Pen-Elayne on the Web

Myopic Chutzpah

Lots of folks in the blogosphere are talking about Thomas Friedman's latest op-ed, in which he asserts

Mr. Blair never really made this case [in favor of invading Iraq] to his public. Why not? Because the British public never would have gone to war for the good reasons alone. Why not? Because the British public had not gone through 9/11 and did not really feel threatened, because it demanded a U.N. legal cover for any war and because it didn't like or trust George Bush.

(Italics mine.) Pardon my FrenchFreedom, Mr. Friedman, but how fucking dare you? First of all, Britain has endured numerous attacks on its own soil for hundreds of years. If you want to narrow it down to the last century, care to remember The Blitz? Or how about numerous IRA bombings? As for the British public not going through 9/11, I say ye bullshit. I live with a Brit. We spoke to his friends and relatives on the other side of the pond as often as we could get through on 11 September 2001, and they were every bit as affected by the events as any American not living in NYC. So don't tell me they didn't go through it, okay? People around the world were glued to televisions watching it as it happened, and many Brits immediately empathized with the fear because (unlike most Americans) they remembered what it felt like to be attacked on your own soil. And as for the rest of your sentence, implying that there's somehow something wrong with "demand[ing] a U.N. legal cover" - well, you know, some people call that the rule of law. It's what civilized people are supposed to do. And Brits are far from the only ones who don't "like or trust George Bush." That can be said of lots of Americans too. More and more every day, if we're lucky. Oh, and by the way you schmuck, there were no "good reasons" for this war, which - once more with feeling - had nothing to do with 9/11.