Should Tom Friedman Be Forgiven? Vote Now and Decide

Tom Friedman has written a mea culpa of sorts on his post-9/11 descent into extremism, and we'd like to encourage him to keep participating in the community of rational voices. Is it time to forget the past? A new online poll lets you, the reader, decide.

In an editorial entitled "9/11 Is Over," Friedman writes:

9/11 has made us stupid. I honor, and weep for, all those murdered on that day. But our reaction to 9/11 -- mine included -- has knocked America completely out of balance, and it is time to get things right again (emphasis Friedman's).

He also writes this about Rudy Giuliani's use of 9/11 to promote everything about his candidacy, including (literally) his love life: "I will not vote for any candidate running on 9/11. We don't need another president of 9/11. We need a president for 9/12. I will only vote for the 9/12 candidate."

Sounds good to me -- although what's this "us" business, Tom? Some of us resisted the "stupidity" from the start. Still, most of us who got it right aren't gloaters. We want to end the horrors of Iraq. We also want to end the incompetence of an anti-terrorism strategy that's driven by neconservative ideology, rather than by a clear-eyed assessment of the threat we face. If Mr. Friedman or anyone else now sees the futility of a course they once promoted, that's better for everyone.

Here's where things get sticky. However much we appreciate his new insight, Friedman's editorial is what 12-steppers would call "an apology, not an amends." He hints at -- but ultimately elides -- the extreme nature of his war promotion, and fails to address his attempt to intimidate war critics into silence. Yet he certainly argues eloquently against Giuliani-esque terror-mongering, and accurately names the fever that gripped him and others after 9/11: war madness. What to do ...

So, in re Thomas L. Friedman, here are a few highlights of the facts of the case:

War advocacy: Friedman was a tireless and extreme advocate for war violence -- before, during, and after its initial "shock and awe" phase. How extreme? Duncan Black (I think I know how he would vote) never tires of reminding us about his horrifying Charlie Rose interview, where Friedman told Rose we needed to attack an a Middle Eastern state at random so that Arabs would see "American boys and girls going house to house, from Basra to Baghdad, um, and basically saying, 'Which part of this sentence don't you understand?'"

"Well, Suck. On. This."

That's bad, ladies and gentlemen of the jury. As post-9/11 extremism goes, that's really, really bad. (And we haven't even mentioned the wacky France-baiting, pre- and post-invasion.)

Poor Prognostication -- or stalling for time: It was nearly four years ago that Friedman began opposing calls for withdrawal by saying that we needed "six more months" before knowing whether the war would succeed or not. Every time any six-month period ended, Friedman would develop amnesia about it ... and would then claim that the next six months would be decisive. It became a ritual of repetition. (Among bloggers, six months is now known as a "Friedman unit.")

Friedman's stature is such that these "Friedman units" helped build political support for extending the war over the past four years, despite mounting evidence of its failure.

Intimidation of War Critics: As support for the war began to fall in 2005, the Bush Administration began a coordinated effort to intimidate knowledgeable war critics. To be an "excuse maker," said the State Department, was essentially to give aid and comfort to the terrorists. In what may be his most shameful moment, Friedman was all too happy to join in the McCarthyism.

In a column that began as an indictment of all extremist speech, we suddenly found Friedman promising that he would use the power of the New York Times to point the finger at anyone who dared analyze the motives behind terrorism. Jumping on the "com/symp"-like phrase used by the Administration, Friedman wrote:

After every major terrorist incident, the excuse makers come out to tell us why imperialism, Zionism, colonialism or Iraq explains why the terrorists acted. These excuse makers are just one notch less despicable than the terrorists and also deserve to be exposed ...

There is no political justification for 9/11, 7/7 or 7/21. As the Middle East expert Stephen P. Cohen put it: "These terrorists are what they do." And what they do is murder.

Think back to the dark days of 2005. Bill O'Reilly and the Fox network were working closely with the Administration to terrorize war critics into silence. The careers of gifted academics like Juan Cole were being threatened because they dared discuss the history of anti-American grievances in the Middle East. Anyone who tried to explain events in the Middle East from a non-doctrinaire perspective risked personal destruction.

The New MyCarthyites deliberately tried to equate analysis of terror motivations with defending terrorism, so that the Administration and its vocal supporters (including Friedman) wouldn't have to answer for their tactical blunders. So Friedman's eagerness to join the feeding frenzy doesn't just reflect badly on him personally. If he had helped successfully silence these experts, we would have less information with which to defend ourselves against terrorism today. After all, how can we analyze and neutralize the terrorist threat if all anyone's allowed to say is "they are what they do" ?

So what's the verdict? Should these egregious statements of Friedman's be forgiven? Here's the kicker: I would say "yes." Why? Because we need every voice we can get help end this wave of killing and suffering. But, hey ... my friends say I'm too soft-hearted. And it's not up to me, anyway. In a just world, it would be up to the Iraqi people - but they have more urgent things on their minds right now.

So we'll leave it to you to decide by voting in this online poll. Here's the question:

Should Tom Friedman's war advocacy and threats toward war critics be forgiven in light of his new insight that "our reaction to 9/11 -- mine included -- has knocked America completely out of balance, and it is time to get things right again"? Your choices are:

1. Yes. The world is flat again and Tom's back where he belongs.
2. No. Get back in that Lexus, Tom, and keep driving.
3. Yes, BUT - only if he recants those statements and works to end this war.

Vote early and often. The Post-9/11 Truth and Reconciliation Committee appreciates your interest in this matter.

A Night Light
The Sentinel Effect: Healthcare Blog
Future-While-U-Wait
RJ Eskow at the Huffington Post

Comments

[no_empire]

Does anyone really believe that Tom Friedman puts the national interests of the US before those of Israel?

[Justtellthetruth]

He's just trying to position himself to help Hillary Clinton prepare for the wars she's going to fight in the Middle East. But her style will be one of faux regret and compassion, so he needs to reposition himself so that when were in Iran, he can echo her "terrible inevitability" BS as opposed to the sturm und drang of the Bush administration. DO NOT BE FOOLED AGAIN!!!!!!

[phyllba]

I never believed Friedman was a guru of the Middle East, or of globalization either. What happened to him also happened to many reporters and columnists. They became coopted by the Washington-NY elite, and in the process forgot their moral center.
I emailed Friedman several times about his Iraq stance that I found unhistorical and illogical. I also find his globilization views are one sided, and not on my (lower) middle class side either.
I'm too old to be a throw away citizen, but if Friedman's views, which parrot the Washington-NY business elite, prevail in this century, younger people will be among the poor, not the middle class.
For these reasons, I may read Friedman, but I look for his biases, as I do now with everyone.
I have become extremely cynical about our descent into Roman empire.

[toomuchtolose]

He wrote a wonderful book called "From Beirut to Jerusalem." It's difficult to compare that author to the shill who carries the same name,
but not the ideals.

I can't imagine what he could do to repair the damage he has done. How many thousands of innocent people have been killed and how many more armless, legless, eyeless men, women and children could have been spared that misery if he had not worked hard to convince his readers that WAR is the ANSWER and WAR is RIGHT.

He isn't guilty of stupidity. He's guilty of inhumanity.
I VOTE NO.

[Purple Girl]

I'm very tempted to be a Repug and kick him to the curb- but if nothing else there is reason to lower my self to such depths. And I do believe people change and should when all logic is against them. So I'll go with the third option. not totally altruistic- I don't need the bad karma either.

[susanlno]

Your friends are right; you're too soft-hearted. Friedman's apology means nothing except that he's tired of being justly vilified and wants to improve his reputation. He's the MSM's version of Hillary Clinton, changing positions as the wind blows, but never having a single conviction to have the courage of.

[crashingtiger]

I guess that'll be the closest that Thomas Friedman will come to admitting that he's a total crank.

[shashe]

We live in an extremely conservative area of WA state (Doc Hastings is our Rep. - Doc who?) and we personally know at least half a dozen former GOP conservatives who are fed up and disgusted with their party and have come over from the 'dark side' to supporting Democrats. If each one of us has 3 people like this, and like Tom Friedman, who see the error of their ways, we could have the beginning of a landslide next year. I say forgive (but never forget), find more converts and get rid of the abomintion that is our government today.

[jswan]

Tom is a classic example of a "journalist" who has strong ideological beliefs. Like those who cannot distiguish between fiction and reality, a journalist who cannot distiguish between ideology and facts on the ground is destined to come to erroneous conclusions and cherry-pick whatever facts he uses to ultimately mislead anyone who takes him seriously.
I think Tom is well-meaning, but will probably never get it right. I have no reason to doubt he is honest and sincere. He is, though, still wrong, and probaly always will be. Those who pay attention to him, do so at their own peril.

[yourstruly]

A few weeks ago, as a sort of trial balloon, Friedman suggested that it might be time to get out of Iraq, which has been such a disappointment to him. One of his justifications for doing so was that it would give us more resources to attack Iran. So I don't think he's out of the war mongering business yet.

I took Friedman's column this week-end to be a direct hit on Guiliani, who has profited shamelessly from other people's misery. It's no secret that the mayor's negligence before 9/11 contributed to the death toll, which he rightfully mourned but for which he has never acknowledged any responsibility. This infuriates Friedman, but he obviously can't see the parallel.

[speakingout]

It's too bad that most of the "News" we get today is just someone who has the"connections" to voice their opinion on the pulpit telling us what should and shouldn't be and how to think. If the media would focus more on the FACTS, we could all make our own decisions appropriately. But unfortunately, you have the Friedmans, O'Reilly's, Guiliani's and even the government spinning their heads around every night spouting the very venom they profess to be "protecting" us from. They spew the hatred that fuels their agenda and then criticize the people that respond to their hatred. Anyone that tries to find justification for war & killing and oppression is the "evil" one. Give the people the FACTS about how oil has been the cause of all wars in the last 100 years. So all you gas guzzlers and big house owners are partly responsible for our insatiable oil consumption which only justifies the governments need to control it. Not to sound religious, but would anyones GOD/Jesus, spread war and hate and destruction? GOD/Jesus is about love and peace and when the talking heads figure this out, life will be better for everyone in the world, including those that supposedly "hate" us as there is always an action & reaction to whatever it is you're promoting. Promote peace and go green.

[ProgressiveChange]

Friedman is the Poster-Journalist for getting it wrong. Journalists don't have the luxury of contributing to a debacle and then, years later, Whoopsing it!

[ZingoBonMot]

Second only to William Kristol who's still batting a perfect .000.

[rlb2444]

I read Eskow's article several hours ago and was puzzled at why he would go on the attack of another columnist. Childish comes to mind! However I have concluded that ego and envy will drive some people to do things that in effect only reflect on their own character. In the process of attempting to destroy another columnist's character you have done damage to your own.

However, columnist have to write about something and when they run out of meaningful material they look to others.

[realistic2008]

The question of forgiveness is a filosophically one for a. in order to forgive, one needs to have a clear conscience, b. whether the individual, Friedman, asked to be forviven; c.- whether his words/actions contributed to shape the policies of the administration, alas the infalible pontiff senator from Connecticut and whether one has a clear distinction between him and the devine inspired liberator and emancipator of Iraq, who should never be forgiven.
If one deliberates on these points and finds a redeeming value of Friedma's latest position I believe he should, maybe not forgiven but, accept his current views which in my opinion speak volumes and they are in the right.

[Janelynne]

When Friedman site 9/11 as one of the three major reasons for global warming getting to be a kitchen table issue. I don't know what 9/11 has to do with it. It sounded like poor way to get the reader interested. Friedman forgot to mention Gore. Or maybe he wanted to forget so he made up a few reasons to obscure Gore. I read the World is Flat, and it is a wonderful book, until he trails off into promoting right wing talking points. Tom is like a writer who researches well and writes beautifully, but then spills his lunch all over the document. I can't forgive him. Tom routinely tries to parley facts into dogma.

[ZingoBonMot]

"a writer who researches well"?

Are we talking about the same "free trade" Tom Friedman who once voiced support for CAFTA, calling it the "CARIBBEAN Free Trade Agreement"?
(Sorry, Tom, that's the CENTRAL AMERICAN Free Trade Agreement, you dolt!)

The man's a silver tongued hack. Apology NOT ACCEPTED.

[Janelynne]

Well, I think you are right. How can you believe someone's research when it is contaminated with politics?

[Pneumaticus]

How much has The New York Times paid Friedman for his ink all these years? If nothing else, he owes them a refund.

[Doofus]

See also...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/billionaire-scion-tom-fri_b_26164.html

Tom could probably *buy* the NYT if they tried anything funny.

I happen to enjoy his writing, even if I don't
often agree. There are others on the Times who
are much more unpleasant (I'm talking about you, D.B.)
However, it's almost as if he now writes from the perspective
of a *really* wealthy guy, for a *really* wealthy
readership, and just plain folks who'd like
to be in that group (like me).