated by Dell, H.P. and Microsoft." Why didn't the administration ever use 9/11 as a spur to launch a Manhattan project for energy independence and conservation, so we could break out of our addiction to crude oil, slowly disengage from this region and speak truth to fundamentalist regimes, such as Saudi Arabia? (Addicts never tell the truth to their pushers.) Because that might have required a gas tax or a confrontation with the administration's oil moneymen. Why did the administration always — rightly — bash Yasir Arafat, but never lift a finger or utter a word to stop Ariel Sharon's massive building of illegal settlements in the West Bank? Because while that might have earned America credibility in the Middle East, it might have cost the Bush campaign Jewish votes in Florida. And, of course, why did the president praise Mr. Rumsfeld rather than fire him? Because Karl Rove says to hold the conservative base, you must always appear to be strong, decisive and loyal. It is more important that the president appear to be true to his team than that America appear to be true to its principles. (Here's the new Rummy Defense: "I am accountable. But the little guys were responsible. I was just giving orders.") Add it all up, and you see how we got so off track in Iraq, why we are dancing alone in the world — and why our president, who has a strong moral vision, has no moral influence.
An interesting question...albeit a biased and loaded question with using "anger and arrogance." You make that statement as if it were fact...when it is an opinion. Regardless, any campaign has its unique characteristics. I'm unsure if Kerry will get the independent vote. I think it is true that Kerry suffers from lack of definition yet. But in his defense, this campaign is far more excelerated than any in history. Hell, W was targeting Kerry before he was even officially nominated. Candidates don't normally have their platform fined tuned this early. I think the debates will be interesting. Kerry needs to pipe down until then. TJ, you bring up the W beat Gore in the debates. That is a half-truth. Gore was his own worst enemy with the "lockbox" and heavy breathing. Back to the topic: I was watching CSPAN of the British parliment the other day. It was a question/answer session of Tony Blair by parliment members. They were very direct no-holds-bars questions. And the speed at which things occured floored me. A member would ask a random question...say about educational funding. Without pause, Tony Blair would stand up and provide a relevent answer in AK-47 speed. Then a moment later another completely different question...maybe about Iraq. Again without pause, Blair would answer that question. This went on for about an hour...with no two successive questions being related. I was shocked and Awed. His ability to answer ALL questions on his feet and provide blindling fast - coherant answers...it made me realize how much our American presidents are prescripted made-for-TV pupets with GWB leading that pack. W wouldn't last 5 minutes in this environment. (Honestly, I doubt Clinton could even hang...he talks too slow.) It was interesting to see. There were no stall tactics. There were no aids by his side coaching him. There were no catch phrases or forced sound bites. No pass-the-buck statements like "I beleive the CIA has already addressed that question." Just direct answers to hard questions. Refreshing.
I noted the same thing. For the last 18 months, I couldn't believe how incredibly naive his hawkish Iraq columns were...even when things started to go really bad back in the fall he was sort of in denial. Then all of a sudden boom....it finally hits him? Come on Tom, the warning signs were there before during and after. I've lost a little bit of the not insubstantial respect that I had for his perception previously, plus his writing style is simplistic yet patronizing and sort of grates on me a bit.
Friedman knows which way the winds blowing. Even Tucker Carlson has now come out against the war. He said a "smarter" friend had convinced him the invasion was a good idea against his better judgement. I found the quote- "I think it’s a total nightmare and disaster, and I’m ashamed that I went against my own instincts in supporting it," he said. "It’s something I’ll never do again. Never. I got convinced by a friend of mine who’s smarter than I am, and I shouldn’t have done that. No. I want things to work out, but I’m enraged by it, actually."
Actually, I think one would sooner expect to see a Tucker sporting a smart cowboy hat and sharply creased Wranglers, which goes a long way toward explaining why that smug prick tarts himself up with the foppishly affected bow tie routine.
REED IRVINE-IN-CHIEF? THIS is a passage from Tuesday's Washington Times, which is itself an excerpt from Bill Sammon's new insider account of the Bush presidency, Misunderestimated: The President Battles Terrorism, John Kerry and the Bush Haters. (emphasis added) "I get the newspapers — the New York Times, The Washington Times, The Washington Post and USA Today — those are the four papers delivered," he said. "I can scan a front page, and if there is a particular story of interest, I'll skim it." The president prides himself on his ability to detect bias in ostensibly objective news stories. "My antennae are finely attuned," he said. "I can figure out what so-called 'news' pieces are going to be full of opinion, as opposed to news. So I'm keenly aware of what's in the papers, kind of the issue du jour. But I'm also aware of the facts." Those facts are extracted from news stories each day and presented to the president by a half-dozen aides, Mr. Card among them. "Since I'm the first one to see him in the morning, I usually give him a quick overview and get a little reaction from him," Mr. Card explained. "Frequently, I find that his reaction kind of reflects [first lady] Laura Bush's take." Indeed, the president often cites articles that Mrs. Bush flags for greater scrutiny, even when he has not personally slogged through those stories. Mrs. Bush routinely delves more deeply into the news pages than her husband, who prefers other sections. "He does not dwell on the newspaper, but he reads the sports page every day," Mr. Card said with a chuckle. 'A clear outlook' Mr. Bush thinks that immersing himself in voluminous, mostly liberal-leaning news coverage might cloud his thinking and even hinder his efforts to remain an optimistic leader. "I like to have a clear outlook," he said. "It can be a frustrating experience to pay attention to somebody's false opinion or somebody's characterization, which simply isn't true." What strikes me about this isn't the stuff about the First Lady or the skimming of articles. It's that, at least from his self-presentation, the president seems to see his news reading largely, if not entirely, as an exercise in detecting liberal media bias. That, and he seems to see shielding himself from opposing viewpoints as a key to maintaining what he calls a "clear outlook" and what Sammon refers to as being an "optimistic leader". I guess we can all relate to this, can't we? How 'frustrating' it is to have to listen to "somebody's false opinion or somebody's characterization, which simply isn't true" (i.e., information that contradicts our assumptions and viewpoints)? It (i.e., critical thinking) really gets in the way of having a "clear outlook", right? Now, certainly no one is perfect when it comes to subjecting and then resubjecting their viewpoints to fresh facts or challenging their assumptions with intelligently stated contrary views. I can't claim to be. But it's one thing to fall short of the mark and another to work out a system of self-rationalization and denial to ensure you come nowhere near the mark. And this is it in spades. He doesn't even need the yes-men who "extract" the "facts" from the news articles. He's his own built-in yes-man. How could we have ignored so many warnings, so much expert advice, so many facts staring us in the face? The president just gave you the answer. -- Josh Marshall
What's frightening is the fact that you are frightened so easily rimrocker. The Washington Times is a Republican centered newspaper so they are going to have stories about President Bush that are off the cuff.
No, they are going to have stories that make him look good. In some perverse way, this story makes him look good to the faithful... that's why they excerpted it and that is one of the many reasons this is frightening.
