You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Fifth Column
NYT Friedman: Nuclear-Armed Iran Better Than Another Bush-Republican Victory
2006-04-20
New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman says that given the choice between a nuclear-armed Iran or a U.S. attack against Iran’s nuclear facilities, right now he would opt for a nuclear Iran. "As someone who believed – and still believes – in the importance of getting Iraq right, the level of incompetence that the Bush team has displayed in Iraq, and its refusal to acknowledge any mistakes or remove those who made them, make it impossible to support this administration in any offensive military action against Iran," Friedman writes.

The liberal pundit says a better course of action than an attack would be to keep a nuclear Iran at bay through "deterrence” – making it clear that if Iran uses a nuclear weapon or gives one to terrorists, the United States will destroy all of its nuclear sites with nuclear weapons. "The main reason [Donald] Rumsfeld should leave now," Friedman concludes, "is because we can’t have a credible diplomatic or military option vis-à-vis Iran when so many people feel, as I do, that in a choice between another Rumsfeld-led confrontation or just letting Iran get nukes and living with it, we should opt for the latter."

Israel might question the use of the word "just," since the Iranian regime has said Israel should be "wiped off the map."
Posted by:Anonymoose

#15  IOw, better for Western democracies to lose Israel, Taiwan, Japan, the PacRim, .........@WEST and eventually 1/2-plus of CONUS + 200Milyuhn Americans, becuz fighting for your country, freedoms, and way-of-life; or running away to Canada-Mahico IS GEE WHIZ JUST TOO HARD, SWEATY, SMELLY, AND INCONVENIENT, espec without any Cradle-to-Grave Government subsidized Universal Welfare checks to take care of 'em.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2006-04-20 22:29  

#14  LH, what happened to the Scoop Jackson and Sam Nunn part of the Democratic party?

The Carter (do-nothing) and Kos (rabid hate filled collectivists) types have completely chased them away from the Democrat (and me and many other former Democrats).

Good luck over there trying to get those rabid weasels back on a leash.

Posted by: Oldspook   2006-04-20 21:22  

#13  lol. Times Select, think of it as protective custody.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2006-04-20 21:16  

#12  Good thing this dodo is hidden away in Times Select.
Posted by: RWV   2006-04-20 21:11  

#11  when will American jews see the writing on the wall and realize the Donks won't do sh&t to cover Israel? Jimmuh, Hillary, and crew will hand wring while the nukes fall, saying, at least the NY jewish votes safe and alive....Even Schumer wouldn't do jack to help
Posted by: Frank G   2006-04-20 19:30  

#10  ...in a choice between another Rumsfeld-led confrontation or just letting Iran get nukes and living with it, we should opt for the latter.

Let me translate for old Tom: "If it's a choice between urban liberals staying out of power and Israel being wiped from the map then... inshallah, the Zionist Entity is doomed!"
Posted by: Secret Master   2006-04-20 18:43  

#9  Oxblog is centrist. But how well does it reflect the thinking of the Democrat leadership? Not very well, especially as elections season approaches. It doesn't even reflect the thinking of that centrist Hillary Clinton.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2006-04-20 16:48  

#8  1. I dont see where Friedman says whats in the headline. What hes saying is that a nuclear armed Iran is better than an attack on Iran done incompetently, and at this point, as long as Rummy is in charge that what he thinks we would get. Now you can argue with either of those points, but its really not fair to mischarecterize what hes saying.

2. Kos, Drum, etc are no better indications of what any Dem would do, than Rantburg and other conservative blogs are indications of what any Republican Prez would do.

BTW, if you want to see some more centrist Dem opinion, you can try Oxblog, The Moderate Voice, or Liberals against Terrorism. Oxblog is closest to my own views of all 3, but you'll find all of them different from Kos, etc.
Posted by: liberalhawk   2006-04-20 16:37  

#7  ...making it clear that if Iran uses a nuclear weapon or gives one to terrorists, the United States will destroy all of its nuclear sites with nuclear weapons.

Sure Tom -- a Democrat will do that. Right.

Not the Democrats I'm reading at the left-wing blogs. Iran could nuke the Israelis and Kos, Atrios and Kevin Drum would -- at most -- politely 'tsk' them.

The correct response, if you honestly believed that Irann could be deterred, would be, 'use a nuke once, anywhere, and your country ceases to exist.' That's deterrence, but we're not likely to see that from the Dhimmicrats.
Posted by: Steve White   2006-04-20 16:11  

#6  That's RUMSFELD.
Posted by: Perfesser   2006-04-20 16:09  

#5  Tom Friedman is an idiot. Rumsfled is the ONLY reason that ANYTHING the Bush administration says has an ounce of credibility.
Posted by: Perfesser   2006-04-20 16:09  

#4  Tom Friedman needs to be dragged around the block behind my pickup.
Posted by: wxjames   2006-04-20 16:04  

#3  "deterrence” – making it clear that if Iran uses a nuclear weapon or gives one to terrorists, the United States will destroy all of its nuclear sites with nuclear weapons.

So the "deterence" logic trail proceeds, if Tel Aviv is incinerated Tom Friedman and the Dems will automatically assume Iran launched and we can nuke them?
Posted by: Besoeker   2006-04-20 14:26  

#2  ...making it clear that if Iran uses a nuclear weapon or gives one to terrorists, the United States will destroy all of its nuclear sites with nuclear weapons.

So, Tom. Suppose they decide to use this nuclear weapon in, say, New York City while your sitting at your desk pounding out your latest screed.
Are you still okay with it?
Posted by: tu3031   2006-04-20 13:00  

#1  And the NYT wonders why it can't sell any newspapers....
Posted by: DarthVader   2006-04-20 12:25  

00:00