That's Rich

Frank Rich's latest Sunday think piece in The New York Times features an odd complaint. It seems no one mentioned the Iraq war at the latest "Kennedy Center Honors." Apparently, when our country decides to honor lengthy careers of top artists, it's important we be reminded of current events.

Odder, Rich is troubled that things aren't like the era of WWII, when the whole country felt the deprivation and devastation of the war. Well, Frank, it's like this. WWII required a much huger army, cost us over 100% of our yearly GDP and required huge efforts from industry. The War on Terror--a war I feel is as important as WWII--has so far cost us about 1% or 2% of our annual GDP, requires fewer soldiers and has far fewer casualties.

Most people, seems to me, would call this a good thing. Furthermore, the reason we're fighting, right or wrong, is to prevent greater pain on our shores. Does Frank Rich need so badly to criticize Bush and the War in Iraq that he's reduced to this sort of argument? Couldn't he take a week off?