Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Politician Wars

Politician Wars

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

On October 3, Blogcritics published my article titled, Why Do Politicians (of Both Parties) Think They Know More About Fighting a War Than the Military? One of its themes was how politicians have more and more gotten involved in how a war is to be fought. In the article I cited Carl Philipp Gottfried von Clausewitz and what he said about war being an extension of politics.
Well, now we have proof that both von Clausewitz and I (though I am not comparing myself to von Clausewitz) are correct.

On Friday, October 21, 2011, President Barack Obama declared the Iraq war to be over. Obama announced, “After nearly nine years, America’s war in Iraq will be over.” He did not acknowledge the negotiations with Iraq about whether to keep U.S. forces there. The Iraq war, first started during the George W. Bush administration to rid Iraq of Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction (WMD), lasted nearly nine years and killed nearly 4,500 Americans since the U.S. invaded Iraq in March, 2003.

What about Iraq’s future without U.S. forces? As the U.S. withdraws its soldiers from Iraq, Iraqis could revert to settling their political disputes in the streets, says Diyala province Governor Abdul-Nasser al-Mahdwe. And there is still the Sunni, Shi’ite, and Kurdish population problem. For example, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s Shi’ite-led governing coalition took Diyala deputy governor, Mohammad Hussein al-Joubouri, a Sunni, and nothing has been heard since.

Does Obama think, just because he made an announcement that U.S. troops will be leaving Iraq by year’s end, that fighting will cease, that Iran will cease its terrorist activities, and that all will be just “hunky dorey?” I don’t think that even Obama is that naïve. If he is then this country is in REAL trouble.

What will happen at the end of 2011? Why can’t Iran and al Queda now just wait until year’s end, then resume (or escalate) their activities?  And, on another issue, those of you who don’t think Iran is in Iraq should read this article. Those who deny that al Queda is in Iraq should read this article. Further, those who think the Iran-al Queda connection is bogus should read this article.

The problems that plague Iraq will not cease to exist or just go away simply because Obama declared the war to be over. His declaration is planting the seeds of another war. If the military, I contend, could fight a war without politicians’ intervention, then a lasting peace could be established. Future politicians, knowing that they risk all, would be very hesitant to start anything.

But that’s just my opinion.

Powered by

About

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Warren –

    On October 3, Blogcritics published my article titled, Why Do Politicians (of Both Parties) Think They Know More About Fighting a War Than the Military?

    Yes, and I promptly pointed out that you were ignoring the importance that logistics play in any war, that you were ignoring the lessons of history, and that you were implying that micromanagement and/or strategic incompetence was more to blame for our losses than logistics.

    To my knowledge, you did not reply, at least not for the week or so that I checked back afterwards.

    You and I are both retired military. I DO know and you SHOULD know the paramount importance that logistics plays in any war, and that if we can’t break the logistics chain of the enemy, then it becomes damned near impossible to beat the enemy. Obama got saddled with one unwinnable war (thanks to the realities of logistics) and one war that was illegal by both international and American law since Dubya lied us into it.

    The only possible winner in the Iraq war was Iran. Saddam Hussein provided a balance of power against Iran, but NOOOOO, Your Boy Dubya just HAD to go make a War President of himself…which was why even in the first week of his presidency, he held a meeting on the possibility of an invasion of Iraq!

    So it was either we continue spending American blood and American treasure occupying Iraq with absolutely NO end in sight (thanks to Iran’s decision to not fight us openly, but simply to cement their newfound Bush-given power base in Iraq., or we get the hell out of there.

    So stop trying to use Iraq as an excuse to attack Obama. If you wanted to lay the blame where it belonged, you SHOULD be calling for war crimes tribunals for Bush, Cheney, and every other politician that lied us into Iraq in the first place!

  • http://cinemasentries.com/ El Bicho

    How much are you willing to have your taxes go up to pay for continuing in Iraq?

  • http://rwno.limewebs.com Warren Beatty

    Two points:

    1. Logistics, as Glenn points out, is quite important in war. But, Glenn, logistics deals exclusively with tactics, not strategy. Logistics deals with how war-making materiel gets to the battle field, not about how it is used, which is strategy. Glenn, do you really think an unfettered military could not break any supply line?

    2. Both articles delt ONLY with strategy, yet Glenn and El Bicho want to focus on tactics.

    I challenge either of you to, on a strategic level, find fault with my logic.

    BTW, Glenn, you make this statement: “even in the first week of his presidency, he held a meeting on the possibility of an invasion of Iraq!”
    Can you provide a source, or it your opinion?

  • jamminsue

    Warren, you say: We can’t be srue fighting will cease, that Iran will cease its terrorist activities.

    First, Al-queda wasn’t in Iraq until we attacked the country.
    Second, Iraq will never resolve the awful problems that exist when the US is there, they have to do it themselves. They can and will, just not on your timeline.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Warren –

    But, Glenn, logistics deals exclusively with tactics, not strategy.

    WRONG.

    Field-Marshal Montgomery summed it up thus: “Strategy is the art of distributing and applying military means, such as armed forces and supplies, to fulfill the ends of policy. Tactics means the dispositions for, and control of, military forces and techniques in actual fighting. Put more shortly: strategy is the art of the conduct of war, tactics the art of fighting.”

    In other words, logistics is a strategic-level matter that enables actions on the tactical level. Without logistics, you have no maneuver, no supply, and not much hope of success in battle.

    That said, Warren, I would not presume to teach you about non-Naval tactics – but yes, I do know a little bit about military strategy.

    Glenn, do you really think an unfettered military could not break any supply line?

    – Ho Chi Minh Trail.
    – Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
    – American invasion of Iraq.
    – American invasion of Afghanistan.

    There’s many more examples of nations that tragically overestimated the capabilities of their lines of communication – Napoleon’s and Hitler’s invasions of Russia come to mind – but the above examples CLEARLY show that a nation’s native insurgency whose lines of communication from across its borders cannot be cut can stand up to and sometimes even defeat a vastly overwhelming occupying force.

    In other words, it doesn’t matter what Obama did or did not do – the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were unwinnable from the start, for short of invading Pakistan and Iran, we could never cut the insurgents’ lines of communication. The only reason we can leave Iraq with some small measure of stability is because the real winner of the Iraq war – Iran – felt no real need to continue supporting the insurgency because there was a majority-Shi’a government in place…which was what Iran wanted all along!

  • Glenn Contrarian

    And Warren –

    BTW, Glenn, you make this statement: “even in the first week of his presidency, he held a meeting on the possibility of an invasion of Iraq!”
    Can you provide a source, or it your opinion?

    Oop! My bad! I was off by THREE DAYS! From CBS News’ 60 Minutes:

    And what happened at President Bush’s very first National Security Council meeting is one of O’Neill’s most startling revelations.

    “From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,” says O’Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic “A” 10 days after the inauguration – eight months before Sept. 11.

    “From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime,” says Suskind. “Day one, these things were laid and sealed.”

    As treasury secretary, O’Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as “Why Saddam?” and “Why now?” were never asked.

    “It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this,'” says O’Neill. “For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap.”

    And that came up at this first meeting, says O’Neill, who adds that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later.

    He got briefing materials under this cover sheet. “There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, ‘Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,'” adds Suskind, who says that they discussed an occupation of Iraq in January and February of 2001. Based on his interviews with O’Neill and several other officials at the meetings, Suskind writes that the planning envisioned peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals, and even divvying up Iraq’s oil wealth.

    He obtained one Pentagon document, dated March 5, 2001, and entitled “Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts,” which includes a map of potential areas for exploration.

    “It talks about contractors around the world from, you know, 30-40 countries. And which ones have what intentions,” says Suskind. “On oil in Iraq.”

  • Zingzing

    I thought all this was common knowledge by this point…

  • http://cinemasentries.com/ El Bicho

    No, I want to focus on how you are going to pay to enact that strategy. If that doesn’t enter it, you are just blowing smoke

  • Jordan Richardson

    Warren, I don’t see how you can divorce tactics from strategy. Can you explain?

  • Glenn Contrarian

    I’m really, really curious to see what Warren’s reaction will be to his new understanding that yes, Dubya DID begin discussions about Iraq ten days after he took office.

    Will he see the light that YES, Dubya knowingly and willingly lied us into an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation that posed NO clear and present danger to America?

    Will he double down on blaming anybody but Dubya, or at least on refusing to hold Dubya accountable?

    Will he refuse to address the issue by saying that it’s too far in the past, that we should let bygones be bygones (never mind that it was the worst war crime committed by a president since Vietnam) and just pay attention to the guy who’s presently in the White House?

    Or will he simply ignore it and just write another article?

    My guess is that it will be one of the latter two, since BC conservatives haven’t shown much of a tendency to admit error no matter how obvious it is.

  • Clavos

    Will he see the light that YES, Dubya knowingly and willingly lied us into an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation that posed NO clear and present danger to America?

    A grand old American tradition, dating back to the War of 1812, and running through the Spanish-American war, Korea, and Vietnam. In none of those countries was “America the beautiful” threatened.

    In the latter, JFK and LBJ acted just the way GWB did, but with the complete cooperation of Congress.

    More than 50K American lives would have been saved if Oswald had only acted sooner.

    And, of course, later there are America’s invasions of Grenada Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan.

  • Igor

    Clavos seems to revel in war, mayhem and even assassination, viz., “… if Oswald had only acted sooner.”

    Actually, my understanding is that JFK was about to pull out of Vietnam, had he lived, and Oswalds effect was to throw the decision to the frail ego LBJ who was easily manipulated by the warriors.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    @12

    Was that what he said?

  • Clavos

    Actually, my understanding is that JFK was about to pull out of Vietnam…

    Well, your “understanding” is wrong. The fact is, JFK escalated American presence in Vietnam significantly, and at his death, had no intention of backing down. In 1961, he tripled the number of US troops in country, and tripled them again in 1962. As late as September of 1963, he is quoted as saying about America’s commitment to Vietnam, “If we withdrew from Vietnam, the Communists would control Vietnam. Pretty soon, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Malaya, would go…”

    The Democratic Party owns the Vietnam war. By the time Nixon came into power, the Dems had escalated US involvement in the war to the point that Nixon had no choice but to continue what they had so recklessly built.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com/haveno handyguy

    Right, but your gutter level comment “if only Oswald had acted sooner” is pure bunk [besides being deliberately ugly and gross]. LBJ was the principal escalator of a war he knew was difficult/impossible to win. And JFK was more ambivalent than you allow. Sometimes you write BS just to stir up trouble cuz you’re bored, I think.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    ‘Does Obama think, just because he made an announcement that U.S. troops will be leaving Iraq by year’s end, that fighting will cease, that Iran will cease its terrorist activities, and that all will be just “hunky dorey?”‘

    Warren, after the events of a couple of weeks ago I’m fairly confident that the Obama administration is well aware of Iran’s belligerency.

    And how confident can you really be that the cost of maintaining a military presence in Iraq (indefinitely) would be outweighed by the cost of an Iranian attack on the US?

  • http://loftypremise.blogspot.com/2011/07/repealing-great-society.html Tommy Mack

    Some of you should know what a SOFA is. For those who have no military training, SOFA is an acronym for Status of Forces Agreement. That agreement between a sovereign nation and the US determines conditions by which US military personnel may operate and what the rules are. Things as simple as military dependents making too much noise during nap time (Italy) or accidentally touching the host nations colors (Turkey) can have dire consequences. Too much noise by your children, you go home. Touch the flag of Turkey, you go to a Turkish jail for a year.

    There is nothing personal here. It is the SOFA with Iraq that precipitated the end to US military involvement there, not the president’s opinion of the matter or a temperamental recommendation by the Secretary of State.

    Tommy

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    So by your references to the 1812 War, the Vietnam war, et al, are you excusing Dubya for knowingly and willingly lying us into Iraq?

    And the Vietnam War, FYI, is not a clear-cut matter, as I’m sure you know. There is no one here who really knows who approved/initiated the Gulf of Tonkin Incident. We don’t even know if Kennedy knew before his initial response that it was all a hoax, a fabricated attack just like the one that Hitler used to ‘justify’ his invasion of Poland. It wouldn’t have been the first time that hawks in a nation’s military fabricated an attack that forced the government’s leaders into doing something stupid!

    Furthermore, that was the time when the Cold War paranoia was at its worst – anyone (R or D) who showed any weakness against the Soviets and their allies would be quickly condemned and ostracized. Think about it – would a president today survive something like the Bay of Pigs, given the level of incompetency at all levels that was immediately obvious at the time! But was there a nationwide backlash against the Kennedy administration as a result of the Bay of Pigs? Some, but not so much, since it was all part of the ongoing Cold War.

    Okay? So don’t try to excuse Bush. He lied America into an even worse strategic mistake than Vietnam. Yes, we lost ten times as many of our troops in Vietnam, but the Vietnam War never came close to destroying our economy. The Iraq War did.

  • Clavos

    So by your references to the 1812 War, the Vietnam war, et al, are you excusing Dubya for knowingly and willingly lying us into Iraq?

    Not even remotely.

    No, I’m not excusing GWB. Not now, not ever — for anything. I AM pointing out that the USA is an imperialistic, war-mongering nation that, unfortunately, has the power to dominate almost anywhere it decides to intervene, and a long line of presidents willing to do so, often without justification.

    GWB is only one in a long line of rogue US presidents.

  • http://rwno.limewebs.com Warren Beatty

    First, I must ask: Glenn, are you for real? After my first strategy post, I thought that you were someone from Blogcritics thrown in to try to increase traffic. Now that you are back, still pitching hanging curve balls, I’m not so sure.

    Anyway, regarding comment #1, we do NOT dsisagree on the importance of logistics. You say, “So stop trying to use Iraq as an excuse to attack Obama. If you wanted to lay the blame where it belonged, you SHOULD be calling for war crimes tribunals for Bush, Cheney, and every other politician that lied us into Iraq in the first place!” Assuming that what you say is true (a VERY big “assumption”) then you had better call for war crimes tribunals for some prominent Democrats as well, as this source will illustrate. And, I may add, much of the “lying” took place before Bush took office.

    Regarding comment #5, you quote Field Marshal Montgomery, and you further strengthen my point. Once gotten to the battlefield (logistics) how war materiel is USED can be tactical (a military decision) or strategic (a political decision). Look at the last line of Montgomery’s quote: “Put more shortly: strategy is the art of the conduct of war, tactics the art of fighting.”

    You quote me: “Glenn, do you really think an unfettered military could not break any supply line?”
    Then you cite four supply trails:
    – Ho Chi Minh Trail.
    – Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
    – American invasion of Iraq.
    – American invasion of Afghanistan.

    Do you know the definition of “unfettered?” It means free or unrestrained. You cite four logistics trails where the military, because of political influence, was/is NOT free to break the enemy’s supply line.

    Regarding comment #6, you cite a 60 Minutes source. Is that the same 60 Minutes that aired Dan Rather’s expose about George W. Bush falsifying (or having someone falsifiy) his flying records? Assuming 60 Minutes has any credibility (the subject for a future post), did you even bother to read the transcript? Look at these lines: “”From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,” says O’Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic…” and “From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime.”

    So, Glenn, can we conclude that you are a supporter of (the late) Saddam Hussein? You can’t have it both ways. Either you support the 60 Minutes source and Hussein staying in Iraq, or you don’t.

    Regarding comment #10, I must refer you to my responses to comments 1 and 5. And, son of a gun, I am logically responding, much to the displeasure of the rantings of Glenn.,

    Regarding comment #18, I refer you again to my response to comment 1.

    Regarding comment #9, Jordan, I never suggested that strategy can be divorced from tactics. I am suggesting that strategy can inhibit and/or restrain tactics.

    Regarding comment #8, El Bicho, I never said anything about paying for anything.

    Regarding comment #17, Tommy Mack, far too people know about SOFA, which is negotiated by politicians and has nothing to do with fighting a war (tactics).

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Warren, there are at least two screaming fallacies in your response to Glenn, above.

    First, poisoning the well. Just because Dan Rather presented false information about George W. Bush on 60 Minutes does not automatically make everything that 60 Minutes airs false.

    Second, false dichotomy. It is possible for a person to have disapproved both of Saddam Hussein and his actions and of President Bush’s eagerness to invade Iraq.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Since they’re screaming, they’re also outrageous.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Warren –

    You’re tap-dancing around, trying to justify what you said about strategy and tactics and the importance of logistics. I know better…and I suspect you know better, too, but are simply unwilling to own up to having been schooled on one of the most basic considerations in military strategy.

    On your 60 Minutes rant, let me get this straight – you point out a couple of mistakes that 60 Minutes made over how many DECADES of newscasting, but you did NOT point out what happened to those individual newscasters who made those mistakes, did you? FYI, Dan Rather – then one of the most popular and most trusted newscasters – got CANNED. And the real kicker is that the issue that Dan Rather broadcast was NOT proven false, but simply could not be proven TRUE.

    Now look at the news that’s probably on your own television, and CERTAINLY is on the television of most hardcore conservatives – Fox News.

    Tell me, Warren – how many outright lies – proven lies – did Glenn Beck have to tell before Fox News canned him? Do I really need to go to Politifact.org or Factcheck.org or (horrors!) mediamatters.org to point out a hundred or more outright lies and fabrications by Glenn Beck? Probably not – you (along with most of the rest of BC conservatives) will probably admit that Glenn Beck was looney-tunes.

    BUT HERE’S THE RUB, Warren – Fox News did NOT get rid of Glenn Beck because he was telling lies and making crap up! They got rid of him because his ratings were tanking!

    THAT is the difference, sir. Most of the time (not ALL, but MOST of the time) when someone on the left – or someone who is held to the standard of REAL journalistic integrity – does something wrong, they’re called on it…not only by those on the Right, but by those on the left as well!

    But when someone on the right screws up, it matters little what we on the left say, for those on the right circle the wagons and decry the attacks by the ‘lamestream media’.

    What happened when left-winger Wiener posted his junk on twitter to a young woman but did NOT have extramarital sex? He’s gone!

    What happened when right-winger David Vitter not only had extramarital sex with hookers, but also enjoyed wearing diapers in the process? He got re-elected! Heck, the ONLY way that one gets expelled from the right-wing fold is to either have homosexual (or underage) sex (and get caught), or to have the nerve to actually come out and say that conservative dogma is wrong on a particular issue!

    But I’m just wasting my time here because you’re not about to consider holding your right-wing echo chamber to the same standards of journalistic integrity that we on the left generally do for our own. You’ll claim that’s a lie, that we’re just as bad…but one of the things I found back in the early 1990’s during my journey out of the Republican party that yes, generally speaking, accurate and factual reporting IS more important to those on the left than those on the right.

  • http://rwno.limewebs.com Warren Beatty

    Regarding comment #21, Dr. Dreadful, you make two very cogent points. Let me see if I can point out the fallacies of your thoughts as they apply to these specific arguments and/or lines of reasoning.

    First, regarding the 60 Minutes transcript, how do you KNOW that to be valid? You were not there, or if you were I will stand corrected. Once credibility is lost, it is lost forever and for all occasions. Just like a person caught in a lie, you can never again believe anything he says, even if it is the truth. 60 Minutes did, in fact, broadcast a demonstrable lie, so anything they say can now be discounted, even if what is being broadcast is truthful. Unless we are actually there, how can we tell what is truthful or untruthful?

    Second, I agree with you – it is possible to dislike BOTH Hussein and Bush. But, please examine Glenn’s remark from comment #1: “The only possible winner in the Iraq war was Iran. Saddam Hussein provided a balance of power against Iran, but NOOOOO, Your Boy Dubya just HAD to go make a War President of himself…which was why even in the first week of his presidency, he held a meeting on the possibility of an invasion of Iraq!” So even if we assume (BTW, my favorite word because it is so descriptive: it makes an “ass” of “u” (you) and “me”) the 60 Minutes transcript to be truthful, Glenn’s remark affords us only one of two choices. To be specific, Glenn said “the only possible winner …” and ” … Dubya just HAD to go make a War President of himself…”, so we are, based on his remarks, left with only two choices. My comment regarding comment #6 stands.

    Ultimately, Dr.Dreadful, whether we agree or not is immaterial. What it all boils down to is a difference of philosophy, and we can argue that until we are both “blue in the face.”

    Regarding comment #23, Again, Glenn, I have to ask – are you for real? All you can ever do is obfuscate, change the subject, never address specific points made by others, and offer liberal talking points. And how does Glenn Beck enter into anything?

    I find it rather amazing that my original general comments about politicians (in my first article I said “both parties”) has morphed into specifics.

    BTW, Warren Beatty is my real name, I was named after my paternal grandfather, I live in LA (that’s Lower Alabama), and, although I wish I had his money, I am not the liberal actor.

  • http://rwno.limewebs.com Warren Beatty

    BTW, Dr. Dreadful, regarding comment #21, I really like the two sources that you offer.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Once credibility is lost, it is lost forever and for all occasion.

    Then none of us, including you, has any credibility on any subject whatsoever – or as you say, for “all occasion.”

    That may be true to some extent, but is that really a stance you want to hitch your wagon to? We all lie, but that doesn’t mean we’re all always liars.

  • http://cinemasentries.com/ El Bicho

    “Just like a person caught in a lie, you can never again believe anything he says, even if it is the truth.”

    That’s a lie, so apparently we can never again believe anything you say.

  • zingzing

    the sun is cold. the sun is hot.

  • zingzing
  • Glenn Contrarian

    Warren –

    Your #24 evinces confusion on your part. Dubya “making a War President of himself” is not a choice alongside Iran being the only possible winner of Dubya’s war. He THOUGHT he could do what his daddy knew better than to try, and what happened? Iran won…which was the only possible outcome.

    BTW – I notice you never did reply as to what you thought was my ‘opinion’ on Dubya discussing regime change in the first few days of his presidency, LONG before 9/11 happened.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    BTW, Dr. Dreadful, regarding comment #21, I really like the two sources that you offer.

    Then I suggest you peruse them carefully and at length, because you just committed those very same fallacies all over again.

  • http://www.RoseDigitalMarketing.com Christopher Rose

    Warren, I disagree profoundly with the kind of literal minded simplicity that thinks “Just like a person caught in a lie, you can never again believe anything he says, even if it is the truth”.

    I’ve never met anybody that doesn’t lie sometimes, so on that basis nobody could ever be believed about anything…

  • http://www.RoseDigitalMarketing.com Christopher Rose

    Oh – and nobody would ever mistake you for the actor, so please update your byline…

  • http://rwno.limewebs.com Warren Beatty

    Regarding comments #26, #27, and #32, I have never met any of you personally, so how do you KNOW that I lie? (Dr. Dreadful, am I again poisoning the well?) Being a person does not ipso facto make me a liar. So, yes, Jordan Richardson, that is a concept to which I want to “hitch my wagon.” BTW, just for fun, if y’all believe your comments, I have a bridge in NYC in which y’all may be interested.

    Regarding comments #28 and #29, zingzing, what are the meanings of your two comments? Are they meant to be “zingers?”

    Regarding comment #30, Glenn, two comments. First, again, you change the subject of my point in comment #21 to Dr. Dreadful. And I also see that you have FINALLY come around to my original point, that Iran is the ultimate winner. And, second, how can anyone comment on or evaluate ANYTHING that 60 Minutes says? (Dr. Dreadful, there I go again)

    Regarding comment #31. Dr. Dreadful, your citations and application of “logic” are based upon your premises. Do your thoughts allow anyone else to have other premises?

    Regarding comment #33, Christopher, two comments. First, you do not know about what you speak. You would be quite surprised at the number of times I have been confused with the actor. Second, do you expect an insult to increase your credibility?

    Damn, this fun!

  • http://www.RoseDigitalMarketing.com Christopher Rose

    Warren, like another on this site, your ego clearly is larger than than your ability.

    I didn’t say you were a liar, I said that your statement that someone who has told a lie can never be believed is simplistic and wrong. Mind you, simplistic and wrong seems to be a character trait of yours.

    And, yes, I would be quite surprised at the number of times you have been confused with the actor. Especially if that number was greater than zero and the person professing to be confused wasn’t pulling your leg and/or had an IQ over 80…

    Finally, what exactly in my #33 do you perceive as an insult?

  • http://cinemasentries.com/ El Bicho

    Warren: “how do you KNOW that I lie?”

    Because you have already done so on this thread with the statement “a person caught in a lie, you can never again believe anything he says.”

    Lie: a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.

  • zingzing

    “Regarding comments #28 and #29, zingzing, what are the meanings of your two comments?”

    if you don’t get 28, you’re playing dumb. aka lying.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Warren, if you were paying attention in any of your critical thinking classes (assuming you took them) in college, you would know that whether you are right or not, and whether I agree with your conclusions or not, is immaterial.

    It is the logic by which you arrived at those conclusions that is at fault, and that calls into question the conclusions themselves.

  • Jordan Richardson

    When in doubt, flounder around nonsensically.

  • Costello

    So when you learned your parents lied to you about Santa when you were a kid, you stopped believing everything they told you?

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Warren, on Chris’ statement:

    Warren, like another on this site, your ego clearly is larger than than your ability.

    Something to help you out with the attacks against you – the only thing wrong with being wrong is choosing to remain wrong when someone shows you your error. To continue to try to defend your error in the face of evidence and clear logic to the contrary only reflects poorly on you. It makes you seem insecure. Please understand that I am not making that judgement, but am only letting you know how your stance is reflecting on you in the eyes of others.

    Unfortunately for Chris, he is confusing insecurity with ego. I’m fairly certain that I’m the other he’s referring to (or is it my own ego that makes me think that?), but the problem in my case IS ego and (as Jordan pointed out) sanctimony. Does my own ego outweigh my ability? I can only answer with a smile :)

    But back to you – I knew many a senior enlisted whose insecurities did outweigh their ability, although for many years I was like Chris – I mistook their insecurities for ego.

    To summarize, Warren – the others here who are showing you your error are some very intelligent individuals. If they’re telling you you’re wrong about something, you should step back and think twice about the statements you’re defending. If you’re wise enough to accept that you’re wrong and courageous enough to admit it to those who are trying to help you, it does NOT shame you; instead, it garners you more respect. Why? Because we all know it takes a strong man to stand up and say he was wrong about something that was important to him.

    I hope this helps.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    I’m fairly certain that I’m the other he’s referring to (or is it my own ego that makes me think that?)

    And I’m fairly certain that you are not.

    Although your remark may cause Chris to revise his position! :-)

  • http://cinemasentries.com/ El Bicho

    “And I’m fairly certain that you are not.”

    I think Doc Nalle’d it.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Not who I had in mind, El B…

  • http://www.RoseDigitalMarketing.com Christopher Rose

    Glenn is completely wrong about the other I had in mind, as is El B.

    He’s also wrong about what I meant to say, I am most assuredly not confusing insecurity with ego.

    I wonder if he will return and admit his double error?

  • http://rwno.limewebs.com Warren Beatty

    Regarding comment #35, Christopher, I refer you to my comment #34 regarding your comment #33

    Regarding comment #37, zingzing, may I suggest that you get a writer.

    Regarding comment #38, Dr. Dreadful, you cast aspersions upon “critical thinking” classes that I took (or may not have taken), so I will make this simple for you by choosing an example with which we are both familiar: the second amendment to our US Constitution and gun rights. If you (here I am making an assumption only for example purposes) believe that “guns kill people,” then your premise is that less people would be killed if guns were banned and any, ANY statements you make on this subject will be based on your premise. If I (again, for example purposes) believe that your premise is incorrect, then ALL of my statements will oppose yours. So… if you and I both apply the rules of logic based upon our premises, we will both correctly arrive at different conclusions. So all that is left for you to do is attack my premise.

    Regarding comment #40, Costello, WHAT!!!, no Santa? I need to immediately tell my wife. Seriously, Costello, do you propose to equate the promulgation of a childhood fantasy with a mature adult’s philosophy?

    Regarding comment #41, Glenn, I am STILL waiting for anyone to do more than rant and offer personal opinions, to specifically point out errors. No ego, just fact! And, Glenn, I appericiate your offer of help.

    All, if any (name your favorite) media publishes/broadcasts/makes known a series of statements, half (for example) of which are false, how do you know which statements to believe and which to disregard?

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Chris –

    I’ll take you at your word that I wasn’t the other one that you were referring to, and please accept my apology for my erroneous assumption. That also means that for the ‘other person’, you might well have been right that it was ego and not insecurity, and since I can’t show otherwise, I have to admit error in that one, too…and please accept my thanks for showing me my error.

    But when it comes to Warren, I’m sorry, but I believe you’re wrong – it’s insecurity and not ego.

    My own ego is too big – I think I know more than I really do, I think I’m more virtuous than I really am, and I use the first-person-singular pronoun WAY too much. I recognize the problem, and I try to fight it. That’s why I try to never insult (unless I’m insulting myself), and that’s why I don’t allow myself to refuse to own up to being wrong. I don’t like having to apologize, to admit to being wrong…but I cannot, must not allow my ego the luxury of always defending my overblown sense of self-worth.

    THAT, Chris, is someone with a big ego who’s sincerely trying to keep his ego under control.

    Warren, OTOH, like the great majority of those who never own up to error even in the face of obvious evidence and/or logic that shows otherwise, is simply afraid of how admission of said error would affect his sense of self-worth. He has to, he must protect his sense of self-worth, for he fears the shame, the road he’d have to travel if he did.

    I’ve got someone close to me who is much the same way, and it’s really sad, for I know where that particular path of insecurity leads.

    I hope this gives you some food for thought, Chris.

  • Jordan Richardson

    do you propose to equate the promulgation of a childhood fantasy with a mature adult’s philosophy?

    In this case, I would certainly equate the two. You, after all, made the bold assertion about “credibility” lost, so one would have to assume that credibility would be lost even within the framework of “childhood fantasy” or “adult fantasy,” such as religion or conservative politics.

  • Jordan Richardson

    By the way, Warren, your continued pressing of Glenn for “facts” is highly ironic considering that the meat of your postings thus far has consisted entirely of zany conjecture and wild flailing about.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Warren, there is a difference between premises which I think are wrong and those which actually are.

    Your premise regarding 60 Minutes was false because it lacked logic. So, actually, does the premise “guns kill people”. While it is true, in the sense that “oak trees blown over by hurricanes on top of passing cars kill people” is true, in the rhetorical sense that the phrase is usually used it is not. Guns cannot kill by themselves: they require interaction with a human.

    On the other hand, if you were to start with the premise that “the Second Amendment guarantees all Americans access to firearms”, that is not false, because the 2nd can be reasonably interpreted that way. You could, therefore, build on your premise to construct a perfectly valid argument that the government has no right to make you have a firearms license or undergo a background check before buying a gun.

    There are, however, as you know, other ways in which the Second Amendment can be interpreted. So if I were to take issue with you based on my own differing interpretation of the 2nd, I would be attacking your premise not on the basis of its validity, but because I believed it was simply wrong.

  • zingzing

    chris: “Glenn is completely wrong about the other I had in mind, as is El B.”

    roger that.

    warren: “Regarding comment #37, zingzing, may I suggest that you get a writer.”

    still acting dumb, i see. alright, i’ll assume you’re not acting then. so here goes:

    “1 at 6:08 pm

    “Just like a person caught in a lie, you can never again believe anything he says, even if it is the truth.”

    the sun is cold. that’s a lie, and i just told it.

    the sun is hot. you cannot believe it? i think you can. i think there is empirical evidence that supports that as a truth. you would be stupid to doubt it. yet, by your logic, you cannot believe it. because i said it. from now on, you must forever doubt the sun’s hotness. it is not hot (you cannot believe that). it is not cold (that was a lie). the sun is therefore lukewarm?

  • http://cinemasentries.com/ El Bicho

    Don’t feel bad, Glenn. Chris’ statement could apply to a lot of folks around here.

    “All, if any (name your favorite) media publishes/broadcasts/makes known a series of statements, half (for example) of which are false, how do you know which statements to believe and which to disregard?”

    Well according to you, Warren, we should disregard them all. That is unless we parse how we want to define a lie, as you have done

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Of course roger that, but eliminate “that.”

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Of course, he could be referring to himself, an outside possibility.

    Far outside, I venture to say, since Chris and humility are like a groom and a bride whose only match could be consummated in hell.

  • Jordan Richardson

    What is this “sun” you’re talking about, zingzing? I’m pretty convinced you’ve just made the whole thing up.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I can almost hear LB, Zing, Glenn, and Chris pounding at their typewriters (excuse me!), huffing and puffing, heavy breath and all, forging an appropriate reply.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    a writer’s imagination?

  • zingzing

    “with the disappearance of god, the ego moves forward to become the sole divinity.”
    –dorothee solle

    “who the fuck does dorothee think she is?”
    –me

  • zingzing

    “What is this “sun” you’re talking about, zingzing? I’m pretty convinced you’ve just made the whole thing up.”

    you’re right. i lied.

    but i only lied about lying! i am now incapable of a lie!

    the sun is hot again. and it is cold. problem solved.

  • Jordan Richardson

    There are no problems, only cruel lies.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    “Death of God” is a better, Nietzschean term. But you got something there. There’s nothing but humanity, so the question is, how do we do it?

  • zingzing

    jordan: “There are no problems, only cruel lies.”

    i’ve got a problem with that.

  • Jordan Richardson

    I don’t believe you.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    El B –

    No, I don’t feel bad – I didn’t say that I did. I was simply trying to give Chris a more understandable example of who here has a problem with an overblown ego (which I recognize in myself and continually try to beat down) and who here has a problem with insecurity (and doesn’t recognize it).

  • zingzing

    jordan: “I don’t believe you.”

    lies! cruel lies!

    glenn: “an overblown ego (which I recognize in myself and continually try to beat down)…”

    try beating it off. ego loves it.

  • http://cinemasentries.com El Bicho

    Rog, you should have your hearing checked or pass that bourbon bottle around. It sounds like you are projecting or looking for a fight. Time away for most is simply time away. It doesn’t take much effort to respond to anything here. Plus, I haven’t used a typewriter since the early ’80s.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Well, then perhaps you should in the interest of lucidity, because you’re as murky as ever.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Plus, I haven’t used a typewriter since the early ’80s.

    Neither have I. I used to stay up till 3 a.m. writing on it. This seriously pissed off my brother who slept in the room directly above, was a mailman and had to get up at 4 a.m. So I had to stop.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    And BTW, LB, if I need my hearing checked, the phrase was used idiomatically, you’re in a much more direr need of an eye-exam.

    (“Excuse me!” was another way of saying oops.)

  • Clavos

    …more direr…

    Uh uh.

  • pablo

    Clavos 14

    “Actually, my understanding is that JFK was about to pull out of Vietnam…

    Well, your “understanding” is wrong. The fact is, JFK escalated American presence in Vietnam significantly, and at his death, had no intention of backing down. In 1961, he tripled the number of US troops in country, and tripled them again in 1962. As late as September of 1963, he is quoted as saying about America’s commitment to Vietnam, “If we withdrew from Vietnam, the Communists would control Vietnam. Pretty soon, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Malaya, would go…”

    Clavos speaks facts, not opinion about a President’s plans that is in fact in contention, and the prevailing view among scholars is that he was in point of fact wanting to pull out of Vietnam, and the sooner the better.

    James K Gailbraith
    “I believe the evidence now available shows that Kennedy had decided, in early October of 1963, to begin withdrawing 17,000 U.S. military advisers then in Vietnam. One thousand were to leave by the end of 1963; the withdrawal was scheduled to be completed by the end of 1965. After that, only a military assistance contingent would have remained. The withdrawal planning was carried out under cover of an official optimism about the war, with a view toward increasing the effort and training the South Vietnamese to win by themselves. But Kennedy and McNamara did not share this optimism. They were therefore prepared to press the withdrawal even when the assessments turned bad, as they started to do in the early fall of 1963. This was a decision to withdraw without victory if necessary, indeed without negotiations or conditions. In a recent essay in Boston Review, I assemble this evidence in detail.”

    CNN
    “WASHINGTON (AP) — Newly declassified government documents support the theory that weeks before his assassination John F. Kennedy wanted his military leaders to draw up contingency plans for a U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam following the 1964 presidential election.”

    From the book “JFK and the Unspeakable
    Why He Died and Why It Matters”
    by James W. Douglass, and im my opinion the best book ever written on JFK:
    “President Kennedy issues National Security Action Memorandum 263, making official government policy the withdrawal from Vietnam of “1,000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963″ and “by the end of 1965 … the bulk of U.S. personnel.”

    You certainly have some strange “facts” there Clavy.

  • pablo

    NATIONAL SECURITY ACTION MEMORANDUM NO. 263

    TO: Secretary of State
    Secretary of Defense
    Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    SUBJECT: South Vietnam

    At a meeting on October 5, 1963, the President considered the recommendations contained in the report of Secretary McNamara and General Taylor on their
    mission to South Vietnam.

    The President approved the military recommendations contained in Section I B (1-3) of the report, but directed that no formal announcement be made of the implementation of plans to withdraw 1,000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963.

    After discussion of the remaining recommendations of the report, the President approved an instruction to Ambassador Lodge which is set forth in State Department telegram No. 534 to Saigon.

    McGeorge Bundy

    Copy furnished:
    Director of Central Intelligence
    Administrator, Agency for International Development

  • zingzing

    late to the game, pablo?

  • pablo

    wWat a stupid statement zing, but it does reflect your true colors oh so remarkably well. And I do thank you for that. :)

  • Zingzing

    It wasn’t a statement. Love you too, muffin.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Just a term of endearment …

  • Glenn Contrarian

    And Warren –

    And, second, how can anyone comment on or evaluate ANYTHING that 60 Minutes says?

    It was shown on 60 Minutes, but it was NOT 60 Minutes that said it. It was Dubya’s Treasury Secretary who said it, who was THERE when it happened.

    Oh silly me, I forgot – since somebody said something that doesn’t fit YOUR worldview, it must be false.

    But just to reinforce your habit of denying anything you don’t like, I still want to hear you say that you don’t believe Bush’s Treasury Secretary who was THERE in the cabinet meeting and briefings when regime change in Iraq was discussed ten days after Dubya took office.

  • http://rwno.limewebs.com Warren Beatty

    Re: comment #77, Glenn, I can say the same thing about the 60 Minutes report about Dubya’s (as you seem to like to call him) Air Guard days. And how, again, do you know that the 60 Minutes broadcast you love to cite was factual and complete regarding what Dubya’s Treasury Secretary, or did 60 Minutes report ONLY what they wanted to report? 60 Minutes has a demonstrable history of (shall we say) “creative” editing.

    Regarding worldview, I do not recall your response to “lying” in the source that I cited in comment #20.

  • Igor

    Warren,

    The “you too!” argument you offer in #78 is invalid: it is both a red herring and an ad hominem: two errors in one argument.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Oh, Warren!

    What you’re referring to is a document that was never proven true NOR was it proven false.

    What I am referring to is a videotaped interview with the Bush Administration Treasury Secretary. He was THERE. He knows what he saw and heard, and he is SAYING it on air.

    Where you continually get off on comparing apples and oranges, I don’t know. Oh, actually, I DO know! The FACT that Dubya was planning on getting rid of Saddam LONG before 9/11 doesn’t fit in with your personal worldview, so therefore it must be false!

    Oh, silly me! Why didn’t I see that before! Warren knows all and sees all and CERTAINLY knows better than the Dubya’s Treasury Secretary what went on in cabinet meetings, even though the Treasury Secretary was there and Warren was NOT there!

    Golly Gee Whiz, Gomer! I’m so silly for not seeing it before!

  • STM

    Did someone mention The War of 1812? *bottles thrown* *hides*

  • Jordan Richardson

    Stan, you bastard! Where’ve you been?

  • Cannonshop

    ON the “60 Minutes” subject and Warren’s assertion, followed by Chris Rose’s Rebuttal (after wading through all this, I’m not going to go back and grab the specific comment number)…

    Sure, nobody’s ever been 100% truthful in their personal life, and in that specific, Chris is right…

    BUT.

    (yeah, a ‘but’ applies here)…

    When your stock-in-trade is your word being as factual as you can make it, and you’re caught in a lie, THEN your word is no good. It’s not a matter of personal standards Warren’s addressing in the 60 minutes situation, but one of Professional Standards.

    A Journalist caught making shit up has violated the key standard that makes or breaks the value of their product-i.e. the news.

    I’ve known a few pilots, they might falsify records to get INTO the air, but flying’s like a drug, pilots will fight tooth-and-nail to get flying hours. Esp. Fighter pilots, because those flying hours are in the fast, zippy, high-adrenaline fun roller-coaster-ride that is a high-performance aircraft. Falsifying flight hours just doesn’t add up when you take into account the mentality of Aviators. This was probably the thing that tripped the bullshit meters hard enough to cost Dan Rather his career-the ‘evidence’ being obviously fake probably didn’t help, but the premise it was based on REALLY didn’t help.

    Now, on to the JFK/Vietnam bit of the ongoing arguments…

    Scholars tend to apply their own biases to their research, and tend to cherry-pick data to support those biases. Fact is, nobody KNOWS what JFK wanted to do about Vietnam, he died before he could do it. I suspect he may have NOT wanted to let the CIA get away with sponsoring the assassination of an American ally (Ngo Dinh Diem) but that’s so up-in-the-air nobody will EVER know the truth of the matter.

    We DO know that Democrats, whose loyalty is first and foremost to the Party, and whose Party has sanctified America’s Youngest President as some knd of saint, while vilifying the whole Vietnam experience, will insist JFK wanted to pull out, and will promote scholarship to that end, while discounting scholarship that runs against it.

    And we know that partisan GOP’ers will do the same over Nixon, claiming that Nixon was ‘stuck with’ a Vietnam War made by the Johnson administration.

    When it comes to the modern day and the war in Af’stan and Iraq, the SOFA non-agreement, and other issues, partisans on both sides will point all blames outward, while defending the ‘record’ of “Their Guy”.

    Having lived through the 1990’s, “I” know that the public position of the Clinton Administration was that Saddamn Hussein was pursuing WMD technology and I know that the U.N. body overseeing the sanctions was dirty from the get-go (“Oil for Food” indeed-feeding Bhoutros-Bhoutros-Gali’s son millions of dollars in oil revenue to look the other way…) and I know that we were holding an entire country under seige for the actions of a single man.

    There was a LOT of sentiment that Iraq needed an M-1 Enema before 9/11.

    I also know that traditionally, the U.S. Military pre-plans wars with people we’re not currently in conflict with, and arranges logistical training and planning with a higher priority given to places we already have a problem with-like Saddam-era Iraq, or current-era North Korea.

    We had plans to go to war with Great Britain before we entered WWII, as well as plans for war against Japan, Germany, France, Canada, Mexico…

    Doctrinaire Democrats point to these plans, as ‘proof’ of some dark-conspiracy-vendetta-thing on Bush (Or is it “BOOOOSHHH!!!”) and maybe his wanting to one-up Daddy.

    Except we had plans in place to invade Iraq in 1994, six or seven years before GWB took the oath of office-G3 staff work up these plans routinely, even with people we ostensibly ‘Like’, it’s one of the main reasons we have the Puzzle Palace on the Potomac, that concrete wart in Hell’s bottom, the Pentagon.

    Remembering the political turmoil and cultural shock we were in for the first couple years after the Towers went down, and recalling that we HAD the assets in place to invade, and the plans were already made, the units already prepped, maps ready, and a pre-made excuse, Iraq was a no-brainer when you take into account the political culture of “DO SOMETHING” that was the flavour in D.C. and on the airwaves of the time. Iraq was DO-Able, we already had the plans, the preparation, manpower, already knew it could be executed, and unlike Saudi Arabia, we didn’t owe them money at the time.

    Teh curse of political expediency is why we went in, the aftermath of that curse, including the twin curse of success, is why the Smartest Presidant EVAH couldn’t negotiate a stinking SOFA agreement-once the war turns unpopular, it’s expedient to abandon serious efforts in favour of just getting out, so you don’t send your best man to negotiate the SOFA, you send the guy who gets the coffee, which BHO did.

    Which may (no guarantees) mean that in three or four years from now, we’ll either be sitting through an “Iraqi Embassy Hostage Crisis” (aka what happened in Iran in 1979), or we’ll be seeing Blackhawks and Chinooks airlifting Embassy Staff as the victorious Sadr/Sunni/Shiite militias roll into town having beaten the U.S. trained and armed Iraqi military (aka the Saigon outcome).

    At LEAST we’re not assassinating our allies and sponsoring coup-of-the-week as the lead in to those festivities.

  • http://rwno.limewebs.com Warren Beatty

    Re: comment 83, Cannonshop, well developed and thought out essay.