Tom Friedman (a political legend in his own mind) insists on taking a firm and unwavering position -- except for the part where he's not so firm and he wavers:
In today's column, Friedman again says he can support the "surge" -- that is, if Bush does still other things:
Let the troop surge be accompanied and reinforced by what the Baker-Hamilton commission proposed: a regional conference that puts Syria, Iran, Jordan and Saudi Arabia around a table with Iraqis to try to stabilize the place. And that requires that America brandish carrots and sticks with all the parties. If a real regional conference doesn’t work, then Democrats who want to just set a date to withdraw will have an even stronger case because we will truly have tried everything. But let’s try everything: a surge of diplomacy, not just troops.
So before, it was basically, "if Bush doesn't send 150,000 troops, we should leave." Now it's basically, "if" we try a "regional conference" and it doesn't work, the case for withdrawal is "even stronger."
So ... he's all for "the surge," as long as a lot of other stuff goes along with it. Sort of like saying, "Chocolate Frosted Sugar Bombs! Part of a complete breakfast! As long as that breakfast includes milk, orange juice, multigrain toast and a selection of fresh fruit."
Why does anyone still take that idiot seriously?