I don’t see what the actions of past administrations has to do with the current one.

As for not minding Saddam’s massacres, the same applies to the American Left.

I seem to recall that when SH invaded a neighboring nation–an ally of ours, the Left refused to have anything to do with helping that ally.

When Bush Sr promised the Iraqis he’d support an overthrow of SH and then FAILED to do so, I didn’t hear the Left calling him on it either. It plainly did not matter one bit to them.

So excuse me if I don’t take you seriously.

“We haven’t killed “thousands” of Iraqis.”

Unfortunately you have. That’s just a fact. The exact number of course they hide a way quite nicely. Untold thousands. As for the rest of it, we know the timeline and who was in office when the acts were done. It’s called the ’80s,

Wink wink.

As for my “ilk” Sir. I’m eligible to join the Sons of the American Revolution. I’ve had war veteran relatives in my family from King Philip’s War to WWII. Try to show a little respect.

Major Reuben Colburn House

Let me tell you something about liberals. Jefferson was liberal. Madison was a liberal. My ancestors were liberals and they drove the Tories into the sea.

ElMondo, points well made and taken. However, I just can’t help harkening back to reel cobra’s comment: Friedman is the worst kind of moron – the kind who takes your side and then argues poorly in favor of your position.

But…

Look, everyone, I’d hardly lump him in with the rest of the featherhead leftanistas at the NYTimes (*cough*MaureenDowdPaulKrugman*cough*). Yeah, he’s a bit more lefty and big government than I’m normally comfortable with, but if there’s a Democratic-Party-inclined columnist out there I can live with, it’s him. Folks, read his columns right after 9/11. He gets it. He really gets what the conflict with Islamic terrorists is all about. No, I admit, that’s a different topic than the “Who should be UN ambassador” article we’re all talking about here, but my point is that we’re demonizing him as just another clueless lefty columnist at the Times, and as far as I’m concerned, he’s anything but.

Just read the following:

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/02/opinion/02FRIE.html?ex=1114833600&en=6ab279bbc4247f62&ei=5070

Quote:

“As I took in the scene (of grade school students singing in a performance), it occurred to me how much the Islamic terrorists who just hit America do not understand about America.

Their constant refrain is that America is a country with wealth and power but “no values.” The Islamic terrorists think our wealth and power is unrelated to anything in the soul of this country ó that we are basically a godless nation, indeed the enemies of God. And if you are an enemy of God you deserve to die. These terrorists believe that wealth and power can be achieved only by giving up your values, because they look at places such as Saudi Arabia and see that many of the wealthy and powerful there lead lives disconnected from their faith.

Of course, what this view of America completely misses is that American power and wealth flow directly from a deep spiritual source ó a spirit of respect for the individual, a spirit of tolerance for differences of faith or politics, a respect for freedom of thought as the necessary foundation for all creativity and a spirit of unity that encompasses all kinds of differences. Only a society with a deep spiritual energy, that welcomes immigrants and worships freedom, could constantly renew itself and its sources of power and wealth.

A society that will dig until it has found every body in the World Trade Center rubble ó because at some level it believes every individual is created in the image of God ó a society that raises $600 million for the victims in two weeks, is a godless, spiritless place? Guess again.

These terrorists so misread America.”

Again, I don’t defend his comments about UN Reform. Yes, he missed the mark on that one. But he’s a far cry from being just another one of the lefty’s at the Times. He actually thinks most of the time, IMHO.

Twit