February 10, 2005
THE DEMOCRATS DON'T LIVE HERE ANYMORE:
Calling All Democrats (THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN, 2/10/05, NY Times)
In the past week, I've received several e-mail notes from Democrats about the Iraq elections, or heard comments from various Democratic lawmakers - always along the following lines: "Remember, Vietnam also had an election, and you recall how that ended." Or, "O.K., the election was nice, but none of it was worth $100 billion or 10,000 killed and wounded." Or, "You know, we've actually created more terrorists in Iraq - election or not."I think there is much to criticize about how the war in Iraq has been conducted, and the outcome is still uncertain. But those who suggest that the Iraqi election is just beanbag, and that all we are doing is making the war on terrorism worse as a result of Iraq, are speaking nonsense.
Here's the truth: There is no single action we could undertake anywhere in the world to reduce the threat of terrorism that would have a bigger impact today than a decent outcome in Iraq. It is that important. And precisely because it is so important, it should not be left to Donald Rumsfeld.
Democrats need to start thinking seriously about Iraq - the way Joe Biden, Joe Lieberman and Hillary Clinton have. If France - the mother of all blue states - can do it, so, too, can the Democrats. Otherwise, they will be absenting themselves from the most important foreign policy issue of our day.
That's gotta be the first time anyone ever referred to the two Joe's as serious thinkers. Comparing them to France is more like it. Posted by Orrin Judd at February 10, 2005 09:15 AM
That Rumsfeld line had me laughing out loud. Things are going too well to be left to the idiots who have been in charge of it.
Posted by: David Hill, The Bronx at February 10, 2005 09:45 AMDonald Rumsfeld is one of the only reasons there were elections in Iraq. Thomas Friedman is as big a Bozo as the rest of the so-called serious thinkers in his party who he cites here.
Posted by: Melissa at February 10, 2005 10:26 AMWatching Thomas try to struggle between writing common sense and keeping on the invite list for all the swell events in the New York-D.C. media party circuit is always entertaining. Friedman's huge sense of self-importance often steers him towards pompousity -- remember his master plan three years ago for peace in the Middle East -- but at the same time it keeps him from going the way of most of the Times' other columnists into complete moonbattery, since he knows if he buys into the left's entire line on Iraq and the Middle East, he will drift off into irrelevancy (or Krugmanland, if you prefer).
Posted by: John at February 10, 2005 10:48 AMJoe Biden thinking? Usually, he just waits for what Neil Kinnock has to say about something and then parrots it for an American audience with as little modification as possible.
Posted by: Bart at February 10, 2005 12:01 PMSage Tommy writes: "And precisely because it (the positive outcome in Iraq) is so important, it should not be left to Donald Rumsfeld." Who does he think got us to this point? Slow or snotty? You decide!
Posted by: Luciferous at February 10, 2005 12:40 PMI think the point is that now that it looks like things are going well in Iraq, Thomas and his friends, who initially opposed the invasion and have been carping since then, can't let the evil Republicans get all the credit for it.
Posted by: jd watson at February 10, 2005 01:25 PMKrugcreature and MoDo are just as delusional as ever. Tommy Boy is almost making sense.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at February 10, 2005 06:31 PM