Skip to main content

View Diary: "Riverbend" Blows The Doors Off Friedman Lies (123 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I Agree But What Stuns Me (4.00)
    is that he just makes shit up!  I've never liked him before BUT, now I'll never believe anything he writes ever again.

    Because if it comes down to believing Riverbend or that jackass - it's no contest.

    Where does he get the gall?

    You can't always tell the truth because you don't always know the truth - but you can ALWAYS be honest.

    by mattman on Sun May 29, 2005 at 11:46:17 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Probably the same place as Judith Miller, (4.00)
      David Brooks, Clifford May, Heather Macdonald William Krystal, Frank Gaffney, and about 20-30 other  spinners and spokespersons who enjoy prominence and generous face-time access in the US media to make their pitches.
      •  No kidding! (4.00)
        Did you happen to read Brooks invoking the spirit of Karl Marx today?  Or was it Karl Rove?  I'm still baffled.

        "I'm not interested in that same liberal claptrap. That meow, meow, meow, ironic detachment." -- Stephen Colbert

        by SneakySnu on Sun May 29, 2005 at 12:46:08 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Gallmart (4.00)
      Friedman is an apologist for capitalism (or more to the point corporatism) first and foremost, anything else, including things like honesty, integrity, etcetera, seems to interest him far less.  Blarf.
    •  Uh (none)
      Mattman, I am a big fan of yours, but be careful here.

      Friedman is writing in generalities versus the more specifically and intimately involved Riverbend.

      Doesnt mean either is incorrect in their analysis.

      I am aware Friedman supported the war from the get go and I did not, but I am always struck dumb by the amount of fierce anti Friedmanism posted on this website.

      Maybe its because he isnt clearly aligned with one camp or another?

      My reading of this post by Riverbend is that its disingenuous. She has ulterior motives. Her outrage at the comparison btwn a Shiite governor and a black governor in Alabammy in 1920 strikes me as false and forced. I will forgive her outrage because she doubtless is in a state of prolonged war shock.

      This is much, much more than a religious sectarian rivalry. Read the history if you have not already done so.

      Friedman is correct in his fundamental analysis of the situation.

      Riverbend has every right to dispute his analysis.

      But the Shia and the Sunnis, extremists factions only maybe, will be openly at each others' throats before this mess is resolved, if it ever is, and their battle will be about POWER, not right and wrong, not one interpretation of the koran over another.

      I welcome any comments that will explain the rampant anti-Friemanism so that I can understand our own mentality a bit better.

      And do not think Iran will not be heavily involved in the Shia side of the matter.

      •  Friedman licks Bush's boots . . . (none)
        Bush is the biggest threat to world peace in this century, what else do we need to say about Friedman?  The reason you may see more scorn expressed here for Friedman than for some of the other NYT Bush-loving hacks is that Friedman tries to pretend that he is a reasonable person.  Bill Kristol, Judith Miller, and many others don't make the pretense, they just suck up to Bush without shame.

        Friedman lies more subtly than Cheney and the hard core neo-cons, so he is maybe more dangerous since his smooth lying could pick up support from some otherwise informed readers.

        •  I am sure glad you (none)
          are not my doctor...

          Ever been accused of "misdiagnosis", doc?

          While Bush may well be the greatest threat to world peace in this century, this century is only a few years old....he cant compare to any number of threats to world peace from the last cntury.

          Give it time. Someone far more bloodcurdling will surely come along.

          I have also not seen that many examples of Friedman asslicking Bush. They are in agreement about Iraq, but not much else, are they?

      •  and (none)
        "Friedman is correct in his fundamental analysis of the situation."

        and how on earth do you feel that you know more than a native iraqi?  i mean, do you realize how laughable that sounds?

      •  Donkeytale, You Deserve A Better (none)
        answer than I can give you right this minute.  I think my revulsion for Friedman stems from my own roots and bias.  I'm middle Eastern - Greek - and it galls me to think someone sitting in NY understands better what is going on in Iraq than someone who is an Iraqi.

        It really chaps my ass.  I think the fascist government in Greece put in place by the CIA, has made me wary and unforgiving of those who think they know what's best for a culture they really don't understand.

        But Friedman not only does that, he comments on things for which he has no factual basis.

        See Nate's post downthread re Cole's take on Friedman.

        But, if I were to advise anyone of anything regarding the Iraqi situation,  I would sum it all up by quoting an old Middle Eastern saying:

        No man can rule in another man's house."

        So, I'll take Riverbend's side every time.

        And, dude, I'm a genuine fan of yours.  Only bitch I have with you is I don't see enough of yer posts.

        You can't always tell the truth because you don't always know the truth - but you can ALWAYS be honest.

        by mattman on Mon May 30, 2005 at 08:18:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No man can rule in another mans house (none)
          thats a good one.

          The ancient Iraqi dilemma is that three men are living in the same house and they all want to rule, dont they?

          One, on the north side of the house, would just as soon partition his part off and turn it into a duplex.

          The second, who previously ruled through blunt force, wants to regain control of the house, and will stop at nothing to get his way, once the landlord has decided to move on to his next rebuilding project.

          The third, who many say has the moral right to lead the household, will necessarily have to fight off the blunt force of the second and the desires of the third to be left alone.

          This is a prescription for a lot more fighting within the house.

          Riverbend is one of the third. She has her own motivations. Dont assume she is golden just because she is there on the ground.

          She may be Mother Teresa reincarnate. She may not.

          Stay skeptical dude, is my opinion.

          I dont post much these days because of working. But I always enjoy yours, too.

          •  give me a fuckin break (none)
            this is a fundmental question of our times..

            when may we denigrate an eyewitness over those who have not seen?

            When should we believe those who have no context over those who have exactly the context that we might need to make sense of this situation?

            These are fundamental and scientifically useful questions.

            I await your response.
            Ptah

            •  Apples and Oranges (none)
              An eyewitness blogging from ground level is one thing.

              A general op ed columnist is another.

              They aren't comparable.

              Look. All I am saying, is this person on the ground has her own motivations to take the stances she takes.

              Just because she is on the ground doesnt necessarily legitimize her, does it?

              Another thought, although I am not making an accussation here, so please read carefully, blogging opens up a beautiful opportunity for propoganda doesnt it?

              Of all kinds and political persuasions.

              STAY SKEPTICAL

        •  Forgot to say (none)
          the third will have to fight off the other two but he has a big bad rich uncle next door to help him when the time comes. Be careful of the rich uncle.
          •  Glad I came back to this diary (none)
            Some very good points made, Donkeytale. I think I want to say something in reply to your first point, but I would have to read both Friedman and riverbend again.  So, maybe I won't...

            But the question I have here requires no thinking.  In "No man can rule in another man's house" you describe the third man as the one who has the moral right to lead the household (because of majority?), and say riverbend is like this third man.

            And this third man has a big bad rich uncle next door.  I assume you mean Iran.  So are you saying that riverbend is a shi'a Muslim (non-observant, like Chalabi, Alawi, etc.)?

            Interesting, and then a real reason to call into question what riverbend writes, since she presents herself (unspoken, perhaps) as a Sunni.

            •  well then Ihave the facts wrong (none)
              she belongs in the second house.
              •  I could be wrong as well (none)
                I assumed she was Sunni, though I'm not sure where that assumption came from, without going back and reading archives on her blog.

                Whichever house she's from, you were right with your "cool down" comments.

                Her blog is very good at giving me a window into a small part of one young woman's life in Baghdad.  The water and electricity constantly on and off, the ever-increasing blockades of roads, the relatives coming and going, the preparation for Eid, visiting a neighbor--she writes about it well.  And her political opinions come through pretty strongly--her family booing at some politician on television, the U.S. soldiers doing a night raid on a house nearby--pulling a mother and daughter out in the nightgowns, humiliated, stuff like that.  

                But she doesn't represent all of Iraq anymore than a NY city born, life-long resident represents all of United States.

    •  He can get away with it. (none)
      It's because of his position in NYTimes. He thinks he can keep getting away with making shit up.

      He is really just a basic neocon with zionist bent. Little truth won't stop him making up stuff.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site