Thomas Friedman

Email Print posted by yturks 07/01/2008 01:13:18 AM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
If you like this story, digg it!
I know nobody in the TYT community gives a shit anymore what Thomas Friedman writes, but I will talk about him anyway.  His column in Sunday's NY Times was all about how the Iraq War just isn't important anymore.  Really? (as Bob Schieffer would say).  All that time in 2002 and 2003 you told us that we had to go to war in Iraq because it would be the transformational event in the history of the Middle East and therefore the world.  Now all of a sudden it's not important.  Hey Thomas Friedman, tell me how my ass tastes!

< Barack, you're fuckin' up | Dead Precedents >
 Display:
Thomas Friedman | 11 comments (11 topical, 0 hidden)
Thomas Friedman (none / 0)
is an intellectual midget that is so symptomatic of the rot within the journalistic community...

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 07/01/2008 01:55:01 AM EST

Why did I read this? (none / 0)
I stopped reading Friedman a while ago, but for you, Dave, I read this crap. He has a point I guess, if the economy takes a dive as it seems to be doing, the Iraq war will fade from view a little. But only in the way that Katrina has. In fact, I would argue that it (the war) has already faded somewhat, because it isn't seriously debated anymore. The only thing we're debating is whether the surge "worked" and what that means. But the anger over the mismanagement of the war and the fact that a majority thinks it was a mistake in the first place will simmer regardless of the economy. Friedman is still pedaling beltway B.S. as always.

by hazmat on 07/01/2008 02:07:25 AM EST

I think he's right (none / 0)

I think he's right on the mark on this one.  I feel certain the economy is going to be all most voters will give a damn about come November.  There's nothing that fires up an American ass like being broke.  Inflation has really just started.  It takes a while for these high energy prices to bubble and percolate up into the consumer goods market, but it's getting there.  The airlines will begin to fail within a couple of quarters if fuel prices don't take a serious u-turn.  They are already in deep trouble.
 
Then there's the auto industry.  GM stock is now worth about $6.2 billion, compared to Toyota's $162 billion.  Those figures alone should be enough to tell the story on what's happening to the American auto industry.  It's the 1970s all over again, only this time the Japanese companies are prepared to pounce immediately.

The banks haven't been as much in the news as they were earlier but they are on the skids also.  Much has been made about the sub-prime loans and how ballooning interest rates have been causing people to go bankrupt.  I think the real danger is that on top of this the rising prices of everything is going to send people with reasonable, fixed mortgages based on reasonable home prices and reasonable salaries over the edge into further and deeper defaults on their mortgage and credit card bills.  This will happen when their stock is sinking and their cash savings is worth less and less.  It's the hammer and anvil effect.  You might survive one, but the combination of the two is lethal.  

I can't get over how gingerly and blandly the press is approaching this issue of high fuel costs and rising demand.  I keep seeing headlines like: "Energy prices may cause higher inflation".  I want to laugh when I see this.  It's like reporting:  "A bullet shot into the head at close range may cause brain damage".  Duh!  Ya' think?  What does it take to get these people to examine the possible consequences of the energy crisis realistically?

by bfaul on 07/01/2008 10:24:53 AM EST

agree (none / 0)
History will judge Bush to be America's Ken Lay in microcosm. But the war won't fade the way Friedman says. He clearly means to say that the American public will discontinue to hold the republican nominee in contempt for what Chuck Hagel called the "greatest strategic blunder in our nation's history", and that it represents an opportunity for McCain to make a case for himself as the economic guy. I think that's clazy.

by hazmat on 07/01/2008 11:04:14 AM EST

[ Parent ]
distracted, not forgotton (none / 0)
I don't really think it will fade away, it will just get obscured in the fog of a bad economy.  What Prof says below is also true, if the fog lifts you start to see that trillion dollar fiasco gleaming brightly again in the morning sun.  There is no upside for pawpaw.  No wonder they're trying so hard to smear Obama.

by bfaul on 07/01/2008 03:11:29 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Bad news for the Pubs (none / 0)

The election looks to be about the economy.

But here is why McCain is fucked.  If the economy eases up the news won't be about the economy, they will just shift on over to the wars and maybe political corruption.  Two more losers for McCain.

Its not like McCain is in trouble because the focus is the economy.  The next four or five issues in the hopper are all losers for Grampa Death too.  No one McCain is now on the side of the terrorists, openly cheering for an attack. 

by ProfRich on 07/01/2008 11:05:20 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Relevant article alert (none / 0)
Agreement from the world

by bfaul on 07/01/2008 03:53:41 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Friedman (none / 0)
If Friedman is commenting on what the public at large is focused on, then sure, he has a point, the Iraq situation is not as important as the economy.  But Friedman is a guy who writes columns about what HE thinks, not about what the rest of us think. And if invading Iraq was the single most important action the US government could do in 2002 and 2003, according to Friedman, then it can't be so unimportant now in 2008.  If he's all of a sudden commenting on public perception, why didn't he write in 2002/2003 that to the public at large, whatever was going on in Iraq was nearly insignificant to most Americans?

David

by yturks on 07/01/2008 11:58:43 AM EST

sad to say it Dave... (none / 0)

I know you ride your bike to work, but people are freaking out about gas and food prices.  Wages are so terribly stagnant and yet everything else keeps going up.  Americans are far more affected by the fact that they can't afford to go anywhere anymore than they are by soldiers they don't know dying in Iraq and Afghanistan(which has supplanted Iraq as the major conflict now.)  People bought SUVs for their 8 kids and now they're trying to unload a $45,000 hunk of metal for $12,000 if they are lucky "just to save on gas."  These are people who would normally vote Republigas, but are gonna think real hard about switching this year. 

 

Anyway I like Friedman...he's not a guy who tries to push an agenda as much as a guy who is explaining what's actually going on.  Whether he thinks Iraq is a big deal or not isn't the issue.  Obviously if the casualties keep going down, then it's going to become a good issue for McCain, so hopefully gas prices will stay high...they are already falling here in Colorado, which I expect to continue in the fall. 

by schmoab on 07/01/2008 12:37:03 PM EST

[ Parent ]
it was about public perception I think (none / 0)

I don't know how correct at large he has been, but about this I think he's right.  His commentary was about what he thought was going to be the issue for this election.  I didn't get the sense that he was writing about what he personally thought it ought to be, or that he described it as more important to him personally than Iraq, at least not in this particular article.

We'll know for sure if he was correct in approximately one Friedman unit. 

by bfaul on 07/01/2008 02:57:50 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Exactly what I was thinking! (none / 0)
"...the Iraq War just isn't important anymore..." you paraphrased but I'm sure that was his sentiment.

What he leaves out is, "to ME!" because Thomas Friedman only gives a shit about what affects Thomas Friedman.

...but I think Howie Klein speaks highly of him. And Jonah Goldberg.

by MedfordTim on 07/02/2008 04:33:24 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Thomas Friedman | 11 comments (11 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: