Thomas Friedman: The President who invited America's decline

A big angry YES! to all the above.

The rich bin Laden family funded the Bushes. May be it is their idea to bring down the US by having GWB = Gone Way Back, as President.

Thomas L. Friedman supported every single fu*ked up thing the Busheviks proposed.

Fu*k him.

Now he is having buyers remorse because fantasies don't come true?

the invasion of iraq was supposed to be a cake walk. Thomas L. Friedman fully supported it

the impact of globalization on the US economy was supposed to be positive. Thomas L. Friedman fully supported that view.

these were the two major items on the Thomas L. Friedman agenda over the past few years in his writings.

and both are a mess.

it is not that bush is out of ideas, it is that he implimented bad ideas even when told they were bad ideas by the experts and now we are stuck with the consequences of them, but not bush, his family or the Thomas L. Friedmans of the nation; they are wealthy and have no real worries. its the rest of us who are stuck with the consequences of bad policy even more badly administrated.

Thomas L. Friedman was the wingman at the Times for the neocon cabal in their push to reshape the map of the middle east. he provided cover for their insane proposition that the US was going to change a civilization steeped in two thousand years of tradition and bring it cheeseburgers and democracy by the barrel of a gun. and he never admitted that all along it was the barrel of oil we were actually after.

there were millions of us who were saying years ago what Thomas L. Friedman is spouting about now. he is way behind the curve on these things.

reading him anymore is akin to reading last year's superbowl predictions; we're way past all that now.

Bush is the worst leader of an imperial nation since Phillip II of Spain, and that guy actually worked at the job. and god help us all if george bush actually worked at being president instead if playing at it.

if an enemy power had done the long-term damage to US economic strength that george bush has with his adventerism and stupid policies, we would have declared war on it. a paid agent in the employment of a foreign power could not have fu*ked us up worse.

and Thomas L. Friedman was there step by step clapping for bush all the while.

You're right. Friedman was the spin guy atNYTimes giving plausible reasons why the projects of GWB = Grand Works Blindly, were right - yeah, right-wing.

Re: Thomas Friedman: The President who invited America's dec

When I observe Friedman on various talk shows these days, he looks to me like someone who is sorry for the things he's said about the president and would give anything for a face saving way to admit that he was wrong and Bush was right. When I see Ted Kennedy in clips from the Senate floor these days, he looks very much like a man who has realized that the liberal opinions he has espoused for years are wrong, and glimpses the enormity of the waste he has made of his life.

Indeed. History will label Bush as the most incompetent and damaging American president.
Instead of attacking the messenger it, I should think, would be more meaningful to address his comments.

Friedman's mea culpa
I'm reposting Thomas Friedman's mea culpa dated May 13, 2004.
---BBB

May 13, 2004
New York Times 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.

Why, in the face of rampant looting in the war's aftermath, which dug us into such a deep and costly hole, wouldn't Mr. Rumsfeld put more troops into Iraq? Politics. First of all, Rummy wanted to crush once and for all the Powell doctrine, which says you fight a war like this only with overwhelming force. I know this is hard to believe, but the Pentagon crew hated Colin Powell, and wanted to see him humiliated 10 times more than Saddam. Second, Rummy wanted to prove to all those U.S. generals whose Army he was intent on downsizing that a small, mobile, high-tech force was all you needed today to take over a country. Third, the White House always knew this was a war of choice ?- its choice ?- so it made sure that average Americans never had to pay any price or bear any burden. Thus, it couldn't call up too many reservists, let alone have a draft. Yes, there was a contradiction between the Bush war on taxes and the Bush war on terrorism. But it was resolved: the Bush team decided to lower taxes rather than raise troop levels.

Why, in the face of the Abu Ghraib travesty, wouldn't the administration make some uniquely American gesture? Because these folks have no clue how to export hope. They would never think of saying, "Let's close this prison immediately and reopen it in a month as the Abu Ghraib Technical College for Computer Training ?- with all the equipment donated by Dell, H.P. and Microsoft." Why didn't the administration ever use 9/11 as a spur to launch a Manhattan project for energy independence and conservation, so we could break out of our addiction to crude oil, slowly disengage from this region and speak truth to fundamentalist regimes, such as Saudi Arabia? (Addicts never tell the truth to their pushers.) Because that might have required a gas tax or a confrontation with the administration's oil moneymen. Why did the administration always ?- rightly ?- bash Yasir Arafat, but never lift a finger or utter a word to stop Ariel Sharon's massive building of illegal settlements in the West Bank? Because while that might have earned America credibility in the Middle East, it might have cost the Bush campaign Jewish votes in Florida.

And, of course, why did the president praise Mr. Rumsfeld rather than fire him? Because Karl Rove says to hold the conservative base, you must always appear to be strong, decisive and loyal. It is more important that the president appear to be true to his team than that America appear to be true to its principles. (Here's the new Rummy Defense: "I am accountable. But the little guys were responsible. I was just giving orders.")

Add it all up, and you see how we got so off track in Iraq, why we are dancing alone in the world ?- and why our president, who has a strong moral vision, has no moral influence.

I myself am of the belief that all of this was actually created in the mind of Thomas Friedman in an effort to gain readership.

Would that odd rationale apply to your post above as well?

No.


Yes.



No.



Yes.



No.




Yes.





(seems I have turned into Friedman before your very eyes)

blatham
What can you expect from someone who believes Bush is a genius?

Well, Bush is a genius.

Yes, GWB = Genius Without Brains, must be a genius to bring the US to its knees.

This is our knees?

The military is nearly broken, the national debt is $8 trillion, the Republicans are split and nervoous. The international image of the United States has been severely tarnished and an invasion of a sovereign nation undertaken without international approval. Only a genius could pull that off.

I think this is what is meant by those writers/commentators writing/speaking about Iraq when they way that the only people making a sacrifice are the military (and families). Brandon, I think, is serious. The US simply doesn't look like a nation at war - no-one is making a sacrifice, save the military and those who are protesting the war. As for the economy - if you've got a job and good money and you're not wondering where the money to pay the bills is coming from, then there is no cause for concern. For now.

What in God's name are you talking about?


Sovereign in the sense of being the possession and plaything of a band of thugs who would torture and/or kill any citizen who expressed an opinion.


We asked the UN to help, but they were too impotent and corrupt to do more than issue warning after warning after warning to Hussein. So, we went with the several dozen nations who agreed to participate.

It is obvious that talk 72000 knows nothing about Economics. He moans and groans about our "national debt" but he does not appear to realize that the government's ability to finance its debt is tied to the size and strength of the economy or the GDP.

The USA has been in debt during much of its history. Indeed, at the end of World War II, debt held by the public was 109 percent of the GDP, it then fell to 24 percent in 1974. Debts do vacillate depending on the GDP and the Spending of the Congress.

You are correct, Brandon 9000. The bit about "without international approval" is bogus. Mr. Volcker's report on the Oil for Food scandal clearly shows that many countries( Russia and France for example) were in Hussein's pocket and would NEVER have been serious about pressing Iraq.