Cybrpnk's Rantings

I like Thomas Friedman. I don't always agree with him, but I think he's got a really good perspective on the Arab world. I also like the fact that I've seen both liberals and conservatives using his columns to support their views. I never really got why he bought into the neocon fantasy about invading Iraq being a good technique for catalyzing positive change in the middle east, but I respect that he always conditionalized his support on things being done correctly. He was one of the first of the pro-war clique to sound the alarm about the mismanagement and incompetence of Bush, Rumsfeld and company. And he has consistently questioned whether Bush wanted to fix the middle east, or just advance his own career and agenda. It was Friedman who I first saw raise the question "If winning in Iraq is the most important thing for America shouldn't it be more important than Bush getting re-elected?" Consistently throughout the campaign we saw that in the eyes of the administration nothing was as important as protecting their own power. Even if it meant letting Iraq slide closer and closer to the precipice of civil war. So, when Friedman asks whether Bush is willing to torpedo Arab-driven reform of repressive governments if it involves criticism of US policy, it gets my attention.

In his column in today's NY Times Friedman exposes the latest folly of our so-called president. The UN has been sponsoring a group or Arab scholars to put together a series of reports on human development in the Arab world. They are prepared to issue their report on governance, but the Bush administration is attempting to quash it because the report criticizes the invasion of Iraq, as well as criticizing Israel. This, of course, plays into the hands of repressive Arab governments who don't want to see reform discussed, let alone carried out, in their countries. In this moment when we are fighting a war of choice ostensibly to catalyze democracy in the middle east, our supposed leadership continue to cozy up both to Arab autocrats, and their own egos. Surely the symbolism of this action is not lost on the Arab world. Be free we tell them, but not so free that you say bad things about those more powerful than you. A disgusting mirroring of the very message sent by Arab governments to their own people.

It begins to appear that it is not only their critics on the left who believe that the neocon fantasy is bankrupt. Apparently the same view is held by the Bush administration. Is there any possible way for our corrupt leaders to defend muzzling this important voice of reason in the Arab world just because they have bad things to say about us? How is it okay to ask young Americans to die for Bush's rash behavior, but too much of a sacrifice for him to have to listen to people saying bad things about his policies? If this is the American response to an honest attempt to freely examine what is wrong with the Arab world, can W really claim to want anything but power?