Interview or savage attack?

Andrea Mitchell calls in an interview.  Rumsfeld understands that it’s a savage attack and, with great civility, responds accordingly.  Watch the video and enjoy DrewM’s comment:

I love the way he refuses to accept the premise of a number of her questions. It’s a skill I wish more political figures had. Far too often Republicans accept the framing of the question. They also tend to treat reporters as if they are trying to get information and not score liberal points. A few reporters but most aren’t. Rumsfeld doesn’t have any of it. He understands he’s in an adversarial situation and acts accordingly.

Why is Rumsfeld the only one who understands this?

By the way, Colin Powell has always been a whiner.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. Danny Lemieux says

    Charles, please forgive us.
     
    Charles M and I only speak French because we lack foppish silk handkerchiefs to wave (we can’t afford them). Thus, we speak French.
     
    Not only does it make us sound extremely intelligent and worldly but nobody else has a clue regarding what nonsense we may actually be spouting. Were this a teleconference, we would necessarily compound the effect by nodding our heads slowly with furrowed brows.
     
    Plus, there’s the victim thing. We have years of Pepe le Pew stereotypes to overcome.
     

  2. says

    Zachriel: No matter how you cut it, the invasion and occupation were disasters. The justification was based on non-existence WMD. Hundreds-of-thousands died, millions made refugees, entire regions ethnically cleansed.

    Charles Martel: Ce sont les tonneaux vides qui font le plus de bruit.

    suek: Aaahh… the certainty of youth.

    Danny Lemieux: Peoples’ opinions often become their exaggerated realities and realities must often be contorted in order to fit preconceived templates.

    Words, but no responses. The closest to making an actual argument is BrianE. 
     
    BrianE: Actually, the invasion and march to Baghdad will be written about for generations to come, it was so brilliantly executed. It’s amazing how the left never tires of its revisionism.

    The destruction of the Iraqi army was called “shock and awe”. Though successful in that respect, it led to a power vacuum, anarchy and the destruction of much of Iraq. It’s like Napoléon declaring victory over Russia when he entered Moscow, wondering where the city fathers were with the keys to the city. You’re only fooing yourself.
    http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberation.html
     

  3. Danny Lemieux says

    BrianE, another aspect of the Iraq War (where total casualties have been more accurately estimated to be about 80,000-100,000..the vaste majority being civilians killed by the bad guys we stopped) that will be written about is the Battle of Fallujah, where the U.S. military was overwhelmingly successful in crushing Al Qaeda in urban warfare.
     
    Military convention had it that attackers should take very heavy casualties in this type of terrain. Instead, the defenders were crushed and suffered an overwhelming casualties ratio as compared to the U.S. attackers. This was a military victory for the U.S. that will be studied for generations.
     
    A second aspect that will be written about is the use of advanced technology with pin-point accuracy that minimized collateral damage and civilian casualties. For that reason, Iraq escaped the destruction that countries normally suffer in wars. Of course, this may be difficult for certain people outside of Iraq to believe after they insist on seeing the same buildings being blown up night after night on the mainstream media video replays.
     
    Dresden, this was not. This was the first war in history waged with weapons deliberately designed to minimize civilian casualties.

  4. says

    When asked directly, he says he doesn’t dispute what’s not true; however, that’s exactly what we do with claims we consider untrue, dispute them.

    You don’t speak for me, only for yourself. Or the committee you have making your decisions for you.

    As I said before, those speaking lies, I pay no attention to beyond a single initial recognition.

  5. says

    Danny Lemieux: another aspect of the Iraq War (where total casualties have been more accurately estimated to be about 80,000-100,000..the vaste majority being civilians killed by the bad guys we stopped)

    Counted deaths are a minimum 100,000, according to Iraq Body Count. There were countless more casualties.
    http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

    However, Iraq Body Count considers this a lower bound on the actual number of deaths. The Wikileak documents led to a preliminary estimate of 150,000, 80% of them civilians. Again, that is a lower-bound. If we include early mortality, which includes people who died sooner than they might have, the it leads to hundreds-of-thousands of deaths, and many more casualties.
    http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/numbers/warlogs/

    You are correct, though, that many were killed by insurgents in the anarchy that ensued from the invasion. 
     
    Danny Lemieuxthat will be written about is the Battle of Fallujah, where the U.S. military was overwhelmingly successful in crushing Al Qaeda in urban warfare.

    Which is why the insurgency was defeated in Nov 2004? In fact, the insurgency simply moved elsewhere. 
     
    Danny LemieuxMilitary convention had it that attackers should take very heavy casualties in this type of terrain. Instead, the defenders were crushed and suffered an overwhelming casualties ratio as compared to the U.S. attackers.
     
    According to the U.S. military, half the homes were damaged, a quarter destroyed, along with schools, mosques, and businesses. Years later, many residents are still living in tents. People took years to return, and large numbers exhibit significant health problems associated with the conflict. 
     

  6. Danny Lemieux says

    Zach fudges on an answer: “You are correct, though, that many were killed by insurgents in the anarchy that ensued from the invasion.”

    Not “many”… the vaste majority. We need to be specific in our use of terms. The killing dialed down to a low whisper when we killed the bad guys. It’s not any more complicated than that.


    Danny Lemieux  explains:  Military convention had it that attackers should take very heavy casualties in this type of terrain. Instead, the defenders were crushed and suffered an overwhelming casualties ratio as compared to the U.S. attackers.
     
    Zach demonstrates the meaning of “non-sequitur”: “According to the U.S. military, half the homes were damaged, a quarter destroyed, along with schools, mosques, and businesses.”

    Regarding “Iraq Body Count”…for trenchant conclusions founded on vague estimates and false premises, it’s right up there with Lancet.


    Zach pronounces: “Which is why the insurgency was defeated in Nov 2004? In fact, the insurgency simply moved elsewhere”

    That makes as much sense as, “the Battle of Midway was not victory because the Japanese simply moved elsewhere”

  7. Charles Martel says

    Not “many”… the vaste majority. We need to be specific in our use of terms. The killing dialed down to a low whisper when we killed the bad guys. It’s not any more complicated than that.”

    ZACH, stop with the murder of English! Do you hate us Americans that much? “Vaste majority????” “The killing dialed down to a low whisper?” God I would love to be your remedial freshman English teacher. I’d hurl you back to 10th grade where you could dial down and start learning how to write. 

  8. says

    Danny Lemieux: Regarding “Iraq Body Count”…for trenchant conclusions founded on vague estimates and false premises, it’s right up there with Lancet.

    You prefer to just make up numbers. Iraq Body Count is generally the lowest of the available sources. Though individual studies may or may not hold up to scrutiny, the Lancet is a highly regarded journal. 
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War
     
    Danny Lemieux: A second aspect that will be written about is the use of advanced technology with pin-point accuracy that minimized collateral damage and civilian casualties.

    Half the homes in Fallujah were damaged. A quarter destroyed. Now put the two thoughts together. 
     
    Danny Lemieux: That makes as much sense as, “the Battle of Midway was not victory because the Japanese simply moved elsewhere

    You can’t compare the destruction of conventional naval forces with an insurgency that can just lay down its weapons and blend into the refugee population.  
     

  9. suek says

    >>Words, but no responses. The closest to making an actual argument is BrianE. >>
     
    Zach, you become tedious.  We are not puppets who can be commanded to dance for your pleasure…

  10. suek says

    >>for just a sec, I thought you were only describing a Ghaddafi outfit>>
     
    Ok…I have a question I’m a bit embarrassed to ask…
     
    Ghaddafi…he wears these outfits that appear to me to be truly bizarre…but I realize that it’s possible that it’s just tribal style of some sort, and perhaps I’m just ignorant of what is traditionally worn in the area.  So…is _Ghaddafi_ a person of bizarre style, or is he simply a traditionalist and it’s just one more thing bout the world that I don’t know?
     
    Does anybody know?

  11. says

    This is what happened with the invasion of Iraq.  Too many folks took their news from one source and didn’t seek out the truth.  Or they heard one thing and came to an “unchangeable conclusion.  Or they have preconceived notions of what WILL happen and the actual events will not change that. Such are the failings of humanity.


    People often conclude that they have a diverse field of opinions because they watch MSNBC, ABC, 60 minutes, PBS, Yahoo News, AP wire, Reuters, CNN, and Walter Cronkite reruns. But the thing is, those organizations all get their news from the same source. They even collude in a conspiracy to set the “agenda” for the news cycle using back channel communications. So when people think they are reading newspapers about crimes and happenstances in Oakland, then turn on the tv and watch the news, then read some editorial somebody wrote about Oakland crime, they think they are “seeing” differences. But it’s just one source. Like Curveball.
     
    What’s more interesting is how people acted and thought in 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004. That’s what is important. If you know that, you can get past their lies and self-delusions. The only truth that matters against lies of wording, is to get to what people actually did. Not what they say they did. Zach’s blog entries start in 2005, but I would have been interested in seeing what he thought and believed at an earlier time stamp.
     
    Really Eit’s like watching a class of ‘spinnersEpeddling at full speed, never going anywhere, just working up a sweat and hand waving
     
    Sadie, it’s a free internet class on Newspeak. No reason to pass it up.
     
    Suek, children and mothers are in a top and bottom position where it is very hard to believe that both can be equal members. Children, because of their lack of independence, are de facto put in an inferior position. There’s no social mechanism that can be used to reverse this. Amongst adults, women have much more opportunity to see other women more as equals than picking one woman as a supreme leader that have absolute orders that must be obeyed. In fact, there’s a natural balancing mechanism which makes people, particularly women, envious or despise those women that “get ahead” too fast. But how women see children, who are not equals, is different than amongst adults or equals. A woman executive may not believe a low janitor is her equal, but the other male board members? The male vice President to the female President? Then the social inequities start cropping up, and the natural impulse of consensus builders is to attempt to erase social differences.
     
    I make no comment on the theory you described, in which a woman gains more decisive leadership with the experience of leading children. The two situations are diverse enough that they cannot be directly related in a proportional relationship. But having children would definitely mature a female, as I believe and as Book have said in the past that she believes as well.
     
    There are obvious times that women believe themselves superior in status to other women. Of course that exists. But what we’re looking at is higher executive decision making that has to deal with women and men. Thus, it is to look at how women treat their direct subordinates and how men treat their direct subordinates, differs. Just like some bosses prefer informal over formal prefixes to naming, women leaders can prefer to treat their subordinates as equals rather than subordinates. That can have an issue given the power balance between male factions.
     
    This is a classic fallacy used by people who attempt to “proveEa point by asserting that the thing that did not happen is the real case rather than an impossibility.
     
    With magic you can make a dream into food, right?

  12. says

    OFF-TOPIC

    suek: We are not puppets who can be commanded to dance for your pleasure…

    We’re not commanding anything or anyone. It is your privilege to divert, engage in personal attacks, and make exaggerated claims. It is our privilege to point it out when you do. Here’s a typical example using a typo and an ordinary turn of phrase to divert from making a substantive response.  
     
    Charles Martel: ZACH{RIEL}, stop with the murder of English! Do you hate us Americans that much? “Vaste majority????”

    Danny Lemieux, why do you hate America?
     

  13. says

    So…is _Ghaddafi_ a person of bizarre style, or is he simply a traditionalist and it’s just one more thing bout the world that I don’t know?

    Does anybody know?

    Tribal affiliations. G’s totalitarian impulses are backed not by nationalism but by the various clans and tribes. It’s like when Saddam went in hiding amongst the Sunni tribes that were loyal to him, against the Shia and Kurdish tribes that hated him.

    Martel, I think that’s cause Danny is French. The French have this issue with the “e” that sounds not like an e. So if you term “vaste” it can be termed “vasto” which is then “basto” to “bastardo”.


    No Zach, “hand waving” is what describes fatuous and general pronouncements of opinion, unsupported by facts and issued in sync with foppish waves from billowy silk handkerchiefs.

    What I want to know is, how does Z here think I’m waving my hands when my right hand is on the key board and my left hand is on the keyboard and then my right hand is on the mouse? Does Z here think a transition from the keyboard to the mouse constitutes a “hand wave”? It’s amazing when you think about it, the low standard of public education these days.

  14. says

    I believe, though, for once we have seen Z’s true opinion. It’s not backed by facts or citations or other people’s quotations. This is Z’s actual belief, at the time he wrote it.
     
    Isn’t that Amazing, everyone? Z actually has a view on Iraq, that he can write up by himself, for himself. We can credit George W. Boosh for this miracle, this seki.
     
     

  15. says

    Danny Lemieux, why do you hate America?

    Danny’s still got some French in em. That must have piped up at an opportune time. And Martel’s Frenchness reacted to Danny’s Frenchiness.

    Which is sorta like Bastille day, except in reverse.

  16. SADIE says

    suek
     
    Mo Q, or more appropriately less IQ dresses in his own unique style, an eclectic blend of Afro-Arab haute goature  ;) with matching shoes.
     
    My cousin insists that he is a cross dresser.

  17. Charles Martel says

    Zach/Skeet, the reference to your hatred for America was because of your persistent refusal to write in grammatical, graceful prose while using our national language. Or maybe it’s just that you can’t be bothered to edit.

    Either way, your arguments fall on deaf ears when you pontificate in such cringe-inducing ways.

    There are many night schools and community colleges that offer inexpensive remedial English courses. It would not hurt your chances of ever persuading somebody here to accept your point of view if you were to enroll in one.

    Might I also suggest a corresponding course in logic, given your persistent use of such fallacies as appeal to authority, straw man, hypothesis contrary to fact, and red herring?

  18. Danny Lemieux says

    Ymar, Caesar was reputed to have said, “If the Gauls ever learned to stop fighting one another, they would rule the world”
     
    Er, CharlesM …I think the words you attributed to Zach (above) were mine, actually.
     
    Zach, the destruction of buildings (not human beings) in Fallujah is irrelevant to the fact that the U.S. rewrote the book on urban warfare there. Buildings can be rebuilt.
     
    Even when I was a graduate student in the 1970s, Lancet was derisively referred to as the “comic book of science”. No serious scientist today will quote it in a technical paper unless it is for anecdotal purposes. That still puts the Lancet a step or two above “Wiki”. As far as Iraq Body Count, the casualty figures were developed through triangulation and cross referencing of vague reports. Much more accurate assessments have been developed since.
     
    To argue that the Iraqis are worse off today than they were under Saddam, BTW, is simply obscene.

  19. Charles Martel says

    My theory about Kadafy is that when he was young he fell off a camel and landed on a carpet. The momentum from his fall wrapped the carpet around him and he was so taken with the look that he never went back.

  20. Charles Martel says

    Danny, Zach, I apologize for the mix-up. 

    Danny, given your awesome writing chops, I hope you can understand my mistake. Zach, given your persistent assaults on English, I also hope you can understand my mistake.

  21. suek says

    >>My cousin insists that he is a cross dresser.>>
     
    Well…he’s certainly cross, and he’s certainly a dresser…!!
     
    >>There are obvious times that women believe themselves superior in status to other women.>>
     
    Ok…now this gets a bit tricky.  I’m talking about dominance here.  Now maybe we’re saying the same thing, but in different ways.  I don’t think so.  Lots of people think they’re “superior” to others, but lack dominance.  In fact it can result in a lot of dissonance and insubordination.  Did you know that a dominant horse can win a race by  sheer dominance over the horse that may be coming up to challenge it?  The dominance is communicated through eye contact and expressed by ear movement.  Have you ever watched the Cesar the dog trainer?  He exerts his control over dogs he doesn’t even know through body language and dominance.
     
    A certain amount of dominance can be trained, but for the most part, it’s an intrinsic characteristic.  It’s almost a magical thing to watch, because it’s not there, but it _is_ there.  If I have a really submissive mare, for example, I can take her out of a group of mares where she’s getting beat up all the time, and put her with a bunch of babies or yearlings.  In _that_ group, she’s dominant just because of her size and because the babies are submissive just because of their age.  As you say, they know their own inferiority.  The dominance position becomes habitual, and when  I put her back into the same group of mares she was in before, often she has learned the “leave me alone” body language necessary to protect herself.  Usually, by the way, conflict only exists when two animals want the same level of dominance.  And often, it’s interesting to watch a very submissive animal “suck up” to the dominant mare, and then become dominant by virtue of enforcement by the dominant mare.  Eventually she becomes the lead mare’s “lieutenant” and may even become the lead mare at some point.  But it takes time.
     
    Leadership is something yet again.  Leadership can be trained – the military does it all the time.  But leadership is a skill set, not an attitude.  If you have leadership only, then you have a trustworthy and capable supervisor and/or executive.  If you have the leadership skill set plus dominance, then you have a Leader.

  22. says

    Zach, the destruction of buildings (not human beings) in Fallujah is irrelevant to the fact that the U.S. rewrote the book on urban warfare there. Buildings can be rebuilt.

    The destruction of buildings are primarily due to Jihadist sabotage. They couldn’t out fight the US Marines out on the streets of Fallujah, so they waited for them in the houses and rigged the houses/doors with traps and what not.

    They were prepared to die and the US Marines were prepared to provide that service for free. Of course, this also meant that several families in Fallujah got captured by jihadis and used as torture amusement while the jihadis waited to trap and kill US Marines. The US military forces ended up annihilating, entirely, the Fallujah resistance however.
    Z would benefit from an actual introductory course on military battles and wars. In fact, a lot of Leftists would benefit. If they hadn’t been brainwashed to begin with.
    Even when I was a graduate student in the 1970s, Lancet was derisively referred to as the “comic book of science”.

    I bet it’s not as good as Japanese mangas for adults though.

    Danny, given your awesome writing chops, I hope you can understand my mistake.

    Of course, you know it’s your fault, Martel. You made Danny read some French power words and that started Danny on actually thinking in French, not English.

  23. says

    You know, Martel, come to think of it, if you were to study up on the “textual analysis” protocols I mentioned to suek,sadie, and book, I believe you would have known it was Danny, before you knew it was by Danny ; )


    That makes as much sense as, “the Battle of Midway was not victory because the Japanese simply moved elsewhere”

    That was pretty funny btw.

  24. says

    Danny Lemieux: the destruction of buildings (not human beings) in Fallujah is irrelevant to the fact that the U.S. rewrote the book on urban warfare there. Buildings can be rebuilt.

    Imagine half the homes in your city damaged by war, half of those completely destroyed. Years later, most not rebuilt. Thousands killed, everyone forced to flee. You might argue that this was necessary, but to brag about precision warfare just emphasizes that it’s not your home, and not your city. 
     
    Danny Lemieux: No serious scientist today will quote it in a technical paper unless it is for anecdotal purposes.

    The Lancet has an impact factor of 28, which puts it as the second highest for a medical journal (after the New England Journal of Medicine). 
     
    Danny Lemieux: To argue that the Iraqis are worse off today than they were under Saddam, BTW, is simply obscene.

    We didn’t make that argument. People will make the best of whatever situation they find themselves in.  That doesn’t mean the invasion and occupation wasn’t a strategic mistake. 
     

  25. Charles Martel says

    “Of course, you know it’s your fault, Martel. You made Danny read some French power words and that started Danny on actually thinking in French, not English.”

    Crack me up, Ymar!

  26. Danny Lemieux says

    The Lancet has an impact factor of 28, which puts it as the second highest for a medical journal (after the New England Journal of Medicine).


    I said “scientists”. The large majority of doctors are not scientists. For medical science, JAMA (J. of Am. Medical Assoc.) and the Brit. J. Medicine would be at the top of the list. Lancet and New England J. Medicine made themselves famous by actively promoting themselves though the lay media, but it is no reflection of their quality.

    Just out of curiosity, Zach, have you ever had to depend upon these journals for your own research? Never mind, I am pretty sure that I know the answer.

    Zach laments and gnashes their teeth, “You might argue that this was necessary, but to brag about precision warfare just emphasizes that it’s not your home, and not your city. “

    I think, Zach, that what you are trying to tell us that war sucks. Thank you for that incisive insight. I don’t think any of us realized.

    As far as whether the Iraqi people are better off after the invasion, Zach nods with furrowed brow and offers these pearls of wisdom, “People will make the best of whatever situation they find themselves in.  That doesn’t mean the invasion and occupation wasn’t a strategic mistake. “

    Que sera, sera! Whatever.
     

  27. says

    Danny Lemieux: I said “scientists”. The large majority of doctors are not scientists.

    That’s right. However, The Lancet is an influential journal of medical science. Impact factor is not a perfect measure, but it certainly belies that claim that The Lancet is the “comic book of science”.
     
    Danny Lemieux: For medical science, JAMA (J. of Am. Medical Assoc.) and the Brit. J. Medicine would be at the top of the list. 

    JAMA has a comparable impact factor to The Lancet. However, Brit. J. Medicine is significantly lower. 
     
    Danny Lemieux: what you are trying to tell us that war sucks.

    No, we were responding to your overstatement about “pin-point accuracy”.
     

  28. SADIE says

    ESL class anyone?  “Yes…you there young man with your hand waving in the air. Oops, I am sorry I mistook the white flag for a hand”.

    Learning English as a Second Language could help you gain confidence, breakdown communication barriers, or even help you start an exciting, new career.

  29. suek says

    >>I guess that you would have had to have read these medical journals for yourself and make up your own mind, Zach.>>
     
    Another problem – Zach would have to actually have knowledge about the field of reference in order to evaluate the validity of various statements made…
     
    I doubt he has that…

  30. Charles Martel says

    Back to Rummy and Andrea. There’s been a lot of discussion on the Net lately about the adolescent mindset of the left, part of which involves disdain for adults and adult sensibility. You can see in Mitchell’s inept attempts to do a gotcha on Rummy that she really dislikes his plain spokenness and unwillingness to go along with her to get along.

    Rummy reminds me of Fred Hillis, my 8th grade math teacher, who inspired great fear and dislike among us mostly because there was no guile or trick we could play that fooled him. Although we hated his guts, we all agreed that he was a damned good math teacher. To this day, 50 years later, I use little arithmetical shortcuts he taught us. 

    Looking back, I realize that he was a pretty good guy.  Of course, that’s an adult take on things. If I were still in the preteen mindset of an Andrea Mitchell or Jon Leibowitz, I suppose I’d still have permission to hate him.

  31. SADIE says

    Charles Martel
     
    The story of your 8th grade teacher reminded me of a comment I read from: http://shrinkwrapped.blogs.com/
    today. It’s all so very scripted, prescribed and predictable.
     
    “The sad fact is that the current administration does an excellent impression of what one might expect to see if a group of left wing, anti-American undergraduates were able to enact their  fantasies of an ideal West Wing administration”

  32. says

    You’re right about that, Sadie. West wing indeed.


    You might argue that this was necessary, but to brag about precision warfare just emphasizes that it’s not your home, and not your city.

    So whose job is it to take care of such things, the government of Iraq you claim?

Leave a Reply