Tom Friedman continues to do more damage.

[KlatooBNikto]

In today's column (6/15/2005) he calls for more ground troops in Iraq to "secure the terrain".He has some caustic words for Donald Rumsfeld for trying to do the job on the cheap but other than that he reserves his criticisms for the Iraqis.The Kurds are great but they are only a small part.The Sunnis are delusional thinking they can come back to power by using terror tactics.Ali Shistani is a religious leader not a political one.There is no equivalent of a Hamid Karzai in Iraq.

In between, he slips in a couple of phrases that tell his mindset.He talks about the "remarkable" elections in Iraq without telling us what is so remarkable about them? That we did not know who was running, what their platforms were, where the polling stations were located,how many people actually voted, who counted the votes and so on?

He also talks abot the insurgent-fascists.What is this term supposed to mean? Who are these people? Are they Iraqi patriots who simply want their country to be free of the American invaders? Why do they not have the right to kill the invaders among them? What makes them fascists? Why are they called insurgents?

It is simply amazing that a man like Friedman is allowed to say whatever the hell comes into his head.

[robcon]

1. Friedman is brilliant, IMO.

Today's op-ed is right on the money.

[acmavm]

5. Are you serious or did you forget to hit the sarcasm button?

.

[jonnyblitz]

11. no. many here at DU think we should rule the universe.

white man's burden, etc. :eyes:

[BillZBubb]

24. Oh, my God, tell me you are kidding???!!!!!

Friedman is a buffoon. Putting more troops in Iraq now is ALMOST AS DUMB as going their in the first place--which Friedman also backed fully.

[KlatooBNikto]

25. I am almost certain that Tom Friedamn received a Draft Deferment

during the Vietnam War.You would think that such a man would hesitate to send others to their deaths once again.But when your ego overtakes your humanity, anything becomes justifiable, I suppose.

[bpilgrim]

33. Friedman is our CICERO

http://www.utexas.edu/depts/classics/documents/Cic.html

cept Friedman couldn't even carry Cicero's sandals :P

peace

[EST]

2. Along with some of his very good ideas,

comes his overwhelming impression of himself as a Sage and a Philosopher, with every beautiful phrase and soggy word that flows being the revealed truth.

The perspective to be able to be skeptical of your own yama-yama is easily lost.

[KlatooBNikto]

3. The more pedestrian his ideas become, the more inflated his opinion

of himself appears to become.

[sam sarrha]

4. Insurgent "Fascism".??? 'Fascism is Corporatism...' Benito Mussolini'

another attempt to redefine Fascism away from what they are doing..

Fascism would be more appropriately called Corporatism, for it is the relationship of government with corporations that is the defining element of Fascism.. Bonito Mussolini {close as i can paraphrase}

this is Fascism> http://www.indybay.org/print.php?id=1719333

it is Very important to really know what you are talking about.. Or should i say it is Even More important to know what THEY are talking about..

[OldLeftieLawyer]

6. Why, oh, why

does anyone give that asshole a platform?

Every damn thing he ever said or says is wrong. Every time.

He is, though, a perfect suckass when it comes to the RatfaceSquatterInTheWhiteHouse.

[KlatooBNikto]

7. Because of that platform he causes many deaths of innocents worldwide

and devastation to the economies of this country and those of other Third World countries. Alex Cockburn has a complete decostruction of his looniness in an article on his travels in India and what Friedman has wrought there.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

12. Got a link?

If you do, thanks.

If you don't, thanks.

And to think he got a Pulitzer. It makes me ill.

[KlatooBNikto]

20. Go to the following website.

http://www.counterpunch.com.You will find Cockburn's article.

[GreenArrow]

8. Friedman, proffesional propagandist

nothing more, nothing less.

It's not that he's allowed to say whatever comes into his head, it's that he has a message to disseminate. His job is not to inform opinion, but to help shape and create it.

[KlatooBNikto]

9. As far as I can tell his message is: Look what a great and wise man I am?

Aren't you impressed with my magnificence? Look how free I am from any doubts? Don't you wish you could be more like me?

The best lack all conviction while
The worst are full of passionate intensity.

[GreenArrow]

13. his job allows him to feed his ego

but that isn't what he gets paid for. If:

you, the reader, are impressed with him, his points, his experience, his certainty, it is that much easier for him to persuade you that his opinion is the correct one. To be like him, one has only to assume his position.

As Rush is a propagandist for lowbrows, Friedman is a propagandist for highbrows.

[Cha]

17. You should have seen him in

his turtleneck, holding a glass of wine on charlie rose's one night..I had to turn it off.

[KlatooBNikto]

19. Sort of Egos without Borders, eh?

[EST]

31. Chortle, gasp!

Hammer...nail

[Cha]

47. High Five!

:hi:

[MisterP]

51. a'hm an intellecktchuwl like youze'all!

[BlueEyedSon]

10. Dupe, more here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=132008&mesg_id=132008

[HughBeaumont]

14. Who gave Friedman a crayon and construction paper in the first place?

His stance on offshoring is aggravating. His defense of this war is inexcuseable. His writing style is confusing and often contains mixed-up allegories.

Someone take this guy's Crayolas away and tell him to shave that damn shoe brush mustache already.

[Cha]

15. Here's what I thought

last night about friedman and his opinion..

Fuck you tommy boy
friedman and the gravy train you rode in on.

You pushed an illegal war based on LIES>..ya got blood on your hands, asshole.



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x132008#132009

[chieftain]

16. I think Friedman has a lot of worthwhile ideas on globalization.

When it comes to Iraq,however, the man is a complete and utter fool. The idea that the Bush thugs would generate the kind of revolution that he wants is laughable on its face. Or rather it would be if so many lives weren't being destroyed while Tom refuses to acknowledge the venality and incompetence of those with whom he has cast his lot.

[KlatooBNikto]

22. One should not accept his ideas, such as they are, on globalization

as received wisdom.To see a complete deconstruction of his fantasy world of globalization read Alex Cockburn's article ,

http://www.counterpunch.com.

[northzax]

29. have you read his book?

it is hardly a fantasy world.

And he's right, y'all know that, don't you? the single best way to have prevented and now to stop the insurgency AND the terrorism (they are different, but sometimes similar things) is to significantly increase the number of boots on the ground in Iraq. With 250,000 soldiers, enough stability can be created to move forward.

It's a war zone, first stability and security must be created. The Iraqis are not able to do that right now, and with the current troop levels and tactics, neither are we.

commence commentary : "go sign up yourself"

[KlatooBNikto]

32. Which one are you referring to? THE LEXUS AND THE OLIVE TREE

or THE EARTH IS FLAT? I have read them both and am totally underwhelmed by the platitudes he dishes out.

As far as his prescription for prolonging the war, these are the same arguments I heard during the Vietnam War.From the initial 6000 advisers, it grew year after year to half a million people each step preceded by assurances that the tide is turning.How was the magic number 250,000 people arrived at? What if it is 500,000 or a million?

What about the costs of maintaining such an army on the ground for years? Is it going to empty our treasury?Is it going to exceed our budget?How is this enormous increase in costs going to be financed? Through tax increases?

[northzax]

39. all reasonable questions

I was actually referring the The World is Flat which, from my perspective, had a lot of good stuff in it. Certainly, it's not perfect, or completely right.

You raise good points, someone needs to address them. But if the government is not, is it not up to the people?

Look, war sucks, in the opinion of the people I know with better access to information and knowledge than I, we could stabilise the country and lose probably 7500-10,000 soldiers, by 2010. That, callous as it sounds, is actually getting off cheap for invading and occupying a violent country the size of California. War sucks, the administration lied when they said it doesn't, that we can win without losing life. They lied. So here we are, now what?

Vietnam is not a good analogy. There we faced an organised and well supported army, not a civilian insurgency.

I'll try to say this clearly. Invading Iraq was a tragic and costly mistake. The people behind it should answer for the loss of life and treasure, on both sides. But that doesn't mean, as the de facto rulers of Iraq, that we don't have a responsiblity to do something.

[KlatooBNikto]

40. Could that something include unconditional withdrawal?

[Tommymac]

42. Hmm, seems there are already over 7000 dead NOW.....

http://www.tbrnews.org/Archives/a1654.htm

U.S. Military Personnel who died in German hospitals or en route to German hospitals have not previously been counted. They total about 6,210 as of 1 January, 2005. The ongoing, underreporting of the dead in Iraq, is not accurate. The DoD is deliberately reducing the figures. A review of many foreign news sites show that actual deaths are far higher than the newly reduced ones. Iraqi civilian casualties are never reported but International Red Cross, Red Crescent and UN figures indicate that as of 1 January 2005, the numbers are just under 100,000.

by Brian Harring, Domestic Intelligence Reporter

Note: There is excellent reason to believe that the Department of Defense is deliberately not reporting a significant number of the dead in Iraq. We have received copies of manifests from the MATS that show far more bodies shipped into Dover AFP than are reported officially. The educated rumor is that the actual death toll is in excess of 7,000. Given the officially acknowledged number of over 15,000 seriously wounded, this elevated death toll is far more realistic than the current 1,400+ now being officially published. When our research is complete, and watertight, we will publish the results along with the sources In addition to the evident falsification of the death rolls, at least 5,500 American military personnel have deserted, most in Ireland but more have escaped to Canada and other European countries, none of whom are inclined to cooperate with vengeful American authorities. (See TBR News of 18 February for full coverage on the mass desertions) This means that of the 158,000 U.S. military shipped to Iraq, 26,000 either deserted, were killed or seriously wounded. The DoD lists currently being very quietly circulated indicate almost 9,000 dead, over 16,000 seriously wounded* (See note below. This figure is now over 24,000 Ed) and a large number of suicides, forced hospitalization for ongoing drug usage and sales, murder of Iraqi civilians and fellow soldiers , rapes, courts martial and so on –

[northzax]

44. you neglected the most important line in this article

When our research is complete, and watertight, we will publish the results along with the sources

I'll withhold judgement until they have sources and real results. This article is based on rumour and supposition based on more than reading the tea leaves of the 'likudists'

Where are these secret casualty reports? if they have a copy, why not publish it?

[Tommymac]

50. My Bad.

I have just researched the source in more detail... I was referred to it by a friend whom I thought I trusted...it is not the most reputable one.

My sincerest apologies...it's just that I got a bit annoyed when hearing that 7000-10000 more casualties would be 'acceptable" and violated sound posting practice.

Can a mod pull this? TIA

[northzax]

52. not a problem

and I don't want to sound as if 7000 deaths is 'acceptable' it certainly isn't, but for conquering and rebuilding a country, it ain't bad. War takes lives, that's why it should always be the case of last resort. You violated posting restrictions, perhaps, but Bushco violated common sense retrictions.

However, if that additional 7,000 deaths meant the saving of 50,000 iraqi lives from civil war created by us, it's a price we have to pay.

[geek tragedy]

54. Tbrnews is an organ of the fascist right/Holocaust denial movement

Liars and Nazis. That article is a lie.

[BiggJawn]

18. "There is no equivalent of a Hamid Karzai in Iraq."

Really? Not ONE compliant, clueless PUPPET of the BFEE in the WHOLE country?

The Resistance is "fascist"? Does Friedman know what the word means?

They're called "Insurgents" because that markets them to the Murkan sheeple who are being pressured to offer up their sons and daughter to this "Holy Cause" as "BAD GUYS".

French Maquis="Resistance"=DoubleplusGood

Iraqi Insurgents="Bad Guys"=TripleplusBAD

[madinmaryland]

21. Actually, I think there is.

Friedman is too embarassed to admit it, but it will be Chalabi that ends up running the country.

[KlatooBNikto]

23. If Emperor Chalabi the swindler is anointed in Iraq can the embedded

Queen Judith Miller be far behind?

[madinmaryland]

26. He's already the oil minister! n/t

[KlatooBNikto]

27. Couple more moves and he will be the Shah of Iraq.

An outcome that was thoroughly predictable.

[woo me with science]

28. Here it is again. Who was I just talking to about this??? Grrrr.

"It is simply amazing that a man like Friedman is allowed to say whatever the hell comes into his head."

Excuse me, what would you do with him? It's called free speech. I was just responding to a post the other day about how alarmed I am at the frequency of these kinds of comments from people who supposedly respect free press and the tenets of democracy.

Your post was great. Argue what he has to say. Make the case that he is being a blooming idiot. But don't imply that he should be silenced. This ending line really ruins an otherwise fine post IMO.

[KlatooBNikto]

30. The NYT has supposedly standards that they follow when they

encounter opinions not to their liking.While they exercise this privilege whenever they encounter language unpalatable to their finely tuned sensitivities, Friedman is allowed to call the people of Irq that fight U.S. tropps insurgent fascists.Have you ever tried to call Bush a liar on the august pages of the NYT.What category would you put that under?Free Speech or tasteless speech?

[woo me with science]

35. "standards" and "opinions not to your liking"

are very different things.

[KlatooBNikto]

36. Are you implying that the NYT does not impose a censorship on

ideas or opinions that it finds unpalatable? It gives a blowdried bloviator like Tom Friedman to say "Insurgent Fascists" without even asking what those terms mean. I have explained in my OP why I find those terms offensive.

So I stand by my last sentence that this mendacious mediocrity is given a free hand because....... what?

[woo me with science]

41. I seem to recall....

a time when Tom Friedman was very popular on these pages because of his views on economics and outsourcing. *Of course* independent media publications select columnists based on an array of criteria. But you can't possibly be suggesting that an established columnist should all of a sudden be silenced because he now expresses a view that upsets you.

What ever happened to writing a letter to the editor when you are upset at something someone writes? Why the need to leap to the "final solution" of wanting your opponent silenced? Frankly, I get sick to my stomach when I see Democrats calling it "amazing" that someone should be permitted to express an opinion with which they disagree.

[KlatooBNikto]

45. How did you leap to the conclusion that I want to silence him for his

views? I was specifically referring to the use of the term "Insurgent-Fascists" a term he throws around mindlessly. This is the corruption of language that Orwell referred to when we descend into mindless totalitarianism.FWIW, Friedman is in a better position to impose his Total Information Dominance regime than lowly me.

[woo me with science]

46. Oh, so you just want the freedom

to change his vocabulary to suit your politics. That's so much better.

Frankly, I want the original vocabulary out there, so I know what Friedman is actually thinking! Then I can decide for myself what I think about his arguments.

Thank you for trying to spare me from Friedman's opinions, but frankly the only reaction I am having to you is that I am damned glad you are not an editor at the Times.

[SlightlyWorried]

34. Tom Friedman is a reporter. No more no less.

If you read his books it is always the same:

"OMG the internet is so wonderful it will change everything!"
"OMG! Outsourcing it so amazing! It will change everything"
"OMG! Globalization is so amazing! It will change everything"
"OMG! Bush won the election it's amazing! This will change the world!"

He simply reports on what many people think is the big thing of the day and inflates it's effect. He has no insight whatsoever in his books they are painful to read if you are looking for insight. If you are looking for nice little stories to retell during polite dinner conversation then he is very useful. If you are looking for meaning go somewhere else.

[KlatooBNikto]

38. Remember he is a reporter with an agenda.That agenda is to make

the opinions and actions of the powerful more acceptable to the proletariat, a function neatly etched out for us all by a predecessor of all our current bloviators, Walter Lippman.

[bpilgrim]

43. no, he is less. he ONLY reports the elite view

predictably

reporters present the FACTS not the SPIN of 1 side, imo.

peace

[knitter4democracy]

37. The Kurds are great?!

They've been kidnapping and detaining Turkmeni and Arabs for over a year now, with our knowledge but not our blessing, of course, and that makes them great? They don't even want to be part of Iraq but instead have their own republic. And he knows the area? Sheesh!

[dogday]

48. I Read His Bio and Of Course This Man Has Never Been In The

Military. Never served, never shot at anyone, never been shot at, never seen boys torn apart by bombs. This bastard knows nothing of what he says.

[KlatooBNikto]

53. You can also add to that list by saying he has never managed a

corporation, never known what technology and its effects are on working people and what kind of a devastation it can leave behind on poor economies if and when corporations up and leave as they will when India or China become "too expensive" in relation to some other country.

The Earth is flat indeed.It is getting flattened by the predatory practices of the global corporations.

[Renew Deal]

49. That's a good article and he's right on some level.

I think Friedman is correct overall. I think we all agree here that the current Iraq strategy (situation) is a loser. So there are two things to do about it. Fix it or leave. What's the point of being there if we are just going to delay the inevitable (civil war). Friedman thinks it's worth trying to fix it. Most here don't. Other than that, the article is pretty good.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002336531_reichert15m.html