Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Who’s interviewing whom here?
Posted by: McQ on Friday, December 09, 2005

An interesting exchange between Donald Rumsfeld and Jim Lehrer in an interview on PBS's "News Hour":
JIM LEHRER: Does it bother you—I looked at the public opinion polls the last, recent ones that mention you. And you don't come out very well in terms of the public. I couldn't find one where the public had approved of the job you were doing, less than 50 percent. Does that bother you?

DONALD RUMSFELD: Well, you know, you'd love to have acclamation and unanimity in everything one does. But in this position, in a war, and wars are tough. Someone told me the other day that Clemenceau made the comment that wars are a series of catastrophes culminating in victory. And they're tough. And so it doesn't surprise me that there are feelings, the feelings are strong on both sides.

There are an awful lot of people that are very positive and very favorable and very helpful and constructive. But there are certainly people who disagree violently; and that is the nature of a free system. So that's fair. I can live with that.
OK, fair enough. I can live with that. But later in the interview, Rumfeld returns to the question of polls and skewers Lehrer:
JIM LEHRER: You made a speech earlier this week where you said the news media should reassess the way it covers Iraq. What do you mean?

DONALD RUMSFELD: Oh, I think that it's—if you look where the news media is, it's down very low at the polls. If you want to get into public opinion polls, people in that business are right down near the bottom.

JIM LEHRER: Tell me about it.

DONALD RUMSFELD: You know that. Yeah, does it bother you?

JIM LEHRER: (laughter) Hey, I ask the questions here!
Heh ... touche!

Rumsfeld continues with another point though:
DONALD RUMSFELD: No, I think what is happening—and this is the first war that has ever been conducted in the 21st century when you had talk radio, the Internet, e-mails, bloggers, 24-hour news, digital cameras, video cameras, instant access to everything, and we haven't accommodated to that yet.
The "we" he refers to is both the MSM (or at least portions of it) and the DoD (or government in general if you prefer). That's the second time I've heard bloggers mentioned by a high (or former high) administration official. Powell mentioned bloggers as well in his talk in Wilkes-Barre reported on below:
Powell tackled the issue of partisanship, saying there is nothing wrong with a clash of opinions and debate. Both sides need to compromise until a consensus is reached, he said.

What wasn't intended was that partisanship would go beyond the limits, fueled by the "new media" - bloggers and "cable shows that slam and bam all day long," he said.
In terms of hyper-partisanship, Powell sees bloggers as part of the problem, not part of the solution. A quick trip around the political blogosphere certainly won't disabuse one of that notion, but it is instructive that those in high places are very aware of the 'sphere in general and recognize its impact on the political dialogue within the country. But if we want to be taken seriously, it might be to our advantage to heed the point made by Jon yesterday about engaging in real debate that demonstrates respect and intellectual tolerance for different ideas (and no that doesn't mean you have to humor trolls). Maybe such a demostration will rub off on our elected representatives.

Heh ... yeah, when pigs fly, right?
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Heh ... touche!
Heh … BFD.

News to you, perhaps, McQ, but the MSM doesn’t make policy decisions. So public opinion of them is perhaps the most irrelevant theme brought by a policy maker. And it was a cheap shot. It may have amused people with discontent for the MSM, but I could give a rat’s ass.

It seems to me that public opinion of the MSM is determined by the market (and we’re all about free markets here… Right? … Right?). That being said, it appears that public opinion of the MSM is right where it ought to be, and always will.

Rummy should be concerned with what people think of him. His decisions effect the lives of every American (and one could argue; everyone on the planet).
Jim Lehrer’s decisions do not.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
But if we want to be taken seriously, it might be to our advantage to heed the point made by Jon yesterday about engaging in real debate that demonstrates respect and intellectual tolerance for different ideas
If political blogging will ever be more than an echo chamber this must become true. There is a harsh disconnect between supporters of the left and the right in America today like I’ve never seen before. Rational debate about the issue just doesn’t seem to happen. Even friends of mine for decades, with whom I’ve debated all sorts of controversial topics for decades, seem to have great difficulty debating contemporary politics with any sort of rationality.

Among my friends on both sides of the political divide there seems to be a tremendous emotional stake in one’ position, even among those who I know are capable of arguing both sides of many issues. No one likes to admit the possibility they might be wrong about something important, but I’ve never seen this inability to present and respond to rational arguments before.

If there were a few blogs on either side engaged in such rational debate, I doubt that alone would change this tide of irrationality, but those blogs would certainly stand out in years to come, when the emotions had passed, as the new venue for rational political debate. Political blogging is quite young, and is currently focused on preaching to the choir, but it’s hard to imagine the it won’t be the primary means of political debate for the next generation, and you can’t have meaningful debate the way things stand now.

The leaders will emerge in the years to come, I’m certain. And the new center of political debate will be limited to those who treat their opponents’ arguments with dignity, and limit criticism to rational argument. Not that the writers of those blogs must refrain from being "snarky", but they’ll need to do that on a separate blog.
 
Written By: Skorj
URL: http://
Rummy should be concerned with what people think of him. His decisions effect the lives of every American (and one could argue; everyone on the planet).
No way Pogue - his job is not to be popular. In fact, one could say if he was popular then he’s probably not making the tough decisions somone in his position has to make. What is the quote... "those who care don’t matter and those who matter don’t care"
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
Rummy should be concerned with what people think of him. His decisions effect the lives of every American (and one could argue; everyone on the planet).

Well, first off, they’re not his decisions which "effect the lives of every American". He can’t make those sorts of decisions. Congress can and after they make the decision to go to war, the CinC is the one making the decisions.

Rumsfeld is not an elected official. He is not answerable to the people or their will. He has a very specific job in a time of war: to execute the plans and orders of the Commander in Chief as authorized by Congress.

Period.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Zing! Man, I can’t help but have immense respect for a guy who not only manages to deal with the sea of hostile press Rumsfeld swims through every day, but keeps keeps his sense of humour intact. I hope I have that kind of energy when I’m his age.

He’s also managed to bullwhip the Pentagon bureaucracy through significant force transformation, which takes a lot of nerve and skill in itself. Unfortunately the bureaucracy seems to be making a comeback.
 
Written By: Matt McIntosh
URL: http://conjecturesandrefutations.net/weblog/
.......hyper-partisanship........
Using such a word as a weapon, as many... ex Powell... seem to do, ignores the concept that in reality, there is no objectivity out here in the real world... and anyone who claims to be objective, is by nature foundatinally disconnected from that real world.

Powell, someday will have to reackon with the idea eventually, that reality is itself forced at some point to choose a side. So many seem so damned interested in remaining non-partisan, that on any issue, they are reluctant to actually draw conclusions and act on them.

The issue should not be, is someone being or not being partisan, but rather, are they being right or wrong?
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com

The bureaucracy hasn’t forgotten that we just might have to fight a conventional war someday.

 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
Using such a word as a weapon, as many... ex Powell... seem to do, ignores the concept that in reality, there is no objectivity out here in the real world... and anyone who claims to be objective, is by nature foundatinally disconnected from that real world.

Using the modifier "hyper" pretty much acknowledes that don’t you think?

He’s not objecting to partisanship, he’s objecting to hyper-partisanship, or the type of belief that will accept no other argument than the one made by their side as valid (and in most cases accept the argument made by their side without challenging any aspect of it).

The issue should not be, is someone being or not being partisan, but rather, are they being right or wrong?

And you don’t think partisan ideology colors that?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
And you don’t think partisan ideology colors that?
Well, YOUR ideology/superstitious mumbo-jumbo colours your opinions, but I’m RIGHT! See, all is made clear... YOU are an ideologue, I am correct. One is BELIEF, I have KNOWLEDGE. Now if only more folks would realize this and simply do the right thing, life would be SO much simpler.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
[i]But if we want to be taken seriously, it might be to our advantage to heed the point made by Jon yesterday about engaging in real debate that demonstrates respect and intellectual tolerance for different ideas [/i]

Sometimes yes........I don’t think this is one of those times. There are times where yes, we can all engage in a civilized debate, sitting by a roaring fire while sipping nice warm glasses of port. But in a time like this, where the issues really are fundamental questions of how we want to conduct our nation and address the main issue of the day going forward, I don’t want genteel niceties to mask things. I WANT Howard Dean to say we can’t win, and I want Rep. Schmidt to call Rep. Murtha a coward. We need to know where everyone stands at a time like this.

Frankly I don’t regard this "extreme polarization" to be as bad as others do.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Interestingly, "Blogs" are the new military buzzword, like "Transformation" was just a few years ago. If it involves a "blog", it probably gets funding.
Which is really amusing when the semi-technophobic higher ranks order the creation something that has no interactivity, full attribution, requires in-depth traing touse and features extremely limited dynamics...yet it’s a "blog" because it’s on the military internet!
 
Written By: Nathan
URL: http://brain.mu.nu/
This is quite interesting—I noticed on my tracking software the other day some hits from osd.mil that came through googling "blog consortium." I would love to think Rumsfeld was reading my blog, but in reality it seems they’re really trying to explore what’s out there and the potential of the blogosphere to be a major conduit of information.

Doesn’t sound like he’s resiging any time soon now, does it?
 
Written By: AcademicElephant
URL: www.elephantsinacademia.blogspot.com
Doesn’t sound like he’s resiging any time soon now, does it?

Heh ... I loved the way he characterized the NY Times as putting the resignation story out every six months or so and saying that eventually they’ll actually be right.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Actually, it was the NY Daily News.



JIM LEHRER: No matter what. Now, there was a story in the U.S.—the New York Daily News today that said that White House officials expect you to resign early next year once this new government you just mentioned is in place. Is that true?



DONALD RUMSFELD: Well, you know, that’s a fellow who does that about every six months.



JIM LEHRER: The fellow, what fellow?



Jim Lehrer and Donald RumsfeldDONALD RUMSFELD: This fellow for that paper.



JIM LEHRER: Tom DeFrank.



DONALD RUMSFELD: Yeah. There are a couple of these folks who do it.



JIM LEHRER: Yeah.



DONALD RUMSFELD: And they do it about every six months. And you know something, some day they’re going to have a scoop and be right by accident.

 
Written By: frontinus
URL: http://
Wow. I blame your preview....
 
Written By: frontinus
URL: http://
"The bureaucracy hasn’t forgotten that we just might have to fight a conventional war someday."

Against who, the Chinese? Dude, it will take them 20 years to catch up with the US in military technology. There is nobody out there who even comes close to being a conventional threat to the US. Care to explain to me how cutting troops in the midst of a manpower crisis during a war is a good idea?
 
Written By: Matt McIntosh
URL: http://conjecturesandrefutations.net
It’s the Air Force...


Anyways, quit being so damned strident and expecting others to agree with you. By the way, the last time the U.S. military was opposed by Chinese regulars I don’t think technology was a deciding factor so I’m not exactly sure what your point was if indeed you had one.
 
Written By: frontinus
URL: http://
Has anyone else seen the irony in the fact that Rumsfeld quotes Georges Clemenceau who infamously remarked that "wars are far too important a matter to entrust to military men"? The same man who, with the Treaty of Versailles, sought to punish Germany for the First World War, largely contributing to the events that fomented the Second World War...
 
Written By: J
URL: http://
Well, first off, they’re not his decisions which "effect the lives of every American".

Wrong. His decisions on HOW to wage the war effect the lives of every American.

Rumsfeld is not an elected official. He is not answerable to the people or their will.

Wrong again.
Well, technically you’re right. But Rummy definitely needs to worry about what the people think of him. The opinion of his job performance reflects directly on his boss, and how his boss is making policy decisions. You might not think that’s relevent, but I think most people do. That’s why they ask the question.
What do you think of Rummy’s performance?
Approve—40%
Disapprove —47%
Interesting, though, how you read that interview and that you decided the humorous bit was how Rummy jabbed the press. Me, well, I took away something completely different.

Rumsfeld:
I was very careful. I never predicted any number of deaths or the cost or the length because I’ve looked at a lot of wars, and anyone who tries to do that is going to find themselves wrong, flat wrong
[...]
I don’t know anybody who had any reasonable expectations about the number or the length of the war or the cost of the war. I just don’t — no one I know went out and said these are how those three metrics ought to be considered. And you can take it to the bank.
Not to any bank that I’d want to keep my money in.
USA Today

Feb. 7, 2003 Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy: "It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."
I guess that’s not as fun as how Rummy “skewered” Lehrer, though. Yeah, what a knee-slapper.
:-D








 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
>He’s not objecting to partisanship, he’s objecting to hyper-partisanship, or the type of belief that will accept no other argument than the one made by their side as valid (and in most cases accept the argument made by their side without challenging any aspect of it).
But here’s where you missed it, McQ;
Powell, someday will have to reackon with the idea eventually, that reality is itself forced at some point to choose a side
If in fact you’ve made the choice, come down on a side, because you’d seen it IS reality, does that now graduate you into the realm of ’hyper partisanship’, an thereby invalid?
intellectual tolerance
Ah, yes, another favorite.

From my blog’s headline: "Remember; those who tolerate everything, stand for nothing.What do YOU stand for?"

Once again I say, at some point, reality is forced to take sides.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
Wrong. His decisions on HOW to wage the war effect the lives of every American.

In that context everyone’s decisions might effect the lives of every American. Even the platoon leader on the ground that makes a choice which reflects poorly on the US.

Well, technically you’re right.

Well yeah.

But Rummy definitely needs to worry about what the people think of him. The opinion of his job performance reflects directly on his boss, and how his boss is making policy decisions.

Heh ... yeah, it’s worked like that so far, hasn’t it Pogue?

Interesting, though, how you read that interview and that you decided the humorous bit was how Rummy jabbed the press.

Actually what I found humorous is that he didn’t do it immediately but waited for a more appropriate time.

Feb. 7, 2003 Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy: "It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."

Heh ... yeah funny given he was talking about how long it would take to invade and take Iraq.

But hey, context ... who cares right?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
If in fact you’ve made the choice, come down on a side, because you’d seen it IS reality, does that now graduate you into the realm of ’hyper partisanship’, an thereby invalid?

Bithead what are you talking about? "Partisan" means you have a side. He’s talking about hyper-partisan. That there is a side chosen is a given.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
In many ways the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have been very useful as tests of the different theories.

Obviously the Rumsfeld transformed concept did pretty well in Afghanistan. The Strykers did very well in Iraq. But the tanks ended up being useful, too. But I don’t think the Crusdader would have been very useful in either of these conflicts. So in the end you will get some compromise based on reality.

What worries me would be naval war. You’d rather not learn that carrier groups are passe a week into a war with China.

 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
*Against who, the Chinese? Dude, it will take them 20 years to catch up with the US in military technology.*


Underestamating and assumption are the mother of all f**k ups.
 
Written By: Chuck
URL: http://
But hey, context ... who cares right?

Ahh! Hidden context. How convenient. He said, “that conflict”, not, “the siege of Baghdad”. You’re splitting hairs (OK, so am I). He still said,
I was very careful. I never predicted any number of deaths or the cost or the length because I’ve looked at a lot of wars, and anyone who tries to do that is going to find themselves wrong, flat wrong…

He’s spinning and you know it. That kind of "roses and candy" pre-war prediction was all over the place.
I don’t know anybody who had any reasonable expectations about the number or the length of the war or the cost of the war. I just don’t — no one I know went out and said these are how those three metrics ought to be considered.
Rummy isn’t skewering Lehrer. He’s tugging his prick.
...or the cost?
Daniels, 12/30/02: “The administration’s top budget [Mitch Daniels] official estimated today that the cost of a war with Iraq could be in the range of $50 billion to $60 billion… Mr. Daniels declined to explain how budget officials had reached the $50 billion to $60 billion range for war costs…” [New York Times, 12/31/02]
All that spinning and you find it humorous that Rummy jabbed Lehrer. Very telling. You severely dislike journalist’s don’t you, McQ? Or are you just smitten over Bush and the Boyz. I’m guessing the former.
Tell me, did the editor of your high school newspaper steal your girl or something??? I’ll bet it was fiesta grande around the McQain household when “Rathergate” went down. I’ll wage dollars to pesos that you even had a girl in a cake (or do they allow that sort of thing in Georgia?).
JIM LEHRER: You have said that, repeatedly, and you said it again, you didn’t raise any expectations. But a lot of folks in the administration did. I went back and looked at that again today.

You and I talked with about this before on this program. There were a lot of really, really optimistic things said about this war.
But hey, being straight with the American people ... who cares, right?
(just as long as we get that bastard Lehrer)
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
What worries me would be naval war. You’d rather not learn that carrier groups are passe a week into a war with China.

One thing that has become clear to me over the last six weeks is the serious concern with which Rumsfeld views China and its rapid recent military build up—wonder if they’re adjusting the QDR to reflect this?
 
Written By: AcademicElephant
URL: www.elephantsinacademia.blogspot.com
Ahh! Hidden context. How convenient. He said, “that conflict”, not, “the siege of Baghdad”. You’re splitting hairs (OK, so am I).

Uh, Pogue, he said it in Feb. of ’03, the war started in Mar of ’03. Are you saying he was talking about the total length of our stay there or the fight against Saddam’s forces? I’m sorry but it seems pretty clear he was talking about how long Saddam and the boys would last.

He’s spinning and you know it. That kind of "roses and candy" pre-war prediction was all over the place.

Not when he’s talking to a bunch of troops who are getting ready to fight the battle the next month. If anyone’s spinning here, it’s you.

All that spinning and you find it humorous that Rummy jabbed Lehrer. Very telling. You severely dislike journalist’s don’t you, McQ?

Quit projecting Pogue. I dislike journalists who do a half-assed job. Don’t you?

But hey, being straight with the American people ... who cares, right? (just as long as we get that bastard Lehrer)

My goodness. Your premise is wrong, your spin is cockeyed and your conclusion is laughable.

But hey, hope you feel better.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Against who, the Chinese? Dude, it will take them 20 years to catch up with the US in military technology. There is nobody out there who even comes close to being a conventional threat to the US.

As a poster from my days in the service used to remind us, "Quantity has a quality of its own."

This is also the Air Force and the US Army has almost always fought under a cover of air superiority. It’s a very nice force multiplier that you’d really like to have in a conventional war.

 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
Against who, the Chinese? Dude, it will take them 20 years to catch up with the US in military technology. There is nobody out there who even comes close to being a conventional threat to the US.

The Chinese Communists do not need to be a direct ’conventional’ threat to the United States to still be a very real and very grave threat to our interests and national security. The Chinese are expanding and consolidating their influence over a massive swathe of the Asian continent and elsewhere. That includes areas that are strategically vital to us and our regional allies, such as the Straight of Molucca, the South China Sea, even the Panama Canal Zone.

As a poster from my days in the service used to remind us, "Quantity has a quality of its own."

Heh. Yep, Stalin said that during the Second World War, if I recall correctly. And it seems to have worked out for the Soviets in their fight for the Eastern Front.
 
Written By: J
URL: http://

Bithead what are you talking about? "Partisan" means you have a side. He’s talking about hyper-partisan. That there is a side chosen is a given.
Apparently, we’re talking about definitions.

Read your own comments, again, in your (Fair enough) description of "hyper-partisan":
...the type of belief that will accept no other argument than the one made by their side as valid...
Isn’t that the definition of a choice being made? If I’ve made a choice of argument one being valid, isn’t that by definition exclusionary of argument two?

Best I can tell so far, seperating hyper-partisan from mere partisan, with this for a definition isn’t all that easy.

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
Isn’t that the definition of a choice being made?

So is partisan, thus the name. You can’t be a partisan if you haven’t made a choice.

The difference is merely being partisan means you might be open to a good rational opposing argument.

Being a hyper-partisan means you aren’t open to an opposing argument of any type, good or rational.


 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
you might be open to a good rational opposing argument.
Hmm.
If you’ve made the choice, I submit that ideally, you’ve already listened to all the argument you’ve figured to be good and/or rational, and the time to be open to other arguments has already up and gone.

An offhanded example... can you ever see yourself agreeing with Howard Dean’s statements about how the Iraq war cannot be won and how it should be handled? If I’ve read you correctly on that matter... and I think I have.... you think the arguments for pulling out of Iraq to be irrational, and wrong-headed, and so have made your choice. I have, as well. I suppose, also, that such a choice has already earned you the title of ’hyper-partisan’ in some quarters, as that same choice has earned ME from a select few of MY readers.


(And you know, in looking at this I’m thinking that perhaps we also need to agree on "rational"... since the Democrats are arguing in public that they think Dean to be acting rationally....Go figure... perhaps ’is’ isn’t the only word they need redefined for their purposes. (grin))



 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
If you’ve made the choice, I submit that ideally, you’ve already listened to all the argument you’ve figured to be good and/or rational, and the time to be open to other arguments has already up and gone.

Sorry ... not interested in pole vaulting over mouse turds any longer. I’ve defined my use. You have a different take.

Such is life.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
So, you’ve made the choice, and are unwilling to listen to rational arguemnts, eh?
You old hyper-partisan, you...

(Chuckle)

I speak in jest, here, but you really have extended the point I’m making, and perhaps unwittingly.

Regards to you.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
My goodness. Your premise is wrong, your spin is cockeyed and your conclusion is laughable.

Ouch. Please don’t skewer me again, McQ. It hurts my feelings. And you do care about my feelings, don’t you? ;)

Uh, Pogue, he said it in Feb. of ’03,...

Hey man, I admitted I was splitting hairs. What more do you want?

Not when he’s talking to a bunch of troops who are getting ready to fight the battle the next month.

What are you talking about, McQ? No one’s suggesting that Rummy was spinning to the troops. He was spinning to the Jim Lehrer. He is a politician, you remember.

I dislike journalists who do a half-assed job. Don’t you?

Indeed. But what I consider half-ass is when the press doesn’t press the politician. I want the press to be junkyard dogs. I want them to be vicious and confrontational towards politicians. I think that is the only avenue for truthful information for the public from the politicians. Unlike some, I don’t buy everything that politicians tell me.
I can’t speak for Neolibertarians, for I am not one, but traditional libertarians seek limited government. And complementary to powerful, tyrannical governments is a lethargic, content press.

The truth is, Rumsfeld sat there and lied to the American people via Jim Lehrer. He said that “no one painted a rosy picture of the Iraq war” (paraphrase). That’s flatly untrue, and you know it. “Greeted as liberators”, “only cost sixty billion” and the like. Yet when asked, Rummy said, “no… no such thing happened.”
BLANTANT LIE.

It’s sad when lies are imperceptible to us for our animosity towards the press.
But hey, hope you feel better.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
And you’re saying the vast majority of Iraqis have not greeted our people as liberators?

Be verrrry careful, here.

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
And you’re saying the vast majority of Iraqis have not greeted our people as liberators?

Well, the jury’s still out on that one. My point was that Rummy lied to Lehrer about pre-war predictions. And their were rosy predictions.
And I’m not the only one who thinks this.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) on Meet the Enemy,
...er..., excuse me.
Meet the Press
But here’s the problem. When you tell people it costs $50 billion is all it’s going to cost to rebuild Iraq, as Mr. Wolfowitz did, when you tell people that the insurgency is 1/10th of 1 percent and it still goes on after four years, there’s a price to pay for underestimating how hard this is, and I think that’s been the president’s problem. He has made some policy statements in speeches recognizing problems.

Be verrrry careful, here.


Good advice. The administration should have heeded it regarding pre-war predictions.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
"Good advice. The administration should have heeded it regarding pre-war predictions."

I remember the president saying how long, hard, and expensive this would be. I never remeber anyone syaing it would only take $50 billion, I remember that being an initial request—the clear implication being it would take more later.

The people I remember making horribly wrong pre-war predictions were the people who said it would take months to go house to house in each city until Baghdad, and that then the city could hold out for more months, Stalingrad style. Who was more accurate?

You perspectiveless people who are criticizing the Bush administration seem not to recognize two things; A) if your standards had been applied to the Confederates, our southern border wouldn’t be Mexico, and B) by historical standards, this is going swimmingly.

Then follows, usually, the criticism that this was an optional war, with the implication being that optional wars must be run without flaw.

Of course it was optional, all wars are optional. You can always give the enemy what they want, including your own extinction. What we really had at stake was allowing the worldview which produced 9/11 to continue to fester, meaning we either had to do something or accept losses on the scale of 9/11 as often as our enemies could produce them, which I think would probably have been at least every ten years—and eventually, that would have been a nuke killing hundreds of thousands.

Now eventually, that will happen no matter what we do, but that’s no excuse for not changing the circumstances that produced 9/11.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
I told you to be careful... do you listen to me? NooooOOooooo.
Well, the jury’s still out on that one
No, it’s not.
. My point was that Rummy lied to Lehrer about pre-war predictions. And their were rosy predictions.
Well, I don’t recall it that way.
I, like Tom, recall....
the people who said it would take months to go house to house in each city until Baghdad, and that then the city could hold out for more months, Stalingrad style.
Funnyu how it didn’t turn out that way.

Did these lie, as well, Pougue?




 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider