For years, [tag]New York Times[/tag] columnist [tag]Thomas Friedman[/tag] has, comically, given the administration an almost never-ending series of six-month intervals to get [tag]Iraq[/tag] right. Last week, Friedman’s overly-patient approach ended and he announced that he was fed up with the war. “The longer we maintain a unilateral failing strategy in Iraq,” he concluded, “the harder it will be to build such a coalition, and the stronger the enemies of freedom will become.”
Today, [tag]Friedman[/tag] takes this one step further, and responds to [tag]Dick Cheney[/tag]’s argument that Ned Lamont’s recent victory “only proves that Democrats do not understand that we are in a titanic struggle with ‘[tag]Islamic[/tag] [tag]fascists[/tag]’ and are therefore unfit to lead.” Friedman, hardly a Dem partisan, said he has “just one question for Mr. Cheney,” but he actually had three.
If we’re in such a titanic struggle with radical Islam, and if getting Iraq right is at the center of that struggle, why did you “tough guys” fight the Iraq war with the Rumsfeld Doctrine — just enough troops to lose — and not the Powell Doctrine of overwhelming force to create the necessary foundation of any democracy-building project, which is security? How could you send so few troops to fight such an important war when it was obvious that without security Iraqis would fall back on their tribal militias?
Mr. Cheney, if we’re in a titanic struggle with Islamic fascists, why have you and President Bush resisted any serious effort to get Americans to conserve energy? Why do you refuse to push higher mileage standards for U.S. automakers or a gasoline tax that would curb our imports of oil? Here we are in the biggest struggle of our lives and we are funding both sides — the U.S. military with our tax dollars and the radical Islamists and the governments and charities that support them with our gasoline purchases — and you won’t lift a finger to change that. Why? Because it might impose pain on the oil companies and auto lobbies that fund the G.O.P., or require some sacrifice by Americans.
Mr. Cheney, if we’re in a titanic struggle with Islamic fascists, why do you constantly use the “war on terrorism” as a wedge issue in domestic politics to frighten voters away from Democrats. How are we going to sustain such a large, long-term struggle if we are a divided country?
And then Friedman tells us how he really feels.
Please, Mr. Cheney, spare us your flag-waving rhetoric about the titanic struggle we are in and how Democrats just don’t understand it. It is just so phony — such a patent ploy to divert Americans from the fact that you have never risen to the challenge of this war. You will the ends, but you won’t will the means. What a [tag]fraud[/tag]!
Friends, we are on a losing trajectory in Iraq, and, as the latest London plot underscores, the wider war with radical Islam is only getting wider. We need to reassess everything we are doing in this “war on terrorism” and figure out what is worth continuing, what needs changing and what sacrifice we need to demand from every American to match our means with our ends. Yes, the Democrats could help by presenting a serious alternative. But unless the party in power for the next two and half years shakes free of its denial, we are in really, really big trouble.
Thomas Friedman is not known for being “shrill,” so for him to call the vice president a “fraud,” in print, is somewhat surprising. And refreshing.
To follow up on a post from yesterday, Kevin Drum suggested reporters should take a closer look at “why so many mild-mannered moderate liberals have become so radicalized during George Bush’s tenure.” I’m beginning to think we could ask the same question of mild-mannered moderate newspaper columnists who seem to be increasingly loath to hide their deep revulsion for the White House’s conduct.