Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

NYT's Tom Friedman and the Pundits Will Blame Us for Iraq

By Matt Taibbi, RollingStone.com. Posted March 7, 2007.


As the political class and the media establishment wake up to the nightmare in Iraq they are going to start looking for someone to scapegoat -- and it looks like they are going to blame the American people.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Matt Taibbi

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

"Secretary of State Rice said it was like Germany after World War II. I would say it was like Germany, but Germany of 1648, before it was a modern state, rather than Germany in 1948... We were able to rebuild Germany and Japan after WWII, but there are real differences with Iraq. We defeated them with large numbers of troops and we imposed an effective occupation. We never defeated the Sunnis of Iraq and we never imposed an effective occupation controlling the country. Moreover, Germany and Japan had a tradition of democracy and free markets that we could build on. Iraq had very little." -- New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman

Thomas Friedman has been subdued lately. I get the feeling that he's taken some of the criticism of his nutty metaphors (I'm only one of a great many people who've been on him about this) to heart and decided to chill out, which in a way is kind of a shame. He's still an arrogant, wrong-headed prick, but he's no longer a walking literary time bomb like he used to be. I often feel now, like I did on the day Red Auerbach died, that the world has lost one of its leading lights.

I had high hopes a few weeks back when Friedman officially penned his five hundredth "Russia is finally turning the corner, because the middle class is really emerging there" piece. Russia and its middle class first started turning the corner during Clinton's first term. Anyway, the piece began it with the sentence, "Russia today is a country that takes three hands to describe. ..."

For three short paragraphs after that, the old magic came back. It was like watching Nolan Ryan's last no-hitter -- for one glorious day, the fastball went back up to 99 again. On the one hand, Friedman said, Putin's Russia can no longer be called democratic. On the other hand, Boris Yeltsin's version of democracy was a failure. This is the sentence that came next -- emphasis is mine:

And on the third hand, while today's Russia may be a crazy quilt of capitalist czars, mobsters, nationalists and aspiring democrats, it is not the totalitarian Soviet Union.

Even in remission, genius is genius. How do you get around the natural mathematical limitations of the construction, "On the one hand ... but on the other hand ..."? After all, we humans only have two hands. You or I would never have thought of it, but Friedman knew instinctively -- just add another hand!

But aside from that, the pickings have been slim in Friedman-land. That doesn't mean, of course, that he hasn't been wrong and stupid lately -- it just means he's been avoiding figures of speech. Most of what he's been doing since he got back from Russia is write columns complaining about the various unpredictable annoyances that are preventing the war in Iraq from being the smashing success it by all rights ought to have been. Last week, for instance, he wrote a piece called "The Silence The Kills" bemoaning the widespread failure of Arab cultures to condemn suicide bombers. The rhetorical crux of the piece rests upon the curious moral calculus that has defined the Bush presidency, a calculus I think is most easily expressed in haiku form:

The war in Iraq
A problem of perception
Terrorists are worse!

Friedman's haiku didn't scan -- it read like this: "Mr. Bush is losing a P.R. war to people who blow up emergency wards. Europeans are mute, lost in their delusion that this is all George Bush's and Tony Blair's fault."

What's amazing to me is that conservatives have been pushing this line of reasoning for five, six years now, and some people are apparently still buying it. Okay, yes, I jammed my own head up my ass -- but I didn't really, because look at how despicable the terrorists are! Why, they blew up a children's hospital! How could my own head be up my ass if terrorists can blow up a children's hospital? And the headless body points, gesticulates, etc.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: tom friedman, iraq

Matt Taibbi is a writer for Rolling Stone.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Sarcasm
Posted by: texshelters on Mar 7, 2007 1:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Usually I have some smart alert remark for some uber patriot who thinks killing strangers for the fun and profit of the already uber rich is okay. Lacking that, I must commend Mr. Taibbi for telling it like it is. Unfortunately, with the saber rattling in both the Democratic and Republican parties, I don't see this changing. But remember, Bush supports the troops, right?

If you still believe that, you must think the earth is flat as well.

Joe Tex

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Grozny_Guy on Mar 7, 2007 1:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
SIC SIC SIC! "They are fighting us with garage-door openers and fifty year-old artillery shells, sneaking around barefoot in the middle of the night around [SIC] to plant roadside bombs." Around around around sneak the insurgents.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Wow.. Posted by: Techubus
» RE: WRONG!!!!!!!!!!! Posted by: Blanktivist
» RE: WRONG!!!!!!!!!!! Posted by: american
WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Grozny_Guy on Mar 7, 2007 2:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"They robbed the part of the budget that paid for ordinary soldiers‚ gear [SIC] so they wouldn't have to touch the F-22 Raptor..."

That's two MASSIVE GRAMMATICAL ERRORS in one column attacking the competence of another writer. Nice!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: WRONG!!!!!!!!!!! Posted by: texshelters
» haha Posted by: mazel
» lol Posted by: Iconoclast421
PICAYUNISH !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: ekipnrut on Mar 7, 2007 4:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Grozny_Guy:
When a war mongering piece of crap is dropped kicked into low
earth orbit ,a couple of ephemeral 'typo' wobbles on the
part of kicker Taibbi shouldn't raise an eyebrow. You are
foolish to pretend that (Taibbi's) nitpicking errors, which clearly
arose in haste and at worst repesent a momentary slovenly
lapse of attention, are somehow comparable to the calculated,
systematic written 'just as intended' fascist/elitist/racist apologia
of Mr. Friedman.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Flathead: correct war metaphor, wrong side
Posted by: eddie torres on Mar 7, 2007 5:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Freidman's on thin ice - taking lessons from the Nazi's management of the Third Reich. Where a psycho cult-of-personality seized control of a fascist state and made a catastrophic string of strategic military blunders.

Taibbi: "Tom Friedman thinks the problem in Iraq is that we ordinary Americans didn't tighten our belts enough to support the war effort."

It wasn't until 1942 that Albert Speer took over management of Nazi Germany's economy and shifted it to a "full" wartime footing. Three years after the invasion of Poland.

And Speer's plans were constantly disrupted - by Hitler's astrology-inspired dreams of hugely expensive superweapons.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

LIMITED HANGOUT @ the CARNY SHOW
Posted by: Hal on Mar 8, 2007 2:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Tom Friedman bad – M. Taibbi good.

It’s so simple see… ‘Cause Matt is the good guy busting a bad old establishment “prick” that sold us one phony butcher stand of a “war on terror” with virtually every MSM hack sellout from networks and NY Times to the Honolulu Star Bulletin.

And not once in this hot wind blather does M. Taibii mention Big Oil or an endless train wreck of lies and deceptions from 911 cover-up on that greased the path to yet another blood money fiasco for the nation. But that’s okay because it’s only disaster for the public, not for private multinational oligarchs who continue to bleed the better part of a trillion dollars out of America (all told for fiscal 2007) for a war it cannot afford to fight and can never win.

But of course, “winning” was never the object. And there was never any fear of “failure” or a “failed” war. These are limited hangout back handed talking points that Taibbi uses to defend T. Friedman along with an embedded MSM parrot that has never been held to account as a PR machine for whorehouse Washington in the pocket of corporate dons.

“War on terror” was built as a fail-safe project from its 911 kickoff.

A “war on terror” starring Iraq War Incorporated was about a puppet Big Oil garrison state that was never anything but a sinkhole cum permanent beachhead for private corporate conquest of the Mid East to Eurasian theatres. All paid for at public cost.

Another socialized war is at the old sting that keeps on stinging.

And M. Taibii won’t describe the obvious because he’s either apparently part of the sting or he’s too “incompetent, lazy, cowed, intimidated” (the usual adjectives constantly used for a corrupted Mockingbird MSM not coming anywhere near doing its job.

When facts on the ground don’t match carny MSM lies, even “left” media gatekeepers have a problem keeping a lid on the sting.

Poor Matt Taibbi. It’s got to be a challenge making the faux left MSM look bad when he’s part of it. Sadder still that it’s only suckers taking the bait Taibbi and his ilk dish out.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

tiago
Posted by: tiago on Mar 8, 2007 4:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
“… Why, they blew up a children's hospital! How could my own head be up my ass if terrorists can blow up a children's hospital? And the headless body points, gesticulates, etc.”
Why should the US Military have the sole right to blow up emergency rooms, (with or without children)? In Fallujah, Samarra, and Ramadi, the US Military blew up entire hospitals. Snipers shot up ambulances, etc.

("Yes, I believe it was and remains hugely important to try to partner with Iraqis to create one good example in the heart of the Arab world of a decent, progressive state, blah blah blah ...")
A few years ago, I read why Iraq was chosen for Bush/Cheney’s first war in the Middle East and not Iran, (this from one of those high level administration anonymice).
• Iraq was weak militarily
• Iraq was the most progressive country in the Middle East and most likely to accept the administration’s form of a puppet democracy.
• and lest we forget, Iraq has more projected oil resources than any country in the Middle East, (so call American interests).

“… a) the media abandoned the war effort b) the peace movement undermined the national will and c) the public, and the Pentagon, misread the results of the Tet offensive, seeing defeat where there actually was a victory.”
You can leave out the b) peace movement and c) the Pentagon misreading the results of the Tet offensive.
The Tet offensive was repulsed and even in Saigon and Hue, only after a few days of fighting. The Tet offensive was a flash in the pan as a major offensive.
I have to believe “the war in Vietnam was lost in the living rooms of America in front of the television.”
It seems the American people believed then, and still believe what ever the main stream media puts in front of them.

“… you can be damn sure that we're going to hear a lot about how we blew Iraq because there weren't enough troops or resources shifted into Iraq.”
Tell that to Shisenski. He predicted this before the war even started and was called on it by that great military tactician, Wolfnowitz. The Pentagon decided they no longer needed him and forced him to retire.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: tiago Posted by: Bozwell
an open letter to david brooks
Posted by: baclark on Mar 8, 2007 6:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
03.08.07


Dear Mr. Brooks,


I have been following your work in the New York Times for several years now, and have tried to admire the verbal craftsmanship and intellectual energy of your columns while simultaneously disagreeing with their contents virtually one hundred percent of the time. This has not been easy. It seems that in the past few years, as disaster after disaster has revealed the Bush administration for what it truly is – a venal, myopic, incompetent group of power-mongering narcissists – you have employed an increasingly twisted series of arguments to justify its actions.
Now, I understand that your self-identification as a conservative in general and a Republican in particular compels you to support Mr. Bush, and even when his presidency has become virtually unsupportable, to serve as an apologist for it. That is all well and good, I suppose, but as a reader and fellow citizen who possesses at least some capacity for independent thought, I’ve begun to find this kind of slavish intellectual dishonesty positively odious.
This was especially true when I read your column dated 03/08/07, entitled “Yes, Those Were the Days.” In it, you lament Scooter Libby’s conviction and stoutly proclaim, “You can convince me that Libby is guilty, but I’ll always believe he’s a good man.” Your evidence of this? The fact that he insisted on going Dutch when you ate lunch with him.
You go on to say that Libby’s trial has provoked a profound sense of sadness, inasmuch as it illustrates “the arc of what the administration was and could have been.” In 2003, you argue, the Bush administration was characterized by passionate devotion and a sense of mission, which have lamentably been dissipated by unmitigated catastrophes such as the war in Iraq and Hurricane Katrina. Consequently, the administration has become more circumspect, and now has a greater tendency to “actually think about executing a policy before embarking upon it.” Alas, you conclude, this new way of thinking would have been far more helpful when the war on terror first began. Oh well, now they’ll know for next time.
I think what bothers me most about this little journalistic atrocity is the fact that you essentially frame war, natural disaster, violence, suffering, and death, in terms of its psychological and emotional effects on the people who are actually perpetuating it. For you, the worst thing about tens of thousands dead in Iraq and tens of thousands homeless or permanently displaced in New Orleans is that it has diminished the Bush administration’s self-esteem. “Katrina depressed many [White House] staffers,” you say.
Excuse me?
What about the scores of people who lost homes, lives, and livelihoods as a direct and unequivocal result of the White House’s incompetence and indifference? What about the scores of young men and women whose lives have been unalterably damaged from serving in Mr. Bush’s war in Iraq? Where is the lamentation for them? Do you even have any?
Mr. Brooks, never before have I seen a journalist who so blatantly favors the powerful over the powerless, the strong over the weak, the dominant over the disenfranchised. You are a sycophant of the absolute worst kind. You disingenuously feign intellectual bravery by forming flaccid arguments that stand up for those already in power. You are the small, weak kid on the playground who makes friends with the class bully and stands by his side while he picks on even weaker kids. And then, when he finally gets in trouble and the teacher finally gives him a reprimand, you rush to the bully’s defense.
I’m sick of it, and I’m sick of you.

Regards,


ben clark

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Well Said Posted by: Dee1276
» RE: an open letter to david brooks Posted by: dangerouslysane
No Excuse For The War
Posted by: msluderitz on Mar 8, 2007 8:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Matt Tabii's commentary is perfectly on point to me. The war was and is dead wrong. The invasion of Iraq was a barbaric act of aggression for which no valid argument can be made. It doesn't matter how deftly one attempts to justify, rationalize, apologize, mislead, obfuscate or outright lie to convince us that it was the right thing to do.

I admire Matt's gutsy, "the Emperor has no clothes", style of writing in revealing gross hypocrisy and dishonesty. I hope he gives us more of the same.

Mike Luderitz

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Military bloat is a force for peace...
Posted by: SteveB on Mar 8, 2007 2:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They robbed the part of the budget that paid for ordinary soldiers‚ gear so they wouldn't have to touch the F-22 Raptor, the CVN(X) aircraft carrier, or any of the other mega-expensive and mostly useless weapons programs.

Maybe we should welcome this? Is Iraq an example of how our military has become so bloated with cash that it can't successfully occupy a county less than a tenth our size, which had no functioning army even before we invaded?

If so, maybe we should encourage even more bloat. Sure, it's expensive for us, but if the end result is that the U.S. is incapable of using force to impose its will on the rest of the world, maybe we should let the boys have their toys...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Feels much like Nam again
Posted by: bill street on Mar 8, 2007 4:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Tucked within the layers of ad hominem attack upon Tom Friedman (a truly worthy object of such ridicule) is a very insightful, succinct analysis of how we got from the quagmire of Vietnam waist deep into the sands of Iraq.

When the Vietnam fiasco finally ended and the last of the US troops were home, the peace movement people gradually withdrew back into private civic life, while a hard core of angry true believers retreated into the safety of the bureaucratic service, academe, and right wing think tanks to craft a face-saving revisionist history of the great southeast Asian debacle, bicker over who stabbed who in the back, and whine among themselves about being cheated out of their victory parade.

By the mid-80's, three great strands of this revisionist history had emerged. We lost because the media brought the war home in living color until even Walter Cronkite jumped the ship. We lost because the politicians back in Washington tied the hands of the field commanders, and stabbed the troops in the back by cutting off the funds. We lost because the counterculture of the antiwar movement ultimately undermined the patriotic will of the patriotic majority to patriotically persevere.

By the 90's, these exculpatory revisionist scenarios - and variations thereupon - were the grist of popular Rambo culture. American history and public school civics textbooks in turn avoided all discussion of the Vietnam War because, after all, it remained just too controversial and painful a subject. The urban legend of hippie peaceniks spitting upon our returning veterans - a fiction, myth and utter fable - arose to become entrenched as a metaphor for the turmoil of the 60's.

By progression from Grenada through Panama and on to Gulf War I, right wing Republican and neo-liberal Democratic politicians came to speak openly and proudly about "exorcising the ghosts of Vietnam", and putting to rest "the Vietnam syndrome" once and for all.

But Vietnam was not a one time aberration.

Little George's big misadventure into Mesopotamia marks the second time in but one short generation that the civilian overlords of the Pentagon and the national security complex have together led the American people into a reckless, foolhardy, wholly unnecessary, and massive military failure abroad.

Some say its for oil, some for the money, some for geopolitical advantage in central Asia, some say for power and partisan gain at home. Some say it's all the work of the Devil. But one thing's at least crystal clear by now: the bloodyminded architects of of the Bush administration who gave us the war in Iraq (along with many of their Congressional enablers) formulated their policies the way they did because in part they had grown to believe their own post-Vietnam propaganda.

Exhibit A of this phenomenon occurred just last December, when President George Bush traveled to Hanoi on a diplomatic mission and gave a speech to his hosts. In a truly surreal moment, Bush told the Vietnamese to their face that the only reason America ever "lost" the war was because the people of the United States had lost the willingness to stay the course and win.

How bizarre. How Friedmanesque. And how revealing.

These guys never talk about the lessons learned from the Vietnam War because they never learned any.

In a more perfect world (or even in a reasonably stable modern democracy), persons so self-deluded by belief in their own fake cultural propaganda should be somehow exposed and weeded out of serious political culture before they can ever lay hands upon the levers of power. As the great philosopher Pogo puts it, once again we have met the enemy, and it is us.

We went in because we're bloodthirsty, and we've lost because we're wrong.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Thank You Bill Street - Posted by: citizen chump
TYPOS?
Posted by: dogbeach on Mar 8, 2007 7:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
By the way, the typos that created "grammatical errors" are not present in the Rolling Stone version of this column, which features a different headline and other slightly different edits (format of quotes). Perhaps this is shoddy editting on Alternet's part?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Well Said Mr. Matt
Posted by: bob t on Mar 9, 2007 9:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks Matt and well said, I like your kick -ass style because it's full of energy and because we on the left must develop the same kick-ass attitude we would never have gotten in this stupid mess and satanic act of slaughtering the Iraqi people. George Bush, the stupid, and George Bush, the elder are, along with the entire Bush family and their stupid Texass cronies and the stupid radical religious right(both Catholic and their allies in the SBC) or so good a rationalizing the death of others.
These people are not christians and are not pro-life, they are phonies who promote PRO-BIRTH and PRO-DEATH. Both the past pope and present pope cannot and will not be forgiven by me for their crimes via their endless support of the Republican Party. All the jerk ass Catholics have dragged me and this nation into something that is totally beyond terrible. The Popes supported Hitler and the Nazis and now we have two more blind, dumb and spiritually corrupt popes staunchly aligned with the present day Nazi Party aka the Republican Party of war and death for PROFIT.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Friedman???????
Posted by: ng1944 on Mar 9, 2007 9:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Friedmans, Liebermans, Krauthammers, Kristols
and so on, and on and on,,
We have to clean America of this crap

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Very, very well said
Posted by: american on Mar 11, 2007 6:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How much different is Tom Friedman than Marie Antoinette? This man's manicured fingers never touch a gun, a tool, or probably even a steering wheel. A point that should surely be part of this analysis is that this unrightious man is not at all deserving of being a pivotal voice in the Iraq War discussion. Concepts involving right and wrong quickly penetrate into the realms of meaning and substance, like a rocket entering the clouds. It is one thing to crouch by a blown out wall in an hostile land with bullets -DEATH- torpedoing past your head, and another entirely to reside in a fine office in the center of New York, ever dining sumptuosly, ever completely imbued in luxury, complacently untouchable. The fact that Tom Friedman's mouth has been all over this war is tragedy writ large. Very large. He looks like a harmless fellow, but, keep in mind folks, this man has impeturbedly killed thousands. Uh huh. See, who more rightly deserves the bloodstain -- the soldier, who, ignorant or the deceptions of this war, killed a few with his gun or the supreme insider, unelected and unbeckoned, free to reason by virtue of wealth, high education, and liesure, with total access to the resources of the most powerful newspaper in the realm (private jets, private cars, titan expense accounts, press passes, relationships, and access, access, access), whose untethered argumentations led to the deaths, indeed, of thousands? See, either Tom Friedman knew or he did not know. I am here to tell you it would be a very - very - unlikely thing that he did not know, just as it would be inconceivable that Marie Antoinette did not know of the state of the masses. Her argument - "Let them eat cake" - was just as untethered, unjustifiable, and unabashed as Tom Friedman's.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]