Friedman

Is Thomas Friedman serious?

I've read this piece several times now, and am perplexed. Friedman seems to believe the Saudi Crown Prince, who tells Friedman that he is contemplating proposing a comprehensive peace plan for the Middle East largely along the lines of UN Security Council Resolution 242. Friedman reports this as an "intriguing signal" and seems just giddy about the possibilities.

Is he being played for a fool? I ask only because Friedman admits, in the very same column, that he is part of a group of journalists invited to Saudi Arabia as part of the kingdom's efforts to rebuild its reputation in the West. And what better way than to say exactly what the journalists want to hear (or, in Friedman's case, what he has proposed himself, in his columns)? Is that an overly cynical view on my part? It's certainly cynical, but in studying the Middle East, I have learned that actions mean much more than rhetoric, and it's Saudi actions of late that have been troubling. So we can wait and see -- but I'm guessing Friedman has been duped.

And while we're on that topic -- isn't it ironic that Friedman can go and be wined and dined by the Saudis as part of their PR effort (which they admit) and NOT have his reporting be corrupted, but that the NY Times editorial page is one of the leading cheerleaders to reduce the influence of such "special interests" in the United States, via "campaign finance reform?"

[Posted at 14:31 CST on 02/17/02] [Link]