Friedman: Why we invaded Iraq? “Because we could.”
To me, this is one of the most astonishing developments in the ever-shifting rationale for why the US went to war in Iraq. Thomas Friedman tells us that we went there pretty much just to kick Muslim butt in order to deliver a message to that part of the world that we wouldn’t put up with terrorism from, you know, like people who live roughly in that part of the world. Wouldn’t really have mattered which Muslim butt we kicked. Could just as well have been Saudi Arabia, he tells us. Or Pakistan. Doesn’t really matter that none of those three countries had anything to do with 9/11 (although a lot of Saudi nationals were involved, of course). The important thing is that they happened to be Muslims.
It’s like New Zealand deciding to attack Austria because France bombed the Rainbow Warrior on their territory. Just to make an example of "those Europeans" (they all look the same anyway, right?)
6 Responses to “Friedman: Why we invaded Iraq? “Because we could.””
About this entry
You’re currently reading “Friedman: Why we invaded Iraq? “Because we could.”,” an entry on Bodhipaksa's blog, bodhi tree swaying
Published: Jul 14 2009
Tags and categories
Category: Politics
Oh. My. Gods. Charlie’s question is pretty loopy, too: “Now that the war is over….”
“9/11 was the peak of that bubble.” What is this guy’s native language, I wonder? “The peak of the bubble”????
Oh. Gods. It’s a TALKING Bubble!!!
“Well suck on this. That, Charlie was what this war was about.”
Please – make it stop…….
Wanna bet Friedman knows the whole Dirty Harry “Make my day” monologue by heart?
why don’t you point out that he was a huge proponent of that invasion .. and is something of an idiot
I’d think watching the video pretty much takes care of those two points.
Dirty Harry is freaking Hamlet compared to this random twaddle coming out of Friedman’s mouth.
Why does this idiot sound like a bad imitation of William Shatner?! Oh, I know…Friedman didn’t think he’d ever be asked a real question about Iraq. As far as “acts of terrorism”, depends how you define it. What do you call bombing a race of people back to the stone age, including children to prove a point? Just a Vet with both sides of the rhetoric.