Tom Friedman just doesn't get it - is he really this daft?

Today he wrote an interesting article advocating some radical energy conservation measures that are politically impossible to implement.

"Look at the opportunities our country is missing - and the risks we are assuming - by having a president and vice president who refuse to lift a finger to put together a "geo-green" strategy that would marry geopolitics, energy policy and environmentalism."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/27/opinion/27friedman.html?

But he still fails to acknowlege that oil is the principal reason the Iraq War was commenced. And he refuses to recognize that HIS WAR, which has resulted in at least 1600 dead and 20,000 wounded GIs to date, was pursued because the very conservation measures he advocates will never be put in place. Hey, Tom, wake up from your Bush-induced slumber.

concerning this stupid war. Tom, please go away and come back when your mind is clearer. As much as you want democracy to flourish in the Middle East the Bush policy will only make thing worse.

"Shut up and go away." I used to really be impressed by him, but his opinions have become increasingly cloudy and inconcsistent, except for his unwavering support of the war in Iraq.

...a while back. I thought my e-mail was quite constructive and respectful but his response was rude, arrogant and dismissive. I've since deleted his reply, but I still read his column in the NYT. I just continue to have the impression that Friedman prefers the comfort of living within or close to his bubble-reality.

I'm sure your criticisms were constructive and respectful. And I'm sure his screener blew you off. And that's precisely why I won't bother to communicate with him.

Tom said Iraq could be a good thing if done right as a foothold to democracy in the middle east.He has blasted Bush for his handling of Iraq!He has extensive knowledge of the Middle East and he actually talks to both sides of the conflict,no one else can say that.So he has something no one else has,perspective.To say he drank the cool-aid is wrong.He was going under the assumption that Bush had a plan he didn't.
Geo- Green is something totally different.He assumes that peak oil is coming and if you don't get your house in order you're going to be screwed.
The two don't relate.He wanted Iraq to be an oasis of democracy and that the other countrys younger people would see this as something they wanted and fight for it.If people are striving for this they're not trying to kill us. Freidman is not the enemy.

On Charlie Rose about a year ago Friedman said showing Arabs the US will use force, WMD and deposing Saddam were the three reasons for preepmtively striking Iraq. He enthusiastically supported the invasion, but democracy was not exactly on the top of his list.

His geo-green column is all about oil dependency. Do you really think oil was not a significant factor in the decision to invade Iraq? Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world and we have ringed the area with several bases. Do you think Tom Friedman discovered peak oil but the oil companies, to which the Bush Administratoin has longstanding and extensive ties, and the US Government didn't know about peak oil before 2003?

Here's a flash: Friedman goes to the Middle East and talks hopeful Bushspeak mostly with middle class western intellectuals and then pretends this is the "wave of the future" knowing full well that these US-imposed solutions don't play so well in the souqs.

He calls the administration fools.He was on board with an island of democracy long before Bush fell into it.The trouble is by the time Bush found it it was too late to execute it in it's proper form.Freidman would not have disbanded the military.He goes to the middle east to talk to the people of importance who can get things done.Hedoesn't like Bush not even alittle bit.

And that's what he won't admit.

Iraq would become a shining beacon of Democracy in the Middle East.
I have news for Tom. Bush has no intention of making Democracy bloom in the desert. Because Democracy would imply that Americans will have to leave Iraq and anywhere else in the Middle East.

So we have today's dilemma for Monsieur Tom. True Democracy can only occur in the absence of the U.S., just as it is happening in Latin America. Such a Democracy will be inimical to the interests of the U.S. So, the U.S. has to repress Democracy either on its own or through proxies such as Mubarak, King Fahd, and others. What would be his solution?

Methinks that anyone even remotely connected with the US is going to face the wrath of his own people. Only after the US Quislings are toppled would there be a flowering of Democracy. Monsieur Tom may not understand it from his perch in the Cairo Sheraton's plush beds. But the ordinary Egyptian or Saudi or Pakistani understands it very well.

Is anyone with a functioning brain naive enough that this country would give a rip about Kuwait, Iraq, UAE, Saudi Arabia, if they were still poverty stricken desert countries if it wasn't for the oil? They goings on in such places would be on page 53, if at all, and that would be concerning the interesting music, or oddities of food, there.

Just like most of the nations of Africa, they would be ignored.

tom freidman - american moron.

At least he's made some effort to point to some "Fopahs" this administration has made. He has done many documentaries on Discovery Channel A&E that are at odds with The Boy King EEEEIIIdiot!!

I'll take whatever I can get these days, and it's sorely lacking from MSM!!!

There is no room large enough to hold his ego. He's not really concerned about what happens anywhere...He's only concerned that he get Credit and Exposure and Fame for talking about it in some way.

He's every bit as dispicable as the neocon death cult because he doesn't view people as human beings...they appear to be nothing more than conceptual game pieces in his world...so he can make up theoretical game strategies and see what happens as they move around the game board of his mind.

Outside of a true and openly declaired neoconservative, I don't know that I've ever seen anyone else who alienated me quiet as much.

But golly he is such a nice, calm speaker...and he appears in the NYT...so he must know what he's talking about....right?

heard him on 'fresh air' before the invasion. he was totally down with bushco's 'they thought we would sue, but we're going over and kick their ass' line of BS.

it was disgusting.