I want to have Thomas Friedman's love child...
... but I don't have ovaries. 
(source) (free registration required to NYTimes)
If I was smart I would have written this op/ed piece. But I am not smart so God gave us Thomas Friedman.
Having said all that, I am glad Mr. Bush is meeting with Tony Blair. In fact, I wish he would turn over leadership on the whole Iraq crisis to him. Mr. Blair has an international vision that Mr. Bush sorely needs. "President Bush should be in charge of marshaling the power for this war," says the Middle East expert Stephen P. Cohen, "and Tony Blair should be in charge of the vision for which that power should be applied."
...
Lord knows, I don't diminish the threats we face, but for 18 months all we've been doing is exporting our fears to the world. Virtually all of Mr. Bush's speeches are about how we're going to protect ourselves and whom we're going to hit next. America as a beacon of optimism ? America as the world's chief carpenter, not just cop ? is gone. We need a little less John Wayne and a little more J.F.K. Once we get this Iraq crisis behind us, we need to get back to exporting our hopes, not just our fears.
Let me know if there are other humans out there who are pro-war in spite of the bungling foreign relations of our president?
Not to slag Bush. I like the guy, I think he's a good president, but he is not good at presenting the positives, which is something we desperately need right now.
Here's hoping Bush gets on the tube and gives a worldwide address as a message of hope to the people of the middle east. Please have Bush reassure the people of the world that the mighty hand of the United States is not moving for vengeance or oil, but for peace and prosperity.
I'm glad we're getting rid of Hussein, but I just wish we could have a little friendlier face and less wooden leadership.
Hope for the best!
(source) (free registration required to NYTimes)
If I was smart I would have written this op/ed piece. But I am not smart so God gave us Thomas Friedman.
Having said all that, I am glad Mr. Bush is meeting with Tony Blair. In fact, I wish he would turn over leadership on the whole Iraq crisis to him. Mr. Blair has an international vision that Mr. Bush sorely needs. "President Bush should be in charge of marshaling the power for this war," says the Middle East expert Stephen P. Cohen, "and Tony Blair should be in charge of the vision for which that power should be applied."
...
Lord knows, I don't diminish the threats we face, but for 18 months all we've been doing is exporting our fears to the world. Virtually all of Mr. Bush's speeches are about how we're going to protect ourselves and whom we're going to hit next. America as a beacon of optimism ? America as the world's chief carpenter, not just cop ? is gone. We need a little less John Wayne and a little more J.F.K. Once we get this Iraq crisis behind us, we need to get back to exporting our hopes, not just our fears.
Let me know if there are other humans out there who are pro-war in spite of the bungling foreign relations of our president?
Not to slag Bush. I like the guy, I think he's a good president, but he is not good at presenting the positives, which is something we desperately need right now.
Here's hoping Bush gets on the tube and gives a worldwide address as a message of hope to the people of the middle east. Please have Bush reassure the people of the world that the mighty hand of the United States is not moving for vengeance or oil, but for peace and prosperity.
I'm glad we're getting rid of Hussein, but I just wish we could have a little friendlier face and less wooden leadership.
Hope for the best!
Comments
I've really liked Friedman's writing since 9/11. He's the only major columnist that I really think "gets it". If anything, he's been leading the adminstration's explanations of why this war is a good idea. But a week ago, right about when France announced it would veto anything, anytime, he pussied out. Suddenly the war was a bad idea, so long as Chirac disapproved. I was disappointed - he had never before placed much emphasis on UN approval or international consensus. Still, I look forward to his next column - I'm real curious what his take on the last three days has been.
Originally posted by AdamB
I think we'll find that with time this whole fracas with the Security Council will amount to a hill of beans. France is already opening their path to get in on this war after their day in the sun is ending.
Friedman? Meh. According to Sheryl Crow, that's DANIEL Friedman.
Blair is one heck of a public speaker. I think it must come from his time in Parliament -- it appears that Parliament requires one to be ready to state and defend an argument. I have been extremely impressed with his role in all of this.
As for the French position: they're backpeddling those prized bicycles as hard as they can at this point.
Also, Bush has been handed one mess after another since he got into office. First we have to clean up the coke-party-90s-I'm-so-high-it-looks-like-the-new-economy-greed-fest then 9/11 and the economic havoc that's wreaking, the huge budgets to watch our borders and buy off countries so they will be our friends, and now we have to deal with a unified Europe trying to keep us in our place.
What's not to like?
Wooden leadership? I'd like to see anyone make sense out of this mess---could a president inherit a worse situation?
I don't think you can separate the emergence of the EU, as such, and their negative stance on the Iraq issue. There is something of a power play going in here. We are a superpower---and others want in the superpower game as well.
The EU is not united against the US on this issue. You are mistaken in your logic.
Quite a significant number of European nations are with us. You'll remember Chiraq telling a number of Eastern European nations to "shut up".
Sez moi a year ago (clicky):
I have a problem with allowing France to be the "ideological" center of a large group of independent nations. It is odd that the EU uses the most nationalistic nation in its group to spearhead its unification.
Let's not mistake French blustering for the opinion of the entire EU, it's insulting to the rest of Europe.
"France's voice will be heard again!"
Originally posted by groverat
The EU is not united against the US on this issue. You are mistaken in your logic.
Quite a significant number of European nations are with us. You'll remember Chiraq telling a number of Eastern European nations to "shut up".
European does not automatically mean a member of the European Union, which is actually a very pertinent fact in the case you cite. Here's a refresher (edit: I'm not sure if you are supporting your assertion or going off on a slight tangent.):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2775579.stm
I'm not sure what logic of ena's you disagree with as his comments generally support your position(s) and are broadly true.
Many of the British MP's speaking out about the war are more concerned about diplomatic rifts with our natural European allies and due process of international law than with the concept of waging a war.
The UK (and others) have supported the US but it is foolish to think that this a black and white issue when there is obviously scope for divided loyalties. This is particularly true as we head towards becoming the United States of Europe which seems more and more likely, the more the US throws its weight around.
The UK (and others) have supported the US but it is foolish to think that this a black and white issue when there is obviously scope for divided loyalties.
Exactly my friggin' point.
Which is why I say "The EU is not united against the US on this issue."
Originally posted by groverat
Exactly my friggin' point.
Which is why I say "The EU is not united against the US on this issue."
Well if that's your point (
You brought up the issue of whether the EU was 'united', I was going further pointing out that the nations that are 'for' or 'against' the US on this issue aren't united either.
Neither statement really affect the original point which addresses the anti-US stance regardless of its winning out politically and diplomatically in the end.
Well if that's your point (
What I quoted:
I don't think you can separate the emergence of the EU, as such, and their negative stance on the Iraq issue.
He asserts here that the EU has a stance on the issue. There is no clear stance.
Why don't you let him respond to it, eh? It wasn't even addressed to a statement you made. Let others defend their own statements, wot?
Originally posted by groverat
Why don't you let him respond to it, eh? It wasn't even addressed to a statement you made.[/B]
As I said, I couldn't see what you were disagreeing with as I would have expected you (and any other American able to rise above hating the French for simply being French) to agree that one of Europe's reasons for going against the US was for their own political powergames.
I just had a feeling I was missing something.
I think it is just a general push to let us know that they are there and are part of the game.
Either way it is a pointless argument---I just don't think you can remove the Emergence of the EU from the picture---and say France is just being France and that the politics can't (or aren't) come into play.
Also, no one brought up Germany---and then there is the "interesting" correlation with Britain's stand on Iraq and their attitude against being swallowed whole by the EU.