Deleted message

[Name removed]

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[joeybee12]

1. Friedman makes me sick

He used to be tolerable, but he's ass-kissing Blair, Bush and all the other terrorists so much it's unbearable!

[MisterP]

5. with some New Wavey Ginrich thrown in

[matt819]

2. Same reaction here

What a crock that column was. Well, they might have hyped it, but he was a bad guy, and, well, who the heck knows how history will judge the decision.

Puke-inducing.

[sasquatch]

3. Friedman is a media whore like Matthews

He sold out like all the others because he would rather make money than hold up his journalist integrety.

[Bombtrack]

4. So you think we should attack Saudi Arabia?

I'm not following you.

One of the reasons for invading Iraq is that the Iraquis(the regular people not the bathists) are moderate muslims and much more likely to embrace illiberal democracy than the Saudi's ever would

and why do you think the Saudi government were so against the Iraq invasion? The western control of Iraqi oil is the worst thing that could happen to the Saudi oil oligarchs, because the US can now exert control over them that we never could if Sadam stayed in power

I think knowing the possible pros for invading are just as important as knowing the possible cons

it's called objectivity.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bombtrack]

11. Regime change in Iraq

is how they are taking care of the Saudi's, by eliminating they're oil monopoly and getting our troops out of it

I'm as suspicious as anyone about the Bush/Saudi connections and some of Reagans policies did probably contribute to the middle east being how it is today(as were the Soviet policies as well)

but defunding the Saudi terrorists was part of the reason for going into Iraq

it doesn't just effect Iraq, Iran and their nukes and terrorists, and the terrorists of Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, etc WERE part of the reason for the Iraq regime change

It's impossible to know whether it will work, but it's also hard to point out a country that makes more sense to invade.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bombtrack]

16. less money, less money to spend

how is that absurd

they're madrassas cost money you know

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sasquatch]

19. The Saudi's are in buisness with the Carlyle Group

So they also have control over Iraq's oil reserves as well. We're helping terrorist everyday that we stay in Iraq. We're helping turn Iraq into Religous Monarchy like Saudi Arabia by allowing Islamic Clerks to brainwash people into beleiving all americans are satan.

We are sewing seeds we do not want to reap.

[ewagner]

6. that pretty much cuts it....

I liked "The Lexus and the Olive Tree", but this is waaaaaaay toooooo much...

I will never by another Friedman book again!

[Cha]

7. I always remember friedman on Charlie Rose in his

turtleneck sipping wine.

Is this guy living in an alternate universe?

friedman is one of those "drumbeat to war" media types that bush was blaming the economy on. Wake up friedman and smell the stench of our own blood since you don't give a rat's ass ahout the Iraqis.

[RichM]

8. Friedman's job is convincing the masses that whatever the US ruling

elite want to do, is really "justified" & only done for (needless to say) pure & highly moral reasons. His pitch is specialized for "liberal" audiences, like readers of the NYT. It's as though he takes rightwing imperialist/militarist policy, & translates it into terms that many NYT readers can be seduced by.

If you're talking directly to rightwingers, you can directly say: "Our policy is that the towelheads sit on some valuable oil reserves. So, let's kill the sons of bitches, & take it all for ourselves." Rightwingers have no problems with straight talk like this.

But you can't talk like that to NYT readers. They would be "offended." That's where Tom Friedman comes in. He takes the same idea, & changes the words a bit, so that it's suddenly all about "freedom, democracy and building a pluralistic society." Then the NYT liberals are satisfied -- & are willing to kill some towelheads & steal their oil.

This "translating" skill is what earns Tom the big bucks.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kurtyboy]

13. RichM, you hit the nail on the head

Even the NYT is not as liberal as many would have us believe. It's a complete setup--beat the drums for years about how the NYT, PBS, and NPR are staunch liberal mouthpieces--then when the need is there (selling an unjustifiable war), use these assets to convince middle of the road libs to acquiesce.

Let the mid-liberal buzz become, "Shucks, I saw it on PBS..." or, "Hey, I heard Mara Liason say that..." and BOOM--we got us a real war with real dead people (and American casualties that are starting the slow march to catch up with Iraqi deaths.

Fuck You, Tom Friedman, and the herd you run with.

[KG]

14. tom freidman - american moron

[Jack Rabbit]

15. Friedman is contemptable

Yes, Friedman is endorsing lying about this war. He called it a war of choice all along. He has said all along (and continues to say it here) that the war is justified by Saddam's status as a brutal dictator alone.

Yet if war is a last resort and only a last resort, how can a "war of choice" ever be justified? It cannot.

I will agree that the fall of Saddam is a good outcome of this war. It is the only good outcome. Otherwise, Iraq was not a threat and the lives of thousands cannot be redeemed. The war was one of colonial piracy. Bush is intent on placing the mineral rights of the Iraqi people in hands of his campaign contributors.

No one in Iraq asked to be liberated. The overthrow of Saddam was the business and responsibility of the Iraqi people. Bush came in, as colonialists always do, stating that it is the white man's burden to show their little brown bothers how to go about the business of, in Friedman's words, "building a more decent Iraq (that) would help tilt the Middle East onto a more progressive political track." As if Arabs are incapable of tilting the Middle East onto a more progressive track. As if Geroge W. Bush, who stole the 2000 presidential election, turns a federal budget surplus over to those who foot the bill for his campaign, suppresses a two-centuries old tradition of civil liberties in America and lies about his reasons for going to war, could ever put any noation on a progressive political track.

Bush, Blair and their aides are war criminals. They should be treated as such. Friedman and those who give them cover with such intellectually dishonest arguments as Friedman makes here should be ashamed of themselves.

[Redleg]

17. Friedman lacks perspective on all issues dealing with the Middle East

I say that because he doesn't share my perspective.