There is yet another remarkable column (May 2, 2007) today by the estimable Tom Friedman. In this new work, Friedman urges his imaginary friend, a humbled and humble President Bush, to deliver a speech to the world acknowledging his monumental mistakes and sincerely apologize for being a "jerk". According to Friedman, Bush "honestly believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction." Now realizing he was "wrong", he should state (presumably because the imaginary Bush believes it) that he "breached a bond of trust between America and the world", not only alienating them from us, but making us less "effective" in Iraq, since we had too few allies and too little legitimacy.

Friedman has often addressed the world through these monologues delivered in the person of world leaders who apparently have no interest in the Friedman take on things (thank you very much). Most such delusional observers seek intervention and help. Friedman on the other hand wins Pulitzer prizes for this sort of silliness. But a reasonable question might be posed of Friedman himself. He enthusiastically supported the war and occupation for years (at least for 6 or 7 Friedman units); I believe he felt the idea of democracy dominos was a neat idea that appealed to his Pulitzer-approved farsightedness (a visionary indeed). In fact the column in question is yet another "Hail Mary" Friedman-attempt to rescue the 'Iraq democratization project'. (We may have to allow Bush a Friedman unit or two to see if he delivers Friedman's speech).

Someone help me out here; has Friedman himself ever apologized for helping to launch this disaster? He has blamed the Bush leadership shrilly for not prosecuting the war as General Friedman would. But an apology? I do not recall one.

I guess if you write for the New York Times, blame everyone else for the fiascos you promote, get Pulitzer prizes (instead of condemnation) for this type of vapid intellectual activity, you do not have to apologize to anyone. You have a pretty good hustle going.