Do you agree with Thomas Friedman?

[CatWoman]

Liberals don't want to talk about Iraq because, with a few exceptions, they thought the war was wrong and deep down don't want the Bush team to succeed.

I don't.

1. Liberals DO want to talk about Iraq. This liberal talks about Iraq every single day.

2. Not wanting Bush to succeed is not on my radar screen.

Has Bush ever succeeded at ANYTHING? I mean, everyone knew invading Iraq was a disaster in the making. Now all of a sudden, I should worry that he will succeed at bringing democracy to Iraq? I do worry about my fellow Americans and innocent Iraqis being slaughtered in his name. I do worry that there's no plan to stop the bloodshed. But I never, ever worry about Bush succeeding in accomplishing anything remotely resembling success. It just ain't in his makeup, nor in the larger scheme of things.

[ibegurpard]

1. I didn't need to read past the subject line.

Thomas Friedman=disagreement from me.

[Ken Burch]

4. Friedman made his deal with the devil and he's always going to attack

those of us who never bought the lies on Iraq.

And as to "not wanting Bush to succeed", I think that Bush's real objective is establishing permanent U.S. world domination, and, since that can't have any progressive consequences, I will admit I'd rather he not succeed at that.

[libertypirate]

2. The agents always portray

weekness on the strong and try to blind others to that strength.

[jonnyblitz]

3. it depends on how one defines "succeed" i guess.

:shrug:

[bpilgrim]

5. 1818181

does that vote compute :evilgrin:

peace

[jobycom]

6. Nah, I'd rather read Kinky Friedman. At least his fiction is labeled.

You are right. The ONLY ones talking about Iraq are the liberals, and it is not that we want Bush to fail in Iraq, we just knew from the beginning that he would. We know now that he has. It's just a countdown until the helicopter pulls our last soldier of the last roof in Baghdad.

I agree. It never occured to me that Bush could succeed in Iraq. And the main reason was because he didn't even bother to figure out what succeeding meant. How do we know when we've won? Bush had no idea.

You can't succeed if you have no goal to succeed at.

It's what happens when you appoint a brain dead fratboy to any position, much less the presidency. As the investors of Arbusto, Spectrum 7, Harken energies, and now the USA have all learned. He would have failed as counter help at Mickey D's.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

7. Tom Friedman = assmonkey of the highest order

I swear to god, he writes his stuff in an opium-induced haze while channeling the spirit of Ted Bundy, who's tripped out on meth. Friedman has established that he'll suck whatever this White House sticks in his face, so his words have absolutely no worth at all.

He's best ignored, as are his ideas. Save your energy for things that matter. Friedman doesn't.

[HughBeaumont]

8. Tommy Friedman = Tool with a bad flavor saver.

"Deep down inside, we didn't want the Bush team to succeed?" Tommy, how about we never wanted him to carry out this fool's game in the first place, you fucking TOOL? Lancelot and the war corporatists who run him were bonering up for attack on SOMEone. They MIHOP'd 9-11, there's the excuse.

But Tom's such a TOOL that he'll never get it.

[leftchick]

9. as usual Friedman has his head so far up his ass he can't see daylight

Fact: Liberals Talk about Iraq (the real Iraq not his and chimpy*s Democratic fantasy) every fucking day! We also Talk about the Number of DEAD soldiers and innocent DEAD Iraqis, Every fucking day!

Fact: I don't give a fuck about the lying chimpass or his lying warmongering enablers such as Friedman. He is shameles to suggest otherwise. Friedman is so blinded by his own self interests he makes me want to vomit. I hope his daughters are drafted first.

BRING THE TROOPS HOME!

[gratuitous]

10. This is such a moronic assertion by Friedman

The price of getting into the discussion about the war, in Friedman's view (and in the view of nearly the totality of the popular media), is that you must agree that invading Iraq was a noble and worthwhile thing to do. Now, you can disagree over tactics or strategies or results, but you must be on board with the invasion from the get-go, or Friedman and the rest of the popular media don't recognize your bona fides.

It happened again today at the White House press gaggle: Sen. Durbin's comments were dismissed out of hand by Snottie McClellan solely because Durbin voted against the war resolution. Game over, end of story, as far as McClellan is concerned -- and Friedman, too. If you weren't behind the invasion back in 2003 (or better yet, 2002), then you don't get to talk about what's going on in Iraq. And everyone who is critical of Iraq now must preface his or her remarks with "I supported the invasion initially." If you don't speak the password, you don't get to talk.

Friedman's a disingenuous twit who has wasted prime real estate in the pundit world.

[stanwyck]

11. excellent points

on who is allowed to speak on the "war" and on Friedman's demise.
He's tagged onto this invasion to the extent he can't stop and make an honest evaluation of the reality. He's too far gone. And, like, Bush, he lacks the ability to reflect and, gasp, change his mind.

[Disturbed]

14. The Bush Regime has succeeded to some extent.

Bush Regime Iraq Successes

1. Saddam will no longer sell Iraqi oil via the Euro.

2, A military foothold in the ME. Other than Saudi Arabia.

3, No countries will be able to buy Iraqi oil that the U.S. disapproves of.

4. The Multi-Intl. Oil Corps are reaping great profits, esp. Bush Junta fave ally Saudi Dicktatorshit.

“We live a lie when we fail to hold leaders accountable for their lies. By not calling now for impeachment, we are saying that we condone hypocrisy, pseudo-democracy, and murdering thousands of Americans and Iraqis for strategic control of energy resources that we have no right to. Patriotism demands that we insist on the ideals of democracy, not that we support the "leaders" who cynically destroy them.”
Robert Shetterly

[Zomby Woof]

12. You tell it little sister!

His "successes" are our failures. His failures are also our failures.

But you nailed it. Friedman is a typical NYT elitist craphole.

[Jacobin]

13. Does anyone remember the title of his column in the NYT

In December, before the invasion?

It was:

"Just Give War a Chance"

The fucker cheerled for Bush's War like there was no tomorrow and now that it has predictably gone to shit, he wants to blame democrats for 'hoping it goes wrong?'

What a fucking wanker