<p>“But I have a deep-held feeling that the transgressions of this President - the war, the deficit and spiraling debt, international relationships, and environmental policies - are going to have a longer-lasting detrimental effect on this country in the long run that previous administrations, Republican or Democrat.”</p>
<p>I am a republican and a conservative. </p>
<p>I share your concerns.</p>
<p>Thomas Friedman was so right on this morning. It’s Times Select, so there’s the NYT paywall, but here’s a snip:</p>
<p>Saying No to Bush’s Yes Men
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN</p>
<p>President Bush has slipped in one recent poll to a 29 percent approval rating. Frankly, I can’t believe that. Those polls can’t possibly be accurate. I mean, really, ask yourself: How could there still be 29 percent of the people who approve of this presidency?</p>
<p>Personally, I think the president can reshuffle his cabinet all he wants, but his poll ratings are not going to substantially recover ever. Americans are slow to judgment about a president, very slow. And in times of war, in particular, they are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. But I think a lot of Americans in recent months have simply lost confidence in this administration’s competence and honesty.</p>
<p>What has eaten away most at the support for this administration, I believe, has been the fact that time and time again, it has put politics and ideology ahead of the interests of the United States, and I think a lot of people are just sick of it. I know I sure am.</p>
<p>
If that is a Friedman quote, he has proven that he has lost any remaing grasp of reality. If you believe that the biggest wedge issue is Iraq, Friedman was a supporter of the Iraq war so how can he now claim that the Bush position is politically driven??? This sounds like one of Teddy Kennedy’s lunatic claims that Bush waged war for political gain - proving once again that Kennedy is not the brightest bulb in the circuit. It now sounds like Friedman has lost a few lumens as well.</p>
<p>Like most thinking Americans, Friedman changed his mind.</p>
<p>Assuming that Friedman changed his mind about the war, that gives him no right to claim that Bush or anyone who still supports it to be politically driven. It does not only not give him the right, but to make such a charge after supporting the war is illogical unless you also admit that your support for the war was politically driven. On the other hand someone who does change his mind and then makes such a charge sure sounds like it is a politically motivated charge.</p>
<p>No, facts on the ground have changed a lot of people’s minds, FF. Whatever existential threat was purported to be standing behind Saddam has been disproven (well, of course, Iraq is a breeding ground for terrorists now, but that is a result of the US invasion, not Saddam).</p>
<p>Friedman, like many other Americans, many of whom did, at one time support this horrific war, has seen the facts, and sees the truth now.</p>
<p>"Whatever existential threat was purported to be standing behind Saddam has been disproven "</p>
<p>This is not the case, but even if it is the perspective that Friedman now has, it takes an arrogant, illogical and closed mind to take the next step and claim that those who disagree with your new position are “politically motivated”.</p>
<p>What other motivation can there be? We’ve botched it up and created a civil war over there.</p>
<p>The only reason to stay is political motivation. If the concerns of the United States were tops in the neocons’s minds (as opposed to their own corporate or other interests), we might see a different course of action.</p>
<p>How do you see Bush’s actions as NOT politically motivated?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is a bizarre rationalization for not changing ones mind.</p>
<p>The PRIMARY rationale for attacking Iraq was the allegation that it had WMD. It was also alleged that Iraq was close to having nuclear weapons. All of this turned out to be untrue. Whether the intelligence was skewed or not can be argued but it is turning logic on its head to suggest that because we went to war based on the wrong premise, the decision remains correct irrespective of what the reality has turned out to be. </p>
<p>The US has damaged its credibility in the Muslim world to an extent that is almost incalculable. Iraq has now become a breeding ground for terrorists. There are jihadists all over the Muslim world for whom Iraq has become a rallying cry. Even if all of this does not make an impression on you and others who share your view, keep in mind that there are approximately 1.5 billion Muslims around the world. **If even 0.1% of these people are driven to militancy by our policies, you are looking at 1.5 million militants we would have to neutralize. ** </p>
<p>The countries which have some of the most extreme elements - and whose general population are most anti-American - are the countries that we deem to be our allies in the war on terrorism: namely, Pakistan, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. It has been said by those familiar with the Islamic world that our invasion of Iraq was a gift to bin Laden and the most extreme elements among Muslims because it turned out to be a tremendous recruiting tool.</p>
<p>BTW, Richard Cohen who also supported the invasion acknowledges that is was a mistake. This has nothing to do with political expediency - just a recognition that we were sold a bill of goods, whether intentionally or otherwise, as to the threat Iraq posed.</p>
<p>I love how you make statements as truisms which are far from that. Take a step off your throne which conveys you with perfect knowledge of all things and realize that perhaps you are wrong and perhaps others don’t agree with your pronouncements.
edit: this was directed at allmusic</p>
<p>Grasp of reality? </p>
<p>Wow, did Bush ever have any? This Presidency has been a mess, and it is finally becoming very clear to over 70% of Americans, who have finally SEEN the reality,. and have taken off their blinders to see what is going on</p>
<p>Let us look at the legacy this President will leave us with</p>
<p>Yeah, pretty sad</p>
<p>Perhaps others don’t agree, FF, which is OK. I have no problem with you being confined to your little bubble world of Iraq happy thoughts.</p>
<p>Fortunately, most Americans don’t buy the happy talk, and are very worried about the direction this war is going.</p>
<p>So, Friedman has lots of company in mind changing and believing the continuing war is politically motivated. Even from staunch conservatives, which gives me hope.</p>
<p>“This is a bizarre rationalization for not changing ones mind.”
Please read my post more carefully. I did not say that one can’t change one’s mind. However, it is quite another thing to attack those who you now disagree with as being politically driven.</p>
<p>"believing the continuing war is politically motivated. "</p>
<p>Do you have any idea how ridiculous that statement is? Let’s see, the political genius, Carl Rove, is looking at the poll numbers and tells GWB, “yup, our political strategy is working like a charm … if we stay the course we should guarantee a sweep this November”. </p>
<p>Quite the contrary, one who is politically motivated (as John Kerry would be) would have been pulling troops out long ago.</p>
<p>Bush doesn’t care about poll numbers. Word has it that God thinks he is doing the right thing in Iraq, and that is all that matters.</p>
<p>It’s Kkkkarl Rove too, not Carl.</p>
<p>Well, with that last post, you certainly have shown your true, bigoted colors.</p>
<p>No, not if he can never admit a mistake, ever</p>
<p>People act ike having a change of mind or a change of plan is a bad thing, while looking at situations as they change, thinking, gee, this wasn’t such a good idea, lets change course</p>
<p>But Stay the Course George never admits any kind of error</p>
<p>That is why he is ignoring the poll numbers, he could care less about what American’s want, he jsut wants to show he never changes his mind, even if it was a mistake</p>
<p>FF- Huh? How does bigot come into it? Allmusic, keep up your posts, cause get ready to get slammed by other posters, its what they do, if no argument, then we get called names</p>
<p>I got used to it…</p>
<p>Apropos of this thread:</p>
<p><a href=“http://select.nytimes.com/2006/05/17/opinion/17friedman.html?hp[/url]”>http://select.nytimes.com/2006/05/17/opinion/17friedman.html?hp</a></p>