A Wealth of Rage

[SquireJons]

To borrow a phrase that I despise, "There he goes again."

What is Thomas Friedman supposed to be? Please, someone who admires him needs to explain him to me. Is he supposed to be a 'liberal' or progressive? He is certainly seen as one of The New York Time's liberal op-ed columnists, but to me, he seems more like a broken record.

I don't see Paul Krugman or Maureen Dowd writing article after article trying to support the administrations illegal and immoral policies like he does. They also don't twist the facts nearly as often as Mr. Friedman does.

His latest article, 'Wealth of Rage' is a perfect example. He usually has some reasonable point that lures you in. In this case it was why do westernized, secular muslims turn to violence as a form of political expression? A good question. Now here's Tom's take on it:

"The answer to that question is one of the most important issues in geopolitics today: Why are young Sunni Muslim males, from London to Riyadh and Bali to Baghdad, so willing to blow up themselves and others in the name of their religion? Of course, not all Muslims are suicide bombers; it would be ludicrous to suggest that."

"But virtually all suicide bombers, of late, have been Sunni Muslims. There are a lot of angry people in the world. Angry Mexicans. Angry Africans. Angry Norwegians. But the only ones who seem to feel entitled and motivated to kill themselves and totally innocent people, including other Muslims, over their anger are young Sunni radicals. What is going on?"

So what are we to think of Mr. Friedman's world view? He seems to deny the very existence of terrorism outside of the Middle East Jewish/Arab context. Never heard of the IRA? No? Maybe Uzbekistan than? Or how about the Basques? Or the Mormons for that matter. They had a propensity for small bombs not too long ago and that was just over a few forged documents. And I guess the Indians and Pakistan's are all just a bunch of crazy Sunni's. No, in Toms world, only the Muslims are the bad guys. This week it's the Sunni's, but next week it will be the Shiia.

Maybe Tom should drop by Oklahoma City.

Is it just me or does anyone else see a neocon stooge in Thomas Friedman? He is worse than Lieberman and his kiss-ass to the conservatives style of being a Democrat. Or crazy eyed Zell Miller. Why? Because he does damage every week, like clock work. And he never says anything useful. His views are used by repugs to further their policy of 'creating our own reality.' Why? Because "He's a democrat." Unfortunately moderate to progressive people, and a sizable chunk of the Jewish readership take his words as if they were medicine instead of the honey coated poison that they really are. The worst part is that he weaves good thoughts with bad ones. It's great to say that Muslims are suffering from "a poverty of dignity and the rage it can trigger." But then to lay that lack of dignity at the feet of the Arab population, without discussion of exactly who took that dignity away and why, is to further a lie. Something that Thomas Friedman is very good at. All of the great powers of the twentieth century had a hand in the Middle East, and they are all collectively responsible for the results of their imperialist policies. So now the hens are coming home to roost. This is not something Friedman will ever talk about.

He needs to be lumped with Novak and Safire, where he belongs.

[The Stranger]

1. Not real difficult:

He hates Muslims and Arabs, so he postulates that only they can be Terrorists.

It is actually a paraphrase of Ann Coulter: Not all Muslims are Terrorists, but all Terrorists are Muslims.

[SquireJons]

2. Wow, I hadn't thought to compare him to Ann Coulter.

I wouldn't do that to my worst enemy. For now I'll stick with the Novak, Safire comparison. There is a slight difference. Ann Coulter is in a league of her own. Sure do wish we could send her to her own planet - maybe the planet Kalob?

[RethugAssKicker]

3. Yeah, he's a tricky bastard..

but a bastard none the less. He sometimes appears to be liberal, but as you continue to read his columns you soon find that he's nothing but a neo-con, in lambs clothing.