Once a neo-con always a neo-con.
Notice the nasty little sucker punch on Ahmadinejad. Friedman still wants to get his war on.

This cannot be anything but a deliberate planting of incitement. Anyone with a basic understanding of the Iranian political system knows that a change of Prime Minister would not affect Iranian policy, that the Prime Minister does not have wide reaching powers. Friedman cannot be unaware of this.

I have often wondered why Friedman’s ilk spent so much time and effort depicting the Iranian elections as fraud when even Western polls indicated there was very little amiss. It seems they were preparing the frame for fitting to Ahmadinejad -
“he must be unprincipled and powerful - he steals elections…....therefore he’s unelected…....therefore he’s a totalitarian monster….....therefore its ok to smash his country so he cannot bother our friends for a decade or two.”

I’ve long been annoyed by the flabby thinking of Thomas Friedman. He tries, God love him,  and I give him credit for admitting his lapses in the past, but he’s no Robert Fisk. Not even close.
ALSO….. he reminds me of “HANK” from the brilliant “LARRY SANDERS SHOW”
here’s a link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0QHw-3zZ4Q

I doubt Friedman surpasses such writers as Robert Fisk, Pepe Escobar of the Asia Times or Israel’s Uri Avnery. Friedman’s comments on Iran, Israel, the occupation etc., are actually pretty IRRATIONAL.

Friedman is one of the best , if not the best of current essayists and commentators currently writing. Let alone that he has won accolades too numerous to mention. For rational writing on a plethora of topics.
  I don’t know too many infallible people alive today.  Or yesterday.  eh?

Friedman’s just a clown. His articles justifying Israeli aggression are pretty disgusting and he’s most likely not 100% onboard with the Afghan surge because of what he’s been desperate for for years now, war with Iran.