The Uri Geller of Neoconservatism

Was in the New York Times.

Again.

Writing About Iraq.

Again.

Sigh.

For those of you just joining us, a little background...

For much of the early part of this decade, Thomas Friedman (aka "The Moustache of Understanding", "Shakes the Clown", "The 'Stache That Wouldn't Die" and "Captain Obvious" and the now-nearly-bankrupt scion-in-law of one of America's greatest real estate fortunes) was the Uri Geller of Neoconservatism; being invited everywhere -- bending keys, reading minds, moving goalposts, rewriting history, miraculously transporting cubic miles of water for the Cheney Administration and generally using his Awesome Mustache Power to magically alter the rules of space, time, causality and human nature to conform to his stupid ideas.

And, tragically, his antics were lent a wholly unearned and undeserved credibility by the entire Mainstream Media Collective, which made it infinitely harder for any honest analysis and critique of Iraq to get any traction. Because, after all, if the BestSellingAuthorofTheWorldisFlat say a thing is true, well then, by God, it must be!

I mean, just look at the way he bent that fucking spoon!

Of course eventually Reality and the Dirty Fucking Hippies did to Friedman what the Amazing Randi and Johnny Carson

did to Uri Geller on the "Tonight Show".

Except rather than slithering off to a life of secret shame and richly deserved obscurity making Neocon balloon animals at kiddie parties, Friedman is still here, writing his piffle for the New YorkT Times week-in and week-out. Which is why, I must admit, I couldn't get past the first sentence. of his latest NYT piece.

Iraq’s Known Unknowns, Still Unknown Sign in to Recommend

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Published: February 23, 2010

From the very beginning of the U.S. intervention in Iraq and the effort to build some kind of democracy there, a simple but gnawing question has lurked in the background:...

Because unless that sentence ended with the following -- "...:Why the Hell is the thoroughly and infamously discredited eponymous begetter of the 'Iraqi Friedman Unit' still holding six inches of NYT column space captive?" -- then it isn't worth the candle.

It is one fo the great and enduring mysteries of our generation, and one that has me increasingly worried about the actual, physical New York Times column space itself.

I mean, is it stuck in some kind of squatter's rights situation? Has Friedman's long and embarrassing presence there created a kind of journalistic adverse possession?

Is the column a POW?

Is this a full-blown hostage situation?

Do we need the services of a professional negotiator?


Or is a rescue mission called for?


Whatever the plan is, the one thing I would not recommend doing is sending in massive numbers of troops in some damn fool attempt to proves some stupid Neocon talking point.

Because if history has shown us anything it is that, no matter how tempting it may be, trying to pry some mustachioed idiot loose of a chunk of territory he has sunk his claws is a lot like bending metal with your mind: always way, way, waaaaaay harder to do in Reality than it sounds like when you're just

pulling it out of your ass on Charlie Rose Show.