…by Jonas E. Alexis
You just can’t make this stuff up. Get this: flaming Zionist Thomas Friedman of the New York Times has recently suggested that Vladimir Putin is probably a C.I.A. agent! The evidence? Well, listen to this:
“But if I were a Russian citizen, I’d be asking this question: Is Putin a U.S. agent? Why? Because Putin has undertaken so many actions in recent years that contributed to the weakening of Russia’s economy and human capital base that you have to wonder whether he’s secretly on the C.I.A.’s payroll.
“Beginning around 2007 or 2008, Putin appears to have decided that rebuilding Russia by nurturing its tremendous human talent and strengthening the rule of law was just too hard — it would have required sharing power, holding real, competitive elections and building a truly diverse, innovation-based economy.”
These are the kinds of people who are responsible to give America and much of the world a better class of journalism. Yet Friedman, throughout his article, wraps himself around colossal hoaxes, complete fabrications, and just plain lies. He even brought up the crazy idea that “in 2014 Putin seized Crimea and invaded Eastern Ukraine with disguised Russian troops…”
Why can’t these people clear their heads? Crimea has been part of Russia for centuries! Furthermore, why doesn’t Friedman tell his readers that Crimeans themselves voted to join Russia? Even USA Today, of all places, had this to say: “Crimea’s election committee said that 97% of voters backed a union between the largely ethnic-Russian peninsula and the huge neighboring country.”
How did Russia invade Crimea when 97% of Crimeans agreed to join Russia? When was the last time that an American president won by 97%? And if 97% is not a sign of democracy, what is? Isn’t Friedman implicitly arguing for an oligarchic/Zionist rule here?
You see, Thomas Friedman is part of the Neocon/Zionist/Israeli ideology which never ceases to drink the blood of innocent people in the Middle East and elsewhere. This is not the opinions of Jonas E. Alexis. Friedman himself was asked by Charlie Rose about the outcome of the war in Iraq. Charlie Rose asked, “Now that the war is over and there’s some difficulty with the peace, was it worth doing?” Friedman responded:
“I think it was unquestionably worth doing Charlie, and I think that looking back that I now certainly feel I understand what the war was about and it’s interesting to talk about it here in silicon valley because I think looking back at the 1990s I can identify there are actually three bubbles of the 1990s, there was the Nasdaq bubble, there was the corporate governance bubble, and lastly there was what I would call the terrorism bubble, and the first two were based on creative accounting and the last two were based on moral creative accounting. The terrorism bubble that built up over the 1990s said flying airplanes into the World Trade Center, that’s Ok.
“Wrapping yourself with dynamite and blowing up Israelis in the pizza parlour, that’s Ok. Because we’re weak and they’re strong and the weak have a different morality. Having your preachers say that’s Ok? That’s Ok. Having your charities raise money for people who do these kinds of things? That’s Ok. And having your press call people who do these kind of things martyrs? That’s Ok.
“And that build up as a bubble, Charlie. And 9/11 to me was the peak of that bubble. And what we learned on 9/11 in a gut way was that bubble was a fundamental threat to our society because there is no wall high enough no INS agent smart enough no metal detector efficient enough to protect an open society from people motivated by that bubble.
“And what we needed to do was to go over to that part of the world and burst that bubble. We needed to go over there basically uhm, and, uh, uhm take out a very big stick, right in the heart of that world and burst that bubble. And there was only one way to do it because part of that bubble said ‘we’ve got you’ this bubble is actually going to level the balance of power between us and you because we don’t care about life, we’re ready to sacrifice and all you care about is your stock options and your hummers.
“And what they needed to see was American boys and girls going house to house from Basra to Baghdad uhm, and basically saying which part of this sentence don’t you understand. You don’t think we care about our open society, you think this bubble fantasy we’re going to just let it go, well suck on this. Ok. That, Charlie, was what this war was about. We could have hit Saudi Arabia. It was part of that bubble. We could have hit Pakistan, We hit Iraq, because we could. And that’s the real truth.”
Does anyone really know that this guy is talking about here? The war in Iraq, ladies and gentlemen, will cost America at least six trillion dollars, and that doesn’t even count the trillions of dollars that the government has already wasted on the so-called war on terror. Friedman is now telling us that the war in Iraq was worth it.
Well, who is going to pay the bill? Thomas Friedman and his children? Of course. It will be decent American—the very people who are being reduced to ashes by the Neocons, the Israeli regime, and the oligarchs in Washington. If you think this is farfetched, then we need to bring in Thomas Friedman again to the political platform.
Friedman told Haaretz in 2003 that the plan for war in Iraq
“was disseminated by a small group of 25 or 30 neoconservatives, almost all of them Jewish, almost all of them intellectuals (a partial list: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, William Kristol, Elliott Abrams, Charles Krauthammer), people who are mutual friends and cultivate one another and are convinced that political ideas are a major driving force of history.
“They believe that the right political idea entails a fusion of morality and force, human rights and grit. The philosophical underpinnings of the Washington neoconservatives are the writings of Machiavelli, Hobbes and Edmund Burke.”
So, what is Friedman trying to do now? He is demonizing both Russia and indeed Vladimir Putin. Why? Obviously Putin did not allow the Israeli regime to overthrow Assad. Friedman is certainly mad, sad, and wants to be bad again.
-  Thomas Friedman, “Is Putin a C.I.A. Agent?,” NY Times, April 3, 2018.
-  Ibid.
-  Charles McPhedran and Anna Arutunyan, “Crimea votes to join Russia; Ukrainians prepare for war,” USA Today, March 16, 2014.
-  Dan Murphy, “Thomas Friedman, Iraq war booster,” Christian Science Monitor, May 29, 2003.
-  Ernesto Londono, “Study: Iraq, Afghan war costs to top $4 trillion,” Washington Post, March 28, 2013; Bob Dreyfuss, The $6 Trillion Wars,” The Nation, March 29, 2013; “Iraq War Cost U.S. More Than $2 Trillion, Could Grow to $6 Trillion, Says Watson Institute Study,” Huffington Post, May 14, 2013; Mark Thompson, “The $5 Trillion War on Terror,” Time, June 29, 2011; “Iraq war cost: $6 trillion. What else could have been done?,” LA Times, March 18, 2013.
-  Ari Shavit, “White Man’s Burden,” Haaretz, April 4, 2003.
-  For further studies, see Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke, America Alone: The Neo-Conservatives and the Global Order (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004); Murray Friedman, The Neoconservative Revolution: Jewish Intellectuals and the Shaping of Public Policy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005); Paul R. Pillar, Intelligence and U.S. Foreign Policy: Iraq, 9/11, and Misguided Reform (New York: Columbia University Press, 2011).
-  See John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy (New York: Farrar & Straus, 2006).