Destroying Our Honor

The New York Times, once known as "The Paper of Record", has an editorialist by the name of Thomas Friedman. Now this guy is not some low-level employee and he isn't a former intern, like Jayson Blair. No, Thomas Freidman is "The Man". Because he is with the Times and is the papers foreign affairs columnist, not to mention a three-time Pulitzer prize winner, his columns are widely read.

There was a time that I believed Friedman really was a good guy. He wrote with conviction and feeling. He had a keen insight into what is a troubled region of the world.

But that was a long time ago.

Over the last 5 years or so, I noticed something. I noticed that Friedman's opinions were becoming more about Thomas Friedman, and less about reality. He began to read his own glorious reviews. Suddenly, he started to believe that it didn't matter what he wrote. What mattered was THAT he wrote. Because of this, he seemed to lose that sense of passion and instead embraced the mindset of elitism. Now, in place of understanding the realities of the world, he hibernates from it. His escape from the truth, much like the New York Times themselves, has happened very slowly, but consistently.

What has me all up in a snit is that Friedman has written yet another piece of leftist propaganda. In an editorial in today's paper, Friedman argues that we are in danger of "losing America as an instrument of moral authority". Furthermore, he states that the war on terrorism is "a war of ideas".

I hate to break it to you, but the war on terrorism isn't about ideas. It's about domination. Calling the threat of militant Islamic supremacy an "idea" gives it moral equivalence. Unfortunately, that's exactly how our enemies are fighting this war. They read or hear people like Thomas Friedman and they realize that America really hasn't gotten over the Vietnam War. We still have leftists talking about "ideas" and "contrition", while the bad guys sit back and laugh in our face. Saddam Hussein was completely surprised that we attacked. Do you want to know why? Because he believed American's did not have the stomach for war. He knew that no matter what action the U.S. took, the minute a dead American soldier was shown on T.V., Americans would start crying "uncle".

For 12 years, he was right. However, after the terror attacks on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, President Bush decided enough is enough. He promised to take a stand against not only Al-Qaida, but against all regimes that harbor terrorists. For awhile, it seemed that most Americans agreed with him, as polls indicated that he enjoyed a tremendous job approval rating.

Then a funny thing happened. The liberal-left started to back down. Bush had prepared them, though. He said that this war is unlike any other. He warned that it will not be won right away, but it will be fought until there is no terror threat in the world. But the left predictably cried "uncle". Partly because this is an election year, but mostly because history always finds a way to repeat itself.

Throughout the 20th century, many countries refused to meet evil face-to-face. When Chamberlain gave away the Sudentland, all he really ended up with was war. Hitler knew that the British did not have the "stomach" to fight.

In the 1972, Richard Nixon agreed to pull out of Vietnam. The cause of the pull-out was intense pressure from the left, caused by the pictures of the war being waged. All we got out of that one was communism in South Vietnam and genocide in Cambodia.

In 1979, Jimmy Carter refused to assist the Shah of Iran, who was a strategic ally, because he didn't feel he had the moral grounds to do it. He thought that he could make nice with the Ayatollah. After all, he was a "religious leader", right. Well, we all know what happened next. We had hostages taken for 444 days, while Carter tried to negotiate with terrorists.

If there is any "idea" that has come out of this war, it's that we should recognize who we are fighting against. While we spend hours passing blame around and talking about "ideas", the enemy is fighting a real war.

Something else the Times article says that really proves how out of touch they are. According to Mr. Friedman, "Mr. Bush needs to invite to Camp David the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, the heads of both NATO and the U.N., and the leaders of Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Syria. There, he needs to eat crow, apologize for his mistakes and make clear that he is turning a new page. Second, he needs to explain that we are losing in Iraq."

Yes, according to the Dean of Commentators, we are not only losing, but we need to go before Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Syria and apologize for what we are doing. That has to be the most ridiculous statement he has ever made. These are countries who are among the worst violators of human rights in the world. These are the countries that financed the September 11 attacks that killed 3,000 of our citizens! Plus, pay a mea culpa to the United Nations! Why not just apologize to the Japanese for hurting their torpedos during Pearl Harbor?

Shame on the Times. Shame on Thomas Friedman. Instead of calling his commentary "Defending Our Honor", it should be called "Thank You Sir, May I Have Another?"