Tom Friedman Makes A Funny

4 comments March 21st, 2007at 07:45am Posted by Eli

Today’s NYT column:

Because the Republicans controlled the House and Senate, and because many conservatives sat in mute silence the last four years, the administration could too easily ignore its critics and drag out policies in Iraq that were not working. With the Democrats back in Congressional control, that is no longer possible.


Yeah, because Dubya is sooo deferential to the will of Congress.

Friedman’s theory (or at least part of it) is that Petraeus will be able to use the Democratic opposition to bluff the Iraqis into getting their act together, by warning them that the Democrats could force us to withdraw at any moment. Unfortunately, this theory assumes that the Iraqis don’t read any American blogs or newspapers…

It also assumes that the Iraqis getting their act together so we can declare victory and leave is really Bush’s objective. Remember when he cleverly “bluffed” Saddam into letting inspectors in? Only it turned out it wasn’t really a bluff, and that inspections were actually the opposite of what Bush wanted… and which he went ahead and did anyway. In other words, the Iraqis could patch up all their differences and install an America-friendly democratic government, and Dubya would just scowl petulantly and ask Karl for another macho-sounding excuse to stay put.

I recommend “We’re protecting democracy over there so we don’t have to protect it over here.”

Entry Filed under: Bush,Democrats,Iraq,Media,Politics,Republicans,War


  • 1. Spear and Magic  |  March 21st, 2007 at 10:28 am

    Too many people are making money off of this war for it to end just because of something as unremunerative as the will of the people.

    I don’t mean this in a conspiracy theoretic sense. I don’t think that people are sitting around in smoke-filled rooms saying, “Let’s keep this appropriations gravy train rolling!” or “If this war thing keeps rolling, our base will keep dumping cash into our campaign coffers!” It’s not going to end until 2009, at which point the incoming and outgoing Deciders will both get what they want by its ending: Incoming gets to be the one responsible for ending the nightmare and outgoing gets the opportunity to try to argue that everything was going great and the “L” belongs on someone else’s record.

    Nothing new in what I’m saying here, I know. Just venting.

  • 2. Eli  |  March 21st, 2007 at 10:45 am

    In Bush’s case, as Atrios says repeatedly, he simply believes that leaving = losing. Doesn’t matter how good or bad things are in Iraq; he believes that if he pulls us out it will damage his prestige, and his credibility as a tough guy, ha ha ha.

  • 3. charley  |  March 21st, 2007 at 3:04 pm

    going in = L

    i caught John Bolten on Jon Stewart last nite.

    that was an instructive peek into the psychology/mindset of the reich-wing nut.

    Dumb, Brute, Force.

    emphasize dumb.

  • 4. Eli  |  March 21st, 2007 at 3:39 pm

    Bolton was on TDS??? Jebus.

    Hey, I bet Atlas would be a *hilarious- guest. Or they could send one of their roving reporters to do a feature on her. Comedy gold.

Contact Eli



Most Recent Posts




March 2007
« Feb   Apr »

Thinking Blogger

Pittsburgh Webloggers

Site Meter

View My Stats *