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

 
Eugene Robinson and BDS
Posted by: McQ on Friday, November 09, 2007

Eugene Robinson starts his opinion piece today with:
It's official: Bush Derangement Syndrome is now a full-blown epidemic. George W. Bush apparently has reduced more of his fellow citizens to frustrated, sputtering rage than any president since opinion polling began, with the possible exception of Richard Nixon.
He then treats us to a demonstration of his lede with 12 paragraphs of BDS.

He ends with:
It's easy to understand why Americans have come to think of George W. Bush as the worst president in memory, perhaps one of the worst ever. What's hard to fathom is how we'll make it through the next 14 1/2 months. But who's counting?
Now I looked at Robinson's picture accompanying the article and he's an old guy like me. In order to make a statement like that he was either in a coma or slept through the entire Carter presidency.

Or he just has a particularly bad case of BDS.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
I understand that some disagree, and disagree vehemently, with the Bush administration. But this over-the-top rhetoric about Bush as the worst president in living memory or even the worst president period is a mystery.

The nation, its people, and its economy are in good shape despite the one-two punch of the dot-com bubble and 9-11 early in Bush’s presidency. The United States and coalition have liberated almost 60 million people from the tyrannies of Saddam Hussein and the Taliban, and while those stories are mixed and their ultimate outcomes as yet unwritten, by the standards of war, the costs in blood, treasure, and rights have been remarkably light. From listening to the anti-war side, one might suppose that their compatriots were being spied on, rounded up and shipped to Christian re-education camps in Idaho by Homeland Security, but of course nothing of the sort is happening.

There is certainly room to disagree with the Bush administration on any number of issues, but these blanket BDS claims, such as Robinson’s, that any sensible American should be equally horrified by Bush, is just vile propaganda.
 
Written By: huxley
URL: http://
Cue David Shaughnessy in 5,4,3,2...
 
Written By: A fine scotch
URL: http://
Now I looked at Robinson’s picture accompanying the article and he’s an old guy like me. So I’d have to guess either he was in a coma or slept through the entire Carter presidency to make a statement like that.
Maybe he was in a coma, or sleeping, or however not paying attention. But he did mention in his piece – amongst all of what you consider “BDS” – this…
Gallup has been asking the "strongly disapprove" question since the Lyndon Johnson administration. The only time the polling firm has measured such strong give-this-guy-the-hook sentiment was in February 1974, at the height of the Watergate scandal, when Nixon’s "strongly disapprove" number was measured at 48 percent. Bush beats him by a nose, but the margin of error makes the contest for "Most Reviled President, Modern Era" a statistical tie.
He’s relying on Gallup, and according to Gallup (I’m admittedly taking his word for Gallup), Carter doesn’t beat Bush.

Also, he gives himself line with, “It’s easy to understand why Americans have come to think of George W. Bush as the worst president in memory, perhaps one of the worst ever.”

He’s actually not claiming that GWB is the worst, he’s saying that it’s “easy to understand why Americans” think he’s the worst.
Now given, that’s a cop out, but still…

Also, care to address what you describe as BDS head on by taking each paragraph to task? Or do you care not enough to discard it as BDS all the while deeming his opinion worthy enough to address in the first place?

Cheers.


 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
Robinson is a long-time sufferer from BDS. I had to quit writing about his screeds because he seems to be tethered to the Democrat plantation and he spews, line-by-line, the DNC talking points.

I’ve tried to corner him for sources in his on-line chats, but he just ignores me.

I’m pretty sure that his columns are written in the DNC headquarters and he merely posts his picture on the page. When I started ignoring him, my blood pressure dropped measurably.
 
Written By: Jonn Lilyea
URL: http://thisainthell.us/blog
But he did mention in his piece - amongst all of what you consider "BDS" - this.
No Pogue ... that’s how one attempts to rationalize their BDS. Did it work for you?
Now given, that’s a cop out, but still…
Heh ... I was glad to see that line, Pogue, because up until then I was thinking "and all this time I thought he was smarter than this".

Glad you proved my first impression of you correct. Also glad to see you really couldn’t keep a straight face typing the preceding tripe you laid on us.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
in February 1974, at the height of the Watergate scandal, when Nixon’s "strongly disapprove" number was measured at 48 percent. Bush beats him by a nose, but the margin of error makes the contest for "Most Reviled President, Modern Era" a statistical tie.
Keep in mind that by Truman’s last year in office his approval rating was down to 22% and he was widely reviled for the Korean War. Yet he is now invoked as a fine Democratic president, and seventh most highly ranked president by historians and political scientists.

I don’t believe that the Bush administration or the Iraq War can be accurately assessed by either side for now. That’s something history will have to grind through over the next few decades.

The BDS people mistake their emotions for reality.
 
Written By: huxley
URL: http://
Truman is rightly reviled for the Korean war. If he hadn’t tried to take North Korea, the war would have ended in 1950. Instead it dragged on three years with needless loss of life, destruction of Korean property, and one of the most ignoble retreats in American history. The Iraq war is clearly a failure, especially on the policy’s own terms. One doesn’t have to ’wait for history’ in order to make judgments. Sometimes, like now, it’s pretty clear what history will say.

All that said, I think Bush has done a much better job in his second term than his first, and as long as he doesn’t do something foolish like attack Iran, I’ll end up liking him much more at the end of his Presidency than the beginning, he’s made some changes in diplomatic tone, relations with Europe, and has taken a more sophisticated approach to world politics. He’s learned on the job.

I also think the Iraq fiasco might end up having taught us an important lesson: it is necessary to have allies, work with the UN, and take a multilateral approach. We learned the hard way the limits of military power, and the folly of thinking we don’t need to build coalitions and compromise. Perhaps that was a lesson a great power needs to learn the hard way, the temptation to overestimate the ability to project power is immense.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
For me, the easy way to tell the difference between a BDS sufferer and someone who is merely down on Bush is to ask if they can name anything Bush has done that they agree with.

I don’t care how left-wing you are, you ought to be able to come up with something. Medicare Rx springs to mind, as does his Kennedy-written education bill. I hated both, but those match typical Democratic programs to several decimal places.

And, as huxley pointed out, deriding Bush for economic performance during his term is just delusional.

But, as I saw at dinner the other night, there are some that froth at the mouth at the mere mention of Bush. Those who don’t spend time among Left Coasters may not realize that they pass the time with tirades I would label BDS. It’s as common a conversation filler as talking about the weather, and they expect no disagreement when they make ludicrous statements such as "I don’t see how anybody in their right mind could vote for Bush."

I innocently pointed out that Gore could have the won the presidency if he had won Tennessee, and that presumably we knew him better than any other voters in the world. I was afraid the person who started the anti-Bush diatribe was going to spill his eyes right out on the table. And I’m not sure he’ll ever speak to me civilly again.

Folks, this behavior is sick. And you on the left ought to be able to face up to that and start pulling these BDS sufferers back from the brink. Political discourse is impossible with someone who has gone over such an edge, and the alternatives to civil political discourse are not very attractive.
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://qando.net
No Pogue ... that’s how one attempts to rationalize their BDS.
Well if you insist.
I don’t know why one must suffer from BDS in order to believe that Bush is the worst president in recent memory or perhaps worst all time.
I think its too early for that judgment but I don’t see why one has to be “deranged” in order to believe that Bush is considered worst president, especially since there are poll numbers that easily suggest that.

I mean, you will admit that it’s been a pretty sour presidency so far, right?

On the topic of “deranged”, you’ve posted quite a lot of negative pieces regarding Carter, including now (I mean, you’re not doing this to defend Bush are you?). Not that Carter is undeserved, but the man has been insignificant for almost thirty years… so what gives???

Perhaps CDS – Carter Derangement Syndrome.

Get yourself checked out, buddy.

It’s never too early.

Cheers.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
On the topic of "deranged", you’ve posted quite a lot of negative pieces regarding Carter, including now (I mean, you’re not doing this to defend Bush are you?). Not that Carter is undeserved, but the man has been insignificant for almost thirty years. so what gives???
Carter’s said a lot of stupid things lately. What can I say ... I blog about such things. I can’t help it if the man wants to help me out.

Now, go have another beer and quit trying so hard.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
But, as I saw at dinner the other night, there are some that froth at the mouth at the mere mention of Bush
I’ll let you in on a secret.....they hate him, really REALLY hate him because they can’t beat him in a meaningful way.

Even in retaking Congress, which is to be regarded as their biggest victory against him, they STILL can’t get anything done. In fact, all they’ve done is screw the pooch and drag their approval rating down into "most reviled congress in history" status. Just look at S-Chip! This supposed lame duck still has enough juice to stymie the Dems.

Sure, they have dealt him some counter punches, but by and large nothing terribly substantial.

Every hope they ever had against him vanished: The "late hit" DWI leak in the 1st election’s final weekend, Gores lawsuit, Fitzgerald, TANG, Impeachment, Kerry, Retaking Congress. All failures.

And thus, they treat a sad "gotcha" of a functionary like Scooter Libby as if it was Teapot Dome 2.0

They can call Bush the worst president in history.......but that means the left has been owned by the worst president in history. LOL, doesn’t speak too well for them does it?


 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
They can call Bush the worst president in history.......but that means the left has been owned by the worst president in history. LOL, doesn’t speak too well for them does it?
Heh. Reminds me of those whiny athletes that always have a thousand reasons why it’s someone else’s fault that they lost.

But really, if the GOP wins the presidency again in 2008, I’m afraid it will get worse. I’t possible that we’ve not yet plumbed the depths of insanity exhibited by BDS sufferers, because it’s all too possible that they will transition to RPADS (Republican Presidential Administration Derangement Syndrome).

I hope the end of the Bush term will result in a return to the real world for these folks. But I’m not counting on it.
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://qando.net
Well, McQ, there does seem some similarities between Carter Derangement Syndrome and Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Hint: Anytime another politicians is attacked and ridiculed, making it seem as if he has no redeeming qualities (or the ones he or she has are so minor as to be barely relevant), it’s pretty much the same thing. Bush, Carter, Murtha derangement syndrome. A lot of people notice in others what they can’t recognize in themselves.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Boris Erb, ever the moron, writes:
Truman is rightly reviled for the Korean war. If he hadn’t tried to take North Korea, the war would have ended in 1950.
Boris, Harry Truman isn’t "reviled" anywhere in America now for the Korean War, except possibly by Leftist historians like that Cummings imbecile.

The bottom line on Korea now, as it has been for decades, is the contrast between a modern growing prosperous democracy in the South and the Stalinist hell hole in the North with its starving population.

By quickly reacting to the North’s invasion of the South in 1950, Truman saved the South from your friends. Truman is not "reviled" for that, except by your friends.

And the big hit that Truman took to his popular support then was for firing MacArthur, who wanted to prosecute the war much more aggressively.

As for your comments on Iraq, I note that you sound like more of an idiot with each passing day. Don’t forget to register for that Baghdad conference on "How the U.S. failed in Iraq."
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
For me, the easy way to tell the difference between a BDS sufferer and someone who is merely down on Bush is to ask if they can name anything Bush has done that they agree with.
For me that’s easy: immigration reform, Supreme Court nominations (I even liked Miers), emphasis on physical fitness (the most important health care reform we could possibly have — not more drugs, more exercise), and I like the fact he’s starting to veto bills with a lot of pork. Not a bad guy, and as I said, better in foreign policy since 2005 (meaning his administration has learned, which is a good sign). But like I noted, the right does that to the left (Murtha, Pelosi, Carter, Kerry, etc.) too, so it’s really a negative development across the political spectrum. I will not participate.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
." If he hadn’t tried to take North Korea, the war would have ended in 1950. Instead it dragged on three years..."

It’s not quite that simple. And in all my rather extensive reading on the subject, I have never read or heard of Truman being reviled for the Korean War. Perhaps you can supply a source. In English.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
It’s not quite that simple. And in all my rather extensive reading on the subject, I have never read or heard of Truman being reviled for the Korean War. Perhaps you can supply a source. In English.
That’s why his approval was so low when he left office.

Bottom line: if he had ended the Korea war in 1950, he’d have had the pre-war borders and the same result that ultimately occurred three years later after numerous death, a lot of destruction, ruined lives, and a humiliating retreat. By choosing to invade North Korea after liberating South Korea, he created a fiasco.

If you don’t know that Truman was unpopular because of that, then you just need to read pretty much any history of the Truman administration.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Boris Erb writes about Truman and Korea:
That’s why his approval was so low when he left office.
Above, Boris, you wrote "is reviled." Present tense. You know what the present tense is?

Further, your simplistic equation that had Truman not "invaded" North Korea the war would have been over in 1950 is such self-evident incandescent stupidity that it’s no wonder that college seniors get a D average on a civic literacy test with people like you instructing them.

Truman was unpopular his final year (1952) in large part due to the lack of progress, in any direction, in Korea. That did not turn on the issue of MacArthur’s bold move into North Korea at Inchon in 1950. It had a lot more to do with MacArthur’s desire to prosecute the war even more aggressively after he was surprised by the Chinese invasion in the North and was pushed back to the 38th parallel.

The single most unpopular thing that Truman ever did was fire MacArthur. That lingered in the public mind, not the originally successful corralling of the army of the aggressor in its own territory.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Correction: the invasion at Inchon was a bold move to encircle North Korea’s army, but was not "into North Korea."
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Erb,

Sure, if the US and UN forces had decided to stop.

Can you show me evidence that proves the Chinese forces would not have come in if we had stopped at the 38th parallel?

Because the Chinese certainly tried to push us south of the 38th parallel, and succeeded several times, which would pretty much show you that their intent was not just to protect North Korea.

Also, the ROK forces might have struck north anyways on their own...keep in mind the North Korean forces had more or less completely collapsed. ROK units on the east coast actually got to the Yalu before the Chinese counter-attacked.

 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
Sure, if the US and UN forces had decided to stop.

Can you show me evidence that proves the Chinese forces would not have come in if we had stopped at the 38th parallel?
I doubt I can prove it, but the conventional wisdom is that if we had stopped with the liberation of South Korea then the Chinese would not have felt as threatened. Also, we’d have "seen it coming." Liberating South Korea was done well, but clearly the "rollback" attempt was a dismal failure. I also think that President Bush had Korea on his mind in 1991 in choosing not to "go to Baghdad." The ejection of the North Korean army from the south was masterful, much like removing Iraq from Kuwait. But, to use just war theory lingo, turning a defensive war into a war of aggression is very dangerous.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Harum asks Boris:
Can you show me evidence that proves the Chinese forces would not have come in if we had stopped at the 38th parallel?
That’s just the point.

War is not something that can be viewed retrospectively as a static enterprise.

It is dynamic, with facts and purposes huddled down along with the armies.

We now know, for instance, that Mao was an insane ideological slob to whom human lives meant absolutely nothing. We know that Stalin, whose paranoid totalitarianism survives almost exclusively in today’s North Korea, gave the go ahead to the North Koreans to invade the South. We also know that the U.S. State Department, perhaps because of the Soviet influence within it, was heavily committed to a rather benign view of Mao and the Chinese Communists, which might explain why they were thought unlikely to enter the war. How much of the view at State had percolated sideways to MacArthur might have been taken up somewhere, but I’ve never seen it.

But the greater part of Truman’s unpopularity in 1952 grew from his dismissal of MacArthur earlier, signaling that the public wanted resolve or resolution, not the stalemate that abided during that year.

MacArthur was the one who wanted the fight with the Chinese. Truman the one who backed away from it. Eisenhower merely took the latter and fixed it in place, and that’s what we have today.

Where would any sane person prefer to live today? In North or South Korea? That’s a rhetorical question.

 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Oh Harun, Irving Janis uses Korea as one of the fiascos in his famous book "Groupthink." It’s pretty compelling that China would not have gotten involved if not for us moving past the 38th parallel. Ironically, the Truman White House had decided to invade the north only when they were convinced China would not get involved. Before they moved across the 38th parallel military intelligence got information of Chinese forces at the Yalu river. That went up the chain of command, but it was never given to Truman because some were afraid that it might mess up the decision to move north (Janis calls these ’mindguards.’) If the Truman administration had known for sure China would get involved, they almost certainly would not have crossed the 38th parallel.

I think Janis’ theory (groupthink involves overestimating group power, belief in the inherent morality of the group, etc.) has a lot to say in analyzing the decision making before going to war in Iraq as well.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Boris Erb now tries this:
Liberating South Korea was done well, but clearly the "rollback" attempt was a dismal failure. I also think that President Bush had Korea on his mind in 1991 in choosing not to "go to Baghdad." The ejection of the North Korean army from the south was masterful, much like removing Iraq from Kuwait. But, to use just war theory lingo, turning a defensive war into a war of aggression is very dangerous.
How about the "rollback" of Nazi Germany after the liberation of France, Boris, was that a "war of aggression"?

Or the "rollback" of Imperial Japan after the liberation of the Philippines?

Are you suggesting that the North Korean regime didn’t deserve to be ousted after their invasion of the South? If you think that, then perhaps a few months living in North Korea would perhaps be just the thing for you.

The facts are that the Chinese and the Soviets were at work in North Korea, and our line of sight to that at the time was occluded by
people like you
working in the U.S. government. Nimrods, who had they had more to say about WWII probably could have lost that war for us too.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
"I doubt I can prove it, but the conventional wisdom is..."

Oh, well then. Who am I to argue with the conventional wisdom. Even when it is wrong.

" turning a defensive war into a war of aggression is very dangerous."

Pure idiocy. The victim does not become an aggressor just because he tries to win the fight. And the aggressor does not become a victim.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
"How about the "rollback" of Nazi Germany after the liberation of France, Boris, was that a "war of aggression"?"

Of course. As soon as the first bomber dropped a bomb on Germany we became the aggressor, even more guilty than the Germans because we knew better.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Of course. As soon as the first bomber dropped a bomb on Germany we became the aggressor, even more guilty than the Germans because we knew better.
It’s funny how when a criticism of a war or strategy is effective, the argument always seems to be to try to extend it to WWII. That’s a sign of weakness.

On Korea, again, check out Irving Janis’ book Groupthink and his example of Korea as one of the ’fiascos’ he investigates. Also, note that there is a reason why, in just war theory, success has to be likely. You can always rationalize a war against some sort of evil if the existence of that evil is the only thing being weighed. But a war to stop evil that either causes more evil, or is unsuccessful at stopping evil (as the incursion into the North was) ultimately does more harm than good. The evil is still there, but a lot of people have died in vain and a lot of lives destroyed that need not have been. And that was the tragedy of Truman’s fateful decision to try to unify Korea after having liberated South Korea.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
"That’s a sign of weakness."

Why? Anyone besides you think so? Is there some rule that says WWII is not allowed? More likely it is the best known source of examples.

Besides, you moron, I was responding to Mr. McPhillips’ comment which actually mentioned Nazi Germany.


"On Korea, again, check out Irving Janis’ book Groupthink and his example of Korea as one of the ’fiascos’ he investigates."

When I want to learn about war, I read books by historians or those who have some expertise or experience about war. Not psychologists.

"in just war theory, success has to be likely"

What the heck does the likelihood of success have to do with anything? Does that mean you can’t defend yourself if you are not absolutely sure you will win? What does ’just war theory’ say about what you can do when you are attacked?

"But a war to stop evil that either causes more evil, or is unsuccessful at stopping evil (as the incursion into the North was) ultimately does more harm than good."

Sheesh. David Carradine had better liones on ’Kung Fu’.
And where, o sage of Maine, does one get the crystal ball to determine if you are likely to succeed?
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
When I want to learn about war, I read books by historians or those who have some expertise or experience about war. Not psychologists.
So you choose ignorance. You don’t read about decision making, how choices are made to go to war, and read evidence of errrors. You read military history. You don’t even comprehend just war theory, which is cited often and an important part of the debates about war. Your approach is very narrow, and leaves out important aspects of any consideration of whether a war is a necessary and just, or how policies are made. You really need to expand you knowledge.

So I guess its willful ignorance on your part, timactual. You don’t understand these issues because you choose not to. That’s your problem, not mine. And, of course, you can’t deny (and you dance around so much that it’s clear you know you can’t deny) that we could have stopped in 1950 and gotten the same result as 1953, the decision to invade the north was a fiasco.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Boris Erb now apparently believes that hindsight is retroactively required prior to events:
So I guess its willful ignorance on your part, timactual. You don’t understand these issues because you choose not to. That’s your problem, not mine. And, of course, you can’t deny (and you dance around so much that it’s clear you know you can’t deny) that we could have stopped in 1950 and gotten the same result as 1953, the decision to invade the north was a fiasco.
You’re such an idiot, Erb. "Willful ignorance" is your specialty (as demonstrated again in the quote.

But, that said, you could have stopped thinking in 1996 and gotten the same results as you get today. Now, there’s some hindsight you can run with.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
"So you choose ignorance. You don’t read about decision making, how choices are made to go to war, and read evidence of errrors.You read military history. "

Speaking of ignorance, you have no idea what the study of military history involves.

"And, of course, you can’t deny (and you dance around so much that it’s clear you know you can’t deny) that we could have stopped in 1950 and gotten the same result as 1953,"

No, I cannot and have not denied that. That, however, was not the point.

." If he hadn’t tried to take North Korea, the war would have ended in 1950. Instead it dragged on three years..."

That is the point of debate, and your implication that a ’fiasco’ that ’dragged on three years’ was an inevitable result of that decision is a gross oversimplification, regardless of how the decision was reached.

"You don’t even comprehend just war theory,"

Then perhaps you could help alleviate my ignorance by answering my questions. Instead you choose to avoid engagement and indulge in ad hominem attacks. This is an admission that you have lost the debate.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
As far as being narrow for studying history, perhaps you should not let your compatriots in the history department (and probably other departments) know that you feel that way.
I am sure psychology is a wonderful and fascinating field, but its relevance to the field of history is limited. Similarly, if you need to consult a physician for a physical exam. or some complaint you may consult a specialist, possibly a proctologist, but most people would prefer to see a GP or internist.

Perhaps, since this just war theory is so important and relevant, you can point to some historical examples of its use in deciding whether or not to go to war.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
I am sure psychology is a wonderful and fascinating field, but its relevance to the field of history is limited.


LOL! Sure, and the relevance of military strategies, economics, and geography are also limited. The relevance of every subfield is "limited." That’s why those of us who actually have to analyze these things seriously take more into account than just one type of approach. And, given the importance Janis’ work has across the disciplines (as well as folk like Robert Jervis and Ned Lebow), it seems that you either don’t know what you’re talking about or...well, I guess that’s the only feasible option. And you might want to be a little subdued around historians yourself if you want to say that psychology isn’t relevant to history — you might find out that many historians, including military historians, take psychology into account.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
I also think that President Bush had Korea on his mind in 1991 in choosing not to "go to Baghdad."
Not like you need another baseless and utterly wrong observation thrown in your face, but the reason H.W. Bush didn’t "go to Baghdad" was based in U.N. Security Council Resolution 660. It demanded Iraqi forces withdraw "to the positions in which they were located on 1 August 1990."

This was the basis under which the coalition was formed. In then SecDef Cheney’s words:
"We are reluctant as a government and as a coalition to get into the business of internal Iraqi politics. We could have set, as an objective of the coalition, the toppling of Saddam Hussein’s government. We did not do that. … It would be very difficult for us to hold the coalition together for any particular course of action dealing with internal Iraqi politics, and I don’t think, at this point, that our writ extends ... to trying to move inside Iraq and deal with their internal problems."
OMG!!!11!!! Multilateralism drops the ball!

 
Written By: Jeff
URL: http://
"
"And you might want to be a little subdued around historians yourself if you want to say that psychology isn’t relevant to history — you might find out that many historians, including military historians, take psychology into account."

If only that is what I said, you would be absolutely right. Once again you resort to misquoting. It is difficult to believe that you could anayze anything seriously when you do not seem to be able to read and comprehend a simple sentence correctly.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://

 
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