...civil evolution in Iraq. Friedman's past blunders, while notable, do not negate the fact that something positive occasionally happens there.

Like what?

You're attempting to put a positive spin on armed robbery, mass murder, and the systematic brutalization of whole peoples into submission to make it easier to rob and exploit them.

Good luck with that. There's nothing positive about war crimes, neocon.

I was going to post my Iraq torture story on GG's latest thread about a NYT story about corporate influence and Gen McCaffrey and Brian Williams and then found this thread that is right on target with the corruption and misinformation on Iraq that still continues to this day through revisionist history by guilty journalists like Friedman and Williams.

The difference between "attacked us" and "didn't attack us" seems so basic,

NO THEY DID NOT. As Tim3 points out we were not attacked by the Afghan government which as been the left's dividing line here for years. Even if you argue they hid OBL that doesn't pass muster as a "cassus belli".

As usual the left finds itself pursuing actions for which they loudly denounce others. Tsk. Tsk.

You'll know for certain that he's controlled by it if he continues any of a number of programs for perfectly useless but grossly expensive weapons systems, programs which have no purpose except to shovel money at war profiteers.

Obama has stated that due to the deficit and the bailouts and the need for an expensive economic package to jump start the economy he will be going over the budget with a fine tooth comb.

Let's hope he lives up to this and kills these un-needed and wasteful MIC projects!

Tim, Hag . . . you guys are just too smart for me. Your arguments are just too perfect in every way. You've got all the facts right - and all the answers. You worked, perhaps, in the Bush White House?

"If you are going to fight a global financial panic like this, you have to go at it with overwhelming force"

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/16/opinion/16friedman.html?em

Seems to be Mr. Friedman's M.O.

btw, does all this talk of big sticks mean the term "Friedman Unit" needs to be redefined?

Walter, that sucking sound you hear ("suck this") is the last vestige of thought being expelled from the vacuum between your ears.

Tim, Hag . . . you guys are just too smart for me. Your arguments are just too perfect in every way. You've got all the facts right - and all the answers. You worked, perhaps, in the Bush White House?

About the first, I agree. About the second, yes, I worked there for eight years as a third to Karl Rove (Cocktailhag, being my supervisor, was his second). My credibility is completely shot and I'm sorry you're the one who found me out.

I said that "people in Afghanistan" attacked us, not that "Afghanistan" attacked us. I thought conventional wisdom was that we went to war in Afghanistan because 9/11 was an Al Qaeda operation and AQ was headquartered in Afghanistan, with the knowledge and protection of the Taliban govt. No?

I'm not necessarily arguing for continued US military involvement in Afghanistan; my point is that there is a really obvious difference between Afghanistan and Iraq, having something to do with the 9/11 thingy. Also, that Shooter is a twit.

Yes, but even if he did stop one or two of the most wasteful of these money-pit projects that is not enough to say he is not enthrall to the war-machine.

He needs to look at the very, very expensive "projection of power" otherwise known as USA military bases all over the world. These things cost money; real money.

One general explained back in Reagan's day that the military needed so much money because it became exponentially more expensive to run a military the further from home you went with them. He claimed this "projection of power" was a good thing. I disagree of course.

I worked there for eight years as a third to Karl Rove

I knew it! That explains so much. I do have one question, though: Is Cheney really alive or are the clips we see of him computer-generated?

P.S. Hope the Scottie didn't bite you.

btw, does all this talk of big sticks mean the term "Friedman Unit" needs to be redefined?

Ew.

It seems that Friedman's mini-me is a bit dyspeptic this morning, quickly dispensing with the usual windy pomposity about "evolution" and "progress" and rocketing straight to the playground taunts. No, Mr. Unreal, not only did no one here work in the Bush White House, only a troll or two ever believed a word that came out of it, and no one served as the kind of rank, fawning enabler as did the laughably discredited flat-earther, Tom Friedman.

Don't you have to go put makeup on or something?

Ah, like darkness follows daylight, one-hit wonder trolls appear to defend the illustrious Tom Friedman..... I'm surprised it took so long this time.

I've always suspected that the one-hit trolls are Friedman himself. I imagine him typing furiously--turtleneck nearly choking him--all the while muttering things about "that damn Greenwald." I suspect Friedman has a voodoo doll with Glenn's likeness.

Walter, that sucking sound you hear ("suck this") is the last vestige of thought being expelled from the vacuum between your ears.

You're just annoyed because you're so easily discredited, neocon.

Thanks for playing.

KABUL (Reuters) - The U.S. general commanding NATO forces in Afghanistan has ordered a merger of the office that releases news with "Psy Ops," which deals with propaganda, a move that goes against the alliance's policy, three officials said.

The move has worried Washington's European NATO allies -- Germany has already threatened to pull out of media operations in Afghanistan -- and the officials said it could undermine the credibility of information released to the public.

...

U.S. General David McKiernan, the commander of 50,000 troops from more than 40 nations in NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), ordered the combination of the Public Affairs Office (PAO), Information Operations and Psy Ops (Psychological Operations) from December 1, said a NATO official with detailed knowledge of the move.

"This will totally undermine the credibility of the information released to the press and the public," said the official, who declined to be named.

...

The new combined ISAF department will come under the command of an American one-star general reporting directly to McKiernan, an arrangement that is also against NATO policy, the NATO official said.

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international-us-afghan-nato.html?_r=1

The new military unit is to be called the "Friedman Unit" as I understand, although my source on that is shaky. If the NYT were to fire old Tom, he could work for the military --- he is already a trained psy-ops guy.