Even worse: replace "threatens" with "is intended to". That is how the Vietnam war became nothing but a neo-con rallying point. Only real effort will make it any different this time.

It is bad enough to waste your talents rail against low class MSM corporate shill pundits, but Friedman is a foul gaping maw of hatred, war, bigotry and stupidity which spews all to often without the benefit of, or the need for, your attention or comment.

"THE WORLD IS FLAT!"

What next? An article about Lyndon LaRouche?

That would be an improvement, maybe.

BTW - Friedman is why I can't watch Charlie Rose anymore.

From the deranged desire to force Iraqi civilians from Basra to Baghdad to "suck on" his imaginary "very big stick" -- "pound them across the side of their heads" with his "2-by-4" -- to his magnanimous goal of "collaborating with them" to "build progressive politics," Freidman's justification for the invasion radically changes without notice or acknowledgment.

This disgusting, violent imagery alone make me wonder whether Friedman even reads his own work. He's advocating nothing short of outright rape and murder, at least back in 2003.

Maybe he himself has short-term memory issues. Maybe he's just praying the American public is truly stupid enough to think the past doesn't have any bearing on what he writes today.

Either way, this is merely another argument to have Friedman removed from any print media or media venue. It'll never happen of course; the world doesn't appear to have that much justice left in it.

Friedman, or Friendmanesque?

It makes me ponder boiled peas.

Citrus Mango juice, yellow, or pink,

and trips to Market Global Crashes.

Of intolerance, cauliflower, broccoli,

sticks of asparagus, tooth pick sticks,

And add to a list: Stinger bumble bees.

Black hue yellow creeps, Global Thieves,

Gangsters, incontinent, sleaze, and more?

Fish heads, cans of mustard gas, crude-oil.

Fancy, half-masticated, smoked raw oysters.

G@g. Gee. Ill. Op-Ed-up upchucks, and hiccups.

The worlds computer keyboards get all dank gooey.

1) Have you invited Friedman onto Salon Radio yet to discuss this issue with him?

2) Does he have a blog where we can go and harass him about being too much of a yellow-bellied chickenshit when he refuses or ignores your request?

Thank you, Glenn. Progressives have watched Tom Friedman's mass duping of malleable readers for the last eight years. He is the Bill Kristol of his particular constituency. When you talk about establishment Democrats being the most culpable group in our political class for what's gone on the last 8+ years, you should look to Tom Friedman as their journalistic counterpart. Like Kristol, he goes on television shows having been wrong about virtually everything, and feigns authority and knowingness and revising, revising, revising his cancerous reactionary response to 9/11.

George Packer next, please?

The only difference is that Friedman's presentation and cautioned rhetoric more acutely covers up his desire to see U.S. military power to execute Israel's desired wars. This is the binding principal in Joe Lieberman's politics. And it is the guiding light of Tommy Friedman's articles.

Write it down: Tom Friedman will be hulking for war against Iran within 2 years. He'll cloak his words better this time, not telling the Persians to suck on any of his sticks or wood or other building materials. But given his stump, he will lay the media narrative of why bombing or invading Iran "must" be done. And none of his media counterparts will treat this as ridiculous, but instead reflect on Friedman's "deep understanding" of Middle East geopolitics.

The only question is, are the American people too stupid to buy into this nonsense again?

As we have always known, Tom Friedman's brain is flat.

And unless he chops it down himself he's unlikely to lose it.

Many people I know that don't pay as close attention as Glenn think he's wonderful and insightful. I'm not trying to oppose Glenn's argument here, but I think Mr Freidman probably knows at this point that no one will challenge him seriously on the TV, so he can pretty much say whatever he wants.

... but he's right about energy and climate change and the need to keep the price of oil high to break the US oil addiction.

The story is the same as with Bill Clinton's war in Europe. The difference is that Clinton hardly got any Americans hurt at all bombing civilians from way up in the sky. We are only going to talk about how Bush's conflict was conducted, not if it was an illegal aggression and a mistake from the get-go.

Regardless of one's opinions about "Clinton's war" in former Yugoslavia, there are a couple of important distinctions.

1) Europeans were begging for American intervention. Across the board, there was European unanimity for military force to be used, led by America. That doesn't make it justified, but it is a big difference to European (sans Spain and Britain) opposition to the U.S war on Iraq.

2) The target of American bombs in Yugoslavia was Christians who were fighting a religious war against Muslims. It is easy for the neocon and Christianists to oppose a war which doesn't target Muslims, which they did and still do.

Important work, well done.

What a sick prick.

The "irony" that Friedman - and Kristol, to name one more - still have jobs of high esteem doesn't encourage optimism. Maybe the times they war a-changin', but I doubt it.

Sorry if I've repeated what someone else said. No time to read letters today.

Or he'll beat ya

In ya head

With a big stick

And bust ya head wide open

Just like it was a big pinata

Thom's the big G.

Pundit numba one

With a capital T...

right about energy and climate change and the need to keep the price of oil high...

I would not let him off the hook on this. Some ways of keeping the price of oil high benefit the same folks who benefit from the war. Being more subtle than Rush Limbaugh is not hard and is just a reflection of who his readership is.