Maureen Dowd's latest column in the New York Times is titled "Liz Cheney: Desist!" She argues that Republicans are irresponsibly "urging the dogs of war once more".
But I find the soft-pedaled jingoism in Thomas Friedman's latest column in the same newspaper to be more sinister - his reasonable-sounding laying down of a case for a preemptive strike. Friedman writes:
"If it comes to war, let it be because the ayatollahs were ready to sacrifice their whole economy to get a nuke and, therefore, America — the only country that can truly take down Iran’s nuclear program — had to act to protect the global system, not just Israel."
That sounds very much like the type of quiet argument Friedman was making in the run-up to the Iraq war, which was the last time he provided liberal Americans with some very sensible-sounding arguments as to why they should support a war on and in a country that turned out not to pose any kind of real threat to the U.S. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/07/opinion/dowd-liz-cheney-desist.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/07/opinion/friedman-israels-best-friend.html