Krugman On Friedman

The great thing about Paul Krugman, and something bloggers should learn from, he is not afraid to take on other pundits, even those on his own team. Atrios gets the chance to riff off of the Tom Friedman "Suck on This" video yet again because Krugman calls out Friedman. Here is the video:

Here is what Krugman wrote:

I heard a number of people express privately the argument that some influential commentators made publicly that the war was a good idea, not because Iraq posed a real threat, but because beating up someone in the Middle East, never mind who, would show Muslims that we mean business. In other words, even alleged wise men bought into the idea of macho posturing as policy.

More . . .

But here is where Krugman is wrong:

All this is in the past.

But it isn't in the past. The stupidity that permeated every level of Washington on every issue, but especially on Iraq, has left the Beltway unscathed. Tom Friedman still writes at the Times. Fred Hiatt is still the Editor of the WaPo Editorial Page. People still listen to David Brooks. and if he were alive, the incompetent Tim Russert would still be the King of the Hill. There has been no reshuffling of the "Wise Men" of Washington.

No Accountability is not a concept restricted to government. It applies to all parts of Washington. That is not a thing of the past.

Speaking for me only

< Innocent Mayor's Home Raided For Drugs, Cops Kill Dogs | Kilpatrick Charged With New Crimes >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    All I know is we need a whole helluva (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:00:50 PM EST
    lot more Krugmans!!

    frankly, with rare exception (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by cpinva on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:49:00 PM EST
    (dr. krugman being one), they're all crackpots. among the biggest has to be maureen dowd, with frank rich running close behind, or right next to her.

    this isn't anything new, it's been going on for nearly 2 decades (3, if you count the reagan years, which i do). to his credit, dr. krugman has been among the very, very few (so few, i can't actually think of anyone else, off the top of my head) who has consistantly pointed out, in public, the inanity of the chattering class.

    this hasn't earned him any friends among the class. fortunately for us all, their friendship doesn't seem to matter to him.

    You know what a Krugman unit is? (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by MarkL on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:23:15 PM EST
    It's NOW---no putting off reckoning.

    If Vincent Bugliosi (none / 0) (#16)
    by jondee on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 04:12:18 PM EST
    who's seen a few, is right that Bush & Co are murderers, what does that make people like Friedman , and, or, those others who cherry picked the intelligence "we" had access to in order to justify the Iraq invasion?

    Definitely accessories, before and afer the fact! (none / 0) (#17)
    by RalphB on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 05:14:22 PM EST
    Before I found the blogs ... (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Demi Moaned on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 06:13:14 PM EST
    but after 9/11 I became more interested in reading political commentary. And I picked up a copy (remaindered) of Friedman's Longitudes and Attitudes. I just couldn't get through it. So many words chasing after so little meaning.

    It was only later that I discovered how truly pernicious his opinions were.

    But my most depressing discovery came a few days ago. He and I have the same birthday (July 20)-- though he's one year older. Is this an example of the elite from my generation?

    Don't be depressed - (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Xanthe on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 10:38:32 AM EST
    a year makes a great deal of difference on an astrological chart and the hour and place of birth matter as well.

    Holy S**t (none / 0) (#2)
    by Faust on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:04:58 PM EST
    That video is disturbing.

    I don't, wait (none / 0) (#4)
    by zyx on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:11:28 PM EST
    I didn't like Tom Friedman. But I had no idea that he was that much of a raving lunatic. That is totally beyond disturbing.

    I'll never look at him again without thinking that he's a deranged psycho. Period.


    The tone of his voice (none / 0) (#7)
    by Faust on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:30:30 PM EST
    was absolutely creepy. So smarmy, self satisfied, and just generally disgusting. So yeah. I agree. Before I thought he was just a run of the mill a$$hole. Now I know he's a cut above the regular ones.

    He sounded .. (none / 0) (#9)
    by desertswine on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:40:05 PM EST
    like an absolute crack-pot.

    He sounded like (none / 0) (#14)
    by oldpro on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:25:45 PM EST
    a believerperson...a true believer, selling with the soft and phony pitch of a bad preacher, his brand of truth.

    What he's really doing is performing.  

    Searching, searching....but now, at long last, Tom has thought of a rationale for his previous support for an unsupportable war and policy and he's trying to explain it all away.


    Don't you mean... (none / 0) (#3)
    by JoeCHI on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:10:46 PM EST
    No Accountability is concept that is not restricted to government. It applies to all parts of Washington. That is not a thing of the past.

    Yes (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:22:59 PM EST
    Fixed. Thanks.

    The thing people like ... (none / 0) (#5)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:20:56 PM EST
    Friedman intentionally ignore is that prior to 9/11 there was a major movement against radical Islamist terrorist organizations in the Middle East.

    9/11 could have given us a vehicle of finding common cause with these efforts.  Instead, Bush and his cheerleaders in the media (like Friedman) decided to do exactly the opposite.

    And of the media lackeys Friedman is especially guilty.  He's been to the Middle East.  He knows better.  So we must assume he's intentionally ignoring the truth.

    Well, he's not Catholic. (none / 0) (#15)
    by oldpro on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:28:35 PM EST
    Only the Catholics find it easy to confess...though not in public, mind you...

    Krugman needs to stay out of small (none / 0) (#8)
    by BronxFem on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:39:08 PM EST

    WTF is Freidman talking about?!?! (none / 0) (#11)
    by A DC Wonk on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:00:29 PM EST
    A bubble in the 1990's?  He of all people (he wrote "From Beirut to Jerusalem") should know that suicide bombers have been attacking Israel for a long time after that, and continue to this day!

    He also knows that the suicide bombers came from just about every Arab country in the Middle East except Iraq!

    We "attacked Iraq because we could" -- what the heck does that mean?

    Have the attacks stopped?  Have we radicalized enough people to create even more suicide bombers?

    Perhaps had we attacked bin Laden this "theory" might make sense.  But we didn't.

    Friedman's really lost it.

    A "decent" outcome in Iraq (none / 0) (#12)
    by KeysDan on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:00:38 PM EST
    became Thomas Friedman's goal and repetitive mantra, whatever that means, since he seemed to come to grips with the fact that a great democracy would not be created and spread throughout the region. His only misgivings have been the prosecution of the war, but the war was just peachy.  More recently, the mysterious "decent" outcomes only appear occasionally.  And this guy gets rich writing books, and is a respected foreign policy analyst, go figure.

    Wow! (none / 0) (#18)
    by lentinel on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 05:42:02 PM EST
    Friedman looks truly deranged.
    He looks psychotic.
    His eyes. His body language.

    And what he is saying is pure lunacy.

    To say nothing of the immorality of killing a million people because, "we could";

    War in the M.E (none / 0) (#20)
    by jondee on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 06:14:07 PM EST
    is Freidman's globalizing "golden straitjacket" by other means: and, undoubtably, the same "as long as something good eventually comes out of it" logic/dogma applies.

    Who gets hurt, is, in actual practice, a very secondary consideration for these types (see the PNAC), who desperatly would like to be thought of as visionaries.


    the man is clueless and still a pundit (none / 0) (#21)
    by Ford Prefect on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 01:12:26 AM EST
    IF you ignore the psychotic "suck on this" for a minute his claim that "we could have hit pakistan" is as lunatic as the suck on this statement. THe guy is a foreign policy pundit and doesnt have slightest clue on what we can and cant do in Pakistan. If Pakistan were like Iraq, I bet decider would have actually hit Pakistan instead of trying to have alliances with them. Truly astounding how these guys get these pundit jobs and how they sucker people into buying their books after being completely wrong a 1000 times. The latter is something I would pay to learn from these idiots

    What does it say about the NYTimes? (none / 0) (#22)
    by lentinel on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 09:22:39 AM EST
    What does it say about the NYTimes that they have a psychotic like Friedman writing for them? Add to that Brooks, who is as dumb as a post, and William Kristol - (!!!), and Dowd, who is completely unhinged...

    Once you start pandering, the door is open. You lose perspective.
    You forget what you're about.

    As Lenny Bruce said, you take some art, add a little sh-t, a little art, and a little sh-t, and before you know it, you wind up with one big piece of sh-t.


    Speaking for me too - betcha. (none / 0) (#23)
    by Xanthe on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 10:18:42 AM EST
    When I consider how I was raked over the coals for minor infractions when I worked - and I see this!  They are all covering for each other - they have good jobs - and don't aim to lose them.

    Thank you, Dr. Krugman (and BTD).  

    Note this too:  "We couldn't hit Saudi Arabia - we couldn't hit Pakistan...."  A lesson here - so hit the weakest one (and they have oil too - and a tyrant on his way out.)  I heard Holbrook say recently:  The economic breakdown of the US is dangerous because countries sliding down economically become weak in every way. (paraphrasing)