Interview or savage attack?
Bookworm on Feb 22 2011 at 5:04 pm | Filed under: Media matters
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.
Email This Post To A Friend
87 Responses to “Interview or savage attack?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Oh, I agree! It has always driven me to distraction when “my folks” allow the opposition to define the language or frame the discussion to suit their purposes. I would really be disappointed if Rumsfeld fell for that tactic.
I love Rumsfeld. Probably wouldn’t want to work for him; although I bet I have worked for worse. The guy is just so smart and tough-minded, but blessed with a wonderful wit.
If Douglas Feith told the truth in “War and Decision”, and I believe he did, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld had it right in Iraq initially. Their plans were undercut by Powell, Armitage and the State Dept clown show. I just read this week, another opinion that Rumsfeld never intended to occupy Iraq, and that would have been the best course of action. Overthrow Sadaam, then get out and let the Iraqi’s in exile set up a government. Rumsfeld himself has said that Bremer was pretty much out of control (he was backed by State and the CIA against the DOD).
Rumsfeld has served us long and faithfully. I hate to see him going around, sitting down with a bunch of clowns to hawk his book. He doesn’t need to do that.
Cheney is also good at rejecting the premise of loaded interview questions, He’s just as awesome in an interview. Do they make them like Rumsfeld & Cheney anymore? (By the way, why haven’t we seen more of his daughter – do I just not watch the shows where she is a guest?)
Oldflyer, the hidden blessing of having Rummy sit down with clowns is that he effortlessly exposes their clownhood. Mitchell was visibly put off her rhythm by his refusal to cower as she labored to make him the culprit/plotter for whatever happened in Iraq.
Just saw the end of the 1st clip where she actually asks him if he’s read Woodward’s book – as if a reporter’s account after the fact from unnamed sources is more credible than his firsthand experience. Is she for real?
Another place where Mitchell let the mask slip was when she asked Rummy about having dinner with Sammy Davis Jr. in a voice that almost dripped amazement. “You, a knucklewalking warmonger breaking bread with a Negro??? That doesn’t fit the Narrative!”
Wish the camera did a close up on her eyes – I’d swear they slipped down, back and sideways creating a top spin effect like a cue ball being hit at top speed after putting enough ‘english‘ on the top of it to keep it from following the 8 ball into the pocket.
For those who do not play pool – sucker punched without a black eye
CM, I picked up on her tone too “That was in ’67 wasn’t it?!!! At light speed in her head with top spinning eyeballs ala Sadie “O-M-G! A white republican male was actually working with a black man for the advancement of black americans in 1967! WTF?!!!” I have to say whe showed remarkable restraint as he blew another of her apriori ‘truths’ out of the water but also the interview ended just in time for us to really know what wouold have happened next.
Man, oh, man, I just need to get something better than this dial-up modem (in my dreams of being employed when I have money. 2012 just cannot come fast enough!) as I cannot load this clip,
But, I have seen Rumfeld in action – he is great. I loved his comment during the invasion of Baghdad when he said that the news media kept showing the same clips over and over of some guy walking away with a vase and the news media kept claiming it was ”massive” looting; then he would smile. He is funny!
I am in the middle of reading his memoir – Known and Unknown – it is long, close to 700 pages. But I just find most everything he has written to be so interesting. (okay, I skipped the chapter when in worked for a pharma company – relevant to his experiences, but boring!) I highly recommend it.
Libby, I agree with you that Cheney is also good at reframing the questions. Cheney was also fantastic when he refused to “get into it” during the VP candidate’s debate when Edwards brought up Mary Cheney’s being gay. Even the debate moderator seemed stunned by Cheney’s short and sweet “thank you for the kind words about my family members“ and nothing more. That was cool. BTW, I read Mary Cheney’s book – Now it’s My Turn – when it came out several years ago. She talks about that move by Edwards in her book. She is not kind to Edwards. Her book is also a great read – another to recommend.
Chris Christie seems to have this “reframing the question” skill as well. I think that is one reason why so many folks on the left cannot stand him. He not only acts like their intellectual equal; he is their intellectual superior. That seems to annoy them to no end.
Lastly, Sarah Palin almost has the ability to reframe the question, but she is not quite there yet. She needs a little more practice. I think the “snafu” with Couric (or whomever the talking head was) about which “Bush Doctrine” was an attempt at reframing the question. Palin bombed on that one. But she had the right idea – it was an ignorant gotcha question. Ditto the question about what newspapers she reads. I hope that Palin improves on this.
Charles: I loved his comment during the invasion of Baghdad when he said that the news media kept showing the same clips over and over of some guy walking away with a vase and the news media kept claiming it was ”massive” looting; then he would smile. He is funny!
But it *was* massive looting. The country was coming apart at the seams, and Rumsfeld was completely feckless. Doesn’t the truth of the matter mean anything?
Rumsfeld’s analysis of Condi Rice is very consistent with how women tend to behave in high executive positions. Meaning, instead of decisively backing one side and throwing in all the marbles, women tend to try to make people “cooperate” and not produce a “loser”.
This is often seen when women head executive boards. Men are often frustrated that there isn’t a clear hierarchy, a clear plan, a clear and decisive push in any one direction. It’s often times the instinct of women to avoid conflict, to avoid picking winners and losers, and to avoid being extremely clear as to whose plan is being accepted and whose plan has been rejected. This creates friction when the hierarchy is made up out of male members, who seek above all else, clarity in who is leading and what plan is being followed.
Every effective organization requires a good consensus builder. Looks like Condi was it.
I also mentioned to Owen before that I noted distinct inconsistencies in the strategy for the Iraq war. Those can easily be accounted for if there was an attempt to make a compromise deal between State and Defense, which also involves different military factions such as the Special Forces light foot print vs the Army way of massing firepower and taking forever to move.
I particularly liked the way that Rumsfeld interrupted the reporter the second she said something that wasn’t true or correct. Too many people let reporters get the entire question out before saying “not true” and by then the idea has been planted. You have to stop them dead in their tracks and not let the falsehood or error have a second to get planted in people’s minds.
To the tune of “Once in Love With Amy” (video here: http://tinyurl.com/6dvhdfh)
Once in love with Rummy
Always in love with Rummy
Ever ready and willing to hear him
Wishing he forever could stay
Once in love with Rummy
Admiring looks at Rummy
Sitting for hours, lounging just to read him,
keeping our enemies at bay.
You might be quite the lefty blonde reporter
Play loosely with truth
But Rummy’s ready with the draw and quarter
though long in the tooth
But once in love with Rummy
Forever loyal to Rummy
Ever and daily our country does miss him
Sad to say his work for us is through But we have his example to be true.
The thing that makes this work so well, and so close to the bone is that it really does express his attitude to the press with wonderful precision. This is really what he’d have been doing if his natural good manners didn’t compel him to suffer fools.
Charles, thanks for the book recommendation. I already have Stephen Hayes’ Cheney biography in my “to read” pile and I’ll add that one to it. I think I’ll purchase Rumsfeld’s new book, too – I don’t buy many hardback books, but it’s a small way to show my support.
Zach’s now claiming he knows what the truth is?
That’s hilarious.
Back to Charles’ response to my initial post. In retrospect, I agree. He is too effective to pass up the opportunity take them on, on their home court.
At the risk of being labeled chauvinistic, I also see Ymarsakar’s point about executive women. Danny, as you no doubt are aware, consensus building is not an end in itself, and eventually becomes counter-productive. My daughter tends to wrap herself in knots trying to develop consensus, where none is likely to be had. Then she occasionally has to vent to me about it. I try to listen sympathetically, but usually end up saying something like: “You’re the Boss Dear. There comes a time when you have to kick (booty, butt, term of your choice) if necessary, and get on with it”. It falls on deaf ears, of course. Thinking, “Oh, Dad. (you lovable neanderthal).
Proof that there is often more realism in the comics, than on the OP-ED pages–at least in the Washington Post– is contained in the saga of Sally Forth’s efforts with her dysfunctional staff.
If Rooster Cogburn had been a woman, most likely she would have tried to serve papers on that rat.
Part of strategic planning for war is that strategy requires time for adequate planning but it also means that what people do in the past, tends to have a dramatic effect later on. That includes ”indecision”. If a person refuses to make a decision in a battle or makes the wrong one, the consequences are immediate more often than not. In strategic terms, if a President dithers for even a few more months, the consequences down the line can be dramatic. (Check Obama’s refusal to listen to the General in charge of Afghanistan. A lot of Americans and Afghans were dying while obama was enjoying himself on his personal golf course).
If Condi Rice, in attempting to forge a consensus between State and Defense, big army and small footprint army of Rumsfeld, used up time, caused a delay and that led to bolstering the case for a bigger army by making people wait for 1. the UN Resolution via Blair’s support (Blair needed the UN resolution to marshal his homefront) and 2. another infantry division coming up through Turkey, then the strategic effects for Iraq would be clearly relevant and dramatic. I said before that you had to change things starting from 2001 to dramatically change the situation in Iraq. That’s because strategy has an interesting lead time. Decisions made in 2001 or 2002, even “debating while indecisive” has a huge effect later on on operational planning.
The more people had to wait, the more the faction that wanted bigger footprint, the more Blair’s UN Resolution request, and the more “bigger Army” people would have gotten a say and a decision in the planning. Because the way the time frame ended up would have demanded that they use the time they had, rather than wasting it. So if they weren’t going to attack soon, like Rumsfeld’ light footprint SF SOCOM operation in Afghanistan, then it would have to be a heavier military presence. Which then influenced political considerations some and political considerations influenced military planning. But after the invasion, where was the State Department? They weren’t rebuilding a damn thing. Maybe the State Department should have spent less time on WMDs and more time learning how to rebuild a nation’s security and infrastructure. Oh wait, I forgot, the US military mostly looks towards SF to do that.
Oldf, you got to put it into terms a woman can understand. Women prefer consensus over fighting. Cooperation over direct competition. If you can convince her that the best interests of the group rests in having a strong leader make decisions and stick with them, rather than trying to get other people to make decisions for each other, she can shift gears. But otherwise, most women cannot shift gears to a decisive leadership model because their instincts say that cooperation is the path to survival.
While males have hunter instincts that say a conflict or even confusion in leadership out on the hunt means everybody dies.
The executive summary would be basically this. Women are using their instincts, DNA based, to inform their decisions because their instincts were very relevant to women’s survival. Males use hunter instincts because those instincts were relevant to our survival while hunting. The issue is, we’re not hunting and women are not gathering. This is the 21st century in the West, not some Third World Banana Republic (Not yet at least, though Obama is trying his best).
These instincts are not totally anachronistic, but nor are they “easily adaptable” to modern problems, complex as those problems can be. People need to use rationality and creativity to make adjustments in order to make the best use of their resource tool box, which includes their instincts.
Another problem is that public education and popular culture teaches nothing about the real differences between males and females. If you think lack of education isn’t a problem, you should see what uneducated people can do to mess things up. It’s not pretty. People think the world can be made better if people are better educated. Which is true. What isn’t true is that we’re more educated now than before. Are we? Some people these days are dumber than rocks and far less educated than those of the past who had to teach themselves reading and writing from scratch as adults.
Zachriel: But it *was* massive looting. The country was coming apart at the seams, and Rumsfeld was completely feckless. Doesn’t the truth of the matter mean anything?
Ymarsakar: Zach{riel}’s now claiming he knows what the truth is?
Classic handwaving. Do you dispute the statement? And why?
Ymarsakar: The more people had to wait, the more the faction that wanted bigger footprint, the more Blair’s UN Resolution request, and the more “bigger Army” people would have gotten a say and a decision in the planning.
History showed that waiting was the correct strategy.
Do you dispute the statement? And why?
Why would I dispute what’s not true. I only care about what is true, rather than what isn’t.
Why do I focus on what is true? Because people who don’t, can’t tell the difference between a con and an honest deal. I’m not interested in people who are fooled by cons.
History showed that waiting was the correct strategy.
Unless you call yourself history, history only shows what people says it shows. Again, the most important aspect of human judgment, is that it takes a human. Not a machine, not a little parrot bird, and that human must alive and present to make their case now, not a century before and not a century in the future: now.
History isn’t paid to make your case for your, Zach. This is something you have to do it yourself.
Ymarsakar: Why would I dispute what’s not true.
In other words, you were just handwaving.
Ymar – Y-bother
No matter what is said, ‘it’ says the opposite. Yes is no, no is yes, black is white, white is black and history is but a brief summary with quick judgment having never experienced life and a long view. Really … it’s like watching a class of ‘spinners’ peddling at full speed, never going anywhere, just working up a sweat and hand waving
>>But otherwise, most women cannot shift gears to a decisive leadership model because their instincts say that cooperation is the path to survival.>>
Hmmm. I think I disagree. At least, if a woman is a mother with more than 2 children, consensus just flat isn’t going to get her anywhere. Ok…so maybe even there I have to backtrack. Maybe that’s part of the problem we’re having with children today. _Somebody_ in the house has to be boss and make decisions. Either it’s the Mom or it’s the kids. Consensus in that case means that we try to find a solution that makes everybody happy, but at some point the answer is “Because I said so”.
So maybe before you put a woman in charge of an organization, you have to check to see if she has multiple children, and if so, you follow them around in a grocery store a time or two. _Then_ you write up your evaluation…!
The Fallacy of Hypothesis Contrary to Fact:
Fallacy: If Oswald had not assassinated JFK, history would have been different.
Fact:: Oswald did assassinate JFK, so the assertion makes no sense and has no import.
Fallacy: If the U.S. had not invaded Iraq, waiting out the Sadam regime eventually would have resolved the issue of Iraq’s many violation of UN sanctions.
Fact: The U.S. did invade Iraq, so the assertion that waiting was “the correct strategy” makes no sense and has no import.
This is a classic fallacy used by people who attempt to “prove” a point by asserting that the thing that did not happen is the real case rather than an impossibility.
So maybe before you put a woman in charge of an organization, you have to check to see if she has multiple children, and if so, you follow them around in a grocery store a time or two. _Then_ you write up your evaluation…!
Brilliant idea suek. I am gonna have to think about the more decisive women in politics and whether or not they had one or no children.
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.
A good example to the effect of, “history showed that waiting was a correct strategy” when “history” shows nothing of the sort. There is no way of know what would have or what would not have happened if “history” had been different.
Decisive is cool, but with either sex you run into the problem of the indecisive leader who tries to show his/her chops by being decisive on the basis of whether that choice looks bold. For the man, it’s trying to be a man. For the woman, it’s trying to be. . . . .a man. The latter is because, unfortunately, thanks to radical feminism, even as men are disparaged, their supposed traits—boldness, ruthlessness, promiscuity, detachment—are held up as ideal conduct for wymyn.
That said, I would have dropped my cape—hell, my entire wardrobe—across any puddle that Maggie Thatcher deigned to cross.
I forgot to comment on something Book said at the beginning of this thread. Yes, Colin Powell has always been a whiner. Thank God he had Norman Schwarzkopf (as well as a pitifully led Iraqi army) to make him look good.
Sadie…women who train horses and dogs tend to be pretty decisive as well.
Lots of similarities between raising children and working with animals, I think. At least small children. Once they reach the age of reason, it’s a different story, but the underlying discipline is either there by then or not. But indecision – that’s a killer. It’s also a “crazy-maker”… that is, if the child – or animal – doesn’t know that A follows B – every time – then they don’t know whether to come _to_ you or run away.
Part of it is willingness to make a wrong decision and accept blame for that decision. People who need to get “consensus” aren’t inclined to say “It’s my fault…I made the decision”. They say…”We all agreed…” and the finger pointing goes all around the circle of the consensus, which is just another way of saying “It’s not my fault”.
So that’s a big part of it as well – willingness to accept responsibility for bad decisions.
>>The latter is because, unfortunately, thanks to radical feminism, even as men are disparaged, their supposed traits—boldness, ruthlessness, promiscuity, detachment—are held up as ideal conduct for wymyn.>>
Yeah…that’s funny isn’t it. As soon as someone says “so and so is as good as any man”…you’re automatically saying that a man is better than a woman. Equal pay for equal work was a good goal. Equality with men – admits inferiority.
….foppish waves from billowy silk handkerchiefs.
Whew…for just a sec, I thought you were only describing a Ghaddafi outfit, but soon realized you had described the whole enchilada.
=SNIFF= SADIE, Ymar’s comment brought back memories of Bobby Darin and his immortal lyrics:
If I were a fop
And you were a silkworm
Could I unravel you anyway
Would you be my hankie?
>>Would you be my hankie?>>
That sounds like Sesame St….!
Nonono…Not Sesame St….
Mr. Rogers!
Well, if I had my druthers – I prefer to be Darla. You can be Spanky.
I must be over tired, for some reason when I read ‘hankie’ I thought of the Our Gang films. A hankie reminded me of a schmata and the kids pretty much dressed in ‘rags’ (not Darla)
In the words of the grand George Burns – “Say goodnight Gracie”
Danny Lemieux: No Zach{riel}, “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.
Of course it’s handwaving. Here it is again.
Ymarsakar: Zach{riel}’s now claiming he knows what the truth is?
Zachriel: Do you dispute the statement? And why?
Ymarsakar: Why would I dispute what’s not true.
He doesn’t respond to the point. 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. That’s the very definition of handwaving.
Danny Lemieux: There is no way of know what would have or what would not have happened if “history” had been different.
Though we can’t replay the tape of time, we can often identify errors of judgment. The invasion of Iraq was an unmitigated disaster. It was ill-conceived strategically, and the people making the decisions were ill-prepared and philosophically ill-disposed to make it work.
“Though we can’t replay the tape of time. . .”
Why do people try to wreck my beloved Engish language, and while they’re at it, logic?
If time is a tape, why the hell couldn’t you replay it?
What a pathetic metaphor.
I think that with respect to Iraq, we will just have to disagree with you, Zach. But, either way, only time will tell who was right.
SADIE, I think every boy in America identified sooner or later with Alfalfa. Oh, to be smitten by the heartless, conniving and manipulative femme fatale, Darla. Oh, misery, oh, dear sweet ache!
Danny Lemieux: I think that with respect to Iraq, we will just have to disagree with you, Zach. But, either way, only time will tell who was right.
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. That doesn’t mean something good won’t come out of it. Many good things *will* come out of it. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t a mistake.
Napoléon’s invasion of Russia was a disaster. The death toll was staggering, and it meant the ruin of much of Europe. Yet, the French spread the ideals of the Republic, and people never forgot the short period of time when they were citizens and not peasants. Many people in Vietnam like America, even if they hated their war there. Gandhi wanted India to remain friends with the British and retain the good aspects of their relationships while doffing off the bad. Similarly, the people in Iraq have been changed in many good ways by exposure to the Americans.
The good and bad are all mixed up together.
Danny: Ce sont les tonneaux vides qui font le plus de bruit.
Uh oh. The debate is getting really intense when we have to speak French here.
>>No matter how you cut it, the invasion and occupation were disasters.>>
Aaahh… the certainty of youth.
“Amazing how much my father learned between the time I was 17 and 21″…
Yes, Charles M…you are absolutely right: empty cans do make the loudest sounds.
Peoples’ opinions often become their exaggerated realities and realities must often be contorted in order to fit preconceived templates.
Zach’s assumptions about Iraq sit well within Zach’s comfort zone and remain impervious to troubling inconsistencies and contrary information. Contrary information must always be banished outside of the Temple of Orthodoxy. Thus, for example, can bogus Iraqi war casualty reports in Lancet be pounced upon and sanctified when they fit the Temple template, or discarded as anathema if they don’t.
No matter how you cut it, the invasion and occupation were disasters- Zachriel
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.
It happened with such precision, the Iranians were spooked, as were the Syrians. Would we turn left or right when we got to Baghdad? Had the left in this country not mounted such a quick defense of our enemies, the Iraq adventure might have toppled one or both of these repressive evil regimes.
Just like jurors listening to witnesses in a court case. If you only listen to one witness you will get just one version of what happened. If the jurors listen to multiple witnesses then they will have a more complete idea of what took place, who was involved, how serious the events were, etc.
Far too many folks get their news from just one source, many times it is because they are not news junkies or political junkies like so many of Book’s readers are. Other times it is because they simply don’t have the time to search out different sources. Other times it is because they already have a “comfortable” worldview and don’t like to be challenged. (Just look at the hostility so many on the left, even Obama, have towards Fox News – Fox News just gets under their skin so badly and must itch like crazy)
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.
As far as the narrative of the “looting” of Baghdad Museum goes it tends to be the same – one source, premature conclusions, an unchangeable worldview. Bush is a “reckless cowboy”, the US military is “bad,” Iraq is a “quagmire”, etc.
The first reports of the looting of the Baghdad museum falsely reported 100% of the museum was looted while the US military “just stood idly by and watched it happen.” The real truth can be discovered by reading multiple news reports:
* The US had the museum listed as a “not to be hit” target. Therefore it was spared from bombings.
* The US moved to secure the museum as soon as was possible. Except there were more pressing matters such as securing the city of Baghdad. People come before things, even priceless things – a concept that many of the left can’t appreciate.
* The US, when it was able to get to the museum, found out that terrorists (or insurgents as some would call them) had moved in and were using the museum as a hideout, perhaps knowing that the US would not risk destroying parts of the museum to get them. (terrorists did the same with places of worship and other holy sites. On the bright side, I guess we can at least say that they weren’t using the curators as human shields.)
* Much of the “looted items” were actually not looted; rather they were removed by the curators for safe keeping. Many of these curators were truly dedicated folks who risks their lives to protect their (and the world’s) precious history. Did the MSM refer to them this way? Rhetorical question, the answer is mostly “NO.” Many news reports when faced with this safe-keeping fact tried to justify their orignal reports by saying that these folks tried to loot anyway but got caught, so they made up the stories of safe keeping. Just shameless!
* Counting all the “removed” items, i.e. moved for safe keeping as well as items truly looted, the actual number is less than 3% of the total items of the Baghdad museum. Yes, that’s right – LESS THAN THREE PERCENT – hardly worth calling it “massive” looting.
* The US, behind the scenes, did quite a bit to recover a large portion of those items that were actually looted.
* Lastly, if these items were so damn important, why didn’t the Republican Guard, Saddam, or the terrorists, excuse me, I mean the “insurgents”, take the trouble to protect the museum? As Book said in a previous post it is often the art work that goes missing in turmoil.
P.S. Charles M. and Danny: Pardon moi, s’il vous plait. Je ne parle pas Francais. Je parle Anglais ou Chinois. Excepte . . . “Vous conduire le cheval au aqua, quelque ne forcer pas lui boire. C’est ne pas vrai?”
C’est vrai, Charles. Well put.
Charles
Chinois – wow and hen how. I attempted to study the language about 25 years ago on a whim in a local night school. I failed miserably with the tones, which probably explains why my violin career was cut short, too. I can, however, still order a glass of water and rice – still can’t play the violin.
Take heart, SADIE. Remember that final exam when you went to the Chinese restaurant to order a glass of water and rice and the waiter brought you a violin?
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.
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
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.
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.
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 Lemieux: 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.
Which is why the insurgency was defeated in Nov 2004? In fact, the insurgency simply moved elsewhere.
Danny Lemieux: 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.
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.
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”
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.
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.
>>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…
>>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?
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 ‘spinnersEpeddling 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 “proveEa 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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
suek
with matching shoes.
Mo Q, or more appropriately less IQ dresses in his own unique style, an eclectic blend of Afro-Arab haute goature
My cousin insists that he is a cross dresser.
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?
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.
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.
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.
>>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.
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.
Ymar, eet is very correct what you zay! I beegeen to theenk in Frwench and eet becomes habeet formeeng.
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.
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.
Our mind’s made up. Do not disturb us with the facts.
“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!
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.
Not to mention that “the invasion and occupation” are not a “wasn’t,” they’re a “weren’t.”
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”.
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.
I guess that you would have had to have read these medical journals for yourself and make up your own mind, Zach.
Good luck with that.
>>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…
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.
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”
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?
suek … it took me a bit of time to remember in which thread you asked about Mo Q’s wardrobe. The link and photo essay/comments are priceless. ENJOY!
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2009/08/qaddafi-slideshow200908#slide=15