Friedman Wakes Up!

Unclear if he saw his shadow.


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/13/opinion/13FRIE.html?hp=&pagewanted=print&position=

OP-ED COLUMNIST
Dancing Alone
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

It is time to ask this question: Do we have any chance of succeeding at regime change in Iraq without regime change here at home?

"Hey, Friedman, why are you bringing politics into this all of a sudden? You're the guy who always said that producing a decent outcome in Iraq was of such overriding importance to the country that it had to be kept above politics."

Yes, that's true. I still believe that. My mistake was thinking that the Bush team believed it, too. I thought the administration would have to do the right things in Iraq — from prewar planning and putting in enough troops to dismissing the secretary of defense for incompetence — because surely this was the most important thing for the president and the country. But I was wrong. There is something even more important to the Bush crowd than getting Iraq right, and that's getting re-elected and staying loyal to the conservative base to do so. It has always been more important for the Bush folks to defeat liberals at home than Baathists abroad. That's why they spent more time studying U.S. polls than Iraqi history. That is why, I'll bet, Karl Rove has had more sway over this war than Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Bill Burns. Mr. Burns knew only what would play in the Middle East. Mr. Rove knew what would play in the Middle West.

I admit, I'm a little slow. Because I tried to think about something as deadly serious as Iraq, and the post- 9/11 world, in a nonpartisan fashion — as Joe Biden, John McCain and Dick Lugar did — I assumed the Bush officials were doing the same. I was wrong. They were always so slow to change course because confronting their mistakes didn't just involve confronting reality, but their own politics.

How about "a little gullible" or "a little naive"?

also need to change out a few of these people who are now switching sides as if they never had anything to do with the road we're traveling---yes friedman you

agenda, since that agenda has destroyed the Smirk WH.

That's all he's after.

Continuation of the slaughter for the security of Israel.

Fuck him.

fresh coat of paint on a termite-ridden foundation.

All those shills need to shunned permanently.

He saw OUR shadow. This war monger has a lot of apologizing to do for his innacuracies and lack of objectivity in the run up to the war before he can ever be taken seriously again.

...we also need media regime change. Without the complicity of mega-media, $hrubco would never have been able to complete the coup d'etat. Without the mega-media anesthetizing the populace, more would have felt the pain of $hrubco sooner. One of the main cornerstones of the security of the republic is a fair and impartial media, which is nonexistent in the US today. Not only is it time to hold the week-kneed politicians accountable, but also time to hold American media accountable.

Hey,

Yes, without fundamental change the news media will thwart the will of the people again under Kerry as they did in 2000. I'd like to see the presstitutes held accountable-- but how, by whom?

Maybe David Brock has some ideas on this?

CYD

The Goreing of Kerry has already started.

Letters to the Editor and calling in to talk shows are two easy things you can do to try to hold journalists accountable for their treating our media -- which we depend on in order to maintain our system of self-government -- like a game.

Embrace Friedman. He has crossed over. He has seen these assholes for what they are. POLITICIANS/THEIFS. Even if he is only covering his ass it is still a victory for the left.

That moron beat the drum for a stupid war that has killed thousands. It'll take more than a whiny column to erase that.

This is the same jerk who admitted a month ago that he didn't watch a second of the 9/11 hearings. He's got his own agenda, his hands over his ears and his mouth humming loudly so as not to hear other voices. It's a miracle that he finally caught on to the Bushists' self-serving ineptitude.

He's trying to pre-emptively salvage his credibility, seeing that more and more Americans are finally seeing this war for what it is. Screw him. He reads the polls, and replies in turn. Screw him.

I agree; Arianna Huffington, David Brock, Imus and now Friedman....preaching to the choir only gets us so far, but making the choir BIGGER wins us the Whitehouse! Every conversion in the media should be celebrated; we need every last one of them to counter all those "fairly unbalanced" talking heads. All human beings have the capacity for change-hell, Reagan was once a Democrat! Now that the veil has been lifted from Friedman's eyes, maybe we can expose him to even more truth!

Seriously, can anyone name ONE MAJOR THING that this guy has ever been right about? I can't recall any.

Note that he's not at all disavowing the idea that we needed to invade Iraq. He's adopting more of the "I think we didn't go in in the RIGHT way" tack.

He's still a complete and total dumbass, a blowhard whose complete lack of touch with reality is only eclipsed by the neoconservatives in the Washington Post Op/Ed page.

Go easy on the guy. You may not like the 'didn't go in the right way' schtick, but it's the same brand Kerry's selling right now, so ... I guess ... it helps?

:shrug:

has never beeen an apologist, or better yet, a whore for *, as this incredibly dumb but influential creep has. True, he didn't oppose the war, and I wish he had. But to compare the two isn't fair. Kerry opposed the eighty seven billion supplemental at some political cost, and has been very critical for a long time about this war. Friedman is a lost cause, and a shill of subhuman intelligence.

I'll grant that he finally pulled his cranium from his posterior regions long enough to notice that BushCo has been lying all along. But, then again, it's not like there haven't been people saying that since the very beginning of this whole debacle, so I won't exactly give him any "points" for doing this. More like he's finally earned a "D+" after a series of consistent failing grades.

Furthermore, he does not back off one iota from his repeatedly stated cause of "installing democracy in the Middle East". In fact, he clings to that notion even more, saying that it is the fault of BushCo that this whole thing has been so screwed up. Nevermind the fact that you can't "install" a democracy anywhere -- by its very nature it's something that has to come from within.

Lastly, I will admit that his change of heart will probably have an effect on the outlook of a lot of people who read his column and believe he has some sort of insight. But I refuse to laud him for belatedly stating that the sky is blue, his only excuse being that he has had his eyes closed for the past 2+ years, while many of us have been aware that it was blue for the entire time.

I agree completely. :toast:

Otherwise, he's just executing a tactical maneuver for the fascists who stole our government.

overestimated the Bush team.

Bullshit. Sorry, but all these fucking rats with their "I was right, but I was fooled" garbage is so disgusting.

Fuck Friedman.

... will never excuse two years of appearing on Charlie Rose, chewing his own moustache while babbling moronic drivel about democracy and war for freedom.

Attempting to save face is not reason to express admiration for someone. I'm not buying any of it. I mean, it's good because it means bush will be easier to soundly defeat in the fall, but let's be honest: Friedman is not a moron and should have known better to begin with.

Why do journalists continue to treat such important matters so trivially?

Because 'the market' demands bland, trivial news?

Because they're lazy?

Hmmmmmm.....

Forgive me if I don't stand up and applaud.

that hundreds of people here on DU were able to see the lies of this administration for what they were, and back it all up with research, well before "Shock and Awe," whereas this dumbass with his Washington connections and large salary and supposed experience was played like a fiddle for months and months?

Give me a break! People like Friedman who enabled the vicious corporate warmonger chickenhawks in this administration have blood on their hands.

"I admit, I'm a little slow."

Now THAT'S what I call an understatement!

Tommy, you're not just slow, you'r a myopic, weasely, opportunistic, gullible, fucking idiotic, whore who shares responsibility for the deaths of thousands. And that too is an understatement.

.... somehow it makes me a little bit ashamed to be a democrat, when I see:

(a) dems/liberals warning about the possible bad consequences of the iraq war well in advance,

(b) friedman blithely ignoring every such warnning in the run-up, and thru-out,

(c) dem/liberals being proven practically 100% correct,

(d) Friedman and numerous other former pro-warriors admit their mistake.

(e) large number of dems rather meanly, imho, reject a lengthy mea cupla from friedman, apparently desiring ritual suicide to appease the leftier-than-thou mob... it isn't sufficient for this crowd that the opponent surrender, we require his blood, humiliation..... whoa - sounds like a familiar current-events theme.....


he admitted that he had the blinders on. for someone like friedman, i'm sure that was a pretty hard thing to do. he's prolly been thinking about this for 6 months, but just wanted to be sure (ie had to wait n see if things went all the way to the crapper, or just 1/2 way).

in any case, it seems to me that the real test of the acceptability of his mea culpa is future-oriented: how will he approach matters the next time a speculative venture of this magnitude comes up? then we'll see if his mea culpa was genuine.

Have you read Tommy's past columns?

Tommy is not saying he was wrong for thinking we can shove democracy down the throats of the people in the ME, he's just saying "oops, they fooled me into thinking they had good intentions (or their intentions mirrored mine)".

That's bullshit and it's a poor excuse. He's saying "I'm still right, but I was fooled into believing these guys would do it properly". That's a far cry from, "I was wrong and I'm sorry".

He's a sorry sack of shit and he's not worth defending. He has partial responsibility for thousands of deaths on his hands. It's not for me to forgive him for that.

Thomas Friedman does not have thousand of deaths on his hands. Unless you can't me in that too.

I initially supported the war(after Colin's speech). I was wrong wrong wrong. But I am not a murderer.

A person is allowed to have an opinion in this country, is allowed to be manipulated and lied to without being called a murderer.

There are liberals that actualy believe bringing down tyrants is a good thing. There are liberals that are not pacifists.

This is what irritates me about some of you guys, you are all so perfect and pure and know everything, how do you think you can possibly get moderates to join you? You can't.

Congratulations! You were right on the WAR. IT doesn't make those that were wrong and manipulated murderers.

America isn't Nazi Germany.

Thomas Friedman is not responsible for the war in Iraq.

I hate this hyperbolic shit.

You're not a columnist for the NYT, he is. The media DOES share blame for the deaths of those people because they didn't inform properly. They abdicated their responsibility. The truth WAS there to be had. I saw it and I'm just some schmuck with access to the internet.

America may not be Nazi Germany, but it's certainly heading in that direction. Personally, I'm not going to wait until we slaughter 6 million arabs before I wake the fuck up.

You know what irritates me about YOU guys? You say you're wrong but then you don't want anyone to take responsibility for this monumental fuck up. This isn't a fucking traffic violation, thousands are dead and the US's credibility is shattered irreparably. We should all just forgive and forget and move on? FUCK THAT. Heads need to roll and the media has to be held accountable for their complicity.

I hate this apologist, responsibility-shirking bullshit.

I too hate apolgist crap, and I'm not offering one.

The media do have responsiblity and I understand your rage at them, I fully share it.

I want accountability and responsiblity but first I think that must go to all those in leadership positions.

But I doubt you would like it if I said to you, "You didn't protest the war strongly enough, so it's your fault and you have the deaths of thousands on your hands."

And I doubt (I have no real idea) that you would probably never support any war at any time for almost any reason. I am not one of those people, though certainly, I am changing my outlook on the world all the time.

People are allowed to change, and yes, even Friedman is allowed his opinion. I honestly feel your rage at him is misplaced.

I notice a trend on DU, if a media type is supporting your views "they are a good guy" when they say ANYTHING that doesn't fall into your party line, they are scum. I think that's ridiculous.

HEY and I still think removing Saddam was a good thing. I know it's probably not going to be worth it because of all the lies, the tortures, and the deaths. (which does make me question if any war can ever be worth it)

The war is lost and I think we should toally withdraw and give them back their country.

As a citizen of this country you're damn right I do. This is being done in my name, w/ my tax dollars and i WAS unable to stop it.

Sorry, my rage is not misplaced. Friedman has changed nothing. He's just making excuses and it's pathetic. "oh, poor me I was so misled". No, he wasn't misled. He went into this thing full throttle and was one of the biggest cheerleaders knowing all about all the fucked up lies that got us here. It didn't matter to him when it counted. Fuck him.

STOP IT!

The point is - I failed too, because I too was unable to stop it. SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooo, if one thing doesn't make it, you try the NEXT BEST thing.

Let's just be glad that Friedman has had a change of heart, and unlike so many in the White House, CAN AND DOES admit he's wrong (that's a big one, evidently, with some of these conservative types), and now, he's just that much more ammo for US.

Tucker Carlson apparently has come around. CNN was citing quotes from Robert Novak (!?)'s column in the Sun Times AND George Will (!?) about how they are now having serious second thoughts regarding their wholehearted support for this war. They cited a third case, and I think it may have been this one.

Let's not look a gift horse in the mouth. It's one less voice mindlessly thumping for bush. We should consider that a victory, and USE IT TO OUR ADVANTAGE.

Now is not the time to quibble. Now is the time to hunker down harder, do what one can to anticipate the enemy's next move, and don't take off the body armor yet and decide you need a vacation. This particular war is NOT YET won.

And by the way, guys, the LAST - repeat - LAST thing we need to be doing now is questioning each other and turning on each other and giving each other grief. We should be giving ALL THAT QUESTIONING AND GRIEF TO THE REPUBLI-CONS.

EYES ON THE PRIZE, GUYS!

your tirade aside, can we *at least* abandon the "heads rolling" euphemism for a few days?

i know so many of you guys are just as bloodthirsty as the neocons (you just differ on *who's* blood you're after), but a little respect for Berg-situation doesn't seem totally out of place to me.....

If your sensibilities are offended stay off the internet.

You are an individual citizen who relies on the media in order to try and make an informed opinion.

Tom Friedman is someone who helps to SHAPE public opinion. In this instance, he did his damnedest to shape public opinion in favor of the war. He's entitled to do that if he wants, but it's disingenuous for him to cite false information in order to do so, when there is a dearth of conflicting data out there to show that the reasons for going to war were a sham.

Furthermore, Friedman hasn't backed off his initial assertions, so the premise of several other POSTERS here (not Friedman himself) that this is some kind of a mea-culpa, an admission of wrong, is completely misplaced.

I've seen Friedman's columns on a number of issues -- Israeli/Palestinian affairs, the Arab world, and the big one -- globalization. He's questionable on all of them, and frequently cherry-picks information to further his claims, while presenting himself as a kind of "everyman" that the average reader can identify with.

From where I stand, he can go piss up a rope. That's my opinion, and the last I checked, I'm fully entitled to it.

.... i was referring to.....

just for a small example, I quote Friedman's article (the very one you think I haven't read):

"I was wrong."

While I agree that the words you put in Friedman's mouth were "a far cry from, "I was wrong and I'm sorry" ", what Friedman *actually* said wasn't. I would even guess that the reason he didn't include the apology part was that he doesn't think he has anything to *apologize*, per se, for. He stated his opinion - he should apologize for that? cmon. He literally admitted he was wrong - contrary to your description of what he said. He literally admitted he was slow. And paraphrasing, he admitted that he had idealistic blinders on, which resulted in his ignoring the political aspect - which, as it turns out, was the *only* aspect worth paying attention to.

yes, I have read the current Friedman article, and a great many previous ones. i still say that the proof of the value of his confession will lie in his future opinions.

i have absolutely no truck with "admission of being mistaken is worthless! draw-and-quarter him!". when the future of the country is at stake, i'm much less interested in revenge and other base feelings than i am in trying to get the people in the previously-wrong column over into the currently-right column.

even if one isn't noble in victory, one can at least be pragmatic... or not, as the bulk of this thread shows....

Friedman still thinks the war was right. He only thinks he was wrong for trusting Bushco. to do the right thing. Sorry, you can't separate this bullshit war based on lies from the criminal architects of it. That's what Tommy is trying to do and it's pathetic and it's bullshit.

This was almost an unwitting admission that he was fooled--or fooling himself. It's astonishing that the foreign policy columnist of the Times was so out to lunch. It's really astonishing! And it's not at all clear that he's going to drop his utopian dream of a "democratized" (read: Americanized) Middle East.

there was nothing remotely "unwitting" (or "unwilling", if, by chance, that's what you meant) about his admission - it was completely self-conscious - you think a demon had control over his fingers as he typed? sheesh

And I quote the key graf:

"I admit, I'm a little slow. Because I tried to think about something as deadly serious as Iraq, and the post- 9/11 world, in a nonpartisan fashion — as Joe Biden, John McCain and Dick Lugar did — I assumed the Bush officials were doing the same. I was wrong. They were always so slow to change course because confronting their mistakes didn't just involve confronting reality, but their own politics."

If that doesn't constitute a mea culpa, I don't know what does.

I gather, however, that it's not *enough* of a mea culpa for you, as for so many others in this thread. I gather that most in these parts wouldn't even be satisfied with Friedman publicly flogging himself. Fine. I'm just putting myself down on the record as strongly disagreeing with such a view. I believe that is the attitude of a blood-lusting despot, not a progressive liberal.

He is not 'any person'. As a foreign policy reporter with one of the most, if not THE most, widely read newspapers, he has a responsibility far greater than just any person.

He could have bothered to read the dissenting opinions of many generals and advisors from previous administrations of both democratic and republican presidents. He didn't. He whored.

Sorry, but you're not going to find many takers for the 'but he's just a human - he said he was wrong!' routine. It's his job to know what he's talking about. He mostly doesn't.

.... that's why it's called "Op-Ed"....

I agree that his admitted mistake was a bone-headed one - as you mentioned, redqueen, there was plenty of info available before the war leading to the conclusion that true success in iraq was unlikely (at best).

i'm still of the opinion, which hasn't been discussed yet in this thread, that the value of his mistake-admitting should be judged by his future work.

a lot of people in these parts are really big fans of senator Byrd, i believe. I count as one of them. He made mistakes (understatement) in his past, which he owned up to. And it is because, I believe, of his subsequent performance that we (many of us at least) have come to value him greatly. I suggest similar treatment for Friedman is appropriate.

To give a person the chance to do well in the future is simply *not* the same thing as condoning past behavior. Possibly some in this thread have (mis)understood my statements as aimed at the latter, rather than the former.

on how he or she follows through. And Friedman may surprise me, for one, if his future columns go further than this one toward demonstrating an understanding of how very wrong he has been on Iraq. I don't see enough in this column to suggest that he's going to go that far. His position seems to be that someone else will have to do the Friedman thing and bring "democracy" to Iraq and the rest of the Arab world. That's not far enough toward the truth for me, which is that the US does not have the authority--moral or otherwise--to recreate the Middle East as it sees fit. I'm looking for Friedman to admit that there are people in the ME whom the US government and media have, for various imperialist reasons, been unable to see. It would be true cause for rejoicing if Friedman acknowledged that blindspot. But I'm not holding my breath for that admission.

.... when that idea is massively contrary to the spirit of the bulk of this thread - which is what I was taking issue with....

As for holding your breath - that's fine n fair.... I don't think I would've been holding my breath with Byrd at the time of his change either... pleasant surprises like Byrd are wonderful... I'm only suggesting to the majority in this thread that such conversions ought to be encouraged, based on future potential utility, rather than squelched out of hand, based on past bad behavior....

Friedman is not suddenly saying the doves were right, the war was wrong. Friedman is continuing to say that the Bushists are doing it wrong. The main difference between Friedman today and Friedman for the last year is that he now admits that Bushists cannot be trusted to do what he still evidently believes needs to be done. He is not to be congratulated. He is to be laughed at for being such a dunce!

Friedman says they just went about it the wrong way.

Still a dunce, same as always. If you subscribe to the 'innocent fool' explanation for his direliction of duty. As for me, I don't.

.... rather than squelching him as he begins the process.....

let's wait and see whether or not, in the future, he will be so quick to pretend that THE NEXT ISSUE can profitably be divorced from its political context...

i'm pretty sure i didn't claim that friedman has already BECOME a byrd, only that there's evidence that such a process has begun.... i just think that process should be encouraged....

to attribute impure motives to the Bushists. That is not a mea culpa, which is an honest to god admission of fault.

You know, this is not just about whose side are you on, ALB. If Friedman wanted to earn my respect he would have to do a lot more than show that he's finally seeing what any competent observer of the Bush administration has been seeing all along: that they are fundamentally untrustworthy and incompetent to do good.

it seems to me he hasn't a clue. He still thinks it's that he 'trusted bu$hco'. It's not. It's that he doesn't do his freaking JOB.

:toast:

geez, these PNAC guys are finally waking up and smelling the coffee.

he actually believed BushCo would do the right thing. Friedman is such a believer of this corrupt system and is so fucking ignorant, as not to see the obvious, that EVERYTHING Bush/Cheney/Rove does is political and EVERYTHING is for money, power and corporate gains?

And how he won his Pulitzer. He's clearly out of touch with reality. I don't buy the explanation that his columns are exercises in cynical toadying up to the powers that be. I think he has fooled himself into believing that he is the power that be. But he's clearly living in a dream world.

I thought towing the corporatist line was part and parcel of any big-media-outlet job. To the people running the show, he's aces!

But he's been more an irrelevant idiot for the past year.

oops, hasn't written that yet. Waiting.

and why he likes being in Iraq instead of America!

that they would act responsibly? Silencing anyone with experience who disagreed with BushCo's rosy predictions of the war? The way we casually dismissed the UN? The way we cut short inspections because it was clear they weren't finding anything based off our shitty intelligence? The way we poured troops into the region while claiming war was not inevitable? These BushCo fuckups have had their heads planted firmly in their own asses from the start.

apparently far sooner than the fat-paycheck-cashing Friedman.

Amazing how gullible some people are!

Afghanistan. Remember that the run-up to the Iraq war took place against the backdrop of Bush languidly snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in Afghanistan. No planning, no followthough, false expectations, sleepy execution... it was all on display at the very same time Bush was making the same arguments all over again for Iraq.

I kept wanting to ask Friedman, "What part of the Afghanistan operation makes you think Bush will be successful in Iraq?"

but did anyone notice the logical conclusion of his remarks about bush lying?

I M P E A C H M E N T