Thomas Friedman

There are only a handful of liberal columnists whom I respect. One of them is Thomas Friedman of the New York Times. Dowd lacks the intellectual firepower to justify her impressive journalistic real estate, Krugman may have been a serious economist once, but is completely unhinged, token conservatives Safire and Brooks do well. Thomas Friedman makes me think.

I signed up with a musician friend to be kept abreast of his gigs. His wife has commandeered the mailing list to send daily rantings from the MoveOn.org and Michael Moore side of the party. Most are too wacko to contemplate, but Mr. Friedman's piece deserves a read:

Columnists for this newspaper are not allowed to endorse presidential candidates. But I think this election is so important, I am going to break the rules. I hope I don't get fired. But here goes: I am endorsing George Bush for president. No, no - not George W. Bush. I am endorsing his father - George Herbert Walker Bush.

Aha, the Bush pere trick! Why can't W be more like his arabist, State Dept, striped pants Dad? All the liberals loved him so much when he was president. Now Friedman points out that if you liked GHWB, you'll love President Kerry!

Here is my response:

Okay, I like and respect Thomas Friedman, though I frequently disagree. This time is no exception.

Friedman is correct to say that Senator Kerry is the heir of GHWB. That is astute and correct. What’s wrong is his assertion that that is what we need right now. Consider this statement:

Right or wrong, he felt that had he tried, he would have lost the coalition he had built up to evict Saddam from Kuwait. He obviously believed that the U.S. should never invade an Arab capital without a coalition that contained countries whose support mattered in that part of the world, such as France, Egypt, Syria or Saudi Arabia.

So, let me get this straight. Before we protect American interests, or advance liberty, we have to get permission from:

1) Saudi Arabia. Wait – didn’t Michael Moore point out that 15 of the hijackers came from Saudi Arabia? Isn’t it true that a woman cannot drive there? That only Muslims can take the highway exit that leads to Mecca and Medina? Monarchical religious rule? Should we let them decide?
2) Syria. Saddam Hussein’s cousins and fellow Baathists run this backwards slave state, and it is on the State Department’s list of State Sponsors of Terrorism. Seems funny that we cannot act until we get assent from Assad…
3) Egypt. Well they hate America there even though they receive billions of dollars of aid. I think there might be scant amounts of rights for women and other religions – but still, I think I’ll pass on giving them veto power of our foreign policy.
4) France. Ahh France, the country that was so awash in corrupt UN Oil-for-food money and so reliant on Iraqi oil that they did veto coalition action in the Security Council, content to allow years of slaughter and torture. And a country that is very uncomfortable with US power to begin with.

Yes, George HW Bush, and Friedman, and the State Department are quite willing to let these nations decide our course. But I am not. George W. Bush is not.

Cheers,
jk

Posted by jk at November 1, 2004 11:28 AM