Uncivil Discourse

Because civility is overrated.

Thursday, June 16, 2005

Thomas Friedman is a Worthless Sack of Shit

Thomas Friedman, purported neoliberal, war on terror cheerleader, and overall fuckhead, has this to say inhis latest column, which may as well be entitled "Why I Am The Only Grownup Here":

Liberals don't want to talk about Iraq because, with a few exceptions, they thought the war was wrong and deep down don't want the Bush team to succeed.
For you see, in Thomas Friedman's world, as with those of most of the hawkish "liberals" (some actually are, but Friedman's only one for rhetoric's sake), it's more important to be right than to honestly assess the issue, especially with other people's lives at stake. He actually claims Iraq is "winnable," -- Friedman later says he "doesn't know if a self-sustaining, unified, and democratic Iraq is still possible," but this comes right after stating it's still "winnable," so what the fuck does he mean by "win"? If it's not, of course, it fucks him rather badly, heaven forbid, given his repeated insistance that we're about to turn the corner into a tipping point). To be fair, whatever value Friedman puts on "win", Iraq may well "winnable." But then he immediately goes on to ask "So...what do we do now to win, guys?" Friedman knows Iraq just has to be winnable. It must be winnable. Despite not knowing how it's winnable, if it's not, he's wrong. Friedman also doesn't know where to find good Iraqi political leadership, cause everyone's let him down but the Kurds, who remain on his Christmas card list.

But of course, this comes after claiming nobody except for him wants to talk about the issue. Conservatives, you see, suck administration cock on a regular basis (and this coming from a man who deep-throated the whole thing in the buildup to the war and its early stages, in other words, before things to hell. This is a man who wrote off the nonexistence of WMDs immediately, despite how it made us appear to be pulling reasons for war out of our asses (something which was, of course, confirmed), and who endorsed Ahmed Chalabi, cause he's nice and secular, a word which drived Thomas insane in bed. And those damn cowardly and intellectually dishonest liberals, well, they're more interested in being right than talking seriously about the issue. This, despite the fact that Friedman doesn't say anything useful or new in his column. The core problem was Rumsfeld fucked up by sending in too few troops? No fucking way! See, and here these liberals are too busy advocating a complete and utter failure (oh wait...we secretly want it "deep down," which means we're not advocating it except in that sinister, conniving way we tend to go about in) to really get down and talk about the issue. But in spite of not really knowing anything about possible options, Friedman knows we have to find Iraqi leadership, and that's about it -- remember, though, he's the only one that wants to seriously discuss the issue.

Good fucking god. But what can we expect from a man who came really, really close to blaming the victim over Gitmo in advocating it be closed? A man whose only problem with the excesses of Guantanamo is they have a "toxic effect on us - inflaming sentiments against the U.S. all over the world and providing recruitment energy on the Internet for those who would do us ill." Y'know, damn those squealing prisoners for helping those terrorist recruiters! Damn them for making Gitmo a rallying cry! And damn the sodomizing, urine throwing guards for their biggest crime -- dirtying up our pretty good name!

Friedman, you see, is almost kind of cute when it comes to his unwavering support for the war on terrah. He calls torture "immoral," but that's just in passing. No, Friedman's major concern is how bad we're looking to the rest of the world, not that, y'know, we're torturing people. With Gitmo, Friedman's more concerned with hiding the evidence than finding out what actually happened. And with Iraq, by god, he'll be vindicated, and it's less important to define what it means to "win" than to insist that we can in fact win.

Friedman helped create this, with the cheerleading and the repetition of administration talking points (disguised with some mild and ineffectual criticism here and there). He kept insisting America could do little to no wrong when it came to fighting terrorism, about how our mission was so righteous it would shine through. Ultimately, he can't be bothered to ever admit a mistake, though now, he's starting to throw short little jabs at it, to keep it off balance -- Rumsfeld's the core problem, we should have trials for the prisoners in Gitmo, etc. And that's good. But it won't do a damned thing now. The administration's shown us it'll lie to get us into an ill-planned war that'll kill thousands, and it'll shrug in response to torture, reminding us that, after all, these people are terrorists, subhuman, not deserving of rights. And throwaway sentences in a column or two won't affect shit when you're advocating for a coverup and fumbling around in the dark in a war zone. Jabs won't give you a knock out, they won't even keep you in the game if all you're doing is throwing them (unless you're Muhammed Ali, roping a dope, but Thomas Friedman is no Muhammed Ali...plus when thousands of lives are at stake, why would you waste time with the rope-a-dope?). No, what we need now is a couple of combinations followed by a massive uppercut, and he's too busy seriously talking about the issue to bother.

Friedman's a complete moral midget, but at least he exists on some sort of moral plane, unlikst most pundits. It's too bad he's also a useless, tiny little man, who can't be bothered to admit he was wrong.

Update: Arthur Silber channels Friedman and cuts through the bullshit to get to the true wankery.