Greyhawk on Captain Obvious
Mudville Gazette assails Tom Friedman, he of the world’s most painful book review. The Friedman article is behind the TimesBankrupt firewall, but was on yesterday’s Early Bird.
At work we were griping about this line of Friedman’s:
Bob Woodward quoted President Bush as saying that he will not leave Iraq, even if the only ones still supporting him are his wife, Laura, and his dog Barney. If the jihadist Tet offensive continues gaining momentum, Mr. Bush may be left with just Barney.
It’s a cheap way to make a rhetorical point and not seemly of Friedman. There are better ways to frame his assertion.
11 Responses to “Greyhawk on Captain Obvious”
Trackback URL for Greyhawk on Captain Obvious: http://gmapalumni.org/chapomatic/wp-trackback.php?p=1883
October 19th, 2006 at 7:58 am
I’ll toss the same ugly question out here that I did at Mudville:
Does President Bush also become a de facto Chomskyite (as Greyhawk says Friedman became with his Tet analogy)
when he gave his lukewarm assent to Friedman’s analogy to ABC’s George Stephanopoulos:
Stephanopoulos: “Tom Friedman wrote in the New York Times this morning that what we might be seeing now is the Iraqi equivalent of the Tet offensive in Vietnam in 1968. … Do you agree?”
Bush: “He could be right. There’s certainly a stepped up level of violence, and we’re heading into an election.”
What’s up with this?
October 19th, 2006 at 8:24 am
Jesus.
I just read the comments at Tigerhawk where he gave an answer to my above question. It ain’t pretty in there with everyone re-fighting 1968.
Are there any dams to bomb in Iraq?
October 19th, 2006 at 7:54 pm
Truth hurts guys and Friedman was right on this one. I find it amazing that most folks missed Freidman’s main point on the subject. American patience on the war is running out. And it should. We’ve done our job, Saddam is gone. The Arabs have proven themselves woefully true to form-they will screw up any good deal given to them.
Friedman was as ardent supporter of the war as there was. He’s turned because he has recognized that defending US interests has to come first.
In other words-”How much is enough?” Even Barney knows the answer to that one.
October 20th, 2006 at 8:40 am
Ho-hum. Predictable responses above.
All comes down to: do you believe what Woodward says, what he says ‘he’ heard and how he writes it down..
Friedman, Coupe de Ville and little Skippy apparently take it ALL as fact. Sort of like 2 + 2= 4….
Critical reasoning…nah. We won’t let logic stand in the way. A little truth thrown in with a big dose of hindsight backed up with a cup o’ o’ innuendo.
Funny how his books all come out a month BEFORE elections, etc. etc. but we won’t let that stand in the way..He won a Pulitzer onc, but his reportage/writing is now Enquirer quality….
B2
October 20th, 2006 at 9:20 pm
The issue is that one CAN believe it based on the politician’s public statements. Maybe some of it is not true ( and I tend to think some of it is fabricated since I have a hard time believing some of the personages depicted really saying what Woodward quotes them as saying). However it highlights and issue and that’s OK by me. Thwee issue is important IMHO because Iraq is costing us lives. The President is not making a good case for continuing , and when he tries it comes across as condescending. Iraq is my #1 issue and it impacted how I voted in this election. ( I voted against all of the incumbents).
I really think if you look at Friedman’s writings over the years- he makes a good case. So I’ll keep reading him.
As for Woodward? Not the enquirer, but not all the presidents men either.
October 21st, 2006 at 1:26 pm
The real analogy between Vietnam and Iraq is that Tet was portrayed as a U.S. defeat when it was actually a victory. Years later, N.V. Gen. Giap admitted that they shot their last wad at Tet, and would have given up hope had it not been for the student protests and other U,S. elites turning against the war.
This could be a similiar point in this war.
October 22nd, 2006 at 4:27 pm
Badbob,
Um, I was quoting the President as seen on videotape. I’m unclear where Woodward (who was the bestus author ever on the Bush 43 Presidency according to all the Bushies…..until the current book hit the stands) comes into the picture.
What’s “ho-hom” is the ad hominem without a sliver of thoughtful critique.
I was treated to respectful debate over at Mudville on the topic I must say. More time there I shall spend.
But the “Coupe” nickname did evoke a grin — was my Dad’s handle in the Air Force and GE.
October 22nd, 2006 at 4:38 pm
John, I’m not thinking Chomsky so much as I am thinking Harry Summer’s On Strategy.
Although if you did want to get into a discussion of “manufacture of consent” on this one I’d agree in a manner perhaps completely orthogonal to the one usually used in any phrase associated with that particular millionaire…
October 23rd, 2006 at 7:34 am
Bob,
I admit I’m completely lost in what you’re trying to say. Can I buy a vowel?
WHO is manufacturing consent?
WHAT is the consent “they” are trying to manufacture?
WHO are the sheep who are blinding consenting?
October 23rd, 2006 at 10:00 am
John, you’ve confused me anyway…
October 23rd, 2006 at 11:01 am
John,
I was showing my distaste for the opportunistic Mr. Woodward’s tis’all. You and Skippy see truth and analogy in different places than I. But I did understand your dig: “Are there any dams to bomb in Iraq?”. Not very nice. Don’t enter any VFWs in my neck of the woods….
Re- “Chomskyites” and all that…maybe I need to get out more…nah.
re- “Coupe” as handle
def- closed 2-door automobile with a full-width rear seat. Came instantly to mind when I viewed your picture at your site on vacation. A little ready room humour, no ad hominum intended, plus you called me monosyllabic! (is dat a word?)
re All those “WHO’s”
W.T.F., O. Have mercy, I’m just an ole’ aviator…
B2