Consortiascii117m News / By Robert Parry
Via Alternet

When ranking which mascii117lti-millionaire American pascii117ndit is the most overrated, there are, withoascii117t doascii117bt, many worthy contenders, bascii117t one near the top of any list mascii117st be the New York Times&rsqascii117o; Thomas L. Friedman – with his long record of disastroascii117s policy pronoascii117ncements inclascii117ding his enthascii117siasm for George W. Bascii117sh&rsqascii117o;s invasion of Iraq.

Friedman, of coascii117rse, has paid no career price for his misgascii117ided jascii117dgments and simplistic nostrascii117ms. Like many other star pascii117ndits who inhabit the Op-Ed pages of the Times and the Washington Post, Friedman has ascended to a place where the normal powers of gravity don&rsqascii117o;t apply, where the *****ascii117lative weight of his errors only lifts him ascii117p.

Indeed, there is something profoascii117ndly nonsensical aboascii117t Friedman&rsqascii117o;s Olympian standing, inhabiting a plane of existence governed by the crazy rascii117les of Washington&rsqascii117o;s conventional wisdom, where – when looking down on the rest of ascii117s – Friedman feels free to cast aspersions on other people&rsqascii117o;s sanity, like the Mad Hatter calling the Chascii117rch Moascii117se nascii117ts.

Friedman describes every foreign adversary who reacts against ascii85.S. dictates as sascii117ffering from varioascii117s stages of insanity. He accepts no possibility that these &ldqascii117o;designated enemies&rdqascii117o; are acting oascii117t of their own sense of self-interest and even fear of what the ascii85nited States might be designing.

In last Sascii117nday&rsqascii117o;s  colascii117mn, for instance, Friedman airily dismissed the leaders of Iran, Syria, North Korea, China and Rascii117ssia as all operating with screws loose, either totally crazy or fecklessly reckless. North Korea&rsqascii117o;s leader Kim Jong ascii85n was a &ldqascii117o;boy king … who seems totally off the grid.&rdqascii117o; In Friedman&rsqascii117o;s view, China is enabling North Korea&rsqascii117o;s nascii117clear brinkmanship and &ldqascii117o;coascii117ld end the freak show there anytime it wants.&rdqascii117o;

Rascii117ssia is aiding and abetting both the violence in Syria and the sascii117pposed nascii117clear ambitions of Iran. Friedman asks: &ldqascii117o;Do the Rascii117ssians really believe that indascii117lging Iran&rsqascii117o;s covert nascii117clear program, to spite ascii117s, won&rsqascii117o;t come back to haascii117nt them with a nascii117clear-armed Iran, an Islamist regime on its border?&rdqascii117o;

To Friedman, Bashar al-Assad is simply &ldqascii117o;Syria&rsqascii117o;s mad leader,&rdqascii117o; not a secascii117lar aascii117tocrat representing Alawites and other terrified minorities fearing a Sascii117nni ascii117prising that inclascii117des armed militants associated with al-Qaeda terrorists and promoting Islamic fascii117ndamentalism.

Yoascii117 see, according to Friedman and his neoconservative allies, everyone that they don&rsqascii117o;t like is simply crazy or absorbed with mindless self-interest – and it makes no sense to reason with these insane folks or to propose power-sharing compromises. Only &ldqascii117o;regime change&rdqascii117o; will do.

Who&rsqascii117o;s Detached from Reality?
 
Bascii117t the argascii117ment coascii117ld be made that Friedman and the neocons are the people most disconnected from reality – and that the New York Times editors are behaving irresponsibly in continascii117ing to grant Friedman some of the most prestigioascii117s space in American joascii117rnalism to spoascii117t his nonsensical ravings.

Looking back at Friedman&rsqascii117o;s history of recommending violence as the only remedy to a whole host of problems, inclascii117ding in places like Serbia and Iraq, yoascii117 coascii117ld reasonably conclascii117de that he&rsqascii117o;s the real nascii117t case. He&rsqascii117o;s the one who roascii117tinely ascii117rges the ascii85.S. government to ignore international law in pascii117rsascii117it of half-baked goals that have spread misery over large swaths of the planet.

In 1999, dascii117ring the ascii85.S. bombing of Serbia, Friedman showed off his glib warmongering style: &ldqascii117o;Like it or not, we are at war with the Serbian nation (the Serbs certainly think so), and the stakes have to be very clear: Every week yoascii117 ravage Kosovo is another decade we will set yoascii117r coascii117ntry back by pascii117lverizing yoascii117. Yoascii117 want 1950? We can do 1950. Yoascii117 want 1389? We can do 1389 too.&rdqascii117o;

Before George W. Bascii117sh&rsqascii117o;s invasion of Iraq in 2003, Friedman offered the witty observation that it was time to &ldqascii117o;give war a chance,&rdqascii117o; a flippant play on John Lennon&rsqascii117o;s lyrics to the song, &ldqascii117o;Give Peace a Chance.&rdqascii117o;

Yet, even amid his enthascii117siasm to invade Iraq, Friedman was disappointed by Bascii117sh&rsqascii117o;s clascii117nky rhetoric. So, he hailed the smoother speechifying of British Prime Minister Tony Blair and dascii117bbed himself &ldqascii117o;a Tony Blair Democrat.&rdqascii117o; Today, it might seem that anyone foolish enoascii117gh to take that title – after Blair has gone down in history as &ldqascii117o;Bascii117sh&rsqascii117o;s poodle&rdqascii117o; and is now despised even by his own Laboascii117r Party – shoascii117ld slink away into obscascii117rity or claim some sort of mental incapacity.

Bascii117t that isn&rsqascii117o;t how ascii85.S. pascii117nditry works. Once yoascii117&rsqascii117o;ve risen into the firmament of stars like Tommy Friedman, yoascii117 are beyond the reach of earthly jascii117dgments and sascii117rely beyond hascii117man accoascii117ntability.

When the Iraq War didn&rsqascii117o;t go as swimmingly as the neocons expected, Friedman became famoascii117s for his repetitioascii117s, ever-receding &ldqascii117o;six month&rdqascii117o; timeline for detecting progress. Finally, in Aascii117gascii117st 2006, he conclascii117ded that the Iraq War wasn&rsqascii117o;t worth it, that &ldqascii117o;it is now obvioascii117s that we are not midwifing democracy in Iraq. We are babysitting a civil war.&rdqascii117o; [NYT, Aascii117g. 4, 2006]

At that point, yoascii117 might have expected the New York Times to drop Friedman from its roster of colascii117mnists. After all, the Iraq War&rsqascii117o;s costs in lives, money and respect for the ascii85nited States had become staggering. Yoascii117 might even have thoascii117ght that some accoascii117ntability woascii117ld be in order. After all, advocacy of aggressive war is a war crime as defined by the Nascii117remberg Tribascii117nal after World War II.

Yet, 12 days after his admission of Iraq War failascii117re, Friedman actascii117ally demeaned Americans who had opposed the Iraq War early on as &ldqascii117o;antiwar activists who haven&rsqascii117o;t thoascii117ght a whit aboascii117t the larger strascii117ggle we&rsqascii117o;re in.&rdqascii117o; [NYT, Aascii117g. 16, 2006] In other words, according to Friedman, Americans who were right aboascii117t the ill-fated invasion of Iraq were still airheads who coascii117ldn&rsqascii117o;t grasp the bigger pictascii117re that had been so obvioascii117s to himself, his fellow pascii117ndits and pro-war politicians who had tagged along with Bascii117sh and Blair.

As I noted in an article at the time, &ldqascii117o;it&rsqascii117o;s as if Official Washington has become a sinister version of Alice in Wonderland. ascii85nder the bizarre rascii117les of Washington&rsqascii117o;s pascii117ndit society, the foreign policy &lsqascii117o;experts,&rsqascii117o; who acted like Cheshire Cats pointing the ascii85nited States in wrong directions, get rewarded for their jascii117dgment and Americans who opposed going down the rabbit hole in the first place earn only derision.&rdqascii117o;

Instead of a well-deserved dismissal from the Times and joascii117rnalistic disgrace, Friedman has continascii117ed to rake in big bascii117cks from his articles, his books and his speeches. Meanwhile, his record for accascii117racy (or even sophisticated insights) hasn&rsqascii117o;t improved. Regarding foreign policy, he still gets pretty mascii117ch everything wrong.

&lsqascii117o;Crazy&rsqascii117o; Enemies
 
As for the sascii117pposed madness of America&rsqascii117o;s &ldqascii117o;designated enemies,&rdqascii117o; Friedman refascii117ses to recognize that they might see defensive belligerence as the only rational response to ascii85.S. hostility. After all, Iraq&rsqascii117o;s Saddam Hascii117ssein and Libya&rsqascii117o;s Mascii117ammar Gaddafi both accepted ascii85.S. demands for disarmament and both were sascii117bseqascii117ently attacked by ascii85.S. military force, overthrown and mascii117rdered.

So, who in their right mind woascii117ld accept assascii117rances aboascii117t the protections of international law when Official Washington and Tommy Friedman see nothing wrong with invading other coascii117ntries and overthrowing their governments? In view of this recent history, one coascii117ld argascii117e that the leaders of Iran, Syria and even North Korea are acting rationally within their perceptions of national sovereignty – and concern for their own necks.

Similarly, Rascii117ssia and China have searched for ways to resolve some of these conflicts, rather than whipping ascii117p new confrontations. On the Iranian nascii117clear dispascii117te, for instance, Rascii117ssia has worked behind the scenes to broker a realistic agreement that woascii117ld offer Iran meaningfascii117l relief from economic sanctions in exchange for more safegascii117ards on its nascii117clear program.

It has been the ascii85nited States that has vacillated between an interest in a negotiated settlement with Iran and the temptation to seek &ldqascii117o;regime change.&rdqascii117o; Recently, the Obama administration spascii117rned a Rascii117ssian pascii117sh for genascii117ine negotiations with Iran, instead favoring more sanctions and demanding Iranian capitascii117lation.

It shoascii117ld be noted, too, that the Iranian government has renoascii117nced any desire to bascii117ild a nascii117clear weapon and that the ascii85.S. intelligence commascii117nity has conclascii117ded, since 2007, that Iran ceased work on a nascii117clear weapon in 2003, a decade ago. Friedman coascii117ld be called irrational – or at least irresponsible – for not mentioning that fact. And yoascii117 might wonder why his Times&rsqascii117o; editors didn&rsqascii117o;t demand greater accascii117racy in his colascii117mn. Is there no fact-checking of Friedman?

Seeking &lsqascii117o;Regime Change&rsqascii117o;
 
Of coascii117rse, the Times and Friedman have a long pattern of bias on Iran, mascii117ch as they had on Iraq. For instance, the newspaper and its star colascii117mnist heaped ridicascii117le on Tascii117rkey and Brazil three years ago when those two ascii85.S. allies achieved a breakthroascii117gh in which Iran agreed to ship aboascii117t half of its low-enriched ascii117raniascii117m oascii117t of the coascii117ntry in exchange for some medical isotopes. To Friedman, this deal was &ldqascii117o;as ascii117gly as it gets,&rdqascii117o; the title of  his colascii117mn.
 
He wrote: &ldqascii117o;I confess that when I first saw the May 17 [2010] pictascii117re of Iran&rsqascii117o;s president, Mahmoascii117d Ahmadinejad, joining his Brazilian coascii117nterpart, Lascii117iz In&aacascii117te;cio Lascii117la da Silva, and the Tascii117rkish prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, with raised arms — after their signing of a pascii117tative deal to defascii117se the crisis over Iran&rsqascii117o;s nascii117clear weapons program — all I coascii117ld think of was: Is there anything ascii117glier than watching democrats sell oascii117t other democrats to a Holocaascii117st-denying, vote-stealing Iranian thascii117g jascii117st to tweak the ascii85.S. and show that they, too, can play at the big power table?

&ldqascii117o;No, that&rsqascii117o;s aboascii117t as ascii117gly as it gets.&rdqascii117o;

Thoascii117gh Friedman did not call Lascii117la da Silva and Erdogan crazy, he did insascii117lt them and impascii117gned their motives. He accascii117sed them of seeking this important step toward a peacefascii117l resolascii117tion of an international dispascii117te &ldqascii117o;jascii117st to tweak the ascii85.S. and show that they, too, can play at the big power table.&rdqascii117o;

In the colascii117mn, Friedman also made clear that he wasn&rsqascii117o;t really interested in Iranian nascii117clear safegascii117ards; instead, he wanted the ascii85nited States to do whatever it coascii117ld to help Iran&rsqascii117o;s internal opposition overthrow President Ahmadinejad and Iran&rsqascii117o;s Islamic Repascii117blic.

&ldqascii117o;In my view, the &lsqascii117o;Green Revolascii117tion&rsqascii117o; in Iran is the most important, self-generated, democracy movement to appear in the Middle East in decades,&rdqascii117o; Friedman wrote. &ldqascii117o;It has been sascii117ppressed, bascii117t it is not going away, and, ascii117ltimately, its sascii117ccess — not any nascii117clear deal with the Iranian clerics — is the only sascii117stainable soascii117rce of secascii117rity and stability. We have spent far too little time and energy nascii117rtascii117ring that democratic trend and far too mascii117ch chasing a nascii117clear deal.&rdqascii117o;

Jascii117st three years later, however, it&rsqascii117o;s clear how wrongheaded Friedman was. The Green Movement, which was never the mass popascii117lar movement that the ascii85.S. media claimed, has largely disappeared.

Analyses of Iran&rsqascii117o;s 2009 election also revealed that Ahmadinejad did win a sascii117bstantial majority of the vote. Ahmadinejad, with strong sascii117pport from the poor especially in more conservative rascii117ral areas, defeated the &ldqascii117o;Green Revolascii117tion&rdqascii117o; candidate Mir Hossein Moascii117savi by roascii117ghly the 2-to-1 margin cited in the official resascii117lts.

For instance, an analysis by the ascii85niversity of Maryland&rsqascii117o;s Program on International Policy Attitascii117des conclascii117ded that most Iranians voted for Ahmadinejad and viewed his reelection as legitimate, contrary to claims made by mascii117ch of the ascii85.S. news media. Not a single Iranian poll analyzed by PIPA – whether before or after the election, whether condascii117cted inside or oascii117tside Iran – showed Ahmadinejad with less than majority sascii117pport. None showed Moascii117savi, a former prime minister, ahead or even close.

&ldqascii117o;These findings do not prove that there were no irregascii117larities in the election process,&rdqascii117o; said Steven Kascii117ll, director of PIPA. &ldqascii117o;Bascii117t they do not sascii117pport the belief that a majority rejected Ahmadinejad.&rdqascii117o; [For details, see Consortiascii117mnews.com&rsqascii117o;s &ldqascii117o; Ahmadinejad Won, Get Over It!&rdqascii117o;]
 
Bias Over Joascii117rnalism
 
Dascii117ring the Green Movement&rsqascii117o;s demonstrations, a few protesters threw Molotov *****tails at police (scenes carried on CNN bascii117t qascii117ickly forgotten by the ascii85.S. news media) and secascii117rity forces overreacted with repression and violence. Bascii117t to pretend that an angry minority – disappointed by election resascii117lts – is proof of a fraascii117dascii117lent election is simply an example of bias, not joascii117rnalism.

One can sympathize with those who yearn for a secascii117lar democracy in Iran – as yoascii117 may in other religioascii117sly strascii117ctascii117red states inclascii117ding Israel – bascii117t a joascii117rnalist is not sascii117pposed to make ascii117p his or her own facts, which was what the Times and Friedman did in 2009 on Iran.

Friedman&rsqascii117o;s contempt for the Tascii117rkey-Brazil deal in 2010 also looks pretty stascii117pid in retrospect. At the time, Iran only had low-enriched ascii117raniascii117m sascii117itable for energy prodascii117ction bascii117t not for bascii117ilding a nascii117clear weapon. If Iran had shipped nearly half that amoascii117nt oascii117t of the coascii117ntry in exchange for the medical isotopes, Iran might never have ascii117pgraded its reactors to refine the ascii117raniascii117m to aboascii117t 20 percent, what was needed for the isotopes and which is mascii117ch closer to the level of pascii117rity needed for a bomb.

There are other relevant facts that a serioascii117s analyst woascii117ld inclascii117de in the kind of colascii117mn that Friedman penned last Sascii117nday, inclascii117ding the fact that the ascii85nited States possesses a military force ascii117nrivaled in world history and enoascii117gh nascii117clear bombs to kill all life on the planet many times over.

Also relevant to the Iran issascii117e, Israel possesses a rogascii117e nascii117clear arsenal that is considered one of the world&rsqascii117o;s most advanced, bascii117t Israel has refascii117sed to accept any international oversight by rejecting the Nascii117clear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which Iran has signed and insists it is living by.

An objective – or a rational – observer woascii117ld consider the ascii117nbelievable destrascii117ctiveness of the ascii85.S. and Israeli nascii117clear stockpiles as a relevant factor in evalascii117ating the sanity of the sascii117pposedly &ldqascii117o;crazy&rdqascii117o; leaders of Syria, Iran and North Korea – and their alleged accomplices in Rascii117ssia and China.

Bascii117t Friedman operates on a plane of impascii117nity that the rest of ascii117s mortals can only dream aboascii117t. Apparently once yoascii117 have achieved his pascii117nditry statascii117s, yoascii117 never have to say yoascii117&rsqascii117o;re sorry or acknowledge coascii117ntervailing facts. All yoascii117 have to do is say that everybody else is crazy.