What happened to the color?

Aren't they supposed to say DO NOT ADJUST YOUR SET?!?

Spot on.

(TF is worth reading,though.)

Bring back "Sparky" Dan! That other penguin is lame.

Ouch!

Spot on.

(TF is worth reading,though.)

Why?

That's not just snark. I know he is supposed to be a sage or something, but by now it is clear he is a dolt.

It's noir.

Her husband must be on an "extended" tour in Iraq!

...and Maureen Dowd.

Friedman's entire career is built on pushing a "counterintuitive metaphor built on a false premise." This is all done with palpable condescension and sheer disbelief when someone uses rational thought, like, "Why in the world would a secular control freak like Saddam Hussein ever trust Osama bin Laden, a religious zealot who swore to kill him?" or "Do you really think the Bush administration should be in charge of 'birthing' a democracy in the Middle East, by force no less? What about Afghanistan and Al-Qaeda?"

Friedman is the New York Times version of Kristol: mind-numbing bullshit delivered with complete arrogance. Whenever I read his columns, especially on Iraq, it's as if he's screaming at me, "Two plus two is twenty-two, you unsophisticated fool!"

The reason people don't like Kristof is that he actually treats third world people as human beings (something I wish those wanting an immediate withdrawl from Iraq would do). He's a slap of cold water in the face to those of us who fancy ourselves caring people who in truth yawn at many of the real horrors in the world. Call that "insufferable" if it makes you feel better.

I wrote how Friedman loathes rationale thought, especially when it comes to Iraq. I should have framed my first example (Why would Saddam trust bin Laden?) *much* better. Friedman's argument for the invasion of Iraq was not focused on the Bush/Cheney line, "Saddam was in cahoots with al-Qaeda in plotting 9/11," however, the fact that they used such an obvious lie should have been a red flag to anyone: either Bush/Cheney are detached from reality or they are willing to spew any lie in order to invade Iraq. Instead, Friedman chose to ignore that glaring warning and wholeheartedly believed in this administration to be competent and principled in implementing highly sensitive foreign policy in an already explosive region, but also lead an near-impossible mission: creating democracy by invasion and occupation. This without any consideration to the potential nuclear fallout in how Muslims would view us and how it would play into the hands of Al-Qaeda.

Oh, and he wasn't terribly concerned about the unleashing of a terrifying precedent: pre-emptive war.

Since Kristof was not mentioned in either the cartoon or previous letter I am going to assume you are talking about my post.

I mentioned Kristol, as in Bill Kristol of The Weekly Standard, not New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof.

...could spend the rest of his career just smacking up the number of neo-con apologists who disgrace the NYT and Washington Post editorial pages. "Moderates" like Friedman, Brooks, and Broder bear a major share of blame for enabling the Bushies and making people think their insane plans were fundamentally okay.

Can there be a Friedman spinoff cartoon that is all about Friedman and his crazy adventures? Please? I'll pay good money for it.

I can't wait to close my office door, read that again, and chortle some more.

Ride the whirlwind, before the whirlwind rides you! Yes! Question?

Ummm, yeah. Why not just stop fanning the whirlwind? Why does life have to be a whirlwind? It's only a whirlwind because you keep forcing that model of existence on us. Why not build a world based on a gentle breeze?

Ride it, I say! Ride it! Or else it will most surely ride the hell out of you.

Except for one adjustement: Fridman's version would be about "Making lemonade out of a sow's ear" or "if life hands you a lemon, you have all the marbles".

typo

(Doing my best Rosanne Rosannadanna):

Oh.

Nevermind.

I stopped reading Friedman's columns after noticing that for about a year he would manage to work the title of his book "The World Is Flat" into every column. Lost interest in his views since he treated his column as a commercial.

Not to pile on, but I think you mean Emily Litella.

The saddest part of listening to all you whiners bash Friedman is that the guy IS actually very critical of the Bush administration and its idiotic management of the Iraq war. But hey, like the Bushies, you selectively choose to see what you want to see. I mean really, did any of you people actually read Friedman's piece from July 18? I doubt it. And I know it's hidden behind Times Select, which makes it even more unlikely.

Well, here's an excerpt:

"I can’t imagine how I’d feel if I were the parent of a soldier in Iraq and I had just read that the Iraqi Parliament had decided to go on vacation for August, because, as the White House spokesman, Tony Snow, explained, it’s really hot in Baghdad then — “130 degrees."

"I’ve been in Baghdad in the summer and it is really hot. But you know what? It is a lot hotter when you’re in a U.S. military uniform, carrying a rifle and a backpack, sweltering under a steel helmet and worrying that a bomb can be thrown at you from any direction. One soldier told me he lost six pounds in one day. I’m sure the Iraqi Parliament is air-conditioned."

"So let’s get this straight: Iraqi parliamentarians, at least those not already boycotting the Parliament, will be on vacation in August so they can be cool, while young American men and women, and Iraqi Army soldiers, will be fighting in the heat in order to create a proper security environment in which Iraqi politicians can come back in September and continue squabbling while their country burns.

There it is. Sound like an apologist for the Bush administration hyping the war? No.

And you know what else is so funny? You criticize Friedman for his supposed holier-than-thou attitude when so many of these posts smack of the same arrogance. But unlike almost everyone here, Friedman has actually spent copious amounts of time in the Middle East as a reporter and knows his way around. He won a Pulitzer Prize for reporting on the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, particularly for his reporting on the massacre at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. And really, I guarantee that had any of you people been in Beirut during the Lebanese Civil War and had a gunman stick an AK-47 in the window of the car you were in, you'd run screaming like the proverbial little girl.

Yes, Friedman was wrong about the war. And his attitude is arrogant at times. And so what? The continued demonization of the guy, who has grown increasingly more critical of the war, is just getting tired. It's like listening to Bush say "we're makin' progress." It's old.

Intellectually, Friedman could run circles around any of you. He knows more because he's walked the walk before talking the talk.

As I alluded to, as a reporter, he put himself in some pretty dangerous places. Places that you folks sitting behind your computers would never dream of going. So really, shut up already. You're just as bad as a bunch of College Republicans talking about support for the war without enlisting. Go spend a single day as a reporter in a hot war zone and then come back and rant about Thom Friedman.