Did 9/11 Drive Thomas Friedman Nuts?

[hgc]

Here is Thomas Friedman (columnist, NY Times) on Charlie Rose. He's explaining why we needed to go to war in Iraq ... or somewhere. I think this is a strong indication that Friedman is actually quite insane. I'm talking Dick Cheney Crazy.

In a nutshell - We needed to go into that part of the world and say 'suck on this.' Could have been Saudi Arabia, could have been Pakistan...

Opinions?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7qkZ_w2oxM&eurl=http://atrios.blogspot.com/

 

[Darth Rotor]

Here is Thomas Friedman (columnist, NY Times) on Charlie Rose. He's explaining why we needed to go to war in Iraq ... or somewhere. I think this is a strong indication that Friedman is actually quite insane. I'm talking Dick Cheney Crazy.

In a nutshell - We needed to go into that part of the world and say 'suck on this.' Could have been Saudi Arabia, could have been Pakistan...

Opinions?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7qkZ_w2oxM&eurl=http://atrios.blogspot.com/

Friedman is a dyed in the wool globalist barker. He is slowly turning into a green advocate, for which purpose he has coined the 'green is the new manly' sound byte. I am glad he is so doing, as he gets a lot of attention due to being syndicated in hundreds of papers. His theme on the green/low energy footprint is "it doesn't have to be either or, it needs to be done intelligently." Granted, it is one of the few themes of his that are innovative. The rest of his output is less impressive.

Anything that interferes with globalism's advance, the creative destruction he so slavishly fellated in his book "The Lexus and the Olive Tree" is obviously an obstacle to be gotten around.

His remarks are not surprising.

DR

 

[hgc]

Darth, I don't deny all that you've just said about TF regarding environmentalism in your post. But I've scratched a rut in my head trying to figure out what it has to do with his rantings about the reason for the Iraq war.

Will you enlarge on the point?

 

[Puppycow]

My work computer doesn't have a sound card so I can't hear the audio. Did he really say 'suck on this'?

I do think that after 9/11 we had a national need to strike back at those who attacked us, but not at random.

 

[hgc]

My work computer doesn't have a sound card so I can't hear the audio. Did he really say 'suck on this'?

I do think that after 9/11 we had a national need to strike back at those who attacked us, but not at random.

My transcription:

... and what we needed to do was go over to that part of the world, I’m afraid, and burst that bubble. We needed to go over there, basically, um, and um, uh, take out a very big stick, um, right in the heart of that world, and um, and burst that bubble. And there was only one way to do it. 'Cause part of that bubble said, "We've got you. This bubble is actually going to level the balance of power between us and you because we don't care about you. We’re ready to sacrifice all you care about in your stock options and your commerce." And what they needed to see was American boys and girls going house to house from Basra to Baghdad, um, and basically saying, "Which part of this sentence don't you understand? You don't think we care about our open society? You think this bubble fantasy, we're going to let it grow? Well suck on this." OK? That, Charlie, was what this war was about. We coulda hit Saudi Arabia. It was part of that problem. We could've hit Pakistan. We hit Iraq because we could.

Just another example of crazy-talk from a Very Serious Person^® who has tremendous influence in our national dialogue.

 

[Puppycow]

This is so wrong. I'm at home now with audio, but thanks for the transcript.

"That part of the world"? Sure. Just pick any country at random from "that part of the world." This is the level of intellect working for the NY Times? We had already attacked Afganistan. We kicked out the Taliban. There were serious consequences for the people who did it and those who sheltered them. I understand that we had to do something after 9/11, but Iraq wasn't involved in that.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Darth, I don't deny all that you've just said about TF regarding environmentalism in your post. But I've scratched a rut in my head trying to figure out what it has to do with his rantings about the reason for the Iraq war.

Will you enlarge on the point?

In a nutshell, the meme of creative destruction is easliy applied the various regimes in the Persian Gulf, with the idea that in the wake of their destruction comes a growth that is of benefit to the globalist agenda.

"And everybody gets a share."

DR

 

[This Guy]

I thought we were already in that part of the world. You know, Afghanistan. The place that the ring leader, of the gang that actually did the bad stuff, was living.

Anyway, never listened to the guy myself, so I can't say if he went crazy before or after 9/11.

 

[Cain]

Is this recent? If I recall correctly, in the run up to the war Friedman wavered before supporting it (of course he supported it). Then after the invasion he shortly went to Iraq, discovered a human skull, and said it was definitely the right call (but not before speculating how Saddam tortured the person that skull belong to, blah blah blah). The guy is a major douche, and always makes a point of trying to play the tough guy. Back during Kosovo he got off this line about bombing Slobo back to 1450, the Stone Age, and on. His op-eds are obnoxious even by TIMES standards. I think his main role is to discredit the moustache.

 

[hgc]

I think his main role is to discredit the moustache.

Whither the mustache heroes?

 

[a_unique_person]

This is so wrong. I'm at home now with audio, but thanks for the transcript.

"That part of the world"? Sure. Just pick any country at random from "that part of the world." This is the level of intellect working for the NY Times? We had already attacked Afganistan. We kicked out the Taliban. There were serious consequences for the people who did it and those who sheltered them. I understand that we had to do something after 9/11, but Iraq wasn't involved in that.

I think that level of thinking is what gets 'that part of the world' producing it's own extremists in response. It's a self-sustaining positive feedback loop towards ever more crazy.

 

[a_unique_person]

I thought we were already in that part of the world. You know, Afghanistan. The place that the ring leader, of the gang that actually did the bad stuff, was living.

Anyway, never listened to the guy myself, so I can't say if he went crazy before or after 9/11.

Perhaps he is following the Ann Coulter school of journalism. If you're worried no-one is listening to you any more, say something really stupid.

 

[a_unique_person]

This is so wrong. I'm at home now with audio, but thanks for the transcript.

"That part of the world"? Sure. Just pick any country at random from "that part of the world." This is the level of intellect working for the NY Times? We had already attacked Afganistan. We kicked out the Taliban. There were serious consequences for the people who did it and those who sheltered them. I understand that we had to do something after 9/11, but Iraq wasn't involved in that.

Osama offers up a prayer of thanks to Allah for every one of those statements.

 

[MaGZ]

It just shows Friedman has run out of reasons as to why we should have invaded Iraq. I recently saw a Robert Fisk interview--apparently they both know each other well and at times have dinner in Washington. Fisk said Friedman hopes to be the next Secretary of State if the Dems get in the next election.