Abu Ghraib, Carlson and Friedman: The Changing War Tides

May 13 2004
Counterbias.com
Robert Furs

What a horrible week it has been for the Bush administration's war effort.

If this past week could be materialized as a human being, FOX News and every Republican would be labeling him an "anti-American traitor".

If you are one of the black-or-white 'thinkers' who firmly believe that one is either on the side of The President or The Terrorists, then this week has been quite terrorizing. Downright unpatriotic, arrogantly anti-American, horrendously hateful, in fact.

If only this week could be taken to Abu Ghraib and tortured (or "allegedly abused" as the media puts it, as if they hadn't yet seen the vivid photographs).

Unless we've been living under a hood atop a box with electric wires clamped to our genitals, we already know about the prisoner abuse scandal. The events at Abu Ghraib kicked off what is sure to be the beginning of the end of anything resembling a majority of support for the Bush Occupation of Iraq.

Anyone still in full support of the Iraq War, after seeing and realizing the meaning of the Abu Ghraib images, coupled with the multitude of failures—no WMD, pathetic cost-to-benefit ratio, dying Americans, constant uprisings and anti-American violence—is almost certainly in close contact with Rush Limbaugh's Oxycontin dealer(s).

All this has been gone through, over, and under. There's no need for me to describe or analyze the pictures and their devastating effects on the US mission in Iraq, for we have all—yes, even Senator Inhofe (R) is entitled to his own viewpoint on the matter—developed an understanding (and an image burned into a dark corner of our minds) of the events that have taken place.

So on I will move to two occurrences that, while not nearly as world-changing as the prisoner abuse scandal or beheading of Nick Berg, are examples of a drastic change in the opinion of two important disseminators of popular political thought.

Tucker Carlson, a respectable young conservative pundit known for representing Republicanism on CNN's Crossfire, has seemingly switched over to what he previously would've seen as 'the dark side'. Carlson isn't the most partisan politico in America, that's for certain. He is reasonable for the most part (although he does seem to morph into the right-wing caricature required for a left-right show like Crossfire), a Republican of the John McCain variety.

Carlson began to show signs of his anti-war side on the 7 April 2004 broadcast of Crossfire, when he stated that "We've got a war going on...and we need to figure out how to get out of it". Get out of it? Was that Dennis Kucinich in Tucker's body? Although the words were said in the context of Kerry's lack of an alternate policy, Carlson's insistence on the issue of Kerry needing a noticeably differing position—which he does need—sounded like it was coming from a man who wanted another option, something dramatically opposed to what Bush offered.

"Kerry is not going to win an election unless he sort of ventures to put an idea out there", said Carlson. An idea that, it seems, Carlson would be willing to support.

Sound irrational? Carlson pushing Kerry to offer up another plan for Iraq, because of Carlson's own misgivings about the war? 

Not so crazy at all. As reported in the Observer on May 12, Carlson said that "I think [the war is] a total nightmare and disaster, and I’m ashamed that I went against my own instincts in supporting it...It’s something I’ll never do again. Never. I got convinced by a friend of mine who’s smarter than I am, and I shouldn’t have done that. No. I want things to work out, but I’m enraged by it, actually."

Wow. What a change for a guy that on 7 March 2003's Crossfire said matter-of-factly, "They have biological weapons, James." (Note: Throughout my search though Crossfire transcripts for a juicy Carlson-as-warmonger quote, I concluded that he was quite respectable and not as ferociously pro-war as most talking heads, and quotes with Carlson regurgitating White House propaganda as fact was the best I could find).

That same broadcast, which was before the war began and over fourteen months ago, Carlson opined that the war "could doom [President Bush's election] chances. I mean this is what Democrats never want to admit. This is incredibly risky politically. The political downside much more apparent than the political upside."

And judging by recent events and the continual drop in Bush's approval ratings, Carlson was right, just as he's right to come out against the 'war'.

Thomas Friedman, infamous New York Times columnist and apparent liberal turned Bush-supporting war-cheerleader, has progressively been turning against the war as well. His 13 May 2004 column, "Dancing Alone", signifies his complete conversion from war proponent to a man apologetic for his misdeeds in blatantly supporting the Bush administration in their quest for war. The article must be read to be believed, for it is almost shocking to witness what marks the turn-around in a man previously oblivious to the deception he had so easily digested and passed to his audience.

"It is time to ask this question: Do we have any chance of succeeding at regime change in Iraq without regime change here at home?” is how Friedman starts this column. Incredible; I'm strangely relieved, and shocked in a positive way. But too little too late: Friedman won't get much support from those against the war that have watched him carry its torch from the beginning.

It took a while, but at least these two are now getting it. More will soon follow. (Don't be surprised if Robert Novak, who went from anti-war to pro-war during the lead-up to war, will turn back as well if things don't get better, fast).

The idea that perhaps public support for the War in Iraq is near rock bottom, and will rise up and allow Bush to continue his 'mission' without losing out politically, is but a dream. Political personalities and opinion-dissemblers like Tucker Carlson and Thomas Friedman thought that the war was necessary, would go well, and was based upon sound reasoning, judgment and evidence. But that was just a dream on the part of these two men.

A dream that they've since escaped from. It seemingly took Abu Ghraib to do it, sadly enough.

A man named Robert H. Schuller once said that "impossible situations can become possible miracles". The Abu Ghraib debacle, as impossibly devastating as it is and will be, has opened the doors to a possible miracle: solidification of popular American opinion against this foreign policy debacle.

The dream-based thought process of those swayed by the pro-war lies and propaganda is coming to an end. The reality is taking shape.

Like Carlson and Friedman and the US population slowly exiting the media-led sphere of stupefaction, other important figures will soon see their rigid support for the war melt into a contagious sense of reality.