National Review Is Funny
Tweet
I like how they pretend that Thomas Friedman was this uber-liberal opposed to war in Iraq.
Here’s Thomas Friedman in 2003 saying we need to tell Iraq to “suck. on. this.”
Here’s the Daily Show explaining why “we won” in Iraq is still the dumbest thing ever.
63 Responses to “National Review Is Funny”
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
What Time Is Super Bowl 2012 (Super Bowl XLVI)?
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
Thatnk you for reminding us that, if we had listened to your side of the aisle, Saddam Hussein would still be in power today.
Yoi. National Review doesn’t need to post video of Thomas Friedman from 2003 because it’s readers don’t need it explained to them what his position was in 2003, like apparently your readers do. Friedman was pretty much like most of the Democrats who voted for the war when they thought it was both the right thing to do for the country and the right thing for them to do politically. Maybe not an uber-liberal, which the NR never called him that, but a liberal nonetheless, and one like many of them changed his mind with the changing climate in Iraq.
See Biden, Joe.
Flip, flop, and now flipping again. NRO readers are well aware of the liberal modus operandi.
Or, like you, National Review readers are highly susceptible to the magazine’s propaganda and will go about their day quite sure Friedman was always anti-war.
And about 4,000+ US soldiers would be alive with their families, having not died for no good reason.
“Thank you for reminding us that, if we had listened to your side of the aisle, Saddam Hussein would still be in power today.”
Sorry, but those of us who like to shower and use toilet paper who also knew Iraq was going to be the catastrophic mistake that it was and still is, are in no kind of “Ooh, Oooh, Saddams Gone!” mood. Get it?
We said, “Don’t do it” but Real Americans® like yourself and Friedman and other sub-literate types just couldn’t wait because WMD inspections would never work and diplomacy is so tiresome. Now, after thousands, tens of thousands dead under some of the most barbarous circumstances as well as 3 trillion dollars wasted, those very deep thinkers want to buy an out by saying, “Look, democracy!, told you!”
The very fucking idea!
Anyone who argued for this invasion for any reason – to eliminate nonexistent WMD, to rearrange the political culture of the Middle East, claiming Iraqi oil revenues would be sufficient to bankroll the war – were and still are, morons.
Friedman, Fieth, et. al, and you Denny Boy, should be standing on a corner somewhere, selling pencils or offering to squeegee cars. Better yet, you should pack your bags and grab the first flight to Baghdad, stopping to apologize to every survivor, then rebuild the place brick by brick.
SHUT. THE. FUCK. UP.
And with all those terrible weapons! Excellent point! I bet Saddam Hussein might even still be torturing people. Thank goodness good people like SaveFerris (where did you serve, by the way?) made sure that never ever ever happened again. Shame on you libtards for not thinking that the Iraq Invasion was, is, and forever will be totally fucking awesome. Just ask the Iraqi people.* So to Iraq and Humanity, for George Bush, Jr. and America, I say: You’re welcome!
*who are still alive and not displaced
Really? I’m well aware of Friedman’s flip-flpopping because I’m well aware of how the left has treated him- just another writer like Hitchens and Sullivan that they castigate with all the venom they can muster about their Iraq war stance in the beginning of the war, but anytime they bashed Bush’s handling of it they were nutroots darlings again.
But could you point me to something that would indicate that anyone at NRO thinks Friedman was always anti-Iraq war, or that their readers somehow think that despite what NRO writers have written about him over the years?
You’ve just kinda punked yourself, Oliver.
Sure, Paul_D, sure. The current vice-president and the current Secretary of State had about 10,000 times more influence in that decision as I did, and look where they are right now. Neither you nor any one of the sanctimonious Iraq War ankle-biters that post drivel like you do here has ever called for either of those two to be fired for their influential roles. You haven’t called for them to apologize, either. Because you’re a coward, Paul_D. Blame those two for the 4,000 deaths of our soldiers and the thousands in Iraq.
Go ahead, Paul. Say it right here. Or you shut the fuck up. One or the other. Otherwise, you’re just talking shit.
Any words of wisdom for the same people you voted for, Indeed? You actually went to the voting booth and voted for people who were responsible for that war. And with no misgivings about it.
Strange, huh?
but anytime they bashed Bush’s handling of it they were nutroots darlings again
Yes, that’s why the Friedman Unit became a running gag, because we *loved* it when Friedman bashed Bush.
could you point me to something that would indicate
The story above’s a pretty good case of that.
And with all those terrible weapons!
Those weapons that every peer-reviewed intelligence report claimed were there? Hey, you’re not allowed to disagree: there was a consensus!
(where did you serve, by the way?)
I served at the exact same time you moved to Great Britain to enjoy all that “world-class free” health care!
Those weapons that every peer-reviewed intelligence report claimed were there? Hey, you’re not allowed to disagree: there was a consensus!
http://www.de-fact-o.com/fact_read.php?id=10
Those weapons that every peer-reviewed intelligence report claimed were there? Hey, you’re not allowed to disagree: there was a consensus!
Link? Oh, wait, I see that The Dark Avenger already beat you to it. Save yourself another humiliation.
The story above’s a pretty good case of that.
No, that story doesn’t make that case and neither do you; not at all. Your only case for that is that you think something important was left out, when it was too obvious and not important to her point to add it in. But if you read it and read the links of Friedman’s articles, there was no misleading of Friedman’s original Iraq War stance at all.
K-lo started with this quote from Friedman:
That’s a definitive statement of Friedman’s original pro-Iraq War sentiment right there.
And in the second quote of Friedman’s she links to his article in 2006, where he states the following:
You just didn’t read it carefully or thoroughly, Oliver. NRO readers know better.
Ah you mean the Congressional vote based on intelligence that was either withheld or manipulated? By all means, please carry on hitting yourself.
Paul_D, neither Biden nor Hillary are claiming they were duped.
You just took the coward’s way. You’re making excuses for them when they’ve never made those excuses for themselves.
You actually went to the voting booth and voted for people who were responsible for that war.
I was screaming from the street corners where I stood with among others my then 83-year old mother that the president was LYING about the WMD. It’s not like it wasn’t obvious to anyone with a brain. How is it that I figured it out before Bush did?
My representatives Boxer and Woolsey figured it out and voted properly, and Feinstein should have paid a price for her support of the AUMF. This act violated Article II of the Constitution, which gives Congress the sole power of declaring war.
Those weapons that every peer-reviewed intelligence report claimed were there?
The guys on the ground said they couldn’t find any, and that if there were any at all, they would not be capable of deployment.
Mr. Bush, who had announced a year earlier that, “We’re taking [Saddam] out,” was lying about the WMD, Saddam was telling the truth. Apparently the plan was in place a year earlier when Mr. Bush made his announcement, and the WMD was created as the excuse. Deal with it.
Why don’t you tell us what Saddam could have done differently to prevent the invasion of a sovereign country on the basis of a lie? How could he have proved to Mr. Bush’s satisfaction that there were no weapons, and thus prevented the worst foreign policy mistake in American history?
FAIL
Nothing there about Clinton or Biden, Paul_D.
FAIL.
Repack, did you stand at the street corner and scream at Obama when he chose Joe Biden to be his running mate? And then later when he picked Hillary Clinton to be Secretary of State?
If not, why not?
Don’t feed troll if you don’t want yet more self-absorbed, fourth grade grade straw arguments puked up. If you dig that stuff, go for it!
Dennis thinks that Newsweek is a “very liberal” magazine. He has no credibility whatsoever. Ignore him as you would a 4 year-old who wants to show you his pee-pee.
Iraq was invaded for three major reasons:
1. Political capital for the 2004 re-elction campaign.
2. So President Cheney’s buddies could make a shit-load of money.
3. So Lil’ Georgie could prove that his dick is bigger than Daddy’s.
Den’, have you ever read Ms. Clinton’s floor speech prior to the Iraq War authorization vote? Lots of interesting stuff in there, but here’s the key moment:
“IF LIBERALS HAD THEIR WAY WE’D ALL BE SPEAKING ARABIC AND COULDN’T HAVE BACOS ON OUR SALAD”-Matt Drudge
Hillary Clinton is a very shrewd and savvy woman, Quaker. So is her husband. She knew that was a vote to go to war at the time. You know that; you’re not that naive. It’s why she’s the Secretary of State right now and not the President.
He’s a mind reader now. Beware.
Maybe I’ll get around to it myownself, but I’ve often wondered about comprehensive lists of statements by the Cheney Administration vs. Saddam Hussein* regarding WMD in the run-up to the Invasion. That would be interesting. I wonder which list would end up being more truthful. Hmm…
*I have always thought that Saddam Hussein was a very bad person–even when he was Reagan’s ally. I am only interested in this idea as an exercise to further establish how fucking stupid** the Iraq Invasion was.
**Like many of us, I’ve held this belief the entire time.*** I stand by that judgement.
***Anyone who bought into the Invasion in 2002-2003 (or, like the Cheney Administration, way earlier), but has since come around on that, welcome to the party. Kudos for finally seeing it my (our) way, but with all due respect–all things equal–I’ll tend to defer to those who got it correct from the start regarding future foreign policy decisions.
She knew that was a vote to go to war at the time.
You base this assertion on what again? Clearly, the answer to my earlier question, “Have you ever read her floor speech?” is no.
She knew that was a vote to go to war at the time. You know that;
Den’ is part of the “we-make-our-own-reality” crowd. The facts are against you? Just declare the facts wrong and move on!
GlennZilla brings the Shorter T-Fried:
Excellent work per usual from Mr. Zilla. Check it out.
Also part of the We Make Our Own Straw and Please Look Over There Society.
(Please don’t feed.)
Good point, Dennis:
Thank you for admitting that Clinton paid a price with Democrats for her vote on the war.
You’ve just kinda punked yourself.
Your little campaign has long ago crossed the threshhold of tedium, Indeed. You are now practicing the very behavior you say you want to defeat. Your position is noted. Kindly spare me any more of your remonstrances.
Their blood shall forever be on your hands.
NRO wrote the blog entry as if Friedman had been a consistent critic of invading Iraq, when in fact he was an advocate of it – a time when, I should note, he was supposedly one of the *liberals* writing in the NY Times op-ed.
Oh, I’ll gladly acknowledge she paid a dear price, fafaroo. What I said was Paul_D calls me every name under the sun but openly and cowardly assigns no blame and no disgust toward her. Presumably this is, according to Quaker’s naivete, due to how she worded her floor speech authorizing the president to make the decision to go to war.
fafaroo, why don’t you pick a bone with Quaker now? If she has full culpability, as Quaker implies, because of what she said when she gave her speech prior to her vote, then why did she ever have to pay any price?
If she has full culpability, as Quaker implies
How now?
(mode=need_to_explain_to_complete_fucking_idiot)
(mode = sarcasm)
That’s a good point, SaveFarris. Not many people realize this, but, when the United States is not doing something, *nothing happens*. The world just freezes in place, unless the United States – preferably the military – is involved. There is *no* way that Saddam Hussein could have been toppled without the United States, because without the United States, *nothing ever happens*. Anywhere. That’s how we know that there is no life in the entire universe, except on earth – the US isn’t out there, so, you know, nothing is happening.
More importantly, it’s always moral and right to go kill people who are already suffering. What could be more moral and right than killing people who are already suffering? I mean, of course, you have to pretend that you’re killing people for their own good, but once you’ve added that pretense, what on earth could go wrong?
I mean, seriously… when has dropping bombs or blowing up buildings or killing people ever failed to make things better?
(/mode)
(/mode)
Every?
You’re *not* that stupid. You’re lying.
NRO wrote the blog entry as if Friedman had been a consistent critic of invading Iraq, when in fact he was an advocate of it – a time when, I should note, he was supposedly one of the *liberals* writing in the NY Times op-ed.
No, she didn’t. If you had opened the link she provided, you would see that. If she was trying to deceive anyone into thinking that, an absurdity since NRO had written plenty about Friedman being for the war originally in the early years of the war, then she would’ve left off that link. She didn’t.
Just curious, though, since you keep insisting something is there when it’s not- what was it that K-Lo wrote that tells you she was trying fool anybody.
What is the pretension that you accuse her of and where is it?
You have to excuse Farris, Wierdo. He’s enjoying a bit of mindless japery. The other day, he was scored rather severely for questioning the unanimity of opinion on global climate change. He is attempting to turn the tables on us by drawing an equivalence between pre-war estimates of Saddam’s weapons stockpile and scientific modeling of the atmospheric effects of carbon emissions.
He can’t help himself.
If she has full culpability, as Quaker implies
How now?
Quaker, I apologize if you’re not implying that, but my argument on this point was with Paul_D, not you.
When he said….
….my point to him was that both our VP and our SoS and our Senate Majority Leader fit into that description of anyone who argued for this invasion for any reason. Shoot, even Barack Obama falls into that category. I’m just asking him, why is he so selective in his outrage?
….my point to him was that both our VP and our SoS and our Senate Majority Leader fit into that description of anyone who argued for this invasion for any reason.
I see. So despite the actual words Ms. Clinton spoke on the floor of the Senate, it’s still your insistence that she didn’t really mean what she said.
Read the speech.
The argument here is that France, Russia, and Germany are not our allies, and cannot be trusted.
*facepalm*
What, you didn’t read SaveFerris’s nonexistent link which supports his ludicrous thesis? Just wait ’til he does provide a link. Unintentional irony will ensue, guaranteed.
So despite the actual words Ms. Clinton spoke on the floor of the Senate, it’s still your insistence that she didn’t really mean what she said.
Read the speech.
Geez, then why in the world did she pay a dear price with Democrats with that authorization vote? Didn’t Democrats read the speech? What gives, Quaker? Democrats are smarter than that, aren’t they?
And Quaker, Hillary also told us she and Chelsea had to duck sniper fire getting off the helicopter in Tuzla. You did read that, right?
John Edwards once admitted that they all may say they only voted for the authorization, but they knew it ultimately was a vote to go to war.
Geez, then why in the world did she pay a dear price with Democrats with that authorization vote?
Because of the way Mr. Bush ended up using the authorization. It was in the papers. Maybe you read about it.
Now could you please stop beating around the bush and show us where Ms. Clinton “argued for this invasion”? In casting her vote, she specifically argued against premature, pre-emptive invasion.
Of course, I presume you didn’t know that because you clearly have never read the speech.
I’m not beating around the bush. I’m saying you’re being naive to claim that Hillary didn’t know she was voting for the war when she voted on the AUMF.
Daily Kooks: Hillary Clinton on Iraq March 6, 2003 w/video
Please tell me your naivete is just an act, Quaker.
Seriously.
Well, OK, but…
chickengeorge made a speech in 2007 saying we needed to invade Iraq. that fucking coward loves wars he doesn’t fight in.
Man, I knew this one was going to bring out the worst in the trolls, and boy was I not disappointed. This thread is just soaking in troll slobber.
I’ve a hard time watching Thomas Freidman without wanting to punch him in the head. That clip especially.
Sorry Dennis. You’d only have moral standing to demand people share your blame if you accepted your blame in the first place.
Saying “I wasn’t wrong because a bunch of other people were wrong, too!”
Did you support the invasion of Iraq? Then there’s a lot of blood on your hands, and whatever reason you had for supporting it, you were wrong… horribly, horribly wrong.
Yes, Hillary Clinton was horribly, horribly wrong as well. So was Joe Biden. A lot of people thought it was okay to cause the deaths of tens, and even hundreds, of thousands of innocent people for some of the stupidest reasons imaginable.
And because of unthinking, unfeeling people like you, to whom innocent lives are meaningless, there is going to be another generation of politicians who similarly think that innocent lives are meaningless.
But you’ll never take responsibility for your part in this horror, because it would require you to accept the possibility of having been part of something terrible. You’d rather continue to live your life in support of bloodshed than learn a better way of living.
You forgot to include the “arguing for this invasion” part, Den’. Where is it?
And you still haven’t read the speech.
4. OIL!
We really need some kind of indicator, a shit-brown star or something, that indicates that Dennis has decided to troll/post 1/3 to 1/2 of the comments in a given thread.
And Iraq is going to turn the corner in six months.
This just in from Giblets:
And now from The Medium Lobster: