NYT's Tom Friedman explains why he was a Bush bootlicker on the Iraq War

[Karmadillo]

What a guy.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/oct2005/frie-o25.shtml

<edit>

Friedman explains that he did not embrace the “neo-con drumbeat to invade Iraq” that began more than a decade before the war itself. Yet, he became convinced “that the Bush team was going to invade Iraq no matter who was against it—Congress, columnists or whatever.”

He declares himself “flattered that some people think my column was so influential that had I come out against the war, it would have made a difference.” He hastens to add, “It would have made no difference.”

This modesty is both false and serf-serving. Friedman is arguably the most influential columnist writing for the most influential newspaper in the United States, yet he asserts that nothing he wrote could have made the slightest difference in the Bush administration’s war plans.

<edit>

Having concluded that nothing he wrote would stop the war, Friedman tells us, he assumed a new and novel mission: “Because I believed that if this war were mounted in the right way for the right reasons, it could have a truly important outcome, I wanted to use my column to do what little I could to try to tilt the administration to fight the right war, the right way.”

What was the “right war?” It was a war to “produce a decent government in the heart of the Arab-Muslim world.”

Friedman acknowledges that the Bush administration launched the war based upon lies. “I never believed or wrote,” he states, “that invading Iraq on the pretext of WMD was legitimate”—though that is precisely what happened.

more...

[mmonk]

1. Seems to be the prevailing attitude of US media.

[PassingFair]

31. Also seems to the the prevailing attitude of the

DLC democrats.

[mike_c]

2. another lying sell out war pig journalist at the NYT...

...trying to reclaim his legitimacy, and perhaps his soul. He only served as a mouth piece shill for the neocon lies-- which he now claims to have known were lies-- because he wanted a "decent government" in the ME. This is sickening. :puke:

[Skittles]

16. it is sickening, mike

the deaths of thousands, our loss of respect, the senslessness of it all - none of it matters more to this asshole than him being unable to say I WAS F***ING WRONG. *ugh*

[BrklynLiberal]

3. He likes the taste of shoepolish?

[Spinzonner]

4. I suppose it's feudal to mention this ...

but I think it's 'self-serving', not 'serf-serving'

[mike_c]

15. lol-- best pun of the morning....

:rofl:

[ret5hd]

5. You see, I was one of the GOOD nazis...

I was fighting for clean streets...and trains that ran on time...and a sane fiscal policy.

[formercia]

21. exactly. Same mentality.

[seabeyond]

6. concept: report news honestly regardless of creating policy

is he suggesting that his job is to influence policy? i say his job is to report the story, that is it. he didnt report the facts. because he knew bush was going to war anyway, he jumped on the bandwagon and became cheerleader. doesnt really matter what effect his column has, the purpose of column is to report the facts for the american people

[NWHarkness]

10. Hes a columnist not a reporter

So it is his job to influence opinion,not just report facts.

[seabeyond]

22. so i guess the choice is fiction or nonfiction

good to know. say it like it is, i will put no stock into fiction, story told

[NWHarkness]

7. Look up douchebag in the dictionary

It's an illustrated entry.

[Loonman]

8. NYT is a shit rag

Used to be the benchmark in print journalism, now it's fish wrap.

[KG]

9. i'd love to meet friedman in a dark alley, and apply the beat-down

he so richly deserves. blood-thirsty asshole.

[reality based]

11. We each have to play our part

My one vote may not make a difference, but as they say about the lottery-- you can't win if you don't play. How low the New York Times has fallen!

[tonkatoy57]

12. Let's see if I have this right...

On one hand, he didn't believe his voice was powerful enough to stop the war, which I'll give him a pass on. Perhaps he is correct.

On the other hand, he wanted to use his column to "tilt the administration to fight the right war".

How can he have no influence on the beginning of the war and then claim to have influence on the conduct of the war?

I believe what he has described is a perfect definition of intellectual dishonesty.

[Spinzonner]

14. Well, when that's all you've got, you gotta go with it

[Karmadillo]

27. The path of the liar is not always an easy one.

nt

[1932]

13. So, is he afraid that people are looking at Miller and then at him and

then back at Miller and then at him again and thinking, "hmm, now if she was lying for this administration and he was lying for the administration, and she was deeply embedded in the administration, perhaps he too was deeply embeded..."

Is he trying to head off suffering the same fate? Is he trying to fabricate an explanation based on logic other than the only logic that makes sense: he was embedded in the pages of the NYT by the Republican administration.

[AlCzervik]

18. that could be it right there, he's doing his own pre-emptive strike

against people that might question his reporting.

[Lucille]

20. He called Miller an "agent for change"

maybe he'd like to elaborate.

Seemed to me they had complementary roles as agents for change.

[jsamuel]

17. from "spreading democracy" to "decent government"

hahaha
:rofl:

[curt_b]

19. Another gem from Friedman

This is one of the great Friedman quotes (NYTimes 9/27/05):

“Maybe cynical Europeans were right. Maybe this neighborhood is just beyond transformation...We should arm the Shiites and Kurds and leave the Sunnis of Iraq to reap the wind. We must not throw more good American lives after good American lives for people who hate others more than they love their own children.”

Coincidentally, the column ran the same week as Bennet’s infamous “solution to crime in New Orleans”. I remember thinking it was a good week for pimping genocide.

[Jacobin]

23. I remind DUers of the title of Friedman's column in Dec before

the invasion:

"JUST GIVE WAR A CHANCE"

In which column he pleaded with 'peaceniks' and war doubters to 'just give war a chance'.

Friedman is a flaming asshole and a liar to boot.

[rucky]

24. The lifeboats are filling up. n/t

[kentuck]

25. I remember his pimping the war....

It was dear to his heart. Not only would it create a flower of democracy in the Middle East, it would also make Israel much more secure. So, if it did that, it would be a justifiable war, no matter how many lies were told and no matter if he knew it...

[European Socialist]

26. The world is not flat--his head is fat.

[Plaid Adder]

28. Plaidder explains why Friedman is a complete tool.

For the moment, let's take him at his word.

1) "I figured I couldn't stop it, so I might as well support it."

What the FUCK? Dude! On what planet would that reasoning get you a single atom of respect from anyone? "Well, since they were going to implement the Final Solution *anyway,* I thought I might as well come out in support of it..." Yeah, because jumping on the bandwagon just so you don't get run over with the rest of the victims is SO much more honorable than having actually thought the war was a good idea. Chee-rist! *I* couldn't stop a single goddamn thing this administration did, but I thought it was important to do the one thing I *could* do, which was give people the language and the arguments they would need to work against it. Too bad you work for the NYT and I work for nobody, isn't it, you bootlicking pusillanimous twit?

2) "I thought I could influence the Bush administration to do things the right way."

OK, first you're saying your column has no impact whatsoever on anyone, now you're saying you thought it would change the Cowboy's mind about how to take over Iraq. These two propositions are incompatible. Plus, hello, deluded much? Bush doesn't read the NYT. He doesn't even watch the news. The only way your column would get to him was as a note scribbled on a post-it and fetched in by Harriet Miers with his morning donuts: "Frideman still on board! Yay! It proves how brilliant you are! Love, Harriet."

Here's a tip, Friedman: Next time, just say what you really think. It's satisfying, and it means you don't have to feel like a total asshole afterwards.

Yikes,

THe Plaid Adder

[Jacobin]

29. Oh boy have you hit the nail on the head

1) "I figured I couldn't stop it, so I might as well support it."

2) "I thought I could influence the Bush administration to do things the right way."

What strikes me in a very sickening way is that this is precisely the rationalization Kerry gives for voting for the IWR. Precisely.

(I voted for him Kerry, I don't think Kerry or Gore would have led us into this quagmire, but good gawd, the bloviating going on by those who enabled the neo-cons makes me absolutely retch)

[donco6]

30. Ha! Bingo.

His article is utterly illogical, for the points you described.

[LynnTheDem]

32. He couldn't "tilt" the public, so he tried to "tilt" the bushCabal even

though he also says the bushCabal were going to ignore everyone and invade no matter what.

HMMMMM...