controversial opinion piece by new york times, agree or disagree and why?

[retiredman]

now...if you could show me where he is now for surrender and appeasement, that would be real nice.

bring links where Friedman uses those words, or stay home

[red states rule]

NYT's Friedman on ABC: Iraq Insurgency 'Defeating the U.S. Military' for Years
By Megan McCormack
New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman declared that the insurgency in Iraq has been defeating the U.S. military for the past four years during an interview Wednesday with Good Morning America’s Diane Sawyer. While making the argument that there is no "two to three year" solution for the violence occuring in Iraq, Friedman declared victory for the insurgents:

Thomas Friedman: "...I don't believe myself that there's a two to three year solution where we just train a few more troops. The issue isn't training, Diane. After all, who's training the insurgents? Nobody. They're doing just fine. They've basically been defeating the U.S. military for the last four years."


Friedman also seemed to indicate that the reason Saddam Hussein was an "iron-fisted dictator," was not necessarily because of who Hussein is as a person, but because of "the way Iraq is":

Friedman: "You know, before the war began, Diane, I, I wrote a column in which I said, you know, the big question about Iraq is that, is Iraq the way it is because Saddam was the way Saddam was or was Saddam the way Saddam was, this, you know, iron-fisted dictator, because Iraq was the way Iraq is? You know, I was hopeful that it was the former, but it's turning out to be a lot closer to the latter.


While Friedman criticized many of the newly-released Iraq Study Group recommendations as "either unnecessary or impossible," he championed the ISG’s suggestion that the Americans and Iraqis meet with Iran and Syria to discuss potential solutions. Sawyer fretted over whether Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would offer his country’s assistance to quell the violence in Iraq:

Sawyer: "But, Tom, a lot of people are saying that you can get to the insurgents and, again, Iran and Syria are the way to do it, our adversaries. It does strike me as an irony that these people in Iran, Ahmadinejad, we say, ‘you're the axis of evil, but would you come in and help us out of here?’ Will he help? Could he help? What could he do?"


Friedman argued that by declaring its intention to withdraw from Iraq, leaving Iran to deal with its troubled neighbor, the U.S. could gain leverage over Ahmadinejad:

Friedman: "Yeah. Well, I think he, he might help under one condition, Diane, that we tell him we're leaving. You see, right now we have no leverage over them. Basically, you know, they've got us over a barrel. And I think the only way we're going to have any leverage on them is simply to say, we are going, ok, which part of that sentence don't you understand? We are leaving. And that means you, Ahmadinejad, are going to inherit the chaos in southern Iraq, have a nice day. Only when you really face them with that choice, I think, will you get them off the dime."


Sawyer asked Friedman if it was a victory for America’s enemies if the U.S. withdrew from Iraq:

Sawyer: "But do our enemies, Ahmadinejad and the Iranians, win if we let them inherit that day?"

Friedman: "They sure do win. They, they win Iraq. What is second prize, Diane?"


The Times columnist sounded dour when asked by Sawyer for his prediction of the future for Iraq:

Friedman: "Basically, I'm not really optimistic. You know, before the war began, Diane, I, I wrote a column in which I said, you know, the big question about Iraq is that, is Iraq the way it is because Saddam was the way Saddam was or was Saddam the way Saddam was, this, you know, iron-fisted dictator, because Iraq was the way Iraq is? You know, I was hopeful that it was the former, but it's turning out to be a lot closer to the latter."


Sawyer took note of Friedman’s defeatist attitude and bleak outlook for Iraq during her conclusion of the 7:05 am interview:

Sawyer: "All right. Thanks a lot, Thomas Friedman, for being with us this morning. Always good to hear what you have to say. If it's not hopeful, it's still good to hear what you have to say."


http://www.newsbusters.org/node/9487

[retiredman]

don't see "appeasement". don't see "surrender".

can't you follow simple instructions? LOL

[red states rule]

don't see "appeasement". don't see "surrender".

can't you follow simple instructions? LOL

Like I said, facts mean little to you

Example # 2


NYT's Tom Friedman: America Goes It Alone, Shames Statue Of Liberty
By Michael Rule |
On this Sunday’s "Face the Nation" on CBS, Bob Schieffer once again turned to New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman for analysis on developments in Iraq, the overall war on terrorism, and the Israel/Palestinian peace process.

Among the claims Friedman made were claiming that the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay was the "anti-Statue of Liberty." That America is alone in Iraq, discounting the contributions by the British and other coalition partners. And that he doesn’t "really want to blame America" for the inability of the Israelis and Palestinians to come to a workable peace agreement.

Friedman began by seemingly eulogizing Zarqawi. He focused on how effective Zarqawi was as a terrorist, but doesn’t offer praise to our troops or thanks that he has been removed from the equation in Iraq:

"Yeah, I mean, I think that al-Qaeda's saying, `Well, we'll replace him, no problem.' This guy was good, Bob. He was a first team all-star terrorist. He eluded the US military for three years and carried on some of the most wanton acts of violence not only in Iraq, but the whole Middle East. So he was good. Guys like him don't fall on, off trees."

And even if Friedman does believe Zarqawi being gone is good, he notes it may not have happened in time. That is, Zarqawi’s philosophy, may be prevailing:

"But here's the really big question, and this is what worries me this morning: Zarqawi is dead, but has Zarqawiism been so unleashed in Iraq that we've, that we can't get it back? Now, what was Zarqawiism? What was his whole strategy? His whole strategy was to use the most unspeakable violence to trigger a civil war between Sunnis and Shiites. He was a Sunni and he tried to basically kill as many Shiites as he could. And now what we've got in Iraq while he's dead, the legacy of his strategy, boy, you just read the headlines this morning, is still alive and well."

Friedman seems to believe Iraq is already a lost cause. However, contrast this analysis with coverage earlier in the program from CBS News correspondent Elizabeth Palmer, who reported from Baghdad and conveyed a message containing glimmers of hope that Zarqawi’s death could bring Sunnis back into the fold and noted the progress of the training of Iraq’s security forces:

"Overall, people are happy, especially the Shia, against whom he (Zarqawi) had declared war. Cautiously happy, most of the moderate Sunnis as well. The key, of course, is how the hardline Sunnis are going to react, and whether the Sunni-led insurgency in Al Anbar Province and north of the city are going to react. Whether now with the loss of Zarqawi they're going to be free to, to abandon their allegiance to these foreign fighters, and maybe begin to respond to the outreach program being run by the Iraqi government, saying, `Come on, join us, there's more in, in, in it for you to join the reconciliation project, you'll be rewarded, you will get your share of power, than there is in staying on the outside as bandits pursued by not only the coalition forces, but also the, all the forces of the Iraqi state,' which are growing in sophistication and discipline and numbers weekly."

Friedman went on to proclaim the U.S. is alone in the endeavor in Iraq:

"...And we're so alone there. It's not like we're there with the Arab League, with the UN, with the Europeans. And so, that to me, is the question. I know what the struggle is ahead, but we're so alone right now."

At last glance, there were more than 20 other nations also participating in the mission in Iraq providing troops, supplies and other types of support such as medical assistance. We’re not alone Mr. Friedman, as much as you may want to portray it as such to the public, it is just not so.

Later, Friedman and Schieffer discussed the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, in particular the suicides that occurred over the weekend there:

"Guantanamo Bay, another headline that nobody wants to see in the papers this morning. Now we have prisoners committing suicide there, and people are saying this was some sort of a political act. This was not something that these people did out of desperation, but to, as a political act, like these suicide bombers. What, what are we going to do about Guantanamo?"

Friedman used the opportunity to liken Guantanamo Bay to Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq:

"Well, I believed we should've torn it down a long time ago, along with Abu Ghraib. And in Abu Ghraib's place, we should've built a hospital. Guantanamo Bay, Bob, has become the anti-Statue of Liberty."

The Statue of Liberty was seen as a symbol of hope for immigrants coming here legally who were trying to create a better life for themselves, and in the process make America a better place. Guantanamo Bay is a camp for illegal enemy combatants who have tried to do America harm. Is there an inscription on the Statue of Liberty that says "give me your terrorist extremists dedicated to destroying America?" If so, referring to Guantanamo Bay as the "anti-Statue of Liberty" may be apt. Otherwise, it seems somewhat foolhardy.

Finally, Friedman seemed to admit that he is generally a member of the blame America first crowd. In discussing the mid-east peace process and the road blocks that have been erected, Friedman cut the United States a break:

"You know, it's--I don't really want to blame the United States on this one."

What does this mean? Does he blame the United States anyway, even though he doesn’t want to? And if he doesn’t blame the US for "this" then what is he blaming America for?

http://www.newsbusters.org/node/5843

[retiredman]

don't see "appeasement". don't see "surrender".

can't you follow simple instructions? LOL

duh

[red states rule]

duh

Exmple # 3


'Today' Hypes Tom Friedman's Peace Through Green Strategy
By Geoffrey Dickens | April 16, 2007 - 15:55 ET
New York Times columnist Tom Friedman was at it again, pushing his peace in the Middle East through environmentalism strategy. Invited on this morning's Today show to promote his upcoming Discovery Channel documentary called Green: The New Red, White and Blue, Friedman claimed one of the best ways to promote democracy in Iraq was to bring down the price of oil through energy saving green technology. Friedman also repeated his clarion call to retake the meaning of the word green from conservatives when NBC's Matt Lauer tossed the following softball to him:

Lauer: "Yeah and you say it's time to stop thinking about the green movement as tree-huggers and sissies. This is tough domestic and foreign policy."

Friedman: "Well what I've been out to try to do in my column and this magazine piece and now this documentary on Discovery is to redefine green because green was really defined for many years, in my view, by its opponents and they defined it 'liberal,' 'tree-hugging,' 'sissy,' 'girly-man,' 'unpatriotic,' 'vaguely French.' Okay? And what I'm really, been trying to do is re-define it, rename it patriotic, capitalistic, geo-strategic, really the most important thing we can do and be as a country today."


The following are a couple of the greenie-sounding teases and then the full segment as it occurred on the April 16th Today show:

[8:31am]

Matt Lauer: "Also ahead we're gonna take a look at a new documentary that argues that one of the best ways you can support the red, white and blue is by going green. We're gonna talk to award-winning columnist Tom Friedman from the New York Times about that documentary."

Matt Lauer: "You know you hear a lot about the greening of America these days from Al Gore's Oscar win to hybrid cars. Now even big business is getting on board. Companies like Wal-Mart and Google and you can too. It's not just trendy it's patriotic. It's the message behind a new documentary called Green: The New Red, White and Blue reported by New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman. Tom good morning, good to see you."

[On screen headline: "Going Green, Friedman On USA In The World."]

Thomas Friedman, New York Times: "Great to be with you Matt, thanks."

Lauer: "I want to talk about this green idea in a second and, and kind of tie it in to this other subject I want to talk to you about and that's Iraq. It's been a tough week there. Four bombs over the weekend killing about 45 people. We had the suicide bomber last week blowing himself up in a cafeteria near parliament and yet we're hearing the surge is working. What's your take on this?"

Friedman: "To me Matt there's only one metric for the surge working and that is whether we're seeing a negotiation among Iraqis to share power, to stabilize the political situation in Iraq which only they can do. And right now I don't see that. Maybe it's happening in private, maybe it's happening, you know, in places I can't hear or touch. But right now I don't see that. So telling me that the violence is down 10 percent or eight percent here or 12 percent there, I don't really think that's the metric at all."

Lauer: "Kind, kind of a wakeup call over the weekend also, Tom, or actually at the end of last week, Senator John McCain running for president, supporting the war, supporting the surge said, 'By the way if this does not work I don't know of a plan B.' And I'm trying to think of a time in American foreign policy where we didn't have a Plan B. How, what's your take on that?"

Friedman: "You know there's a, there is, there's a lot of truth to that Matt in the sense that there, if this doesn't work there is no really good option because the only option then is to either pull out or pull back from Iraq and basically let the parties fight it out and hopefully you reach some kind of equilibrium that way that will be self-sustaining but-"

Lauer: "In fact you think that actually a threat to pull out might get the parties to move forward on the, on the political compromise and solution that we're looking for."

Friedman: "Exactly, you know my point Matt has been that right now what's worrying me and what's been worrying me for awhile is that our vision of Iraq, a pluralistic united Iraq is everybody's second choice. It's the Shiites would prefer an Iraq they dominate, pro-Iranian. The Sunnis, the return to the old regime, the Kurds, their own separate Iraq. And we can't have our first choice kids dying for their second choice. That's just not on. At some point we've got to set a deadline and tell everyone if that is your preference-"

Lauer: "Right."

Friedman: "-you're gonna have to pay retail for that position not wholesale any more."

Lauer: "This, this other subject the greening of America and, and the corporate involvement. You say these two, you cannot separate these two things. That, that important in trying to democratize the Middle East is a different energy outlook here in the United States."

Friedman: "Well my feeling has always been, you know, people don't change Matt when you tell them they should. They change when they tell themselves they must. And I believe you really only get mass democratizing change in that part of the world when they can no longer rely on, on oil when they actually have to open their economies, educate their young people and really globalize with the world and that's why bringing down the price of oil I think is one of the best ways to do that."

Lauer: "In your documentary you visit some big companies that are taking big steps, Google, Wal-Mart, what lessons can we all learn from what they're trying to accomplish?"

Friedman: "Well I think that the message I'm trying to convey is that the biggest challenge for our kids Matt are three things: jobs, temperature and terrorism. And what's exciting about what companies are doing now is that they're understanding that green really is profitable. That it's actually a way to save money and beat the competition. When you think about it, Matt, it's really simple. To make a car, an appliance or a home greener you have to make it smarter. Well to make it smarter that's what we specialize in. Knowledge, high technology, not cheap labor. So this is also a way to build good jobs that can't be outsourced."

Lauer: "Yeah and you say it's time to stop thinking about the green movement as tree-huggers and sissies. This is tough domestic and foreign policy."

Friedman: "Well what I've been out to try to do in my column and this magazine piece and now this documentary on Discovery is to redefine green because green was really defined for many years, in my view, by its opponents and they defined it 'liberal,' 'tree-hugging,' 'sissy,' 'girly-man,' 'unpatriotic,' 'vaguely French.' Okay? And what I'm really, been trying to do is re-define it, rename it patriotic, capitalistic, geo-strategic, really the most important thing we can do and be as a country today."

Lauer: "And the documentary is called Green: The New Red, White and Blue. It airs Saturday at 9pm Eastern and Pacific on the Discovery Channel. Tom Friedman, always good to see ya."

Friedman: "Thanks Matt."

http://www.newsbusters.org/node/12070


MM, No wonder you love this nut - he talks just like you

[retiredman]

example of what? you made the claim that friedman was for appeasement and surrender and you have failed to provide any proof of that assertion.

please quit spamming this thread with irrelevant shit. answer the question or run the fuck away.

[red states rule]

example of what? you made the claim that friedman was for appeasement and surrender and you have failed to provide any proof of that assertion.

please quit spamming this thread with irrelevant shit. answer the question or run the fuck away.

As usual, irrelevant shit is the actual words of Mr Freidman that blwo your dfense of him out of the water

[retiredman]

no appeasement no surrender. Friedman has never supported either. you cannot blow that fact out of the water...all you can do is muddy the water with spam.

[red states rule]

So Tom wants to free Al Qaeda terrorists and snuggle up to Castro is not surrender and appeasement?

Perhaps it is not to a liberal moonbat like you - but to the rest of us it is

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

1. This Friedman is a traitor.
2. Give him death.
3. Of course after a speedy trial.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[red states rule]

Sorry bout that,

1. This Friedman is a traitor.
2. Give him death.
3. Of course after a speedy trial.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

I would not go that far, but he is a good example of the type of people that make up the liberal media and the NY Times - the offical publisher of the daily DNC talking points

[bluestatesrule]

Are people on the right interested in results....or justifying the war in Iraq? No we should not forget 911....that is just as important as Pearl Harbor...and Pearl Harbor guided out military policy for 50 years. I agree with those who say that if you do not follow history they are doomed to repeat it! Speaking of history....let's look at the facts....it was under the democratic leadership that the folowinging happened....

1. Brought the draft back in 1940....we went from having the worlds 17th largest army to an additional one-million men under arms. The republicans fought this tooth and nail. In fact in the republican presidential race was centered around the campaign the "very liberal Roosevelt is leading us to war". The specific campaign promise was that the republican party would keep us out the war.

2. In 1941....right before Pearl Harbor....there was another vote in congress to renew the draft for another year....the republicans campaigned heavily to defeat this...it was a dark day in American history...almost....it did not look good....but a miracle happened....it survived by one vote....thank God because Pearl Harbor was hit several weeks later....we were already in bad shape....had the democrats not fought so hard to get the draft and maintain it....God knows what would have happened.

3. I failed to mention that Roosevelt guided us through the great depression. I did not say got us over the great depression...but he provided excellent leadership...and got the country moving again. People loved him and respected him. He was not perfect...and some of his ideas were a little crazy....but he was just trying to find solutions. The do-nothing republican congress and President before him...caused membership in the American Communist party to triple by 1932....after Roosevelt took office...the communists almost closed shop

4. Roosevelt did an excellent job of running WWII...yes he had to fight the republican party tooth and nail over appropriations....even funding for the so-called "secret weapon"...which turned out to be the atomic bomb....

5. It was under Roosevelts direction that the ground work for unconditional surrender from the Germans and Japanese was set...and also plans for the United Nations.

6. It was under Truman that the CIA was established....

7. It was under the Dems that the Marshall Plan was launched that saved both Europe and Japan from utter hell, and communist rule. I could go on and on.

No....I think we liberals and democrats...have done our fair share for this country...and we were here from the very beginning and we are not going away. Invading Iraq was just plain stupid........And I have no problem with going into Iran and kicking some ass.....now that would be the smart thing to do....

[actsnoblemartin]

excellent points. The democratic party used to be an honorable party, but now unfortunently it is MOSTLY owned and operated by move on and media matters.

I feel sorry for moderate democrats who have such a small voice in the party now.

Are people on the right interested in results....or justifying the war in Iraq? No we should not forget 911....that is just as important as Pearl Harbor...and Pearl Harbor guided out military policy for 50 years. I agree with those who say that if you do not follow history they are doomed to repeat it! Speaking of history....let's look at the facts....it was under the democratic leadership that the folowinging happened....

1. Brought the draft back in 1940....we went from having the worlds 17th largest army to an additional one-million men under arms. The republicans fought this tooth and nail. In fact in the republican presidential race was centered around the campaign the "very liberal Roosevelt is leading us to war". The specific campaign promise was that the republican party would keep us out the war.

2. In 1941....right before Pearl Harbor....there was another vote in congress to renew the draft for another year....the republicans campaigned heavily to defeat this...it was a dark day in American history...almost....it did not look good....but a miracle happened....it survived by one vote....thank God because Pearl Harbor was hit several weeks later....we were already in bad shape....had the democrats not fought so hard to get the draft and maintain it....God knows what would have happened.

3. I failed to mention that Roosevelt guided us through the great depression. I did not say got us over the great depression...but he provided excellent leadership...and got the country moving again. People loved him and respected him. He was not perfect...and some of his ideas were a little crazy....but he was just trying to find solutions. The do-nothing republican congress and President before him...caused membership in the American Communist party to triple by 1932....after Roosevelt took office...the communists almost closed shop

4. Roosevelt did an excellent job of running WWII...yes he had to fight the republican party tooth and nail over appropriations....even funding for the so-called "secret weapon"...which turned out to be the atomic bomb....

5. It was under Roosevelts direction that the ground work for unconditional surrender from the Germans and Japanese was set...and also plans for the United Nations.

6. It was under Truman that the CIA was established....

7. It was under the Dems that the Marshall Plan was launched that saved both Europe and Japan from utter hell, and communist rule. I could go on and on.

No....I think we liberals and democrats...have done our fair share for this country...and we were here from the very beginning and we are not going away. Invading Iraq was just plain stupid........And I have no problem with going into Iran and kicking some ass.....now that would be the smart thing to do....

[retiredman]

excellent points. The democratic party used to be an honorable party, but now unfortunently it is MOSTLY owned and operated by move on and media matters.

I feel sorry for moderate democrats who have such a small voice in the party now.

another example.... I am a democratic county committee member.... I KNOW who has a say in democratic party politics. This bullshit that moveon.org has any sway over the democratic party is nothing but Faux News spin.... and you lap it up.