I swore I would never listen to Tom Friedman again....but

[Jacobin]

He's on the PBS evening newscast right now (central time) and spewing about how America has "taken the war on terrorism to Iraq" and that it will be a long bloody war and that "it won't be easy and lots of people will be killed" and that we won't leave Iraq for a "very very long time".

Now, help me with this...I remember him as the head NYT cheerleader for the invasion last spring, talking about how the Iraqis would embrace us, it would be a cake walk, we would be finished with setting up their "democracy" in a matter of months.

Is this guy a psychotic shameless whore, a corrupt fool, a traitorous double agent for the zionist regime, or WHAT?????

(He's still peeing all over himself in excitement about this conflict btw)

:mad:

[quilp]

1. I keep hearing about Friedman's "connection" with the Israeli government.

Is there any evidence of it? Except for that he openly spouts the Israeli line?

[StandWatie]

2. Hard Core Israel fans hate him..

he said some bad things about the Lebanese War (I don't know how anyone sane could find anything good about it) after he personally watched a bunch of massacres. That's usually enough to get denounced.

I don't think Tom is an Israeli agent, I think he is a deluded (useful) fool who really believes the US government is trying to help people here or abroad. He was sure that the entire world would be rich today, trading stock on ETrade from "free trade" and I'm sure he really thought the US was capable or at least had intentions of doing something good in Iraq.

[Jacobin]

3. Hmm

I should never have suggested that Mr. Friedman was anything but totally and completely and singularly loyal and faithful only to the citizens of the United States and had no interest whatsoever in the use of the U.S. military to re-draw the map of Israel to its biblical dimensions. There is not one shred of evidence, not one scintilla of anything approaching proof that would suggest that his loyalties somehow, even partially, lie with those of the government of Israel.

Please excuse this delusional lapse.

[aquart]

8. Which biblical dimensions?

The area was quite fluid. Which dimensions do you mean? What dimensions would the gentle Palestinians like?

Heaven forfend anyone see anything worth preserving in those evil, encroaching Jews.

Do you mind terribly if Italian-Americans say anything nice about Italy?

[Jacobin]

11. AS long as the Italians

don't create think tanks to propagandize the U.S. public, bribe congress, and convince the public to go to war for Italian agendas, I don't give a rats ass.

However, here, they (and any country) is free to do just that. I don't have to like it.

[Cocoa]

4. oh, lord!

he doesn't mention any of that bad stuff in his last column, called, get this, "The Truth About Iraq."

He talks about how beautiful the airport is, and quotes some optimistic Arabs that I seriously think he might have made up:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/17/opinion/17FRIE.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists%2fThomas%20L%20Friedman

[bpilgrim]

5. he is PAID

C.I.A. i would bet my house on it.

peace

[teryang]

16. I'm with you

The sychophantic whore is an operative. His pro Likud NYT soapbox is a front.

[StandWatie]

20. Friedman would identify with Labour in Israel..

it doesn't say much for Labour but rather that Friedman is a more subtle rejectionist instead of in your face expansionist just like Israeli labour.

[gratuitous]

6. I recall him being a reluctant hawk

As I recall, Friedman didn't think war was the best answer, but certainly thought that armed hostilities between the US and Iraq were inevitable, and that handling it sooner rather than later was the best of many evil choices.

That said, since the launching of the invasion, Friedman has been a booster of the war, and this is the first I've heard that he might be having second thoughts about what the U.S. commitment might ultimately entail in Iraq.

If he's just now waking up to the downside of this adventure in empire building, I hope he wakes up mad. He's got a very enviable vantage point at the NYT to make some salient points. Or he'll just go merrily on, bumping and stumping for the globalists, happy to make change for the sawbuck he finds on top of his dresser each morning.

[Jacobin]

7. He was a very big promoter of the invasion

I'll google up some of his columns this past spring to post in a bit, mostly convince myself that I'm not losing my memory.

I saw him on a talk show shortly before the invasion and he was positively giddy about the coming invasion and how glorious and welcome it would be.

Reluctant? That would be a stretch.

[Cocoa]

9. here's a good sampling from Tom "Give War a Chance" Friedman

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=12465

<snip>

Another column included this gleeful approach for threatening civilians in Yugoslavia with protracted terror: "Every week you ravage Kosovo is another decade we will set your country back by pulverizing you. You want 1950? We can do 1950. You want 1389? We can do 1389 too."


Last November, his column was in a similar groove. "Let's all take a deep breath and repeat after me: Give war a chance. This is Afghanistan we're talking about. Check the map. It's far away."

more...

[Jacobin]

18. LOL....quite a definition of reluctant

"All I am saaaaaaying .......is GIVE War a chaaaaance."

[w13rd0]

10. Maybe by reluctant...

...he means that he didn't want to pick up a gun and go himself. I can certainly see that reluctant warmongering from plenty of the pro-war cheerleaders.

[xequals]

12. No, he's simply a liberal who had a different opinion

on the Iraq situation. Not all liberals were against the war. Most polls revealed Democrats in general to be split on the issue. I saw one of Friedman's speeches on CSpan, and he was not "peeing all over himself". It seemed to be a difficult issue for him. His reasoning was sound and his position principaled (more along the line of Clinton than Bush) IMO, though you may not agree with it.

[StandWatie]

13. No, the reasoning wasn't sound

it was complete garbage and I don't care what "liberal" thought otherwise.

[Jacobin]

17. We simply have a different take on his demeanor

I'll leave it at that.

Those who think this invasion and occupation will succeed, IMHO ignore 4,000 years of history and the accounts of those who have tried to occupy a M.E. land from Ghengis Kahn, to Alexander the Great to Richard the Lion Heart to Napoleon Bonaparte to the British in the late 19th century.

I don't think "smart bombs" and computers will win a guerilla war.

[fishnfla]

14. His wife is anti-war

he 'fessed that up in a column a coupla months ago. Did you see where he got held up by bandits in Iraq? No one was hurt so LOL

[mcaverly]

15. I Also Remember The "They will Embrace Us" Talk

I heard him on the morning radio shows several times and I distinctly remember the "They will welcome us with open arms" discussions. It must be nice to have a faulty memory. I. on the other hand, always remember when I am inaccurate in what I say. That must be why I am not a columnist.

[RichM]

19. TF was pro-war all the way, but adopted the pose about "building a

pluralistic democracy in Iraq" as his moral justification. AFTER it became obvious there were no WMD, he said this didn't matter, because the skulls dug up in a mass grave were proof of how mean & nasty Saddam was. He ALSO said that we hit Iraq "because we could," -- and that was perfectly OK & justifiable, because after 9-11 we were in a bad mood and had to hit somebody that was Arab, & Iraq filled the bill. He ALSO said that Yeah, of course the oil had something to do with it, but that's OK too. No problem.

Tom LOVES displays of US military strength, & pompously lecturing primitive Arabs about how they should look at themselves in a mirror to discover their many faults. He merrily participated in the all-media US bashing of France, a few months back.

Of the descriptive labels you offer for Tom, I think "corrupt fool" is the best. He's a shameless whore, no doubt, but not psychotic. I don't really buy the Zionist double agent theory, though I see why many might.

[LeftCoast]

21. Unfortunately, Friedman is now invested in a US presence in Iraq

He was gung-ho for the war and I honestly think his ego will not let him now back up and say that he was wrong. Friedman is by no means stupid and sometimes his articles have been amazingly well-written, but as time has gone on his articles on the situation have been seeming more and more like an editorial version of "The Dog Ate My Homework".

The deeper the hole he digs himself, the less likely he'll want to admit he's wrong. It's really kind of sad seeing him fall to such intellectual dishonesty. The one he's really deceiving is himself.

[KC21304]

25. I have been thinking of what to add to this thread

and you have expressed my feelings exactly. I think he is brilliant and have said for many years he should be in the State Dept. I felt he understood the MiddleEast like no one else.

But then something happened to him on the way to this damn war. I have never been so disappointed in someone in my life. I don't know what else to say.

[skyzics]

22. Another fair and balanced Gwin Ifill presentation..

I make funny joke.

I think she wants to have Smirky's baby.

[Gin]

23. He's for the war and invasion in one sentence....then goes on to say

what may go wrong...so he has the benefit of not taking sides.
I am not impressed.

[skyzics]

24. For interesting and extensive analysis of Friedman and his ilk..

Do a search for 'friedman' at www.wsws.org

[legin]

26. One Friedman article which caused a bit of a stir

in case people missed it.

We Went Into Iraq Because We Knew We Could

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published on 6/5/2003

The failure of the Bush team to produce any weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq is becoming a big, big story. But is it the real story we should be concerned with? No. It was the wrong issue before the war, and it's the wrong issue now.

Why? Because there were actually four reasons for this war: the real reason, the right reason, the moral reason and the stated reason.

The “real reason” for this war, which was never stated, was that after 9/11 America needed to hit someone in the Arab-Muslim world. Afghanistan wasn't enough. Because a terrorism bubble had built up over there, one that posed a real threat to the open societies of the West and needed to be punctured. This terrorism bubble said that plowing airplanes into the World Trade Center was OK, having Muslim preachers say it was OK was OK, having state-run newspapers call people who did such things “martyrs” was OK and allowing Muslim charities to raise money for such “martyrs” was OK. Not only
was all this seen as OK, there was a feeling among radical Muslims that suicide bombing would level the balance of power between the Arab world and the West, because we had gone soft and their activists were ready to die.

The only way to puncture that bubble was for American soldiers, men and women, to go into the heart of the Arab-Muslim world, house to house, and make clear that we are ready to kill, and to die, to prevent our open society from being undermined by this terrorism bubble. Smashing Saudi Arabia or Syria would have been fine. But we hit Saddam for one simple reason: because we could, and because he deserved it and because he was right in the heart of that world. And don't believe the nonsense that this had no effect. Every neighboring government — and 98 percent of terrorism is about what governments let happen — got the message. If you talk to U.S. soldiers in Iraq they will tell you this is what the war was about.

(more...)
http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2003/msg02887.html