The thing is, if Friedman says something it is more often evidence of the opposite. I'd call him an idiot savant but he has no measurable skills to justify the "savant" part. Even by the piss poor standards of the NYT it is baffling to me he has managed to be in print for all these decades.
I think the only reason for this article is that leftists take him seriously because he usually supports their lefty theories of foreign policy. Even here in what they are complaining about him writing you can see that one article was highly critical of Bush and the other was deeply supportive of Obama. The guy is just a hack. I doubt he actually believed what he was saying either time.
[–] Thisismyvoatusername ago
The thing is, if Friedman says something it is more often evidence of the opposite. I'd call him an idiot savant but he has no measurable skills to justify the "savant" part. Even by the piss poor standards of the NYT it is baffling to me he has managed to be in print for all these decades.
I think the only reason for this article is that leftists take him seriously because he usually supports their lefty theories of foreign policy. Even here in what they are complaining about him writing you can see that one article was highly critical of Bush and the other was deeply supportive of Obama. The guy is just a hack. I doubt he actually believed what he was saying either time.