Thomas Friedman "Suck-on-this" Anniversary Celebratory Book Excerpt!

Hello to all my internet friends!

In honor of the five-year anniverary of Thomas Friedman's infamous "Suck. On. This." rationale for the Iraq War, I present an EXCLUSIVE EXCERPT from my book about the War On Terrorism! (I'm writing this book for my personal edification.)

This excerpt touches on Friedman's remarks, placing them in the larger historical context. For that reason, this excerpt is extremely long.

ENJOY IF POSSIBLE.

* * * * *

"Mr. President, it's a SLAM DUNK!"

CIA Director George Tenet slammed a basketball on President Bush's desk, as if emphasizing the point. "An absolute slam dunk-- in fact, it's a touchdown!" Tenet spiked a football, then dropped to one knee and crossed himself. The president looked up--"Whuzza?"-- he liked football!

The DCI seized the moment: "It's a home run, sir!" And with that, he dramatically swallowed a baseball. (A brilliant intelligence officer, Tenet had used his modem to determine the President once owned a team of baseball players.) "TENNIS AND CROQUET ARE ALSO RELEVANT!" screamed Tenet as he smashed a tennis racket over his head and swung a croquet mallet into his nose.

President Bush's mind raced like a three-legged dog with four minutes to live: This 'Tenet' guy said he's in charge of the CIA. . . my dad was once in charge of the CIA. . . that means this guy was once my dad. . . that means this guy STILL IS my dad. . . that means I must prove I'm more of a man than he is. . . that means I've gotta smash a croquet mallet into my face harder than he did--

Ladies and gentlemen, would it surprise you to learn that President Bush then tried to smash his face with a croquet mallet, but the mallet slipped from his hands and slaughtered thousands of innocent bystanders? (If so, you should go back to college and take the seminar, "Huge Piles of Dead People: The Subtle Art of the Political Metaphor.")

Tenet was a soft-spoken analyst-- a coward, technically-- rarely given to outbursts. So this intelligence briefing had definitely gotten President Bush's attention. In fact, the president was now fully alert, blinking and breathing with the unstudied competence of a man in the prime of his turd. (FOOTNOTE: Unbeknownst to President Bush at the time, Tenet had spent days rehearsing his presentation, repeatedly slamming basketballs on desks and swallowing baseballs until his belly was full of baseballs and he had to wipe his butt with a catcher's mitt and his wife started calling him "Fartie McBaseballs-Alot, the Amazing Spy Who Farts Baseballs.")

The bloodied DCI decided to go for broke, slamming a second basketball on the desk: "I repeat: It's a slam dunk! THIS IS MY FINAL BASKETBALL!" Tenet punched the air: "Saddam Hussein has Weapons of Mass Destruction!" Then he started sort of laughing and crying.

It wasn't a dramatic moment, but it was significant: A debate that had roiled the capital for months was finally coming to an end. To the question of whether Saddam Hussein possessed W.M.D.s, the answer was, Yes. And we finally had the sports metaphors to prove it.

* * * * *

Readers with long memories will recall that in late 2002 and early 2003, America was still recovering from the wounds of 9/11. We were no longer reeling from the attacks, but we weren't exactly thrilled about 'em, either. In Afghanistan, we celebrated our lightning-quick military triumph over the Taliban and the new freedom that blossomed: the freedom to forget about Afghanistan. We had decimated Al-Qaeda's command structure-- what was once a sophisticated, hierarchical matrix of caves was now just a smoldering smorgasbord of mountains with holes in the sides of 'em. The Taliban had been permanently "Tali-BANNED," never to be seen again, certainly not before 2004. The brave women of Afghanistan enjoyed newfound liberty as long as they didn't act like total sluts. The Kabul horizon was once again choked with children's kites, hanging low in the sky like grim thunderheads of optimism and opportunity. And finally, Osama bin Laden was on the run, as fast as his little legs could carry him. (In fact, "Dr. Chicken Legz Quarterly" had voted his the Scrawniest Legs of 2002, with a 3-D centerfold that actually appeared in 2-D because his legs were so scrawny!!!)

High-profile arrests in Pakistan and other weird places had given new life to the legal prosecution of the War on Terror. Suspected terrorists were yielding valuable intelligence by definitely not being tortured. Meanwhile, here in the homeland, certain people were hearing the telephone conversations they needed to hear, and reading the email messages they needed to read, and if certain other people were whining about it, those certain other people needed to shut certain particular pie-holes (i.e., theirs).

It seemed like we were back on track, cruising towards the End of History, after a little detour called "9/11 and the Subsequent Never-Ending War on Terror." Political scientist Francis Fukuyama's 1992 bestseller "A Child Called 'It'" once again looked prophetic: If a nation lives in the basement long enough, it will learn to overcome the odds and teach itself kung-fu and it will become a light and inspiration unto others.

In the midst of the non-stop victory parade known as 2002, Americans weren't thinking about Iraq. So why were the president and the DCI swallowing baseballs and bashing themselves in the face with croquet mallets?

The answer was simple: Iraq.

And the reason was even simpler: 9/11.

Years from now, when the first definitive history of President Bush's War on Terror is written-- and it turns out to be an exact word-for-word plagiarism of this book, and I hunt down the author and kill him with my unstoppable stabbing machine-- we will learn of the shift in focus from Afghanistan (Land of Terror) to Iraq (Terror's Homeland). Until then, we have only speculation, until we read the next sentence, which provides the answer:

We invaded Iraq because we had to.

Because we had no choice. Because it was impossible-- and fabulous-- and asking ourselves to do the Impossible -- and Fabulous -- is the price of being who we are: The people who live in America.

The 9/11 attackers had struck us where it hurt most: In the heart of our society; in our civilization's crotch. Our response had to be equally ambitious. Liberating Afghanistan and permanently vanquishing the Taliban for a few months was the first step, but it wasn't enough-- every civilization we didn't understand would have to be put on notice. That meant Iraq.

As famous New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman put it to Charlie Rose in that dark, featureless midnight in which Rose holds court:

"What (Iraqis) 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, we're just gonna to let it grow? Well, Suck. On. This.'" (REAL QUOTE!)

"Suck. On. This." Three little words every lonely, lovelorn Middle Easterner longs to hear. What Iraqi or Iraniani or Afghanistaniani doesn't secretly hope to open their shabby, sand-caked door to find American boys and girls leaning seductively against the wall, smacking their Zionist Bubbalicious, and inviting -- demanding -- someone suck upon their flawless American private parts? Atten-SHUN!

Or was Thomas Friedman suggesting that Iraqis needed to suck on the American boys' and girls' guns? In that case, when the American boys and girls go house to house, saying "Suck. On. This," maybe they should stick their guns right in front of the Iraqis' mouths, pressing the cold steel against their lips, so the appropriate response is obvious. Gives new meaning to the phrase BLOWBACK, doesn't it?

But wait, sports fans! Maybe I took too many "Left-Wing Dummy Dumb-Dumb Pills" this morning, and have misinterpreted what Friedman meant! It makes more sense that Friedman wants the Iraqis to suck on the very concept of American-ness, fellating the values and heritage that make our way of life the envy of the world. Or, perhaps he thinks the Iraqis should give even more ambitious blowjobs-- and suck not only on American-ness, but also on the principles of Western Enlightenment thought, with special emphasis on free-market, representative democracy. Talk about a mouthful! (YUM!)

Of course, knowing those stubborn Iraqis, they'd probably resent being forced to suck on something so awesome. I bet they wouldn't even swallow.

* * * * *

"Suck. On. This." Every word of that phrase so important, so vital, it demands its own punctuation mark. And not just any punctuation mark: The period; the full stop of American resolve. No exclamation points for those American boys and girls -- ours is not a hysterical nation. We're the country of chilled-out, authoritative nonchalance: Gary Cooper; Gilbert Gottfried. Keep it cool, but let 'em know who's in charge; who is to be sucked; and who is to do the sucking. Again:

"What (Iraqis) 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, we're just gonna to let it grow? Well, Suck. On. This.'"

Looking back on Friedman's comment, another boo-boo pops out. Those American boys and girls going house-to-house in Iraq were asking a self-negating question. The answer to "Which part of this sentence don't you understand," can only be "No part of it," since understanding every part of the sentence-- or, more accurately, not understanding no part of the sentence-- is a precondition for answering it, which is of course implied in its being asked to begin with.

Indeed, the American boys and girls going house-to-house in Iraq should have asked, "Why don't you understand this sentence?" That would have gotten us somewhere; Iraqis would have immediately answered, "I don't understand the sentence because you're speaking English, and I'm so ignorant and dumb I only speak Arabic."

Or, the American boys and girls could have asked, "Which part of this sentence won't you will not un-answer?" to which Iraqis would have answered "Please don't kill me!" like a bunch of scaredy-cats with their noses running because they're whimpering and crying.

Or, finally, the American boys and girls could have shot first and asked questions later.

Perhaps that would have been most appropriate. After all, when's the last time you heard a hero demean him- or herself by asking a foreigner a question? What is this, "Pre-9/11 World?" If you've ever been lucky enough to watch your children play "War" in your backyard as the setting sun casts its amber light on the invisible carnage spilling out of their skulls, you know the game doesn't involve kids running around asking each other a bunch of stupid questions; it involves them running around pretending to shoot each other! An American boy or girl playing War doesn't pick up some huge, funky-looking stick and say, "Ooh, this looks like a cool question to ask!" He or she picks up the huge, funky-looking stick and says, "Ooh, this looks like a cool gun! BANG BANG, you're dead!"

Wars are not won by asking questions. . . because wars are won by heroes. . . and heroes don't have time to ask questions. You know that book "Blink," by that skinny guy with the crazy hair? That book was written for the hero inside all of us:

Don't ask questions-- BLINK.

Don't think-- BLINK.

Shoot your gun-- BLINK.

Kill the enemy-- BLINK.

Receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom-- BLINK!

It's easy to tell, in a room full of Americans, which one is the hero. He's the one who blinks the most. That's why the Army never awards the Most Awesomest Hero Medal without first holding a "Most Blinkiest Blink-Off" contest. It's a patriotic spectacle of fluttering eyelashes the likes of which no non-American could understand. The furious blinking of heroes' eyelashes. . . sounds like the rustling of flags. . . sounds like the end of tyranny. . . . sounds like American boys and girls saying "Suck. On. This."

ETC. ETC. ETC.

HAVE A GREAT WEEKEND!

Comments

[Justtellthetruth]

I'd like to try this one again, edited to suit what appears to be the rules here, in that it more clearly portrays my feelings than the last one, but still not quite as well as the one that was cut.

After much reflection, It is clear that I was mistaken to have referred to Thomas Friedman as a certain type of "Bag", ( I hope this obscures the offending remark sufficiently.) and that you were therefore justified in cutting my comment. It seems like a hasty and not entirely warranted remark in retrospect.

Clearly, even the hastily referenced hygiene product, when used properly, results in a general freshening and clean feeling which can only be considered a help and improvement to the given situation that it might be applied to, whereas the result of Thomas Friedman's work was to bring about the lingering smell of death and human misery to hundreds of thousands of people who had done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to hurt us, who presented us with no current or future threat, and whom he then eventually referred to as just a type of sacrificial lamb upon whom our national ire was to fall simply because it had to fall somewhere.

Clearly, My reference to him as a certain type of Bag is praise of which he is not worthy. Good Call on your part.

[Justtellthetruth]

Clearly, it is not appropriate here to compare Tom Friedman to any sort of bag, whether that bag is for human hygienic purposes, or not.

Point taken. I can see where it is acceptable to allow Friedman to make a statement about Iraqis that essentially maintains that although they had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11, that they nonetheless would serve as an excellent receptacle for American ire toward Arab peoples in general, and that although our energy would have been better expended in actually looking for and killing Al Qeada leaders and followers, they, the Iraqi People would have to do, in that Pakistan has nukes and attacking Saudi Arabia would send the price of oil to $1000 a barrel.

I can see where you might findit acceptable for Friedman to THENsay that although Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, that our soldiers were there to say "suckonthis" if they did not get that we were serious about this war on terrorism that they had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH.

I am sure that he did not mean that they should literally engage in fellatio with the troops, but, as the author ofthis articlemaintains, he probably meant to portray an IMAGE of the hapless Iraqis being forced to suck on the end of their guns, which, Ihad mistakenly thought, was infinitely more offensive in it's existential horror and Irony than comparing Tom Friedman to any sort of Bag (whether for human hygienic purposes or not).

[stevelaudig]

So there were three bubbles in the 90s and they all burst and they were all "creative". The Friedman Bubble is the first to burst of the 00s. The bubble of creative moral superiority and world dominance. Perhaps someone else can help describe how Friedman might qualify as a war criminal for his war cheerleading. How about giving him the Julius Streicher award.
WSWS : News & Analysis : Middle East : Iraq

Media lies and war crimes: the instructive case of Julius Streicher

By Bill Vann
25 March 2003

Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author

Eleven leading members of Hitler’s Third Reich were sentenced to death for their role in instigating a world war that claimed ...

There was one man sent to the scaffold, however, who was acquitted on this first and paramount charge. His name was Julius Streicher,.... The judges at the Nuremberg tribunal found: “There is no evidence that he was ever within Hitler’s inner circle of advisers, nor during his career was he closely connected with the formulation of policies that led to war...”

Rather, Streicher was convicted for promoting aggressive war a...[from World Socialist Web Site]

[HanFeiTzu]

TF is arrogant to a point of nausea. If possible take a look when is has a Q&A while he overspeaks anyone who might challenge his writings. Regarding his writings, in typical neo-liberal fashion he all too often takes a very high level viewpoint of globalization with little detailed investigation of their impact especially within our country. Oh TF it's so good for Americans while their jobs are exported to Asia. Well maybe for you TF but not the normal grunt.

And then there's Iraq and Palestine. Never one to be objective in dealing with the Middle East he skillfully writes so as to give the impression of objectivity while the overall impression leads in a totally biased direction. And that direction is always pro-Israel.

Has he ever apologized for his Iraq occupation promotions? No. Will he ever? Never. And those are great reasons to never purchase, recommend or read his ramblings.

[prattvictory]

I love to watch Tom Freidman channel "Dirty Harry."

Surely Tom is contributing generously to veterans funds along with his billionaire inlaws.

Suck on this? I do hear a sucking sound, its the one Ross Perot described.

[rabrophy]

Dirty Harry talked tough and carried a gun, Freidman talks tough and wants other people to carry a gun. Like all good little ChickenHawks, he was sucking suds in college while I was sucking mud and blood in Vietnam

[prattvictory]

So when Dirty Tom Freidman says in effect "do you feel lucky punk?" he is ensconced in his 10,000 square foot home safe from the blowback of the warmongering of his ilk.

The unlucky "punk" is the hapless kid who thought joining the Army and giving his life meant something more than being Tom Freidman's penis extension.

If there were justice in the World Tom Freidman would pay for the misery he and the rest of the cheerleaders of this war have caused. But there is no justice. Just another cab ride and the subsequent book tour.

[Binx101]

Excellent !

I hear Friedman is writing a follow-up but couldn't get it published before McClellan.

"Oooops!"

Binx101
The Almost Daily Binx
http://binx101.wordpress.com

[barkingdog]

Finally! An explanation for the war--in simple, honest, unadorned prose--which makes absolute perfect sense. Thank you Mr. Rees, and good luck with your book. You say it's for your personal edification, but I think it should be required reading in our schools. Sir, you are a patriot. Deal with it.

As for Thomas Friedman, he was great in "Taxi Driver," but I think actors should stay out of politics.

[Evelyn]

Holy shit, that is the most amazing piece of videotape I have ever seen. For a while I thought that maybe the words weren't really coming out of his mouth, because they are so bizarre. Jihad as just one more bubble, like the dotcom bubble? wtf? American boys and girls going door to door saying suck on this? Invading Iraq instead of Saudi Arabia, just because we could? And some in middle America still think this war was justified? Even the guys who sold it to us now admit they were just making up excuses.

[Barky]

TF is a self absorbed cretin and pretender. Philosophically he is either uncertain where he stands or he takes the mos advantageous (or duh) position on an issue. This is a guy who provided imo a most demeaning dressdown to a liberal....that by invading Iraq and "freeing" Iraqis from Saddam, the Republicans and conservatives were actually performing a deed that all liberals should exult in. I paraphrase.

[TRex86]

His little smackdown was all about liberating Iraqis from their lives. Despicable.

[Wazzat]

This clip is truly amazing, hadn't seen it before. It is enlightening to finally find out why we went to war: because of the masturbatory fantasies of 10-year-old boys, the likes of TF!!
I always saw him as a fake "liberal" who was actually serving as an aplogist for GWB's policies but never saw his inane childish stupidity and arrogant blindness so clearly as now.
Take just one of the innocent Iraqi families who have been displaced as a consequence of
their misplaced self-assurance, one family which in human terms is worth more than 10 million TF's, and multiply that by the 6 or so million families who have lost their homes
and are now internal or external refugees... and imagine the suffering of their kids, the nightmares they will live for the rest of their lives, the lost days at school; and I'm only talking about displaced families not those who have lost lives....and he is paid a salary by the NY TImes????

This interview truly represents a moment of great shame for the NY Times, for PBS, for our country.

[TRex86]

"We invaded Iraq because we could."

"We invaded Grenada because we could." (R. Reagan)
"We invaded Poland because we could." (A. Hitler)
"We invaded Serbia because we could." (Emp. Franz-Josef)
Thomas Friedman, pundit and moral philosopher: Suck on this!

[longnow]

Tom Friedman served his purpose in 2003 and he is serving his purpose now.
Our purpose was never to win but to stay. How do you do that? You get
guys like TF to get us in and you get guys like him to COME OUT AGAINST
THE WAR when it doesn't freaking matter. Tom Friedman comes out
against the Likud party in Israel but when he lets his guard down
he says things like 'if Obama gets in he needs to appoint CHENEY
as VP to deal with the Arabs.' TF is an American Likudnic period.

[werbenjagermanjensen]

I think that this column deserves the Karl Kraus award for most incisive use of satire to explicate a completely unnecessary war.

[woundedduck]

I thought we went to Iraq to tell Saddam "The Second Hitler" Hussein to suck on this, but we were actually there to tell the entire population to suck it? Wow, with that kind of ambition, how can anyone argue that we aren't the greatest nation on earth?

[Bluedog12]

I understand Tom is in the process of writing a new book on the Mid East and surprisingly he offers a theory on war in which the United States will use non lethal methods to win the hearts and minds of the Arab world. Tom has devised the “Confectionary Weapons of Mass Consumption” theory of war or in short the “Pie” supposition. Tom understanding the personal sacrifice required by the families of American service men and women has already experienced the joy of a pie in the face. Look for Tom’s book “Pie and the New American Century” at your local bakery.

[TRex86]

Just six months to go...

[nellieh]

We have had 10 "6 more months." It has been said by Friedman so often the phrase is in Wikipedia as his. "Suck on. This" is his attempt at being a "manly man." Unsuccessfully. He is trying to make up for the times he didn't have the balls to stand up to anybody, including girls. If he didn't come up with a silver spoon in his mouth I bet he has one now and is close enough to this administration to pump up the war with the rest of them. And now is trying to flip the coin and hope nobody remembers "6 more months." There is just too much on the record.

[Bettysdad]

I thought he was going to combine two books: The Pie is Flat."

[fedupnburnin]

"Suck on this?" That sounds like something a U.S. Senator would say in an airport restroom.