Tom Friedman on Charlie Rose last night....

[Gloria]

Old Tom was in fine fettle as he let Rose say it for him...that he thinks Rumsfeld should be fired. He really was very pissed over Rumsfeld's early statement about how "stuff happens/democracy is messy" as Iraq descended into chaos. He said it was irresponsible.

Tom seems to be in a little bind. He seems to think there is hope that things can turn out well in Iraq. Charlie was prodding him along, of course.

But everything that preceded this was pretty negative. He said that he felt the media never conveyed how really poor Iraq was....desert and telephone polls, he said, outside of Baghdad. He blamed it on Saddam and at least Rose brought up sanctions. He said it was already in a hole, and we put it down another level as we allowed looting for two weeks. Then we put Jay Garner in and after a month he was gone...another step into the hole. So now it's costing more to get us back to the level of the original hole. He likened it to warring with the Flinstones and we've taken Bedrock down a couple of levels.

The bright spot for Tom is that after the killing of the cleric, the Shi'ites didn't go into full scale resistance. And that after the next bombing, the council still met. He says the trend is going forward in spite of all the bombings, etc. He said more money will go into hiring more Iraqi polic and soldiers which will be a wonderful thing, necessary to security. If it's done right, says Tom, good things can still come to Iraq. (That's sure a big IF, isn't it Tom?)

On to Israel. The wall building is a lousy idea. The settlements are staying. If you wind up walling everything thing up and putting the Palestinians into little "cells" then that assures a revolt. He isn't optimistic about it at all.

Tom seems like he need a vacation. He looked rather rough around the edges last night.

[blm]

1. That wall is a big deal and will become an issue.

I don't see how anyone can support it.

Friedman did look like he needed a vacation. He's been so involved with this story for years, and now he's watching it crumble into a disaster that only an incompetent administration could create.

[Jim Sagle]

2. I don't see how anyone has the SHEER GALL to oppose it.

Just IMAGINE trying to keep mass murderers out of your country. SOME CRUST!

[Sideways]

15. Crust Indeed Jim

When Sharons goon squad is out murdering children because they throw rocks can we talk about THAT genocide? I think after we hash over that issue we can have a good debate about crust. Israels assassinations are fucking immoral and illegal. Sharon is a fucking lunatic. Don't get me started Jim because I live in the ME and I have a much better fix on the pump and I am seeing this shit first hand.

Sharon is making terrorists. By design. BTW have you ever considered that Palestinians feel that Israel is trying to mass murder them?

To quote your much used phrase "Jim you don't know shit."

[Evil_Dewers]

18. The wall will keep * and Sharon out???

Actually, Israel walling itself in will mean it will turn into an old, cold war West Berlin.

In the last few years, twice as many Palestinians civilians have been murdered by the IDF (Israeli Defense Force) than the number of Israeli civilians who have been killed by suicide bombers and in other terrorist attacks...That's just another dirty little secret which isn't reported by the US (Zionist) media.

"But, but, those Palestinians are just "collateral damage," you say.
"The IDF doesn't target civilians."

Bullshit. The IDF doesn't care that they kill civilians since the only good Palestinian is a dead Palestinian--or one who shuts his mouth, bows to Israel and provides cheap labor like picking peppers or boxing up pharmaceuticals for 50 cents an hour.

j/k about the Zionist part. But I am sick of you Israeli apologists. The only difference between Israel and Palestine is that one side gets about $4 billion a year in US taxpayer money and can afford to use US apache helicopters to fire rockets and US tanks to crush Palestinian homes as their weapons of terror.

[StandWatie]

19. A Berlin wall would be a good thing..

it much more closely resembles Warsaw.

[kentuck]

3. Nobody knew Iraq was a third-world country ?

No electricity...no infrastructure...or whatever was remaining was in shambles. Surprise! Surprise! Is it any wonder we were able to march straight to Baghdad? Once we set up the government in Baghdad, we could say we were in control of the country, just like in Kabul. Unfortunately, there are still remnants of nilitary and weapons, especially RPGs, that is making that chore difficult.

But after 12 years of bombing and sanctions on the already poor nation, what did we expect them to be - a powerful challenge to America? That is another of the "lies" that was insinuated if not spoken outright. Iraq was a weak, deteriorated, 3rd world country and they were hyped up as having WMDs, nuclear capability, etc when they were lucky if they had enough food to eat...

[Gloria]

4. Another thing he said was that Saddam on the loose is very important...

he said Saddam loyalists were a big part of the unrest problem. He said we don't see the "weeping mothers" who tell Wolfowitz they are happy Saddam's gone.

However, he also mentioned the porous borders and people coming in. He was very critical of the Pentagon (Rumsfeld) with no plan after the invasion.

[Gin]

6. Krugman was on too after Tom....Charlie interrupts too much

He hasn't always done that....It is irritating when a person is mid sentence and he breaks their train of thought..He made Krugman look scatter brained.

I need to email him with my complaints....anyone else notice that?

[Gloria]

10. Yes, Charlie has become insufferable...he interrupts and is argumentative

even before the other person can complete a thought.

Richard Holbrooke was ready to kill him a few weeks back.....Holbrooke got icy and testy and I don't blame him. I don't even think Rose got the message that Holbrooke was repeating himself to make it clear that he was going to get his point acrose in spite of Rose.

[eleny]

12. I like Rose - *BUT*...

he has a habit of asking a question - and just when the guest starts to answer his question, he interrupts to rephrase the question. You can even see the guest nodding as if to say "I understood your question the first time."

The show is too special for him to be monopolizing precious time from the calm, conversational and most rare format.

[LoneStarLiberal]

5. Friedman is Entangled

The Bush administration has made it really rough on Friedman given their policies on some of the subjects that have been very near and dear to him.

I think the wheels are starting to come off a little for Mr. Friedman, and that's a shame. One of the things that made his columns so enjoyable to read for so long was that he wasn't just reporting on places like Iraq and Israel...he was involved and was discussing the problems and possible solutions with his readers.

I'm afraid that now he's been caught sticking up for the people he's been discussing and that has been ensnarled in our administration's incompetent bungling on foreign shores. His professional career has been tied to the administration's policies in Iraq and Israel and I think he is intelligent enough to see that these entanglements are nothing more than a dead end.

[Gloria]

8. I agree, LoneStarLiberal---he seemed very frustrated last night...

I'll never forget him awhile ago on Rose discussing Iran. Describing the society, how far they've come. Even the dissidents writers thrown in jail still being able to write and have their columns read. Almost two societies running at the same time--the monarchy and the reforms moving ahead. He was clear that Iran was really making progress. His affection for the people in Iran and all over the region is real.

Then Chimpy announces they're evil and triggers a wave of reaction. Instead of fostering democracy, the Bushies put a chill on. Even to the point that wealthier Iranians who favor the West, turn on Chimpy (read articles on this) because he's insulting them as a nation.

How must Tom feel about that??

He seems very weary and worn down by recent events.

[blm]

9. Exactly.

I think it's tearing him up inside, too. He CARES about that region.

[StandWatie]

7. fuck Friedman

Everytime he goes to bat for the inate goodness and ability of the US or Israel's actions and his naive belief that these people share his vision it winds up blowing up in face. You would think after a quarter century of doing the same thing over and over he would grow some healthy cynisism.

[tedzbear]

14. Right on! Ditto!!!!!

Friedman is a Fascist shill for the military industrial complex that is corrupting our political system.
If he had been around during Viet Nam he would have lived in a fantasy world then too. He would have kept hoping the South Vietnamese were seeing the light when everyone else knew they weren't.
The majority wanted to be unified with the north.

:kick:

[StandWatie]

16. without a doubt..

he would have been the "liberal" who worried that we were insuficiently committed to "defending democracy" in South Vietnam.

[janekat]

20. Yup - you hit the nail right on the head.... n/t

[E_Zapata]

11. Tom's biggest problem with Iraq:

and for which he seemed to be in a hysterical state:

that the Iraqis aren't grateful enough (intelligent enough?) to embrace the opportunity for democracy. Tom is really put off that those damn Iraqis aren't saying thank you for the opportunity. And that the problem over there is that the Iraqis won't get get right with what's right: democracy, that they won't take to the streets and demand democracy.

My Rx for Tom: stick to the BBV issues here for six months and then tell us about democracy.

Tom was very diplomatic in saying he did not expect flowers at the occupiers' feet.

He's a dip shit.

[Rose Siding]

13. So sad about Tom

He seems so smart and is such a good communicator. But... I caught a piece of him on some forum.

He said that we always fight totalitarianism in our big wars- in the form of Hitler in WWII, in the form of communism in the Cold War and in the form of Islamic fundamentalism in "WWIII". He needs a friend to whisper to him about Saddam being secular and the only fundie in sight (on our current battle field) is the mask of geedub.

[salin]

17. Friedman was exceptionally noncritical of the admin

and their policies as the lead up to the war. While I believe he came from a well intended place (that he fully bought the humanitarian explations/rationale for the war), his columns lost the critical edge when it came to questioning the administration, and their motivations. As he grows more critical, that lack of critical/objective thought in his earlier columns make it hard for him to be critical. Even what is described here is exceptionally appologetic - that the media complicitness was... not showing how poor iraq was (and thus the costs required) - NOT that the media accepted administration's rosy scenarios painted - and the use of twisted intel to manipulate public perception to garner public support for the war.

Is it just me, or has his reported seemed a tad naive? Especially in light of his expertise?

But it leaves him with a very limited range on which he can now give serious critique.

Tangled web (even if unintentional) and all that.

[Flying_Pig]

21. Friedman is a PNAC'er......

His columns on Iraq, at least those until most recently, read like the PNAC playbook. I think he's a schmuck.

[salin]

22. I have no respect for him either

but I do find his "defense of"/"support for" the war in Iraq to come from a very different perspective than the Pnac-ers. I think they read like a silly school girl.

Result is the same, of course. "Legitimation" in the NYT.