Friedman begins to pull his head

[BootinUp]

out of his @ss.



Friedman, ex-Iraq hawk, now sees perils

New York Times columnist tells Imus that the United States is ‘on the wrong track’

Updated: 12:55 p.m. ET Sept. 24, 2004

NEW YORK - Thomas Friedman, Pulitzer Prize-winning author and columnist for The New York Times, came down firmly on the side of war in Iraq in 2003. Of late, he says he has been keeping a lower profile, taking time to "sit back and listen" as what many thought would be a quick strike has turned into a grinding guerrilla war. Friedman joined Don Imus on Friday:

"I have had a chance to sit back and listen and not talk for these last three months and what I find is that people are torn between two emotions. One is that I think people really feel that we have real enemies out there. You don't have to tune in to too many videos of people sawing peoples heads off or see what is going on in Indonesia or Madrid to know that we have real enemies out there who we have to engage. I think people really feel that."

"I think the other thing people really feel is that we are really on the wrong track and that we do not have a policy that somehow is really confronting this thing without making it worse and doing it in a way that really has allies around the world. It is very hard to fight that kind of an enemy alone. "


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6090174/

[RobertSeattle]

1. I watched the show it was good

Friedman is coming around.

(Good or Bad) Policy poorly implmented in BAD POLICY.

[babylonsister]

2. Friedman also emphasized

(which this article doesn't)that withdrawing troops is not an option. Despite all the violence, beheadings, kidnappings, etc., no 'fatwa' has been issued from anyone in that region. People, including insurgents, need to be won over and BushCo is going about this whole effort in the wrong way.

[cthrumatrix]

3. He was on Imus today he said: Iraq will have a min or MAXI civil war

because the govt there or one voted will NOT be representative of the country.

AWOL supported the PNAC taking the "lid off the boiling pot"....nice George.

[whistle]

4. It's good that all these pundits are having a change of heart....

...and are coming down on the correct side of these issues and endorsing a change in direction for Iraq war, war on terrorists, economy and so forth. This is cutting it very close to the election and I would think that people like Tom Friedman need to make a very strong point about how desperate the situation has become for America and Iraq. I sent an email to Friedman three months ago suggesting he rethink his position back then and he sent a very tart standardized reply telling me that he was too busy to answer all the emails he gets and to not plug up his email box. Well Mr Friedman, in case you did not know this, God gave people like you two ears to not only listen to your readers, but also to get a go grip in order to pull your head out of your ass before you suffocate yourself!

<instructions: please forward to Tom Friedman>

[punpirate]

5. Sounds more like typical Friedman...

... than it does the sound of a resounding "pop" of a head reappearing.

When I gauge his rhetoric from before to now, there's not much in it that commends his being more thoughtful now. He was everywhere, all the time, chanting his mantra of "give war a chance," as if cleverness passed for real analysis of the situation. The time to have thought about things was then, rather than after the damage is done.

Essentially, what he was saying then was that a little judiciously applied mayhem and strife would open markets like a can opener. Now, he seems to be saying, gee, PR and marketing counts, too, doesn't it? :eyes:

[K-W]

6. Why do such stupid people get so much access and celebrity in the press?

No shit Friedman. What kind of a moron thinks the presidential candidates differ on the issue of whether or not we should take action against those who threaten us? I mean come on. You could pick any random person in the US, make them president, and one thing you could be pretty damn sure of is that they would probably want to go after the terrorists who threaten us. Of course John Kerry, a man who has a long record of putting a high priority on our security. A mean who voted for the IWR because he was willing to give the president a big stick to use diplomacy to make sure there was no truth to the buzz about Iraq. Tohomas Friedman is far more than informed and educated enought to know that whether or not we should go after people who threaten us is not an issue in this election.

The only issue is how exactly we should wage this war on terror, and issue that Kerry handidly wins.

So Thomas Friedman kiss my butt. Perhaps next time you should put one ounce of work into actually doing your job and think before you spout opinions about something for years.

[Arugula Latte]

7. Hey Tom:

All of us who protested this ridiculous war were RIGHT.

You were WRONG.

It's as simple as that. We told you so. You are a verrrrrry slow learner.

[TA]

8. Friedman gives me hope that some of those idiots can stop and think

His comments below point out what many of us here have been screaming about. His willingness to step back and honestly think about the direction this administration is going is a good sign, but is it too late?

<snip>
"I think the other thing people really feel is that we are really on the wrong track and that we do not have a policy that somehow is really confronting this thing without making it worse and doing it in a way that really has allies around the world. It is very hard to fight that kind of an enemy alone.

"I think the election is really going to hinge on which two of those issues dominate. I think the Republicans are trying to keep the focus entirely on how much we have enemies and how frightened we should be about them in order to deflect attention away from the issue of 'we really are not on the right track.'"
<snip>

[hatrack]

12. I seriously have to wonder, though . . .

Remember, Friedman is one of the more intelligent examples of "them", and even he is still hedging and backing and filling and equivocating.

As someone else noted, I still haven't heard the "pop" of completed head extraction.

[UTUSN]

9. It's Been Asked Before: Why Did We Here KNOW Back Then

without the benefits of high level sources or intelligence. Just asking again.

[BootinUp]

10. Don't mistake his new found wisdom for an anti-war stance

Maybe I am misreading your comment though, apologies if so.

But the real issue with many in the media and many conservatives is as follows:

They do not trust the democratic party to lead the war on terror, because they believe many who vote democratic are anti-war to the point of near pacifism. Hopefully more of them will start to come around and realize that the dem party is strong on National Defense.

[cthrumatrix]

11. it's worse than that.....wonder if his PNAC vision was for civil war?

get it?