"This is not a hole, simply your gratuitious dismissal of
the author and everyone else. Everyone knows that
everything changed that day. Friedman didn't just fall off
the turnip truck nor did Bush nor I nor anyone else."
Not so. I'll stick to facts & reality.
Anyone, including Friedman knows how Bush reacted & what
he said post 9/11. Most reasonable people knew immediately
how dramatically the whole world had changed. Anything
Bush campaigned about regarding foreign policy, etc., now
had to be rethought. Bush did publicly rethink &
articulate his new philosophy. That's a fact. And Bush did
articulate several reasons why the regime in Iraq needed
to be removed, not just one as Friedman falsely asserted.
Another irrefutable fact.
Friedman's article wants us to believe that Bush changed
his views long after that 9/11. No way, no how PERIOD.
Even Friedman acknowledged this fact before he distorted
reality & then spun his hypothesis. Bush did articulate a
rethinking about the ME & Friedman admits it happened in
reality.....
"Where did Bush's passion for making the Arab world safe
for democracy come from? Though he mentioned this theme
before the war, it was not something he stressed with
the public, Congress or the United Nations in justifying
an Iraq invasion."
And think about the reaction in the ME had Bush spoken
frequently & forcibly about "making the Arab world safe
for democracy". What would have been the reaction in Iran,
SA, Syria, Libya, Kuwait, etc. There's a time & a place
for spelling out one's plans. Prior to the war was not the
time to forcibly speak about the real need for, "making
the Arab world safe for democracy".
Regarding the statement in the article, "A cynic might say
Bush was always interested only in stripping Iraq of its
weapons of mass destruction", you said.....
"The author is framing an argument--posing the position of a cynic. "
However, Friedman was more than framing an argument. It
was a critical aspect of his hypothesis, without which the
hypothesis falls apart. His very next comment is clear
evidence of this.....
"But with no such weapons having been unearthed thus far
in Iraq, and with the costs of the war in lives and
dollars soaring, he felt he needed a new rationale."
Friedman was clever to not make the distorted claim
himself, but it became a critical element in his faulty
hypothesis. It's painfully obvious IMO it falls apart
without this obvious distortion.
Friedman admitted Bush talked about democracy in the ME
prior to the war & then hinged his hypothesis on a blatant
distortion, but wants us to believe he "needed a new
rationale", that Bush himself had previously articulated.
But you continue saying.......
"Of course it's speculation. That's the point of the
piece. The author is formulating and speculating on an
alternative explanation for Bush's change of emphasis to
counter the POV of the cynic."
And my point is that Friedman's hypothesis hinged on spin
& distortion as the main components of his "speculation".
That's a fact.
You continue to argue about Bush's pre- 9/11 views on the
ME, but they have been factually refuted, included by
Friedman himself, yet both Friedman & you want me to
believe an alternate reality to buy into this
"speculation".
Again, I'll stick to the facts that clearly speak
otherwise.
And your speculation about Friedman's speculation that
Bush has speech writers indicates that Bush doesn't
necessarily hold the views that his speeches articulate
simply does not hold water. It goes against what numerous
reports of how Bush manages his team & his process for
making informed decisions & conclusions. It fails to
recognize Bush's clear conviction when making speeches &
when speaking without prepared text on those issues. There
is no wavering, no contradictions & no ambivalence on
those things Friedman distorted, yet made the centerpiece
of his hypothesis. Please feel free to show me where any
exists.
You can cling to your perception that Friedman made some
kind of point. You arguments & perceptions do not change
the facts that clearly establish his hypothesis is based
on distortions & spin. |
