Friedman: 9/11 Is Over

[The Blue Flower]

Not long ago, the satirical newspaper The Onion ran a fake news story that began like this:

“At a well-attended rally in front of his new ground zero headquarters Monday, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani officially announced his plan to run for president of 9/11. ‘My fellow citizens of 9/11, today I will make you a promise,’ said Giuliani during his 18-minute announcement speech in front of a charred and torn American flag. ‘As president of 9/11, I will usher in a bold new 9/11 for all.’ If elected, Giuliani would inherit the duties of current 9/11 President George W. Bush, including making grim facial expressions, seeing the world’s conflicts in terms of good and evil, and carrying a bullhorn at all state functions.”
Like all good satire, the story made me both laugh and cry, because it reflected something so true — how much, since 9/11, we’ve become “The United States of Fighting Terrorism.” Times columnists are not allowed to endorse candidates, but there’s no rule against saying who will not get my vote: I will not vote for any candidate running on 9/11. We don’t need another president of 9/11. We need a president for 9/12. I will only vote for the 9/12 candidate.

What does that mean? This: 9/11 has made us stupid. I honor, and weep for, all those murdered on that day. But our reaction to 9/11 — mine included — has knocked America completely out of balance, and it is time to get things right again.

(snip)

We can’t afford to keep being this stupid! We have got to get our groove back. We need a president who will unite us around a common purpose, not a common enemy. Al Qaeda is about 9/11. We are about 9/12, we are about the Fourth of July — which is why I hope that anyone who runs on the 9/11 platform gets trounced.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/30/opinion/30friedman.html?em&ex=1191470400&en=484c104ee5c0477f&ei=5087%0A

[meegbear]

1. What do you mean "WE" can’t afford to keep being this stupid?

Nice to see you're trying to rejoin the food chain.

[mike_c]

2. are your comments directed toward Friedman...

...who probably won't see them, or toward the OP, who (if I'm not mistaken) was simply quoting Friedman?

[meegbear]

5. Friedman, it's in the last paragraph of the column ...

I know he won't see it, but nothing pisses me off more (well, other things do as much or more, but that's besides the point) than persons who 100% supported the invasion, "lecturing" us on how wrong and stupid they were for not supporting it now "lecturing" us on how wrong and stupid they were for supporting it.

Screw 'em! No credibility to me. At least Dan Savage apologized to his readers when he realized how wrong he was (but he's still a turd in my book).

[mike_c]

6. agreed....

Sorry, it sounded like maybe you were unloading on the OP. I agree with you 100 percent about the "pundits" and "journalists" who carried water for the neocons but now blame their stupidity on everyone else but themselves. I think it was John Belushi in Animal House who summarized that position best: "Dude, you fucked up. You trusted us."

[no_hypocrisy]

3. After nearly four days, this is still the Number One Most E-mailed Article

in The Times.

[The Blue Flower]

4. Sorry, just saw it (n/t)

[Cronopio]

7. More proof that Big Money is now abandoning it's old pretenses and it's old posse ...

... (i.e., the Republican conservatives and 9/11 nationalism) and is now grooming The New DLC Bosses to take over the failing infrastructure under the new pretense - Populist Corporatism.

New faces, new party, same game plan. Tom is just desperately trying to get in on the new play.

[On the Road]

8. If Friedman Would Actually Pull His Head Out of His Ass

about the Middle East and stop pretending everyone has been under the same delusion as he is, he could actually be a constructive part of the discussion.