I Feel Like Vomiting

Every time I see or hear this man, Tom Friedman! The most ignorant self-appointed "expert" on the middle east. Someone with courage should ask him why he has no shame!

I hate you when you don't know what is behind this man, and his ilk. You are so ignorant!

Sent by Alex | 2:15 PM ET | 08-14-2007

Why does history (or similar circumstances) repeat themselves?
I was born in 1965, so I am just
recently learning more about Vietnam.
No WMD & administration twisted facts and time frames..lied, now... No attack in the Gulf of Tulken & administration..lied.. then... Weak government we try to prop up and establish a democracy, now.. same, then.. What happened in Korea? I haven't researched that one yet.. Why
does power and greed seem to win with
our administrations.. and both parties
have been guilty, I'm sure.. The more
I discover, the more scared I am for my and all of our children's future.

Sent by Leanne Farkas | 2:20 PM ET | 08-14-2007

What do you make of Ahmadinejad holding hands with al-Malaki? In his subsequent press conference adressing the handholding, the President looked thoroughly stirred. Are we going to "replace" al-Maliki? Did Ahmadinejad trump us (Remember the saying: The Persians invented chess)

Sent by Ronald Mwangaguhunga | 2:20 PM ET | 08-14-2007

Why are Iraqis so listless, impotent, powerless, passive. Did they prefer the dynamic tyrant that was Sadam?
Why when given the opportunity for Democracy, do they choose to kill their Shiite or Sunni cousin? Is there something fundamentally wrong with Iraqis?

Sent by Mike | 2:21 PM ET | 08-14-2007

What can we expect if Benjamin Netanyahu is elected in Israel?

Sent by Ron | 2:29 PM ET | 08-14-2007

Are you aware of Riane Eisler's book, The Real Wealth of Nation? Taking on the old capitalistic model of the dominator/dominated value (or as Tom just said, repressive regimes), she introduces a new value--caring and the new economic theory, Partnerism. What does Tom know/think of this? (and you should invite her on your show)

Sent by Ann | 2:30 PM ET | 08-14-2007

Tom Friedman makes no sense. He says that the surge isn't working because the Iraqis aren't stepping up..but they never ASKED us to go there!!! We went there based on lies and each and every death is a murder on bush's soul!

Sent by jim ku | 2:32 PM ET | 08-14-2007

Why is General Aoun in Lebabon siding with Iranian-Syrian backed Hezbollah against the United States backed Fouad candidacy, which is more in the interests of his country and his Christianity.

Sent by Ron | 2:35 PM ET | 08-14-2007

Overthrowing sovereign nations is not "collaborating". If Friedman knew anything about Iraq and "long range" "big thinking" he would have seen all this coming, seen the disaster that was inevitable before day one of the war. This guy is about as useful as Anne Coulter.

Sent by Kirk | 2:38 PM ET | 08-14-2007

Ditto with the last comment!! This talking head should give it a rest, he's quite limited in his view and has been proven wrong time and time again, yet TOTN is giving him MORE air time?

Sent by conrad | 2:39 PM ET | 08-14-2007

could you ask Mr. Freeman to reconcile his vision of a flat, democratized world vs a security oriented nation state where border lines matter? Is the flat world consist of world citizens where affluence and liberal ideas trump narrow views of a nation state? I have not read his book but am interested on this particular wonky POV.

Sent by david | 2:44 PM ET | 08-14-2007

The only thing really flat about Friedman are his brain waves. Why is anybody, especially NPR, listening to this globalization huckster anymore?

Sent by John Drzal | 2:44 PM ET | 08-14-2007

Never thought I'd defend Thomas Friedman, the man behind the Friedman, but whoa! What's with the vehemence? I agree with Scott's description - he's got the insights and experiences to back up what he says and writes. That he relies almost exclusively on his own insights and experiences limits his usefulness, but to compare him to the bombthrower Ann Coulter is absurd. He may be limited in his outlook, but he's rational.

Sent by Steve Jones | 3:35 PM ET | 08-14-2007

What does Tom Friedman most regret about having advocated going into Iraq? The guilt at having helped waste a trillion dollars and tens of thousands of lives, perhaps? Er, no. What he regrets is that others can't see that when evil people get between his beautiful vision and reality, it is in fact confirmation that his position was right all along. Argggh.

Sent by Chris Dickson | 3:43 PM ET | 08-14-2007

Mr Friedman's kind of rationality is of the kind that does not recognize that the world does not turn by rationality. You cannot invent a calculus to solve the worlds political problems. Clever book titles and glib explanations do not replace realistic insights into the complex inter-relationships of emotion, religion, bigotry, history and economics that is needed to really make meddling into other people's culture successful. Mr Friedman, like the Neo-Con's, think that you can make the world into the image you have of it just be wanting it to be so. Not so easy.

Sent by George from Oregon | 3:54 PM ET | 08-14-2007

Last week my family and I served as a host family for a group of 22 Iraqi students that came from all sectors of Iraqi society, religiously, geographically and ethnically. They all got along really well and even had quite similar opinions about what the problems were. Outside influence is having a big effect on what goes on in Iraq, we can't resort to thinking that there is something fundamentally wrong with Iraqis.

Sent by Jim Gilchrist | 3:57 PM ET | 08-14-2007

Thomas Friedman stated in a column on the eve of the 2003 Iraq invasion that although he thought changing regimes might be a good idea (for reasons other than WMD), he had doubts about the ability of the Bush administration to do it successfully. So he was as correct as anyone -- many of his specific doubts reflect the actual mistakes that the Bush administration later made. In my opinion, he doesn't need to apologize for anything.

Sent by Steve | 5:49 PM ET | 08-14-2007

I was shocked that interviewer didn't challenge any of Mr. Friedman's comments about the war and the Middle East. He was basically positing a new rendition of the "white man's burden" when he said he initially supported the war in Iraq because the people of the Middle East are oppressed by retrograde regimes that we uncritically have supported over the years. He also mistrepresented and grossly oversimplified the complex history of our relations in the Middle East. His flattened, faux naif version of the middle East made me cringe. He also seems unaffected by his role in supporting a war that has become a colossal tragic nightmare. He was right about one thing--the Middle East might well explode--now that we have had our fun. This man is a menace.

Sent by Mark Knoernschild | 2:01 AM ET | 08-15-2007

Where is the money. Its all about the $ and contract and share holders that are all republican

Sent by dave geary | 2:49 AM ET | 11-07-2007