Stroll Down Memory Lane

There's been a resurgence lately of DLC-types who are out defending the very serious Tom Friedman as a real liberal.

That was a mistake.

Atrios and Digby have been on the case showing how the supposed liberal Tom Friedman is nuts. Here's a famous quote that should rattle your teeth a bit:

From an interview with Charlie Rose before the war:

What they needed to see was American boys and girls going house to house, from Basra to Baghdad, um and basically saying, "Which part of this sentence don't you understand?"

You don't think, you know, we care about our open society, you think this bubble fantasy, we're just gonna to let it grow?

Well, Suck. On. This.

Okay.

That Charlie was what this war was about. We could've hit Saudi Arabia, it was part of that bubble. We couldn't hit Pakistan. We hit Iraq because we could.

Very serious, and very reasoned indeed. And the guy is still a nationally syndicated writer from the most serious newspaper in the country, and represents a "liberal" perspective. Go read either Digby's or Atrios's take for more, it'll disgust you.

It's so frustrating that there has been (outside the blogosphere) no accountability for pundits who went nuts after 911. And I don't care what their political persuasion. Whether it's Bill Kristol or Peter Beinart. They were wrong. There should be a price to be paid for that misjudgement. Credibility should mean something. But in the current media environment, it does not.

And that's why they hate the blogosphere. Because ordinary people with brains that work are calling them on their shit. And it's a whole new experience.