Another good column from Friedman. Take note Democrats- he brought up legitimate criticisms and managed to do so without calling Bush the ‘worst President ever” or referring to him as ‘Shrub’ or ‘Bushitler.’
Reader Interactions
4Comments
Comments are closed.
Mason
…or any mention of the great and powerful Rove, dark lord of the ether.
blaster
Heard Friedman on Charlie Rose a week or so ago (I was flipping, I didn’t mean to) and he said “Just because George Bush believes something doesn’t mean it isn’t true.” He was basically chiding those who oppose him on EVERYTHING.
oceanguy
Friedman’s premise in this is a bit questionable, that Agricultural subsidies might encourage or contribute to terrorism. How much agribusiness exists in the lands where most terrorism comes from? Have agricultural subsidies affected poverty in Saudia Arabia at all? How about in the disputed territories?
OK, I’m a little put off by Friedman’s arrogance, and maybe I’m picking nits. And, obviously just because he believes it doesn’t make it a lie. But he stretched a little on this one. As right as it is to eliminate poverty, and as wrong as agricultural subsidies are, he can’t sell it as another tool in the war on terror. Nor should he criticize anyone for not making it part of the discussion. There is plenty to criticize this Administration on, but this one is stretchign it.
They should be criticized for not doing nearly enough to fight poverty, and Ag subsidies are a big piece of that… but if you’re going to say it’s a failure in the War on Terror, at least show us that poverty breeds terror… I know I’ve read plenty that argues there is very little correlation.
Poverty is bad…. Agricultural subsidies are bad… Terrorism is bad… But are they really as closely related as Friedman suggests?
John Cole
I don;t think he was claiming that ending agricultural subsidies would end terrorism, but what he was saying was that poverty is to terrorism like a petri dish is to bacteria. One does not create the other, but hving the former certainly does provide an ample area for the latter to develop. Thus, ending agricultural subsidies and allowing for pockets of poverty to slowly be eradicated could be beneficial. I agree.