Obama ignores Iraq problems
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.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - 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.
27 - 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.
28 - zingzing
the sun is cold. the sun is hot.
29 - zingzing
i have confused warren beatty.
30 - 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.
31 - 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.
32 - 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...
33 - Christopher Rose
Oh - and nobody would ever mistake you for the actor, so please update your byline...
34 - 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!
35 - 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?
36 - 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.
37 - 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.
38 - 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.
39 - Jordan Richardson
When in doubt, flounder around nonsensically.
40 - Costello
So when you learned your parents lied to you about Santa when you were a kid, you stopped believing everything they told you?
41 - 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.
42 - 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! :-)
43 - El Bicho
"And I'm fairly certain that you are not."
I think Doc Nalle'd it.
44 - Dr Dreadful
Not who I had in mind, El B...
45 - 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?
46 - 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?
47 - 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.
48 - 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.
49 - 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.
50 - 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.
51 - 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?
52 - 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
53 - roger nowosielski
Of course roger that, but eliminate "that."
54 - 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.
55 - Jordan Richardson
What is this "sun" you're talking about, zingzing? I'm pretty convinced you've just made the whole thing up.
56 - 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.
57 - roger nowosielski
a writer's imagination?
58 - 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
59 - 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.
60 - Jordan Richardson
There are no problems, only cruel lies.
61 - 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?
62 - zingzing
jordan: "There are no problems, only cruel lies."
i've got a problem with that.
63 - Jordan Richardson
I don't believe you.
64 - 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).
65 - 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.
66 - 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.
67 - roger nowosielski
Well, then perhaps you should in the interest of lucidity, because you're as murky as ever.
68 - 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.
69 - 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.)
70 - Clavos
...more direr...
Uh uh.
71 - 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.
72 - 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
73 - zingzing
late to the game, pablo?
74 - pablo
wWat a stupid statement zing, but it does reflect your true colors oh so remarkably well. And I do thank you for that. :)
75 - Zingzing
It wasn't a statement. Love you too, muffin.