Tom Friedman is right again

[Peter]

A Hole in the Heart

 

Today's column is right on.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

A Hole in the Heart

 

Today's column is right on.

89725[/snapback]

 

Friedman's a left wing loony so detached from reality it's not funny. But hey, what would one expect from "the rag of record"?

[Terry Tate]

So, the best way to heal the "hole in the heart" of the world is for the French and Germans to reverse their positions on helping out in Iraq, and for President Bush's policies to be successful (a democratic Iraq for an ally). That would be nice.

 

However, it is obvious that no level of ability to communicate, follow through and persuade would have changed or will change the positions of the countries so deeply involved with the oil-for-food scandal - he should read more current events.

 

The lines about the US being the ones to start to export fear and how the whole world loved President Reagan were pretty funny. You gotta give him that.

[Alaska Darin]

You'll have to excuse me. I stopped reading after getting to the line "The normally thoughtful Guardian newspaper..."

 

My boss is a little pissed because I did a spit take all over my flat screen.

 

Let's keep wondering why we're not going down the right path when stevestojan like this is considered "journalism". John Stewart was right about at least one thing on Crossfire.

[RCow]

The irony of this thread. This guy is the supreme moderate of foriegn policy and the right kicks him to the curb because he doesn't praise Bush. He supported the Iraq War but has always believed Bush mishandled the walk up and Mission Accomplished aftermath.

 

So, the best way to heal the "hole in the heart" of the world is for the French and Germans to reverse their positions on helping out in Iraq, and for President Bush's policies to be successful (a democratic Iraq for an ally). That would be nice.

 

However, it is obvious that no level of ability to communicate, follow through and persuade would have changed or will change the positions of the countries so deeply involved with the oil-for-food scandal - he should read more current events.

 

The first part is very true and one of the few perscriptions for an optimistic future in the MidEast. The second is right wing propoganda. It's like saying the ONLY reason we went to Iraq is to enrich Cheney and Halliburton. It's possibly "a" factor, but barely registers as the principle reason or motivation.

 

If the Bush Adminstration stuck much more closely to Friedman's prescriptions over the past two years they'd be cruising to reelection. Instead Bush listened to the extreme wing of his Party and is teetering on the brink of disaster, both in the world and electorally.

 

Hope for the Middle East is supporting the moderates not fueling the extremists. That would also work here at home.

 

When the world liked Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan, America had more power in the world. When much of the world detests George Bush, America has less power. People do not want to be seen standing next to us. It doesn't mean we should run our foreign policy as a popularity contest, but it does mean that leading is not just about making decisions - it's also the ability to communicate, follow through and persuade.

[stuckincincy]

Each and every day, I receive more reasons why this Union should break up.

[Guest BackInDaDay]

People do not want to be seen standing next to us. It doesn't mean we should run our foreign policy as a popularity contest, but it does mean that leading is not just about making decisions - it's also the ability to communicate, follow through and persuade.

 

Another weak attempt at disguising "compromise" as "diplomacy". This carries the same intonnation as Kerry's "global test" comment.

 

It seems there are many among us that haven't the will to defend others or themselves.

Nations don't compromise their freedoms, they surrender them!

[GG]

Nothing like a very respected Tom Friedman holding to his principles and being consistent in his views over the last two years.

 

I wonder of Mr Friedman can play a little exercise with the following quote of his:

 

I am no Sharon fan, but I am impressed. Mr. Sharon's willingness to look his own ideology and his own political base in the eye, conclude that pandering to both of them is no longer in his country's national interest, and then risk his life and political career to change course is an example of leadership you just don't see much of any more in democracies.

 

Take out "Sharon" and replace it with "Bush."

[Terry Tate]

The irony of this thread.  This guy is the supreme moderate of foriegn policy and the right kicks him to the curb because he doesn't praise Bush.  He supported the Iraq War but has always believed Bush mishandled the walk up and Mission Accomplished aftermath. 

The first part is very true and one of the few perscriptions for an optimistic future in the MidEast.  The second is right wing propoganda.  It's like saying the ONLY reason we went to Iraq is to enrich Cheney and Halliburton.  It's possibly "a" factor, but barely registers as the principle reason or motivation.

 

If the Bush Adminstration stuck much more closely to Friedman's prescriptions over the past two years they'd be cruising to reelection.  Instead Bush listened to the extreme wing of his Party and is teetering on the brink of disaster, both in the world and electorally. 

 

Hope for the Middle East is supporting the moderates not fueling the extremists.  That would also work here at home.

89839[/snapback]

 

The irony of this post, and the irony of this column. This guy writes a column admitting the best thing to heal the "hole in the heart", the best possible outcome for the entire world, the thing that will make it all better, is the successful conclusion of the foreign policy set forth by President Bush.

 

But he also clearly believes that John Kerry, who disagrees with every aspect of the President's policy, is the better of the two to successfully carry it out.

 

He ignores the French and German statements to the effect that they have no intention of changing their positions no matter who is President-elect on November 3rd, and their complicity in the Oil-for-food scandal which would explain why. Please explain how you or John Kerry change their minds on this.

 

How about his statement that the we are the ones exporting fear, you agree with his take on that as well?

 

Can you explain to me when exactly the "whole world" liked Ronald Reagan? Was it when he declared the USSR as the "evil empire", or when Pershing missiles were deployed? I'm assuming the list of admirers includes John (the Reagan years were a time of "moral darkness") Kerry, since he chose to invoke Reagan favorably during the debates.

 

The irony resides in the article, and the defense of it.

[Kelly the Dog]

Friedman's a left wing loony so detached from reality it's not funny. But hey, what would one expect from "the rag of record"?

89787[/snapback]

Charles Krauthammer and William Safire, perhaps the two most right wing serious columnists in the country?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Charles Krauthammer and William Safire, perhaps the two most right wing serious columnists in the country?

90007[/snapback]

 

*smiles*

 

It's rare that you see them on the website. Usually it's that kook friedman.

[Peter]

Thanks guys for (unintentionally) proving Friedman's (and my) point with your posts: "the moderate center seems to be getting torn asunder."

[RCow]

The irony of this post, and the irony of this column. This guy writes a column admitting the best thing to heal the "hole in the heart", the best possible outcome for the entire world, the thing that will make it all better, is the successful conclusion of the foreign policy set forth by President Bush.

 

But he also clearly believes that John Kerry, who disagrees with every aspect of the President's policy, is the better of the two to successfully carry it out.

 

He ignores the French and German statements to the effect that they have no intention of changing their positions no matter who is President-elect on November 3rd, and their complicity in the Oil-for-food scandal which would explain why. Please explain how you or John Kerry change their minds on this.

 

How about his statement that the we are the ones exporting fear, you agree with his take on that as well?

 

Can you explain to me when exactly the "whole world" liked Ronald Reagan? Was it when he declared the USSR as the "evil empire", or when Pershing missiles were deployed? I'm assuming the list of admirers includes John (the Reagan years were a time of "moral darkness") Kerry, since he chose to invoke Reagan favorably during the debates.

 

The irony resides in the article, and the defense of it.

89993[/snapback]

 

This is what's wrong with the Bush Administration. It has completely failed to admit that maybe things aren't going so well, that huge mistakes were made and we should possibly adjust our course. Arrogance in face of the obvious.

 

You don't get it, this article was NOT about John Kerry, or the Democrats. He makes NO reference or judgement to Kerry's record nor does he EVER say that everything Bush did was wrong.

 

In fact, Friedman has in general been supportive of Bush's policy goals but not the way he has managed it. That's why he continually uses the term "incompetence." You can fully support the decision to build a house but criticize how it is constructed -- it's poorly built, mismanged, has extreme cost overruns and he still hasn't explained what it will look like, how it will it get built or how much it will cost. Friedman still supports the idea of building the house but contends we will only succeed if Bush admits some mistakes and makes a few much needed corrections. (This analogy can go on for some time . . .)

 

It really doesn't matter what France and Germany say right now. They have their politics as well and there are many other nations in the world. We need as much help as we can get. We can't and shouldn't do this alone, it's simply won't work. It's about finding a way to make the policy succeed -- at as little cost to us; but it will take world leadership. We need the world to follow us and help us follow through. Friedman makes NO judgement about going into Iraq (which he supported) but he discusses the negative consquences of Bush's decisions and policy making that have hamstrung our ability to follow through and succeed; and what he thinks BUSH (not Kerry) could do to make a course correction. However, to do that he has to stop giving the Republican rightwing a big ol' wet kiss and do what's necessary to succeed.

 

Just as important, it's not just about Iraq but other negative consequences Bush's policy and approach have made on the War on Terror and other troubles around the world.

 

As for the export fear line: you'd have to purposefully misread his meaning to believe he was equating Bush to Bin Ladin. It's about what kind of leader or nation we want to be; one that's fatalistic and controls the debate by extolling fear, distrust and jingoism -- if you don't do as we say you'll all die -- or worse, if you not with us your against us. The right wing in this country eats it up but's no way for a world leader to act, and certainly not in the best interest of the US.

 

The world certainly wasn't in love with Reagan, but they certainly respected him a hell of a lot more and as a result he got a lot more accomplished. Unlike his father, W sure made the decision to get rid of Saddam; but it's too bad W has yet to demonstrate the ability and skill to do what is necessary to follow through and win the peace as well.

[Terry Tate]

This is what's wrong with the Bush Administration.  It has completely failed to admit that maybe things aren't going so well, that huge mistakes were made and we should possibly adjust our course.  Arrogance in face of the obvious. 

 

You don't get it, this article was NOT about John Kerry, or the Democrats.  He makes NO reference or judgement to Kerry's record nor does he EVER say that everything Bush did was wrong. 

 

In fact, Friedman has in general been supportive of Bush's policy goals but not the way he has managed it.  That's why he continually uses the term "incompetence."  You can fully support the decision to build a house but criticize how it is constructed -- it's poorly built, mismanged, has extreme cost overruns and he still hasn't explained what it will look like, how it will it get built or how much it will cost.  Friedman still supports the idea of building the house but contends we will only succeed if Bush admits some mistakes and makes a few much needed corrections.  (This analogy can go on for some time . . .)

 

It really doesn't matter what France and Germany say right now.  They have their politics as well and there are many other nations in the world.  We need as much help as we can get.  We can't and shouldn't do this alone, it's simply won't work.    It's about finding a way to make the policy succeed -- at as little cost to us; but it will take world leadership.  We need the world to follow us and help us follow through.  Friedman makes NO judgement about going into Iraq (which he supported) but he discusses the negative consquences of Bush's decisions and policy making that have hamstrung our ability to follow through and succeed; and what he thinks BUSH (not Kerry) could do to make a course correction.  However, to do that he has to stop giving the Republican rightwing a big ol' wet kiss and do what's necessary to succeed. 

 

Just as important, it's not just about Iraq but other negative consequences Bush's policy and approach have made on the War on Terror and other troubles around the world.

 

As for the export fear line:  you'd have to purposefully misread his meaning to believe he was equating Bush to Bin Ladin.  It's about what kind of leader or nation we want to be; one that's fatalistic and controls the debate by extolling fear, distrust and jingoism -- if you don't do as we say you'll all die -- or worse, if you not with us your against us.  The right wing in this country eats it up but's no way for a world leader to act, and certainly not in the best interest of the US. 

 

The world certainly wasn't in love with Reagan, but they certainly respected him a hell of a lot more and as a result he got a lot more accomplished.  Unlike his father, W sure made the decision to get rid of Saddam; but it's too bad W has yet to demonstrate the ability and skill to do what is necessary to follow through and win the peace as well.

90072[/snapback]

 

Please advise as to what huge mistakes it is important for us to admit to, and how these admissions further our national interests. Feel free to continue back past the Bush administration, if there were any other mistakes before he took office that you feel are necessary to atone for.

 

Secondly, what exactly are the few much needed corrections we must make? Using your house analogy, are these corrections Mr Kerry advocates, considering he campaigns along the "wrong house, wrong place, wrong time" lines?

 

Third, you've not outlined any specific response to how to engage France and Germany. Assuming you're more up on current events than Mr Freidman, or at least not willing to ignore them, what could have or can be done to get them to change their position?

 

I would not characterize the US position as "if you don't do as we say you'll all die" - I tend to think of it more as "if you kill or plot to kill a whole bunch of our innocent civilians, you're gonna die" - and yes, I "eat that stuff up" as you say.

 

Well, he says the whole world liked Reagan. You say they didn't love him, but they respected him. I thought you were old enough to have lived through those times. The American left, Europeans, Arabs, pretty much the same general people who hate President Bush - HATED - President Reagan. The same type of convusive fits about the war on terror taking place today in those circles were just as intense about the Cold War. The crowds turned out to protest President Bush on his last visit to Europe were a fraction of what demonstrated against President Reagan after he announced he was deploying Pershing missiles. The left's newly found respect and admiration for Ronald Reagan is questionable now; it certainly did not exist then.

 

If "W has yet to demonstrate the ability and skill to do what is necessary to follow through and win the peace", maybe he just needs four more years, eh?

[GG]

You don't get it, this article was NOT about John Kerry, or the Democrats.  He makes NO reference or judgement to Kerry's record nor does he EVER say that everything Bush did was wrong. 

 

And what would you call a person who believes that an op-ed, appearing 4 days before a Presidential election that slams a sitting President, is not a piece about the challenger or his policies?

 

The big problem for Friedman in trying to turn his opinion is that he was very vocal about the need for change, and the absolute resolve of the US to smack an Arab country in its face (I think he used terms very similar to that)

 

Now that the execution of the strategy that he advocated is not going as planned, he's the voice for change. His argument now is that by involving more people, things will be better.

 

Friedman was among the few voices on the left that advocated a strong military action. The problem with his reasoning is that the "outrage" at the US is not over the way it's handling the situation, but the fact that US went ahead and invaded Iraq when everyone was pussyfooting around. Any "diplomatic" efforts to bring more international support will just validate Bush's action, and not one of the opposing world powers would do that in Bush 2nd term.

 

Friedman is also being very cagey here, because in the countless conversations he's having with world leaders, he knows that more support is coming November 3rd, no matter who wins. It's just the Europeans would much rather deal with Kerry than Bush.