<strong>Written By:</strong> Ed Deak
<strong>Date:</strong> 2006-07-26 09:48:00
<a href="/article/83138844-tom-friedmans-shocking-admission">Article Link</a>

Not surprisingly, Russert didn't challenge Friedman, or even ask a follow-up question. He didn't ask how Tom Friedman, the deity whom D.C. bows down to on trade, could be so uninformed he would call the Central American Free Trade Agreement the "Carribbean" Free Trade Agreement? He didn't ask Friedman why he didn't even bother to consider the widespread concerns about the pact's lack of labor, human rights, environmental provisions. Similarly, he didn't ask Friedman whether, if he's such an advocate for truly "free" trade, why Friedman didn't bother to protest the brazenly protectionist provisions in the deal that make sure the drug industry is allowed to artificially inflate drug prices in Central American countries. He didn't ask Friedman why, if the deal was so good for Central America, some Central American governments and a massive amount of Central American citizens vigorously protested the deal. He didn't ask Friedman what kind of nerve it takes to go to a state like Minnesota that has been devastated by "free" trade deals and tell people that he happily advocates for their economic destruction, even though he is uninterested in even glancing at the policies he is pushing.

<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/caught-on-tape-tom-fried_b_25789.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/caught-on-tape-tom-fried_b_25789.html</a>







[Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on July 26, 2006]

   

I saw that too! Isn't that absolutely mind-boggling? <p> Somebody wrote of Friedman, whom he referred to as the 'perennial idiot': "This guy never fails to disappoint. I mean, he sets the bar lower and lower, and somehow manages to find a way to limbo underneath it yet again." I so agree.

   

The New York Times is noted for favoring anything that harms the middle class. It has a reputation for being intellectual but it backs the type of globalization that money trader George Soros and energy trader Maurice Strong stand to make a buck from. Its reputation is paid for, it is not earned.

The Times is the spokespaper of the millioniare socialists and the corporations without national boarders. It's international image causes it to back bringing in near slave wages, welcoming cheap labor (Mexicans and other illegal immigrants) to the detrement of the poor blacks and ordinary middle class Americans who have fought to give all Americans a decent wage and a decent job and who are expected to pay the resulting hefty bill for the Times largesse. It opposes any action that might protect ordinary Americans in any way you can describe. They tell those trying to kill its own countrymen by the thousands what the plans are to protect the country. One day this will result in a nuke or a chemical or biological agent killing Americans by the millions.
Thousand refer to them as traitors right now and the point is well taken. They would have been jailed in World Wars I and II and probably would have been shot by firing squad anytime before that.
The good news is that they're going broke, and going broke fast. Their reputation is that their reporters lie (Jayson Blair, one of the most noted liars in journalism was being groomed to head the paper). And that they don't like us and so they report on bin Laden's phone or utter nonsense about issues like CAFTNA.
I, for one , will dance when that vile House of fabrication falls down. They deserve the worst.
Friedman still isn't telling the truth. Whatever he read or didn't read he is part of a cabal, some would say conspiracy, to report the political line of his global masters like Soros and Strong. That is what he basically said unless he's wasn't speaking English.

   

Friedman has become a punch line. My favorite is “The next six months are critical”. He has used that line countless times in the last three years in his NYT pieces. And six months later, we learn that “The next six months are critical”.

It’s a running gag I’ve got with some of my friends. No matter what the question, someone will reply that, “The next six months are critical” to which the others solemnly nod their heads in agreement.

That said, “From Beirut to Jerusalem” is a fantastic book.

   

Neocon tactic #1, discredit the messenger.
Neocon tactic #2, don't look at the actual evidence.

Which is rather ironic, considering Mr. Friedman didn't look at it ethier before choosing to back the CAFTA.

---
"I think it's important to always carry enough technology to restart civilization, should it be necessary." Mark Tilden