Tom Friedman Becomes America's Chief Revisionist Historian

[ProSense]

David Sirota

03.04.2006

Tom Friedman Becomes America's Chief Revisionist Historian

Last week, I noted how so-called "liberal" pundits like Tom Friedman are desperately trying to distort the Dubai ports scandal so as to perpetuate the free trade orthodoxy they have spent so many years pushing. This week, we see the same dishonest behavior from Friedman when it comes to Iraq.

In a column this week about the war, Friedman concludes by saying:

"A majority of Americans, in a gut way, always understood the value of trying to produce a democratizing government in the heart of the Arab-Muslim world. That is why there has been no big antiwar movement. Americans should, and will, stick with Iraq if they sense that Iraqis are on a pathway to building a decent, stable government. But Americans will not, and should not, baby-sit an Iraqi civil war. The minute they sense that's what's happening, you will see the bottom fall out of U.S. public support for this war."

There are so many lies and deliberate distortions in this paragraph it makes one's head spin.

First, Friedman's claim that the public has always supported the war because we "always understood the value" of pushing democracy in the Mideast. This is revisionist history at its worst, whereby Friedman, who loudly pushed the war and is now clearly embarrassed about that advocacy, is trying to paint a wholly fabricated picture of what happened in the lead up to the invasion. The war was sold by the Bush administration and pundits like Friedman as necessary to defuse an "imminent threat" of attack by Iraq. To this day, the public knows the "democracy" rationale is a lie. A Zogby poll released last week found that just 24% of Americans believe that "establishing a democracy that can be a model for the Arab World" was the main or a major reason for the war. That's not a majority, even by Friedman's dishonest standards.

Second, Friedman's claim that there is "no big antiwar movement" is just straight up lying. There's no way to couch it in any other term. Millions of people protested the invasion in towns throughout America and the world, and millions continue to vehemently oppose the neoconservative foreign policy that the Bush administration and Friedman espouse. Friedman doesn't want to acknowledge this reality because he is desperate to portray himself and his extremism as somehow mainstream when it is anything but.

Finally, and perhaps most dishonest of all, is Friedman's claim that if a civil war erupts in Iraq we "will see the bottom fall out of U.S. public support for this war" (emphasis added). What the hell is this guy talking about? What planet is he living on? Has he even bothered to actually look at the facts? I mean, really - we will see the bottom fall out of U.S. public support for this war? Last I checked, nearly every major poll from 2004 until the present has shown that public support for the Iraq War has evaporated. It seems the majority of people who continue to cheer on the war are ideologues like Friedman, who are scrambling to protect their own reputations and credibility after shamelessly pressing the country into Iraq in the first place. The fact that Friedman is still claiming that the public supports the war shows that he is either very comfortable lying in the pages of the New York Times, wholly divorced from reality - or both.

more...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/tom-friedman-becomes-amer_b_16762.html

[MADem]

1. Friedman just loves Friedman--he's always had his head up his ass nt

[shain from kane]

2. When has U. S. bullying ever established a democracy

overseas? These people are under a delusion that it was ever our idea that anything other than another dictator or puppet would rule Iraq. Even if the purpose was "regime change", what was going to be the nature of the new regime?
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
It was always preached as regime change. There was no exit plan. The * administration never thought that much ahead, because it was always assumed that it would be business as usual and Chalabi or some other puppet, similar to the Mayor of Kabul in Afganistan, would be placed it charge.

[bpilgrim]

4. that is not the goal, just the selling point

everything is going according to their plan... weTHEpeople need to tell them, STOP!

peace

[bpilgrim]

3. he's an elite hack (sophist/modern day cicero)

and the elite love'm :puke:

he reminds me of rush with a slightly bigger vocabulary.

peace

[IndianaGreen]

5. Friedman is not a liberal, he is a neo-liberal (not the same thing)

Friedman is suffering from amnesia, for it was people like him that acted as cheerleaders for the war. Now that Hitler is losing the war, I meant to say Bush, now that Bush is losing the war, the neocons and their neolib allies on the Democratic side are washing their hands from the entire affair.

[The Magistrate]

6. One Small Point, Ma'am

"The bottom falling out of support for the war" would be this: a widespread sense of urgency about ending the venture yesterday, if not sooner. It is quite true that people in appreciable majorities do not support the war, think it is a bungle managed incompetently, and so forth. But it is also a fact that they do not deeply care about this feeling, that it is not strong enough to lead many yet to demand immediate action to see that view realized as policy. A full-bore, undeniable civil in Iraq would certainly create and spread such a sense of urgency quickly.

Of course, Friedman's comments about our people wanting to spread democracy in the Middle East cannot be allowed to pass without a whiff of grape at least: that si one of the more nonsensical statements the fellow has ever made. The people of this country do not give a tinker's damn how the people fo the Middle East are ruled, so long as they continue to sell us oil. To the degree the people are interested in the subject, they mostly consider it to be the case that the people in the Middle East hate us, and therefore would tend to view democracy in the region as about the least desireable thing conceivable, as it could only empower that popular hate further.

"People are not nearly so stupid as they are given credit for."

[bpilgrim]

7. "managed incompetently" -vs- everything is going according to plan

they have a disconnect with the people because they are try'n to sell this as an honorable war to keep 'everyone+iraqis' safe & prosperous. (believe it or not)

civil war is the goal but they MUST dress it up as something else to make it palatable to some or at the very least acceptable as a talking point for the M$MWs.

the 'people' are ready to put saddam - or his twin - back in, if it meant we could pump MORE oil for cheaper $$$ (or any amount of $$$) & bring our troops home.

GREATER ME PEACE, PROSPERITY & SECURITY PLAN (GEACPS)

my only question is... who are the neoCONs gonna NUKE 1st?

if we concede that what we are witnessing is a resource world for the blood (oil) of 'civilization' as we know it, everything not only starts to make sense but raises many hair raising ??? on how 'our way of life' we respond, represented by the neoCONs for the elite.

peace

[The Magistrate]

8. That Seems Overly Intricate To Me, My Friend

Exploitation of the resources of the place could proceed much more efficiently anmd profitably in a peaceful condition; deliberately fomenting violence there works against profits. The reason adequate steps to secure that state were not taken from the start of the invasion's success seems to me to be simply that the present regime committed the fatal disaster of believing their own propaganda: they actually did believe the occupation would be welcomed as a liberation, and that they would have a sizeable cushion of local good will. When this proved not to be the case, it took them a goof while to realize it, and everything since has been a hasty day late anmd dollar short exercise in catch-up, that cannot possibly overcome the initial deficeit.

[gratuitous]

9. NO big antiwar movement?!

What in hell his Friedman talking about? Maybe we need to schedule the next march right through his office in front of his monkey face, and then he'll see what millions of folks protesting looks like?

Idiot. Self-serving, delusional, duplicitous idiot.