Our War With France: "Bubba Friedman's War Against America"

The NYTimes' columnist Thomas Friedman has more than descended into bubba territory in today's article. Not content with specious arguments alone, Bubba Friedman takes editorial cues from Ann Coulter, adopting a ranting, seething tone, namecalling as a substitute for presentation, diatribe in place of reason. Quintessential bubba.

Lest one accuse me of the same, let's dissect Bubba Friedman's polemical missive.

First paragraph: France wants the US to fail in Iraq because 1) France held the US to a second resolution 2) de Villepin refused to legitimize an idiotic question with an answer 3) France today maintains that the US must cede control to the UN in Iraq.

Here Bubba Friedman resorts to revisionism on four counts. First, France has said repeatedly that war is failure. In this respect, the US has failed. And under any objective criterion (international order, world sentiment, reduction of terrorism, economics, democracy, standard of living in Iraq) the US *has* failed. Same thing for Afghanistan. And if you are honest enough to note that France, like the vast majority of the world, was trying to keep the US from invading Iraq, you would note that almost everyone was trying to keep the US from failing.

Second, France *and* the rest of the world held the US to a second resolution. Sure, the usual crony governments Britain, Spain and Italy went along with Bush, but their citizens did not. There was widespread visible opposition and all polls showed the vast majority sentiment against their governments, up to 90% in Spain. So to single out France as the sole opponent to US requests to avoid a second resolution is a blatant falsehood (i.e. revisionism).

Third, that de Villepin did not answer the ridiculous question "who do you want to win" is itself a ridiculous argument. If you ask me "Who do you want to win: Bush or Gore" I'll tell you "the American people" because I don't care about neither Bush nor Gore. If you say "Bush or Hussein" I'll answer "the Iraqi people". That's the only legitimate answer. Given the choice between being killed by Iraqi secret police under Hussein or by cluster bombs and special-ops under Bush, you would legitimately want another choice.

Fourth, the US should get out of Iraq, if only for its own sake. Sure, Halliburton may get fewer de facto contracts, but our Army is being weakened to a dangerous point by its continued presence in Iraq. The reserves are being taxed beyond any contract that they ever imagined. The American taxpayer is footing the bill, excepting of course the very rich who have received all of the tax breaks. If the UN offered the US a way of getting out of Iraq, sortof a "Get out of Jail Free" card, the US should take it.

After the revisionism, the rest of the article is sheer diatribe: no need to comment.