Having married the heiress to a real estate fortune, Tom "Mustache of Understanding" Friedman doesn't really need his op-ed position at the New York Times. He could retire to his $10 million mansion in the suburbs of Washington, D.C. and play house husband, and after cheerleading for the Iraq War and his frequent "out of the box" / out of his mind articles, many wish he'd do just that.
The Mustache's latest foray into sophomore dorm room-style bull slinging is on display in yesterday's New York Times, where he actually wonders whether the U.S. should arm ISIS as a counter to Iran:
"Now I despise ISIS as much as anyone, but let me just toss out a different question: Should we be arming ISIS? Or let me ask that differently: Why are we, for the third time since 9/11, fighting a war on behalf of Iran?""On behalf of Iran?" Really? Some background: war #1 in Afghanistan was a strike against the Sunni al-Qaeda attackers in their Taliban-provided safe haven, and war #2 was cooked up against Iraq -- an enemy of both Iran and notably Israel -- using false intelligence and at the insistence of the neocon / Likudnik bloc, who remembered Iraq's missile attacks from the first Gulf War. To suggest that "war" #3 is being fought against ISIS on behalf of Iran is flaky to say the least. For us to arm ISIS is even nuttier,not to mention deadly for the potential victims of ISIS throughout the Middle East. But then, the Mustache knows those potential victims are overwhelmingly Muslim, so what's the big deal?
(photo: Ponder on, oh great Mustache of Understanding, ponder on.)
