Glenn's ciritique is brilliant as usual. And I agree the notion that this is going to somehow force the Palestinians to think they're a defeated people and give up is absurd. If THAT'S the long-term goal this thing's in even more trouble than its critics thought.

Even worse is Friedman's nugget that, contrary to popular wisdom, Israel actually won the 2006 war with Lebanon. Uhh, no they didn't Tom. REALLY they didn't.

Until Friedman (with his brilliant theory of simply spreading McDonald's franchises around the world to end all wars) can bring up the guts, intestinal fortitude, self-respect and decency of the even the most vile man to apologize for his absurd statements that we invaded Iraq because we had to pick somewhere, it could have been Iran, could have been Syria, but whatever, and that we needed young American men and women to go around and tell the Iraqis to "suck on this" I have no time for the man.

Do you think he even realizes REAL people die in wars? Or is that just sort of blotted out in the movie that runs 24/7 in his head.

Glenn's comments on Marty Perez and Goldfarb were even better.

Although, yes, technically inflicting widespread death and wounds and destruction on a civilian population could by some fringe types be seen as fitting the definition of "terrorism," the Israeli government is our Ally, and thus the people the Israeli government is doing it to must therefore be The Enemy, and as such, they're not really, I mean, not fully, like you and me, you know, human, so we don't have to worry about laws and rules and norms about 'civilians'.

Plus, these operations have been drawn up and cheered by hawkish militarists, and They Are Never Wrong, so your stupid concerns about this causing possible blowbacks are wrong too. Nothing but good stuff ever comes from just blowing the sh*t out of people we don't care much about.

I don't think so. Friedman talks calmly about "inflicting a heavy death toll" on Hamas, but shies away from using the same (accurate) phraseology when talking about the civilian population in Gaza. No, on them Israel is merely inflicting "heavy pain".

Well, if you think that "death" and "heavy pain" are synonyms then this is euphemism free prose. Otherwise, it is mealy-mouthed, deceptive, and despicable.

Still, a minor quibble in an excellent piece. Thanks.

(Does his deliberate choice of a different phrase show he is conscious of the ramifications here? Yes, I think it does. He damn well KNOWS he is talking murderous insane bullshit)

Remember this was after the previous 45 minutes he had rattled on to Charlie Rose about his brilliant new theory of the "terrorism bubble." Gosh, real smart, Tom.

""What they (here editors constantly insert Iraqis, but if you actually listen to the tape Friedman was literlly talking about ALL Middle Easterners) needed to see was American boys and girls going house to house, from Basra to Baghdad, and basically saying, 'Which part of this sentence don't you understand? You don't think, you know, we care about our open society, you think this bubble fantasy (here Friedman is discussing his brilliant terrorism bubble fantasy), we're just gonna to let it grow? Well, Suck. On. This.'"

And right, there, is Tom Friedman's rationale for why 4,000 Americans had to die, we launched a war on false pretenses and devestated Iraqi society. Friedman has yet to apologize for it.

He then went on to add, "We could have hit Saudi Arabia, it was part of that bubble, could have hit Pakistan, we hit Iraq because we could."

Gosh I feel better now. That has to be the most callow, disgusting, embarassing rationale for a war from someone I've ever heard. Just pitiful.

Well, if you think that "death" and "heavy pain" are synonyms then this is euphemism free prose. Otherwise, it is mealy-mouthed, deceptive, and despicable.

It's a fair point. I actually gave some thought to it when I wrote that Freidman's advocacy was surprisingly "euphemism-free." You're absolutely right that "inflicting heavy pain on civilians" isn't as as clear or candid as "heavy death toll," but there's not any doubt about what he means, and he wants it that way (he even praised the "collateral casualties on Lebanon at large").

When it comes to war cheerleaders talking about the benefits of civilian deaths, what Friedman wrote is about as explicit and honest as it gets. So you're probably right: it's really only "euphemism-free" in the relative sense -- relative to similar types of war chants.

“Anti-terrorism laws are not meant for terrorists; they're for people that governments don't like. That's why they have a conviction rate of less than 2%. They're just a means of putting inconvenient people away without bail for a long time and eventually letting them go.” --- Arundhati Roy

My favorite by Roy still remains An Ordinary Person's Guide To Empire. Consortium, 2004. ISBN 0-89608-727-1.

She is an impressive talent that needs to be interviewed more here in the USA. Glenn?

Note: I posted this at the end of the last thread, but it seems more appropriate here.

Friedman is a loathesome toad, as psychopathically indifferent to (or happy about) the violence we visit on other people around the world as he is stone cold stupid. And, as is often true of stupid and brutal people, he is smug in his own imagined intellectual and moral superiority.

Had he not married a wealthy heiress, he would probably be selling shoes in Thom McAn or assistant managing a Sonic Burger.

As was recorded from Senator Charles Schumer's speech supporting the Israeli attack on Gaza (which war hawks call attacking "Hamas") said, Israel goes waaaaaay out of its way, like no other country would, to helpfully warn people to flee buildings targeted for destruction.

Israeli reporter for Ha'aretz Amira Haas confirms this incredible sensitivity to civilians in buildings:

Dr. Issa Salah, a member of the Palestinian civil defense services, and his team reached the building where the casualties were located around 4:30 P.M. Monday, a few minutes after it was hit by a missile fired by an Israeli helicopter.

The residents ran out, having learned that the first such missile is a warning to residents to evacuate the building, before additional missiles demolish it.

But not everyone made it in time; an 18-year-old girl was killed and four residents, including two children, were wounded in the second missile strike.

Salah was killed, and one of his colleagues wounded, in the third missile strike, while on their way to remove the woman and the four residents from the site and get them medical treatment.

Meanwhile, the dead woman's 23-year-old sister and another woman, 20, were killed in continued Israeli shelling of the building.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1055233.html

As Senator Schumer so emphasized, 'what other country' would exhibit such humanistic precautions as to fire a first missile to only blow up part of a building before sending the follow-up fire to level it? If they weren't so sensitive to humanitarian concerns, the Israeli attack in civilian areas would have killed a lot more than 7 medical personnel by now.

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/01/13/what_other_country/