Thomas L. Friedman NY Times editorial

MikeLastort2 · Mar 2, 2003

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/02/opinion/02FRIE.html

Another good one. This guy support getting rid of Hussein, but closes with this paragraph

So here's how I feel: I feel as if the president is presenting us with a beautiful carved mahogany table — a big, bold, gutsy vision. But if you look underneath, you discover that this table has only one leg. His bold vision on Iraq is not supported by boldness in other areas. And so I am terribly worried that Mr. Bush has told us the right thing to do, but won't be able to do it right.
Click to expand...

NYfutbolfan · Mar 2, 2003

Originally posted by MikeLastort2
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/02/opinion/02FRIE.html

but closes with this paragraph
And so I am terribly worried that Mr. Bush has told us the right thing to do, but won't be able to do it right.

Click to expand...

Sort of the way I felt when Ronald Wilson Reagan decided to build up our deficit in a bid to outspend the USSR and try to bring about the end of the cold war. I didn't believe that Reagan could pull it off.

But history and RWR proved me wrong. God bless you Pres. Bush for believing in an ideal. I guess this is what leadership is all about and thank you Mike for alerting us all to this article.

Danwoods · Mar 2, 2003

Re: Re: Thomas L. Friedman NY Times editorial

Originally posted by NYfutbolfan
God bless you Pres. Bush for believing in an ideal. I guess this is what leadership is all about and thank you Mike for alerting us all to this article.
Click to expand...

President Carter had ideals too. I guess that was what leadership was all about by the definition you provided.

superdave · Mar 2, 2003

Re: Re: Thomas L. Friedman NY Times editorial

I thought this was interesting.

What do I mean? I mean that if taking out Saddam and rebuilding Iraq had been my goal from the minute I took office (as it was for the Bush team), I would not have angered all of Europe by trashing the Kyoto global warming treaty without offering an alternative. I would not have alienated the entire Russian national security elite by telling the Russians that we were ripping up the ABM treaty and that they would just have to get used to it. (You're now seeing their revenge.) I would not have proposed one radical tax cut on top of another on the eve of a huge, costly nation-building marathon abroad.
Click to expand...

Originally posted by NYfutbolfan
Sort of the way I felt when Ronald Wilson Reagan decided to build up our deficit in a bid to outspend the USSR and try to bring about the end of the cold war. I didn't believe that Reagan could pull it off.

But history and RWR proved me wrong.
Click to expand...

I don't want to engage in thread hijacking, but that's an interpretation of the 80's that will not stand up once the politicians have gotten out of the business of writing history, and they leave it to the historians. There's soooo much at stake for conservatives on this issue, esp. after Clinton's economy was so robust. It's really all they have left. But the most charitable thing I can say about this viewpoint is that it's inadequate.

Elder Statesman · Mar 2, 2003

I respect Thomas Friedman as a fair-minded person. I always said that reasonable people could disagree on this war. Friedman (a moderate leftist) presents a valid portrayal of Bush's reasons for war. I can respect Friedman and his arguments compared to the extremely partisan arguments (the war is about oil, Bush wants to enact revenge, these are the same group who didn't get what they wanted in the Gulf War) that people like Superdave, Dan Loony, SofloMetro and Joe Pakovits engage in.

superdave · Mar 2, 2003

Fine, I'll go with Friedman's interpretation, if that'll make you happy.

Bush thinks he's God.

I disagree.