Good God, this is priceless. And the best part is that nobody in the mainstream media will call him on it. Chris Mathews tells him "you've got a global brain, my friend." Is that a polite way of saying he's got a swelled head? :-)

Will the mainstream media ever get a clue? I guess we'll find out in the next six months...

Posted by: Proud Infidel at June 15, 2006 3:43 PM

Are those solar or hijri months?

Posted by: Shy Guy at June 15, 2006 3:50 PM

Tom Friedman's influence has been drastically reduced ever since the NY Times put all its columnists behind a subscription wall. Tom Friedman said about Time Select: "I hate it. … I feel totally cut off from my audience." See the video of that here: http://tygerland.net/?p=642

So what Pipes said back in 2001 may no longer be as true as it once was: "Thomas Friedman may be the journalist who has the most influence on the way the outside world understands the Arab-Israeli conflict." (The education of Thomas Friedman
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/370).

Related link:
http://prosandcons.us/?p=3511

Posted by: markjames at June 15, 2006 4:01 PM

"That is the reason I don't read the MSM or watch anything other than Lou Dobbs---I rely on the net (e.g. JihadWatch, gatesofvienna, etc.) to take the same news reported by the MSM, but filtering out all the crap. The MSM nowadays is only the raw source of news, contaminated with liberal, leftist, globalist editorial bias, unfit for consumption in its original form.

I suspect that the only source of revenue for the New Duranty Times is the mandatory subscriptions forced upon Poli Sci students in most college campuses. If it weren't for that, NYT would be out of business a long ago."

-posted above

You are right that there is bias in the MSM. However, there is bias everywhere. Getting your news solely from JW would make one unimaginably uninformed about issues not relating to the global jihad. While I have appreciation and admiration for JW and for what it is has helped to do, it is quite clear that you won't hear many opposing viewpoints here. I would also caution you about chosing not to read opposing views on any issue, not just the "war on terror" so to speak. There are many other issues in the world outside of the Moslem world. I offer just a few large issues (off the top of my head) that JW almost never mentions, as this blog is devoted to one important function: an emerging (and surging) China, an increasingly aggressive and resurgent Russia, global dimming/warming, crime/violence/joblessness, illegal immigration, the missile defense shield. Obviously, there are many other such issues that one must be informed about, but I have mentioned just a few that I am presently reading about.

Moments ago I heard Senator Frisk decry supporters of gay marriage and those who defend the burning of the US flag. Both of these are completely earth shaking in importance, aren’t they? Notice there was no mention of the global jihad or any of the issues I mentioned. Fags, flags and Iraq (the Zarqawi bombing), that's the news. So yes, there is a bias. The bias is towards stupidity.

Posted by: Kafir Nonbeliever at June 15, 2006 5:53 PM

Friedman is a pseudo-intellectual. Not quite smart enough to actually understand what he speaks about, but smart enough to make it look that way to a casual reader.

I notice too that his views are flexible. When the invasion began, he thought it was a good thing to promote democracy in Iraq. He totally bought into the domino effect theory even though he had no insight as to why that should be.

But as soon as the bodies started coming home, he poo-pooed the whole thing. Friedman never wants to be on the losing side. As a respected columnist, he has to look good.

Friedman loves the phrase the 'arab street". He believes that trite phrase gives his "insightful analysis" gravitas. In reality, he has no correct insight into the arab mind, as witnessed by his early idealism that the arabs could be turned from Saddam's minions into the vanguard of the new democratic arab. The fact that he would believe such a thing, and then publish it, proves that his understanding of the "arab street" is more akin to my understanding of sesame street.

Always walking a line between the left and the right, Friedman, never takes a side with or against Israel. Even as a Jew, he believes that his unbiased analysis is evidence of his global wisdom in these heady matters. In reality, his inability to politically side with decent human beings proves that his "politically unbiased" analysis lacks any fundamental sense of morality.

It's one thing for a self-absorbed pompous ass to be wrong about world. It's even one thing to be wrong about world, as a pompous ass, when you are paid handsomely to write about it - as if you do. But to be wrong about the world when it is your job to write about it, AND to be a self-absorbed pompous ass pseudo-intellectual, AND you have no moral rectitude, that is about as low a form of employment as there is. Tom Friedman is such an employee.

Posted by: somethingaboutislam at June 15, 2006 6:57 PM

Slightly OT -- anyone see that laughable product of iranian "intelligence" services being passed off as an strategic "al-queda document" discovered in zarqawi's 'safe' house? It's a hoot.

Posted by: Infidel33 at June 15, 2006 7:10 PM

"Friedman, never takes a side with or against Israel..."
-- from a posting above

Having no understanding of the real history of the Jews in the Middle East, knowing nothing of the history of that part of the Ottoman Empire that became the Palestine Mandate, having no knowledge of either the demographic history, or land ownership in that area, completely unaware of what the League of Nations intended to do in creating the Mandate for Palestine and entrusting it to the British, ignorant of how the British government and local administrators upheld -- or failed to -- their solemn commitments as the Mandatory Authority, having no understanding of what it was that explained the behavior of the Arabs in 1910, and 1920, and 1930, and 1940, and 1948, and 1956, and 1967, and 1973, and 1994, and today, not knowing a thing about Islam -- even at this late date, not a single thing about Islam -- Friedman of course has no idea why the size of Israel is irrelevant, has no idea what the Arab siege of Israel is all about, has no idea why all the negotiations and treaties on which so many people such as he (or Dennis Ross, or Richard Haass, or Kissinger with his shuttle diplomacy) have wasted so much of our time, and helped to prevent here, and in Israel, and in the rest of the world a grasp of Jihad and its permanence, a failure with consequences not only for Israel but also for the peoples of Western Europe who, had they understood Islam better by understanding better the war of the Arabs against Israel might also have come to some conclusions about their own immigration policy --no, about this Tom Friedman knows nothing. In the very area in which he is supposed to be an "expert," in the very area where he obtained his quite absurd book prize and won his appointment as a columnist, where he is free to pontificate -- "I, I, I" goes Tom Friedman, what "I" did, what the "folks at Microsoft" told me, what the "folks in Bangalore" told me, what the "folks in Shanghai and Beijing told me," "what the Arab leaders in Marrakech told me," "what Arafat told me," "what my fellow attendees in Davos told me" and "what I told them" -- ah, that's Tom Friedman.

Of course he is "against Israel" - because anyone who does not understand that Israel is faced with a Jihad without end, and the only way to protect itself is to be overwhelmngly more powerful, and recognized to be overwhelmingly more powerful, and part of that power is not merely weaponry, but control of, possession of land, including the heights of Judea, the Golan Heights, the invasion routes from north and from east, control of the aquifers on which Israel's life depends, and that lie under the so-called "West Bank," and so on. Friedman knows nothing of this. He meets people, "leaders." They tell him things. He believes it. He reports it. That's it.

Posted by: Hugh at June 15, 2006 8:21 PM

Succint analysis of Tom Friedman, somethingaboutislam. The man is a hack and FYI he is a neocon/neoliberal, and an object of scorn by Arundhati Roy (an Indian activist, probably unknown to JW), from a recent interview with Roy

AG = Amy Goodman, AR = Arundhati Roy

AG:Thomas Friedman, the well-known, much-read New York Times columnist and author, talks about the call center being a perfect symbol of globalization in a very positive sense.

AR: Yes, it is the perfect symbol, I think, in many ways. I wish Friedman would spend some time working in one. But I think it's a very interesting issue, the call center, because, you know, let's not get into the psychosis that takes place inside a call center, the fact that you have people working, you know, according to a different body clock and all that and the languages and the fact that you have to de-identify yourself.

Aruhndhati Roy was speaking. She said, "We have the highest number of custodial deaths in the world. And we have Thomas Friedman going on and on about how this is an idealistic -- ideal society, a tolerant society. Hundreds -- I mean, tens of thousands of people killed in Kashmir. All over the northeast, you have the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, where a junior noncommissioned officer can shoot at sight. And that is the democracy in which we live."

The above was from an interview with AR on Democracy Now as reported on Alternet

Now if you really want to get inside of his head read this interview of June 7th: Thomas Friedman on "Petropolitics", Iraq, Israel-Palestine and the "Excuse Makers"

Posted by: Nariz at June 15, 2006 8:29 PM

A Thomas Friedman Parody site Thomas Friedman is a great man "His head is fat"

Posted by: Nariz at June 15, 2006 8:51 PM

from Nariz's post above:

"I wish Friedman would spend some time working in one. But I think it's a very interesting issue, the call center, because, you know, let's not get into the psychosis that takes place inside a call center, the fact that you have people working, you know, according to a different body clock and all that and the languages and the fact that you have to de-identify yourself."

You know I'm all for mocking Thomas Friedman but,

"the psychosis that takes place inside a call center"?

"people working...according to a different body clock"?

"you have to de-identify yoursef?"

Apparently "the call center" is practically equivalent to Abu Ghraib or Gitmo!

I'd love to see some stats about the competition in India among folks trying to get jobs in these "call center" torture chambers.

Posted by: Caroline at June 15, 2006 8:55 PM

Everybody relax. No media whores, no university gas bags, no erudite illusionists, and no Murthaites or any other slime laying gastropods will dig the Texan's teeth out of Iraq for 2 more years. Bush dismisses all these screeching hoards for what they are - background noise.

Posted by: Thumper at June 15, 2006 9:03 PM

And furthermore, Friedman is considered a genius, a modern American man of letters. He repeats what passes for wisdom amongst the elites. He part of the Davos, Switzerland crowd. He's part of the problem, not part of the solution.

But his real problem is that he constantly holds a finger up to the wind, to see which way the wind is blowing, and then writes accordingly.

It's so pathetic.

Posted by: Dan at June 15, 2006 9:06 PM

I had no idea Friedman could be that funny! That collection of quotes makes him sound like some kind of an addict who always needs just one more fix. Each time he says it will be the last time.

Posted by: traeh at June 15, 2006 9:17 PM

Kafir Nonbeliever

You're cooking up a borscht instead of a clear consomme: "bias" is different from a single-topic, single-perspective, opinionated journal/web site. It's as if you'd challenge the right of "Socialist Worker" or Catholic "Ecclesia" or "Washington Blade" (for homosexuals) to exist. They are necessarily "biased." And I expect them to be so, and that's why I read some of them.
And so are political opinions/stances, like Senator Frisk's.
I don't come here for news and ideas about Chinese agriculture. It should be obvious to anyone what this site is about. It's an implicit contract between the author(s) of the site and the readers/contributors.
You've got a "fag" hang-up. You seem to see homosexuality "bias" in everything; your sexuality defines who you are absolutely. I, for one, resent having one person or another pushing his/her specific mode of sexual gratification on me, no matter how remote the subject. But, as you know, that's been the precise goal of the militant homosexual community on the rest of us: See and remember how we copulate. It's better than yours, bourgeois and conformists. We are the enlightened ones yet the victims of your prejudice.

Splendid.

Posted by: ovidius_naso at June 15, 2006 9:37 PM

"No media whores, no university gas bags, no erudite illusionists, and no Murthaites or any other slime laying gastropods will dig the Texan's teeth out of Iraq for 2 more years. Bush dismisses all these screeching hoards for what they are - background noise."
-- from a posting above

If American forces remain in Iraq, if Americans work to prevent the natural intra-Islamic hostilities from developing, and even drawing in the support (men, money, materiel, attention) from outside for co-religiionists inside Iraq, an unparalleled opportunity will have been lost to divide and demoralize Islam. That some, in their loyalty to a particular man, rally around this mand and his policy based on a misunderstanding of Islam, a failure to understand the full scope and most effective instruments of Jihad, and the full meretriciousness of the various Iraqi factions and leadrs, when it comes that is to the Infidels, is passing strange.

One more thing. Men, money, materiel are finite. And so is attention. And if this Tarbaby Iraq business continues, Iran will not be dealt with properly in time. And if this Tarbaby Iraq business continues some more, the suandering of resources -- to obtain exactly what? What would or could or should Iraq look like at the end of this all that will help us, have advanced our interests, and not merely made sentimentalists who "want to spread freedom" happy, sentimentalists whose every reference ot American history, to our Constitution and its Framers, shows they have a most imperfect grasp of that history, which makes their comedy of errors even more maddening.

We have won -- by mistake, inadvertently, without meaning to, in Iraq. We have set in motion, by removing Saddam Hussein's regime, the inexorable forces of internal dissolution, and mutual hostility, that were not created by Americans, had nothing to do with Americans, had existed long before the Americans arrived or even before the United States was formed.

Because the "victory" in Iraq is exactly the opposite of the "victory" Bush and his loyalists keep prating about, and the exact opposite of the "victory" that Bush keeps prating about and his enemies deny can happen (for their opposition to Bush is entirely for the wrong reasons), the whole thing is simply too confused and comical for most people to see what is going on. It is just as confused and comical and crazy and topsy-turvy as you think. Apparently no one in public life is going to say what we who are not in public life can say right here:

1) The Jihad is not a temporary phenomenon and there is no "final victory"

2) The weapons or instruments of Jihad are not mainly terror, but the "money weapon," Da'wa, and demographic conquest. Money being sent to certain groups has been seized or interdicted, but that is hardly enough. Since the Saudis, since the other rich Arabs, since Muslims in general, will always try to spend money promoting Jihad (it is a solemn and most important duty, virtually a Sixth Pillar of Islam), their total revenues must be diminished and ways found to soak up what remains. This Bush has not done, has not begun to do, has not even talked of doing.

3) In Iraq the transfer of power from Sunnis to Shi'a will never be accepted. The Sunnis might pretend, briefly, to accept -- waiting for another day, perhaps when Iran has been weakened by the Americans, through attacks, and through support given to Kurds, Baluchis, Azeris, and Arabs within Iran. But neither the Sunnis in Iraq, nor the Sunnis outside Iraq, who will continue to support them, in the Arab League, through transfers of money, through volunteers, will accept the notion of Shi'a control of Baghdad, of the Land of the Two Rivers. Not possible.

4) A free Kurdistan -- which the Administration has done everything to discourage, presumably because it does not fit the "model" of a unified Iraq, a model that is obstinately clung to even if it makes no sense, does not advance American interests -- would be a threat to Iran and Syria, for it would attract support, and give ideas to, the Kurds in both countries. And if the Iranian Kurds manage to revolt, that in turn might lead other non-Persian minorities to get ideas. Furthermore, an independent Kurdistan would also raise the matter that needs to be emphasized, among the Berbers (in both North Africa and in France), and the Malays, and the Bengalis, and all the other non-Arab Muslims who might begin to think about the Arab treatment of them, the way in which Islam contains and promotes Arab supremacism. That is a theme for Infidels to play, a theme and all its variations.

5) The fool's errand of Iraq, of "training" an "Iraqi" army and an "Iraqi" police (an impossible task, beyond a few special units), and the realization that the goals of the Administration do not make sense, has been recognized by officers and men alike. The generals may continue either to parrot the party line (and some may even believe it, for they are used to obeying orders); some may think that something is wrong but attribute it not to the wrong goals, the misunderstanding of both Islam and of Iraq, by the civilian leaders who fashioned the policy and the goals, but rather to such things as "too few men" permitted by Rumsfeld. This is the theme of "there were so many mistakes." The mistake was not this or that decision, on American troop strength, on sending Garner or Bremer, on believing Chalabi or Allawi, on dissolving the Iraqi army or firing Ba'ath party members from the government. That's all minor stuff, trivial, as trivial as Victoria Plame and her unpleasant self-aggrandizing husband. No, the understanding of what would happen in Iraq that would further the American national interest, in weakening the forces of JIhad -- which is to say the camp of Islam -- wass the problem, the problem that still will not go away as long as Bush remains so obstinate, so uncomrehending of what is there to be exploited instead of what he so obstinately, expensively, dangerously, wishes to accompish, a goal not only impossible of accomplishment, but positively harmful to long-term American interests. But no one can quite understand that. So many want so badly not to echo the "leftists" as they call them, that they will never dare to admit that leaving Iraq will have consequences undreamed-of by MoveOn.org, and that those consequences will strengthen the United States and other Infidel countries, and weaken, by dividing and demoralizing, Islam. Just look at what's going on in Gaza. Like what you see? Of course you do. Want to see more of that, on a larger scale, in Iraq, and drawing in supporters of various sides from outside Iraq? Of course you do.

Posted by: Hugh at June 15, 2006 10:14 PM

l think the US military will be out sooner than most people think. there are of lots of capturing and killing of insurgents with the killing of latest beheader terrorist, Zawa whats hisname.. so soon the tarbaby will be done.

Posted by: Lulu at June 15, 2006 11:20 PM

Hugh, In re your 1st point,
isn't that defined by Koran 8:39?

Posted by: kevin at June 16, 2006 12:16 AM

Tom Friedman is a fool. His rant on the middle east--from Beiruit to Jlem was pathetic. He outlined the horrific massacare of the Palis in Sabra and Shatilla, barely giving the context of who did it. He gives legitimacy to the Muslim actions. Everything is ok, unquestioned if undertaken by a Muslim, but where Israel commits any errors(Sabra killings where Israel to its credit had an internal commision that found fault) he slams them for it; never does he ask or write, 'where is the Muslim commision to investigate their errors.' I come from a family of journalists. I know a lot of journalists, and they're mostly C students who are too dumb to grasp anything a bit complicated(my family doesn't read this thread!). The only journalist worth his salt was Chicago's Mike Royko for the old Daily News, and he just had a high school education, but was was the smartest guy who every picked up a pen IMHO. This pompous Friedman rubs me the wrong way. He's a big fool who doesn't know what a fool he is. He's amongst a long time of liberal and some conservative fools who feel so sure that if only we would have micromanaged this a bit better, let the Bathist stay in the government, let 20 thousand more Americans(or 200 thousand)invade Iraq, then all would be better. Such idiots are all about how Bush screwed up 'the process.' Andy Sullivan is one of these(and I generally like his blog); never do they look up and see the 800 pound green gorilla religion of peace looking them in the eye. What a bunch of boobs, bafoons and wacko's. Journalists. Nixon hated them because he thought they were liberal, he should have hated them because they are stupid. 99 % democrat and 100 % stupido. If any of my family or friends on the Sun Times read this, I'm not aiming my rant at you=)

Posted by: biorabbi at June 16, 2006 1:26 AM

i'm more i sync with thumper's pov, than with hugh's. while i don't claim to be possessed of one zillionth of hugh's knowledge, and i can readily understand how hugh's support for an internecine bloodbath might seem to be one of the keys to our salvation, i don't believe hugh has considered one grave scenario. Why is it reasonable to assume that while sunnis and shia are killing each other they won't be competing with each other in the area of staging the more impressive terrorist attacks againt the west as a recruiting tool? "See, we're the real thing, come with us" Why is ist reasonable to assume that that the warring factions might not make a temporary truce for the purpose of increasing their attacks against the west? Once you inflame islamist passions to even greater heights (or depths, as the case may be) you have literally let a genie out of the bottle and there's no guaranty that the genie won't strike in multiple directions simultaneously. Better to try to establish civil order and civil justice even if that's only a remote possibility. True, our resources are indeed not unlimited but in the very long run, we're far better off with a stabilized iraq than an iraq in the throes of a sectarian bloodbath justified by islam by both sides.

Posted by: patriot at June 16, 2006 8:09 AM

Nariz:

I'm disgusted with Friedman, but Arundati Roy is another nice piece of work and so is Amy Goodman for that matter.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at June 16, 2006 10:30 AM

.. people like Tom Friedman, Robert Fisk and Pilgar

seem to attract a following where credibility is not an issue

these people say what some segments want to hear...so they have a base of admirers

Friedman is a pathetic windbag, has been for decades

ugh

Posted by: charleston at June 16, 2006 6:28 PM