Another generally good column by Tom Friedman today. He’s smart enough to realize that the French have badly miscalculated. But what’s with this repetitive use of the term “unilateral”? He uses this untruth three times (my italics):
There are three fronts in this Iraq war: one in Iraq, one between America and its Western allies, and one between America and the Arab world. They are all being affected by this unilateral exercise of U.S. power … 9/11 posed a first-order threat to America. That, combined with the unilateralist instincts of the Bush team, eventually led to America deploying its expanded power in Iraq, with full force, without asking anyone… For now, though, Europeans are too stunned by this massive exercise of unilateral U.S. power to think clearly what it’s about.
This is not a legitimate difference of opinion. It is simply not true. At the very least, this war is militarily trilateral – fought with the only European nation with any defense capacity worth using, Britain, and with some Aussies. There are some thirty countries or so behind the war, 21 of which are in Europe. Four of the six largest economies in the world support it – the U.S., Japan, Britain and Italy. When Friedman says that the U.S. did this “without asking anyone,” again, it’s simply not true. How long did we spend at the U.N.? If president Bush’s address last September to the U.N. wasn’t asking for support, then what is? As I say, it’s possible to believe that this war should have somehow been multilateral (however quixotic that might be). But it’s not possible to pretend that it has been simply unilateral. There’s simply no way in which that word can be used to describe this war. Tom knows this. So why lie? And what else do you call it when someone obviously knows the truth and says the opposite?
HEADLINE OF THE DAY: “Peace demonstrators in France stab 2 Jewish boys.” – from the Jerusalem Post. Yes, “peace” protestors. When will we stop using this term to describe anarchists, fascists and anti-Semites?
The Dish 