Worst Op-Ed Day Ever

Not only does today's New York Times contain an op-ed about how Reagan was no racist (he just supported white supremacist policies) and an op-ed about how we should invade Pakistan, but it also features Tom Friedman, who I'd been finding pretty agreeable of late, writing things like:

And that brings me back to the Obama-Cheney ticket: When it comes to how best to deal with Iran, each has half a policy — but if you actually put them together, they’d add up to an ideal U.S. strategy for Iran. Dare I say, they complete each other.

Read Glenn Greenwald. I don't even want to think about this preposterous Maureen Dowd column. I think this might be the Worst Times Op-ed Page Ever.

Comments

Worser the column, morer da linkz!

That explains it all.

NYT wants links!

You, sir, then, are partially responsible for the decline of the western civilization.

Posted by gregor | November 18, 2007 5:23 PM

Further proof that the liberal media is destroying this country.

(Although just out of curiosity, why would anybody with half a brain be caught dead agreeing with Tom Friedman? The man is a neo-liberal cliche clothed in flesh).

Posted by faux facsimile | November 18, 2007 5:27 PM

Learn to Read Thomas Friedman, who is a complete snake on the order of David Brooks. the energy garbage by Friedman is a stupid cover for war-mongering.

Posted by Jennifer | November 18, 2007 5:52 PM

Oh, ye of little understanding! Obviously, what Friedman is trying to convey here is that both light and shadow are needed to see. I personally consider his column today a profound comment on the dualistic nature of man.

Posted by James Gary | November 18, 2007 6:13 PM

That Friedman nugget is, with absolutely zero hyperbole, the stupidest thing I have ever read in my life. Thanks for renewing my desire to ignore anything written by Tom Friedman.

Despite my liberalism I rarely read anything in the NYT, save for Krugman's articles and blog. Conservatives I know get a big kick out of knowing that.

Posted by Lev | November 18, 2007 6:35 PM

Friedman is just rehashing Nixon's 'Madman' strategy for the umpteenth time. It wasn't a good strategy then and it isn't a good strategy now.

Posted by bbartlog | November 18, 2007 6:36 PM

Maureen Dowd and Tom Friedman don't have half a brain between them. Scotty Reston must have turned over thousands of times in his grave since these two nitwits began writing on the NY Times columnist page.

Posted by SLC | November 18, 2007 6:37 PM

Oooh -- you know what would *really* scare other countries? If Barack Obama invited Charles Manson to be his VP running mate.

Now THAT would show them that Obama was truly willing to unleash teh Cray-zeee.

Posted by El_Cid | November 18, 2007 6:40 PM

No, no, wait, even better:

Obama should ask Osama bin Laden to be his VP. Then everyone would know he was really, really, really the crayziest EVAR!

Posted by El_Cid | November 18, 2007 6:44 PM

This post contains my exact reaction as I read Friedman's and Dowd's columns today. How long did it take Dowd to write her filth today? 8 minutes? The gist of it being Obama is a wuss, Hillary is a cold assassin, and Guiliani is a macho warrior licking his chops. How does this wind up on the op-ed page of America's paper of record on SUNDAY?

Friedman's calling for Tony Soprano/Dick Cheney diplomacy shows he hasn't learned a thing since his childish tantrums for the Iraq War 5 years ago. As someone who supposedly among the learned elite, one would think he would be in favor of bringing back the rule of law in the executive branch. Evidently, Friedman believes that support for torture, war and a lawless executive is necessary to lead the free world.

Even Rich's column today belonged on the gossip pages.

Pathetic day for the NYT.

Posted by Dave | November 18, 2007 7:30 PM

Someone should tell Friedman that good cop / bad cop only works in the movies. The real mystery is why the New York Times would pay Friedman to compete for a screenwriter's position on "Lethal Weapon Part 5."

Gibson/Glover 08!

Posted by Jalmari | November 18, 2007 7:43 PM

Here's the timeline of events in the putative Obama-Cheney administration.

Obama is sworn in as president.
Two days later, Obama is assassinated.
President Cheney pardons the assasins.
Washington media praises Cheney for his courage and decisiveness.

Posted by Mike J | November 18, 2007 7:58 PM

Just ignore them and they will go away. Really!

Their influence is tanking as quickly as their Newspapers’ print subscription numbers. Why give them any additional credence by reading and commenting on them? Same for the tired circa 1950’s talking head pundits on the MSM TV networks.

What would make Broder/Freidman and the rest crazy and just go away? Just stop reading and talking about their worthless shit.

Posted by erict | November 18, 2007 8:04 PM

I read the Greenwald post and there wasn't a single substantive criticism of the Friedman piece. What did you think was wrong with it, Matt? What is wrong with coercive diplomacy vis-a-vis Iran, if it was led by an responsible (ie Obama) administration that had behaviour change, not regime change, as the goal?

Posted by Jordan Smith | November 18, 2007 8:09 PM

In the Kristal/Hyatt grad scheme, Friedman’s role has always been to contribute to the deception that the Neocon agenda was within the range of reasonableness for US interests. Of course it never has been, and has proven to be anything but. So here he goes again, with another “begrudging”, “sigh”, Cheney cock suck.

Mr. oh so responsible, moderate Tom was one of the first in MSM to jump on the Kristol bandwagon and “legitimize” the vicious and hatemongering term “Islamofascism”

Thanks Tom, your doing a heck of a blow job. Love, Dick.

Posted by larry | November 18, 2007 8:36 PM

Jordan Smith, you need to start reading Krugman's blog, beginning today. Your question is best answered there.

http://tinyurl.com/29dwgt

Posted by mk | November 18, 2007 8:36 PM

Friedman is copying off of Dowd's paper again. His phrases "Mr. Cheney’s Dr. Strangelove imitation" and "Mr. Cheney’s madness" echo Dowd's October 24 column. In my my blog post for that column, I explained the whole Dr. Stangelove metaphor. Friedman wouldn't be using a Kubrick reference if Dowd hadn't planted the thought in his mind.

Posted by Mo MoDo | November 18, 2007 8:48 PM

Of course, Obama was the one threatening to send troops into Pakistan a while ago. Everyone here on board for that?

Posted by y81 | November 18, 2007 8:54 PM

mk, thanks for the link, I checked it out. But the difference between what Bush et al did with Iraq and what Friedman is proposing Obama do with Iran is that Bush wanted regime change, and would stop at nothing short of that goal, while Friedman's idea is that a threat of force, alongside the carrot, makes the carrot more likely to be taken up. Would you disagree?

Posted by Jordan Smith | November 18, 2007 9:05 PM

Friedman's idea is that a threat of force, alongside the carrot, makes the carrot more likely to be taken up. Would you disagree?

Because starting a war with Iran would be a disaster, threatening to start one is not likely to be effective.

Posted by rea | November 18, 2007 10:30 PM

...while Friedman's idea is that a threat of force, alongside the carrot, makes the carrot more likely to be taken up. Would you disagree?

If it is about making someone do what they don't want to, a threat doesn't improve things. Expressions such as "caving in" come to mind. Also "domesticate".

Posted by Bengt Larsson | November 18, 2007 10:39 PM

Eh. Tom Friedman's been writing this sort of simplistic faux profound column for years. Liberals only started calling him an idiot after their buyer's remorse kicked in on the Iraq War.

Regarding Iran though, according to yesterday's FT, our Persian friends are now only 12-18 months away from having enough material for a nuke. Exciting, no? Since China and Russia have no interest in supporting further UN sanctions on Iran, the jig is pretty much up. Unless Bush can get the EU on board with some real sanctions (e.g., getting gas suppliers to stop supplying Iran with gasoline), diplomacy and sanctions will have run their course. All that will be left will be to welcome the Iranians into the nuclear club or to turn their known nuke sites to rubble, in the manner of Clinton's Desert Fox campaign against Iraq's WMD suspected sites. At least no one would be able to plausibly call that a rush to war, after all the years of molasses-in-January diplomatic maneuvers.

Posted by Fred | November 18, 2007 11:37 PM

Nothing screams serious foreign policy like having a lunatic on the ticket.

Posted by Jinchi | November 18, 2007 11:43 PM

Isn't the question that Friedman brings up where Bush went wrong? Kerry (and Hillary for that matter) have the very sensible position that Bush was right to saber-rattle in order to restore containment and get the inspectors back into the country. The mistake was launching the war anyway.

The left blogosphere doesn't want to hear anything along these lines, and groans every time a Democratic candidate talks about keeping "options on the table." However, its one thing to object to Bush saber-rattling on Iran out of fear that given the precedent of Iraq, he doesn't have the skill to rattle a saber without using it. Its another to take the position that saber-rattling is a bad idea to begin with, even when utilized by a Democratic president with sound judgment and a realistic goal of behavior, not regime change.

Posted by mhp | November 19, 2007 12:34 AM

"Worst ever"? Maybe, but check Sullivan's place for "Victory in Iraq Update". The New Yorker, like CBS and others are also in the running for the Quisling Prize. One of the half-wits posting here actually cited the New Yorker piece as "evidence" of failure in Iraq. I suppose it is, but evidence of the fact that many on the left are rooting for the terrorists, and doing everything they can to insure a self-inflicted defeat for the US in a crucial conflict.

Posted by Robert Powell | November 19, 2007 2:35 AM

I like this Powell dude who parachutes in and types in every comment his little cowardly deluded rants about "duh leff wants duh terrists tuh win" stuff. Good work!

Posted by El Cid | November 19, 2007 6:57 AM

Tom Friedman's been writing this sort of simplistic faux profound column for years. Liberals only started calling him an idiot after their buyer's remorse kicked in on the Iraq War.

A lie, Fred. Here's Atrios calling Friedman "delusional" in February 2003, before the war started. Most liberals never supported the war. We were right and you were wrong.

Apply this lesson to your favored Iran policy as you will. (My view is that a nuclear Iran is better than war against Iran, and we can't trust Bush to do anything right, so if you're right about Iran's nuclear program we just have to suck it up and deal. Sorry.)

Posted by Matt Weiner | November 19, 2007 8:45 AM

Are there any Jewish newspaper columnists oppossed to destroying every Muslim nation on Earth? The New York Times has lost all its credibility. Tom Friedman is just a rubber stamp for Israel.

Posted by God help America | November 19, 2007 11:25 AM

The left blogosphere doesn't want to hear anything along these lines, and groans every time a Democratic candidate talks about keeping "options on the table." However, its one thing to object to Bush saber-rattling on Iran out of fear that given the precedent of Iraq, he doesn't have the skill to rattle a saber without using it. Its another to take the position that saber-rattling is a bad idea to begin with, even when utilized by a Democratic president with sound judgment and a realistic goal of behavior, not regime change.

Threatening force to make somebody do something is to behave like a thug. It's different if you do that with a thug (Saddam), or if you do it in general. One approach does not fit all.

Also, most people don't just react instinctually to stimuli; they can think. For example, many Europeans waiting/hoping for the Bush administration to end is quite different from if those same Europeans could be reasonably sure that the same kind of policy as with the Bush administration would continue.

Obama very intelligently took nuclear weapons off the table for dealing with terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That's good: nuclear weapons are useless for fighting terrorism anyway, and Pakistan has nuclear weapons. It was very good to cool down any talk about using nuclear weapons in this part of the world for what would, anyway, have been frivolous reasons for using them. I think Hillary did a big wrong when she criticized Obama for this opinion. Her view was the ultra-conventional "never take nuclear weapons off the table" without any regard to circumstances or applicability.

Posted by Bengt Larsson | November 19, 2007 11:36 AM

Well, I think it's just stupid and "weak-kneed" to take nuclear weapons off the table for fighting terrorism.

Similarly, ICBMs must be kept as a viable option to combat terrorists. They're also really useful in deterring child molesters and pornographers.

Anyone who opposes using ICBMs against child molesters is soft on child molesters...

Posted by RKU | November 19, 2007 11:57 AM

Bengt Larsson makes a sound point: "Threatening force...is to behave like a thug."

I would add, threatening force you have no reasonable ability to apply (starting a war with Iran, nuking Pakistan, etc.) is to act like an idiot.

We are already quite well-occupied with applying force, with plenty of sound justification, in Iraq. Campaign rhetoric like that between Clinton and Obama on "taking nukes off the table in the GWOT" is not to be confused with actual decision making, as I hope well informed foreign observers will appreciate.

Posted by Robert Powell | November 19, 2007 12:17 PM

Sarcasm is not good policy.

Posted by Bengt Larsson | November 19, 2007 12:18 PM

Campaign rhetoric like that between Clinton and Obama on "taking nukes off the table in the GWOT" is not to be confused with actual decision making, as I hope well informed foreign observers will appreciate.

Maybe campaign rhetoric isn't usually about policy but this one was. How you talk about your foreign policy is part of your foreign policy. Isn't it?

Posted by Bengt Larsson | November 19, 2007 12:35 PM

Welcome to the P.T. Barnum media: profit first, accompanied by traffic and advertising. Let the bloggers seek truth, they work for free (this one does, anyway).

Chilling message when you think of it: imagine trying to find your "inner Cheney." I'd sooner seek my inner Kurtz. OK, same thing.

Posted by Brian Donohue | November 19, 2007 1:24 PM

Robert Powell: "We are already quite well-occupied with applying force, with plenty of sound justification, in Iraq."

And isn't it interesting how the same tired-old ('sound'?) justifications are being trotted around again?

At any rate, negotiations are pointless. The US and Israel will be content with nothing less than the destruction of the regime in Tehran. What's there to talk about? As Saddam discovered to his detriment, kowtowing to the international community is merely preparation for being invaded. That lesson has not been lost on the ayatollahs.

Posted by faux facsimile | November 19, 2007 1:48 PM

Hey, Robert Powell. Big fan, loved you in Jesus Of Nazareth. Thought you'd been getting stale recently in Casualty for the BBC, so it's good to see you're out there researching new parts. You're showing good range ("average American" in one thread, "informed foreign observer" in this, quite a stretch) but I'm not sure comedy is your milieu. Anyway, good luck with it.

Posted by mancred | November 19, 2007 3:16 PM

Friedman's column was a little dippy, but not entirely incorrect on substance. Aren't you supposed to be smart, Yglesias? Have you studied foreign policy? Have you studied Bosnia and Kosovo? The difference between them and Rwanda was the lack of a threat of force. Friedman's not suggesting we should bomb Iran. Give the guy a break.

And my reaction to the Dowd column was, "I think she's right" - and I'm an Obama supporter. I think the characters in there really do act in the manner she describes. You're shooting the messenger.

Posted by glasnost | November 19, 2007 4:02 PM

Doesn't anyone owning a newspaper have a right to write volumes of drivel? Isn't that the NY Times God given right? I'm glad that Maureen Dowd and Thomas Friedman are such excellent examples of effite upperclass warriors. They show true banality in every word they write and every thought they express. They and their fellow scumbags are the reason I will not use my hard earned money to buy corporate media rags, such as the NY Times.

Posted by J Snow | November 19, 2007 4:53 PM

Dowd's column actually makes a valid point. Her take on Obama was expressed best in a Rilke poem:

The world is full of roles we play.
So long as we try anxiously to please,
Death acts also, though never to acclaim.

Here he is in the midst of battle- and he's still needy of his chief rival's approval. That's a deathblow to any campaign.

Posted by Trevor | November 19, 2007 5:26 PM

Have you studied Bosnia and Kosovo? The difference between them and Rwanda was the lack of a threat of force. Friedman's not suggesting we should bomb Iran.

Didn't we actually bomb Serbia?

Posted by Matt Weiner | November 19, 2007 5:45 PM

MikeJ has it exactly right:

Here's the timeline of events in the putative Obama-Cheney administration.

Obama is sworn in as president.
Two days later, Obama is assassinated.
President Cheney pardons the assasins.
Washington media praises Cheney for his courage and decisiveness.

This is how Bush Sr. tried to deal with Reagan - except the shot under the arm didn't QUITE do the job. Should have gone for the head shot - but then somebody might really have questioned how an incompetent like Hinckley got that lucky. Hard enough to explain how he got lucky with the side shot.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | November 20, 2007 12:32 AM

Didn't we actually bomb Serbia?

We did. We actually bombed Bosnia eventually, as well, though far too late.

But the point is - I don't read the Friedman column as endorsing the bombing of Iran at all. But whatever concessions we might get are going to take sticks as well as carrots. Ayatollah Khameinei has a history of being cautious when he expects to get smacked and not when he doesn't. These are not nice people, and they understand sticks. Sticks are their business.

Posted by glasnost | November 20, 2007 2:48 AM

Sticks are their business.

If you use a stick to (invasively, unilaterally) "modify people's behavior", you will have to continue to use the stick. I find it disgusting that you talk about these people as if it were about conditioning tamable animals.

It even works the same with carrots. If you pay off Mubarak, for example, so there won't be Islamist rule in Egypt, you will have to continue to pay, forever, or he will forget about you. Meanwhile, terrorism gets worse.

Of course, there is Stalin's solution. "No man, no Problem." You can kill those who cause problems, and anyone who objects. That is how the Roman Empire behaved.

Posted by Bengt Larsson | November 20, 2007 3:39 AM

Mr. Larsson--on occasion campaign rhetoric about foreign policy has some bearing on actual foreign policy, but not often. This is a pretty good example. The "argument" between Hil and Barak wasn't about using nukes in Pakistan. It was about "taking nukes off the table" as in, "we never take any option off the table". I'm satisfied that no one in either party is at all likely to actually use nukes anywhere unless someone nukes us, or tries very convincingly to do so. No sarcasm intended.

I also think the talk about attacking Iran is just partisan panic-mongering. Practically no one in the Pentagon is under any illusions that we have much of a chance to actually stop Iran's nuclear program with air strikes, and most know that to try would undermine the anti-regime Iranians who are our best hope for a more rational regime in Tehran. An actual invasion, which is what it would take, is plainly out of the question as anyone who can read a map should be able to see. As in Afghanistan, it's my hope that all the people who were so horrified with Bush's "unilateralism" will now be working with us in a multilateral way to address these problems.

Posted by Robert Powell | November 20, 2007 9:54 AM

Well, I disagree. How you talk about your foreign policy is part of your foreign policy.

Posted by Bengt Larsson | November 20, 2007 4:10 PM

Okay, as long as you understand that most of the talk is in code.

mancred-thanks for the recognition. My favorite role was Tommy's father in the Who movie. Maybe the comedy will get better with practice.

Posted by Robert Powell | November 20, 2007 5:32 PM

Well, politicians shouldn't be speaking in code on foreign policy, at least not so much that there is nothing for voters to choose from.

It's undemocratic to have an elite decide foreign policy. It's also unwise. Politicians, through the ages, have always been able to make political hay of wars. On starting wars, the general public is inherently more sensible than politicians, since starting a war is a matter of judgement of what is important.

Elite-led foreign policies, not only in America, are a risk to the world.

Posted by Bengt Larsson | November 20, 2007 6:49 PM

Mr. Larsson--
I agree.

Please note that in large-sample, good methodology national Gallup polls done about twice a year between 1991 and 2003, always a majority which at times approached 3:1, and averaged about 2:1 for the entire period, answered "Yes" to the unambiguous question-- "Would you support the use of US troops for the removal of Saddam Hussein from power?"

Posted by Robert Powell | November 22, 2007 4:05 AM