Suck On This, Part 2

From the NY Times comments:

"As I never bought the argument that Saddam had nukes that had to be taken out, the decision to go to war stemmed, for me, from a different choice." -Tom Friedman, December 11, 2011

"The way you get that compliance out of a thug like Saddam is not by tripling the inspectors, but by tripling the threat that if he does not comply he will be faced with a U.N.-approved war." Tom Friedman, February 9, 2003


Was Tom Friedman lying then or is he lying now?

Suck on this.

Speaking for me only

< Suck On This | When The President Matters >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Both. (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by ruffian on Wed Dec 21, 2011 at 09:15:34 AM EST

    And Twice on Sundays... (none / 0) (#17)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Dec 21, 2011 at 01:47:30 PM EST
    Tom. (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by lentinel on Wed Dec 21, 2011 at 09:22:31 AM EST
    Was Tom Friedman lying then or is he lying now?


    a question is your answer (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by NYShooter on Wed Dec 21, 2011 at 09:30:48 AM EST
    were his lips moving?

    I was so mad when Bill Maher recently put him (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 21, 2011 at 09:36:25 AM EST
    on and he started speaking this way about the Iraq War, as we were beginning to look at the end.  Nobody on the "panel" called him on it either.  They all sat their sort of dumbstricken.  This man has no credibility, zero ethics or accountability.  Get him out of our faces for God's sake.  Why is he there?  Must we really start throwing cream pies at his face again to get him off the stage?

    Let's a make a bad one then (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 21, 2011 at 02:47:57 PM EST
    When I was younger we pasted mini pads with tabasco on them on the passenger side of a mysogynists truck.  It wasn't as if a sympathetic passenger was going to show up and tell him.  And they were no longer perfectly Good mini pads either.  I'm fine with making a really bad pie :)

    You were certainly (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by sj on Wed Dec 21, 2011 at 03:02:11 PM EST
    the dickens, my girl.  Still are, I think.

    in defense of bill maher, (none / 0) (#24)
    by cpinva on Wed Dec 21, 2011 at 08:03:49 PM EST
    that's pretty much par for the course, for both him and his show. the list of guests he's had on, allowed to make the most egregious claims, without being challenged, by mr. maher or any of his other guests, is longer than my arm. if you're expecting penetrating insight, and rational, fact-based critique, i'm afraid you're stuck (for the most part) with jon stewart and the daily show.

    at least that's intentional comedy.


    Oh, BTD, you must be feeling silly today... (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Anne on Wed Dec 21, 2011 at 09:58:24 AM EST
    haven't you figured out that these so-called experts/pundits/analysts always position themselves to be somewhere in the vicinity of the conventional-wisdom-of-the-moment so as to always appear to have something relevant to say?  Their ability to keep cashing those paychecks and writing those books depends on it.

    The sad thing is that a lot of people will read someone like Friedman and just nod their heads and pump their fists in agreement, completely forgetting what it was they were agreeing with before, or, more likely, ignoring what was said before because acknowledging it means having to do more thinking - an activity that too many people just don't engage in anymore.  I mean, why think for one's self when one can simply tune into the media to get the pre-approved thoughts and talking points?  As a bonus, one can even find out how one is supposed to feel about things!

    If not for the fact that Tom Friedman lives in a world where his peers don't hold him accountable because they don't want the same treatment, and the majority of the American public don't question what they are being spoon-fed, it should be caveman-easy to pick his pontifications apart and pack him, and those just like him, off to the "journalistic" hinterlands where they can contemplate why it is that no one cares what they think.

    "pump their fists in agreement" (none / 0) (#25)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Dec 21, 2011 at 08:11:57 PM EST
    You're close.

    lying both times (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by sj on Wed Dec 21, 2011 at 10:13:07 AM EST
    also in the space between

    Tom (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Addison on Wed Dec 21, 2011 at 11:15:17 AM EST
    Both, but mostly now.

    Although President Bush has cast the war in Iraq as being about disarmament -- and that is legitimate -- disarmament is not the most important prize there. Regime change is the prize. Regime transformation in Iraq could make a valuable contribution to the war on terrorism, whether Saddam is ousted or enticed into exile.

    NYT, 1/22/03

    But mostly he said that he wanted to go to Iraq to pop the "terrorism bubble", so basically in his mind the war was about fighting some well-branded concept he'd made up in his head. He said over and over that he didn't much care about WMDs, but that the worst "WMD" was disaffected Arab youth. So he's been a consistent neo-con on this issue, but he was perfectly fine with pushing the fictional storyline of WMDs and useless inspectors.

    Also, gah:

    There are three fronts in this Iraq war: one in Iraq, one between America and its Western allies, and one between America and the Arab world. They are all being affected by this unilateral exercise of U.S. power. For now, I've embedded myself on the Western front, where, I can report, all is quiet. France is shocked and awed.

    NYT, 3/23/03

    France shocked and awed itself (none / 0) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 21, 2011 at 12:09:36 PM EST
    right out of Afghanistan.  Remember the headline after 9/11 coming out of France, 'We are All Americans Now'?

    Two years later they couldn't get away fast enough from the crazy Americans.


    is that a trick question? (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by cpinva on Wed Dec 21, 2011 at 12:34:45 PM EST
    Was Tom Friedman lying then or is he lying now?

    sadly, mr. friedman has been recently diagnosed with a condition that has recently become epidemic: "republican amnesia", defined as the inability to remember anything that happened, or that one did/said, prior to jan. 20, 2009.

    with the proper medication, rest and many hours of therapy and counseling, sufferers may regain some lost memory, possibly as far back as dec. 15, 2008.

    Sheesh (none / 0) (#20)
    by Edger on Wed Dec 21, 2011 at 04:19:39 PM EST
    Most of them can't remember what they said or read ten minutes ago...

    I remember De-Baathification (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 21, 2011 at 12:44:11 PM EST
    While Friedman thinks he's responsible for some sort of Sunni Awakening.  I think price hikes in commodities did more to bring about a Sunni Awakening, but what do I know?

    And we defeated Al Qaeda in Iraq?  There was no functioning Al Qaeda in Iraq.  We midwifed THAT birth.  And then bin Laden got jealous of the all the attention that Al Qaeda leader was getting and he may very well have given the information of his whereabouts through underlings to Special Operations in order to get rid of the usurper.  In the meantime, Osama was happy and safe.

    Tom leaves out half of what happened in Iraq, the half he doesn't want you to know about or ever remember again because it hurts and it is evil and disgusting.  It was inhumane, it was treachery and murder, it was chaos....and we brought it, we midwifed it.

    6 months (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by kdm251 on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 01:24:25 AM EST
    I am sure we will know in six more months whether or not the Iraq war was a success, just ask tom Friedman

    Well, let's try for six days. (none / 0) (#29)
    by KeysDan on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 09:40:43 AM EST
    Prime Minister Maliki has thrown Iraqi politics into turmoil, with his arrest warrant for Vice President  al- Hashimi, as the last US. troops were rolling out of town.

    Almost as quickly, Kenneth Pollack, of the Brookings Institution, and a long time advocate of a bigger and longer war in Iraq, was at the ready with his critique, as if most who have any awareness of the situation knew and anticipate,  the Shites and Sunnis (and the Kurds) would be back  at each others throats whenever and, as soon as, the muscle of the US troops was removed.   This year, or whenever.

    For the US, it s not a matter of consolidating gains, such as they are, but cutting your losses, as any savvy businessman would do.  We can expect more of this, maybe from his buddy, Michael O'Hanlon. And, of course, an "op ed" from Tom.  President Obama was correct, in my view, and withdrawal itself, represents a success, for us.

    But, there are more challenges, but they do not need a military presence.  My disappointment is that our democracy lessons did not adequately teach the Shite majority how to deal with the Sunni minority--such as putting a bridge in the minority district or an electrical station, a page from the book of any practiced US politician.  They did not even have to compromise.   And, while the troops needed to leave, it may not have been the best strategy to let our key diplomatic personnel go home for Christmas--they should have been on the job, full time, for at least a Friedman Unit.


    They are a sovereign nation (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 09:48:21 AM EST
    Idiots can write all the crap they want to, but Iraq was granted sovereignty when they voted in their government.  We would have had to declare a brand new war.  And when the sovereign nation of Iraq said they were done with us, that was that.

    I hate reading dumb unlawful drivel from idiots like Pollack and O'Hanlon.


    A serious response (none / 0) (#31)
    by sj on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 10:09:52 AM EST
    to what (I believe) was kdm251's tongue-in-cheek reference to a "Friedman Unit".

    Yes....six months is the gestation period (none / 0) (#32)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 11:31:26 AM EST
    for the next Friedman subterfuge.  We now have generations of Friedman units :)

    Tom who? (none / 0) (#5)
    by Edger on Wed Dec 21, 2011 at 09:45:02 AM EST

    Tom's article has all the hallmarks (none / 0) (#8)
    by KeysDan on Wed Dec 21, 2011 at 10:13:54 AM EST
    of those non-apologies by those who got caught that begin with "if I have offended anyone".   He includes all his shop worn and comic rationalizations  from getting something, anything "decent" in Iraq to his goal of a grand experiment in Arab democracy--through invasion and occupation.  However, I do miss his usual insights gained from the taxi cab driver, but, then, taxi's were never the vehicle of choice--or safety in Iraq.

     Friedman "never bought" that WMD thing, but seemed to keep that part out of his justifications in the run-up to the war, apparently for the greater good.   And, his convoluted and misleading conclusion that " so, no matter the original reasons for the war, in the end, it came down to this: Were America and the Iraqi allies going to defeat Al Qaeda and its allies in the heart of the Arab world or were Al Qaeda and its allies going to defeat them?"   Yes, all components of disingenuous "regrets" only missing, the  if I I offended anyone part.

    this brings up an interesting question: (none / 0) (#26)
    by cpinva on Wed Dec 21, 2011 at 08:27:10 PM EST
    what about those who enlisted, knowing they would be sent to afghanistan or (especially) iraq, after it become common knowledge that the whole "justification" for invading iraq was a fraud? how culpable are they, having known, or should have known, that they were agreeing to fight in an illegal war, based entirely on fraudulent premises?

    those already in the military at the beginning, i give an unqualified pass to, they had very little choice in the matter. i give the same pass to those who enlisted shortly afterwards, they also had no reason to believe they were commiting to other than an honorable cause. that's where my free pass ends. after the first year, anyone paying the least bit of attention had to know the truth, but enlisted anyway.

    like the german who enlisted, after it became clear hitler was engaging in a war of aggression, not a "defense of the fatherland", and the southerner who joined up, after it became obvious (upon the publication of the various state's articles of secession) that the confederacy was fighting to maintain legal human bondage, not to defend the homeland, i can not agree that they (the dead of iraq) were "honorable soldiers", dying honorably, for an "honorable cause", because they weren't. to argue otherwise denies their very humanity, the only one of god's creatures with a "free will".


    Whenever his lips are moving. (none / 0) (#11)
    by TJBuff on Wed Dec 21, 2011 at 12:11:12 PM EST

    Tom Friedman is a man (none / 0) (#14)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Dec 21, 2011 at 12:50:25 PM EST
    Mark Twain: "Man is the only animal that blushes. Or needs to."

    Has Friedman (none / 0) (#21)
    by Edger on Wed Dec 21, 2011 at 04:20:45 PM EST
    ever felt the need to?

    he needs to (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Dec 21, 2011 at 04:40:49 PM EST
    whether he feels the need or not

    Prior consistent statement: (none / 0) (#23)
    by jpe on Wed Dec 21, 2011 at 06:08:23 PM EST
    Although President Bush has cast the war in Iraq as being about disarmament -- and that is legitimate -- disarmament is not the most important prize there. Regime change is the prize. Regime transformation in Iraq could make a valuable contribution to the war on terrorism, whether Saddam is ousted or enticed into exile.


    Remember (none / 0) (#28)
    by kmblue on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 04:53:39 AM EST
    Friedman units?