Unpacking Petraeus
Like you, I’m still floating in the backwash of reaction to the second day Petraeus/Crocker testimony, this time before the Senate.
The moment that jumped out at me was the General’s refusal to say whether be believed the war in Iraq was making America safer — something, he said, he had not yet focussed on. Maybe he hasn’t, but you can bet that the parents of 3800 dead American soldiers have, asking themselves that question every day.
In any case, I’m not going to pick apart what Petraeus said or what it means. I already did that yesterday. But as far as I can tell Fred Kaplan has just about the best read on what went down. And I do mean down.
September 12th, 2007 at 11:38 am
I think Ezra Klein has a useful, companion insight up at The American Prospect.
The Dispensable Man; David Petraeus has admitted David Petraeus doesn’t matter. Will anyone believe him?
http://tinyurl.com/yvfqky
September 12th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
Good grief. The general comes before Congress to give them his best analysis of military action in Iraq, and they start hitting him with policy questions and questions that go beyond a predictable future and beyond his role as a soldier.
No one asked Gen. Eisenhower if the Normandy invasion made America safer. That was decided by Washington. Eisenhower focused on conducting the war rather than justifying it.
In the article that Marc referenced, Kaplan said, “Today’s hearings…put substantive issues, and useful words, on the record.” Bull. The hearing was pure hogwash and posturing. Next, time, General, just fax them your report.
I’m still waiting for the Democrats to condemn the MoveOn.org ad saying that Gen. Petraeus betrays us and for the Democrats to disassociate themselves from that organization by refusing its money and help.
September 12th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
It’s called Google, Woodrow:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/10/petraeus.moveon/
September 12th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
RP: At your link I see a few Democrats distancing themselves from the ad. I see none refusing Moveon’s money and help.
Moveon laid a great big turd in this deal. Fine with me.
Marc: Petraus’s commission is not “to make America safer.” Accordingly, he refused to humor the Senate on that point. Do you think we should give such a broad, vague mandate to the Department of Defense?
September 12th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
Google? Never used it.
This seems to be the attitude of many Democrats about the MoveOn.org ad:
Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii): “Point of order, Mr. Chairman! Nobody has to distance themselves from something they weren’t associated with.â€
Association must not include accepting their money or support. Oh well, the Democrats still have the Chinese.
September 12th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
Apparently, some currently serving in Iraq, and some of their supporters, feel no such hesitancy in applying the moniker conferred on Petraeus. Those who want to get het up about MoveOn using it in an advert ought to go check the comments at BlackFive.net.
September 12th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
Shut up and leave Iraq now.
Oh, I see. There’s oil in it.
September 12th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
When the GOP bigwigs quit going on serial defamer Rush Limbaugh and ]Joe Lieberman refuses to appear at a 9/11 commemoration with despicable scumbags like Hannity and Coulter, get back to me about the Dems and MoveOn’s ad…
September 12th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
Also, the Pentagon is releasing a report that differs substantially from Petraeus recommendations…so the notion that he’s carrying water for the administration isn’t something that MoveOn conjured up out of thin air.
In addition to information on the fact that there’s serious disagreement between Petraeus’ and the Centcom command, there’s this from a guy who’s far removed from MoveOn:
John Arquilla, an intelligence and counterinsurgency expert at the Naval Postgraduate School, is even harsher in his assessment of Petraeus. “I think Colin Powell used dodgy information to get us into the war, and Petraeus is using dodgy information to keep us there,†he said. “His political talking points are all very clear: the continued references he made to the danger of Al Qaeda in Iraq, for example, even though it represents only somewhere between 2 and 5 percent of the total insurgency. The continued references to Iran, when in fact the Iranians have had a lot to do with stability in the Shiite portion of the country. And it’s not at all clear why things are a little better now. Is it because there are more troops, or is it because we’re negotiating with the insurgents and have moved to small operating outposts? On any given day we don’t have more than 20,000 troops operating. The glacial pace of reductions beggars the imagination.â€
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20712196/site/newsweek/?from=rss
Petraeus is a spin doctor and doing a terrible disservice to his troops and the country. One more careerist who’s licking the Beltway boots. The “surge” has been a total failure. End of story. This is really beyond dispute if one looks at the casualty rates overall, and in particular a place like Baghdad where a doubling of troops has produced miniscule declines. And with Bush and Petraeus telling the “bad guys” exactly when the “surge” has to end, I’m assuming the familiar line about “waiting them out” once they assign a date to draw down the surge applies to them as much as an “Defeatocrat”. Or maybe not in the wacky world of pro-war deadenders where the more things stay the same, the more the rationales change.
And Woody’s notion that Eisenhower would have answered “I don’t know” if asked whether the Normandy invasion made America safer is one of the biggest howlers of his entire career of spewing total horseshit and GOP spin in these threads. I’m stunned…
September 12th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
Media Matters: On the August 24 edition of Fox News’ Hannity & Colmes, co-host Sean Hannity aired video footage of musician and right-wing activist Ted Nugent at an August 21 concert calling Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) a “piece of shit” and referring to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) as a “worthless bitch.” In the video clip, Nugent holds up what appear to be two assault rifles and says he told Obama “to suck on my machine gun” and says he told Clinton “you might want to ride one of these into the sunset.” After airing the clip, Hannity referred to Nugent as a “friend and frequent guest on the program,” and then compared Nugent’s comments to recent statements by Obama, which Hannity again distorted by claiming Obama “accus[ed] our troops of killing civilians.” Hannity then asked Democratic strategist Bob Beckel: “What’s more offensive to you? Is it Barack Obama’s statement about our troops or Ted Nugent?” Beckel responded by asking Hannity if he was “prepared to disavow this lowlife,” to which Hannity responded: “No, I like Ted Nugent. He’s a friend of mine.” When Beckel said that Nugent “ought to never come on your show again, and if you have him on, you ought to be ashamed of yourself,” Hannity responded: “Not at all. We have you on.”
Go fuck yourselves, GOPer hypocrites. Really ! Just shut the fuck up about MoveOn until you clean your stinking house of wingnuts and hatemongers.
September 12th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
The Democrats should write legislation to sell war bonds tied to exclusively to funding the war, with returns linked to the outcome. No progress, no return. Real progress, big return.
Let the people who believe Patreaus distinctly fantastic obfuscations buy them and weep.
September 12th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
As for moveon, this is yet another opportunity for the Democrats to show they have some balls.
Karl Rove laughs in his diapers every time some callow Democrat quavers disassociation from something moveon.org has done.
Independent voters see that kind of reaction as a sign that the Democrats lack the courage of their convictions.
Moveon said nothing that isn’t being said by a wide range of commentators and it has the benefit of being true. Any Democrat who flees from that deserves to lose their job…
September 12th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
Well General Petaeus did accomplish his mission . No he didn’t convince the American people – polls show they’re still convinced the war is a loser and they want out – but that wasn’t the intended audience it turns out. No, once again it was the gullible Great and the Good in the DC media that were swayed by all this talk. All those reports that there will be a cutback without noting that all that will happen is the reduction of forces back to the status quo ante. That had to happen anyway unless they wanted to extend tours even longer and destroy the army even more than it has been. And theGenral is talking about not getting down to 130,000 again TILL NEXT SUMMER. I think that won’t sell with the public.
Of course Dems will howl that “They haven’t got the votes” – see Kaplan avove. Well the magic number is still “41″ in the Senate. All the Dems have to do is refuse to bring up any funding bill that does not include a timetable for withdrawal. Bush still can’t appropriate funds no matter what the Federalist Society tells him!
But that would require a lot of guts. They would have to learn to ignore the media. To ignore Ignatius and Broder and Freidman. And to treat Dowd the way Bob Sommerby did today in the HOWLER (Ugh!)
September 12th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
Barack Obama gave a stiring speech today about all this. Now its time to put his money where his mouth is. Action Senator!
In particular, the Senator from Illinois reminded Bush that the AUMF has no provision for attacking Iran. Not good enough Senator! We need a resolution (or better a rider on a bill) stating that no military action may be taken against Iran without the express written consent of the Congress (hey if its good enough for the Baseball Commish!). And that means defying AIPAC. How about it Barack? Got the balls?
September 12th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
the Genral is talking about not getting down to 130,000 again TILL NEXT SUMMER
Time to stop speaking in terms of Friedman Units and instead start thinking in terms of the Friedman Multiplier.
September 12th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
“Now its time to put his money where his mouth is. Action Senator!”
C’mon, Richard. Obama has already voted against funding that didn’t contain any binding plan for withdrawal and I’d assume from his speech today that if anything he’s strengthened his stance on that. Other than put his own plan on the table and continue to vote against any funding that wasn’t at least close to the bar he sets, what is he supposed to do ? I read Dodd’s comments in reference to Obama (and Dodd has been very good in his own arguments for mandating withdrawal or refusing funding) but I don’t really understand what distinction he’s making. Dodd should be working with Obama, Hillary and the rest who share his general views and have moved to vote on this in order to unite more Dems around something that at least approximates their collective views. I agree that we need more action and less rhetoric. Seems like taking your shots at the people who are closest to him on the funding question is, in fact, just upping the rhetoric quotion. More than anything else, including more speeches by Obama or any of the rest of them, I’d like to see this group of leading Senators put their primary contest to the side, agree on some base line and show some united leadership among their colleagues to move a larger bloc of Senators to vote with them. They’d all come out looking better to primary voters.
September 12th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
For people like Woody and those Reeps who are apalled that MoveOn would dare critize the Noble Petraeus:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/9/12/202647/128
September 12th, 2007 at 6:34 pm
I’d like to see this group of leading Senators put their primary contest to the side, agree on some base line and show some united leadership among their colleagues to move a larger bloc of Senators to vote with them.
God. Amen to that.
September 12th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
Richard. Yeah, that doesn’t surprise me. One of Glenn Greenwald’s commenters (I think) mentioned they found it striking that Petraeus ‘credited’ Casey in his remarks as opposed to Fallon. Especially since Casey was opposed to the surge in the first place, retired, and Fallon was who Petraeus reported to. The commenter thought it might have been a deliberate slight on Petraeus’ part. As a different commenter also noted, Fallon is/was directly opposed to any military strike on Iran. Noted by someone else, if Fallon all of a sudden announces his retirement, we could be in for a world of hurt.
September 12th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
Over and over again Marc mentions the U.S. casualties and their families (along with the tax dollars spent on the occupation) without a whisper about the real victims of the imperialist endeavor in Iraq, the Iraqis (or “Hajis” as our uniformed goons call them while they torture, rape, and slaughter them).
September 12th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
Re: Candidates and Positions on Residual Forces and differences among candidates
From OpenLeft: http://tinyurl.com/2tzwdw
EDWARDS: I would get all of our combat troops out. Assuming that we are going to maintain our embassy in Baghdad, we’ll have to have some force to protect our embassy. We always have to have that. And if, if, there are American humanitarian workers there, it might be necessary, although I wouldn’t commit to this at this point, it might be necessary to provide some protection for them. But that’s it.
YAY, John!
This particular post speaks to your wish above, Reg.
September 12th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
The next Dem President should give Medals of Freedom to the handful of generals and others like Shinseki who simply put a rational assessment of the war “plan” over concern for their careers. A small gesture, but it would be a way of correcting the historical record and sending the right signal to the officer corps. I’ve talked to one career officer who says that demoralization in the wake of the top generals going political has driven many the best and most honest officers into retirement. He no longer trusts most of the guys left at the top.
If Fallon announces his retirement, it will be symptomatic of just how corrupted the upper ranks have become. I doubt that even as Centcom commander he can forestall a strike on Iran if Bush/Cheney decide to do it. I’d hope that he wouldn’t just announce his retirement but go public with his reasons. That might actually get the attention of the media whores, galvanize public opinion and give Congress the ammunition they need to block counterproductive, agressive action by the crazies. Of course, I’m not holding my breath.
September 12th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
“This particular post speaks to your wish above, Reg”
It’s just too bad Edwards left the Senate…
September 12th, 2007 at 7:02 pm
Lee Smith, I might direct you to
http://marccooper.com/655000-rorschachs/
as one example. And, that was just putting “Iraqi deaths” in the search window at the top of this page. If I wanted to work at it, I’m sure I could find a lot more. Especially within the comments. I’ve experienced it as a common argument around here. But it is hard to talk about something our government refuses to count itself, and angrily dismisses any other agency’s counts.
September 12th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
I’m listening to NPR rattling about Bush’s plan for “reduction of forces.” I can’t believe I’m hearing this crap. This “reduction” is a simple matter of necessity. It’s why they called this last ditch effort to wring even more blood, sweat and tears out of an overstretched military a “surge” in the first place. Most of the media is just horrible. Stenographers and willing dupes.
September 12th, 2007 at 7:06 pm
I need a drink.
September 12th, 2007 at 7:06 pm
Reg, yep you caught me sleeping. You wrote Senators and I ‘read’ candidates.
September 12th, 2007 at 7:14 pm
I think frankly that most Americans don’t care about Iraqi deaths.
September 12th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
On the level I think you mean, jc, I don’t think most Americans care about our invasion of Iraq, or maybe even American deaths. Has there ever been a military intervention that Americans have been more divorced from than this one? I think if you stopped the average Jane or Joe on the street they’d either say (generically) it’s awful, or we support our troops. I’ve read where 40% of us (God help me) STILL think Iraq and 9-11 are connected. One thing about living in fickle economic times, you sure can keep the public distracted.
September 12th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
Woody, I’m not exactly a mainstream Dem; but not only am I not cowed by your phoney indignation ploy; I salute Move On for taking of the gloves.
I spoke to a couple oldsters today; not leftys by any means, and they are appauled by the fruit salad these guys cover there chests with. I have to admit, I never saw a photo of Ike covering himself with such gawdy adornment. On the other hand, when you’ve got to start talking about “the new greatest generation….”
On balance, I think he’s a pretty good guy. But as Jack Nicholson said in “Chinatown;” “he has to swim in the same waters we all do….”
September 12th, 2007 at 7:29 pm
Sometime after WWII the military started issuing decorations like crazy. Fruit salad indeed!
September 12th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
The picture here is a good guide to the fruit salad.
September 12th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
No I think Americans – a majority of whom are antiwar – such that with understandable reasoning – care about their kids’ death, their country’s activities with their tax dollars, their own self-interest. I just don’t think that Iraqi deaths register in their reasoning.
Those who are pro-war, of course they don’t care. In fact, I see two broad trends – enjoying and or ignoring the killings. One can’t deny that a lot of the right – not all of it – but a lot of it exults in dead Arabs.
September 12th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
I wonder if the unlabelled buttons are classified.
September 12th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
FWIW, Hoisted from a comments section at McClatchy
‘Nite all.
September 12th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
I wonder if the unlabelled buttons are classified.
If you’re being serious, I have never heard of a medal for classified duty.
It kind of reminds me of Toastmasters competitions. Everyone who does anything – including counting the votes – gets certifictes of merit.
September 12th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
At least Gen. Petraeus didn’t throw away his ribbons and denounce the United States. If he had, he would be a prime candidate for the Democrats.
September 12th, 2007 at 8:24 pm
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZz
September 12th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
Well, you might agree with Fred Kaplan about General Patraeus or you might agree with Moveon.org about General Patraeus, and in either case you will oppose this war, but how is it possible to support both of them at once?
Offhand, I can think of two answers.
1. Because you think you aren’t morally obligated to make sense. You accept and argue that General Patreus is both —at once and the same time–a treasonous liar and a dedicated military professional who declines to comment on questions and matters beyond the scope of his responsibility.
2. Because you are such a partisan, ideological hack, that you prefer the supposed “anti-war” party that was elected to shut this war down, that has the power to shut this war down, that refuses to shut this war down, all the while proclaiming and predicting that this war is lost, over the party that started this war, that thinks it can be won, and continues to support it, on the grounds that the pro-war party is less honest and honorable than the “anti-war” party, and what an “anti-war” party it is!
In short, and in either case, you remain
a partisan for the party that continues to send American boys to their death for what they call over and over again a lost and pointless cause.
Personally, I am for 8.00 a gallon gasoline and coal-shale and solar and wind power and letting Saudi Arabia revert to the used camel business, and that is why I prefer the party that is for something over the party that claims high moral ground over nothing.
As King Lear said, “Nothing gets nothing, try again!
September 12th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
“the party that continues to send American boys to their death for what they call over and over again a lost and pointless cause”
Unbelievably full of shit…but what else is new ?
September 12th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
“the party that started this war, that thinks it can be won”
Even more laughable, in the light of the last-gasp, long-shot strategy we’ve been treated to from The Greatest General On Earth.
September 12th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
“a dedicated military professional who declines to comment on questions and matters beyond the scope of his responsibility”
So whether a war is effectively in the interests of U.S. national security and serves to “make America safer” is beyond the scope of a “dedicated military professional” ?
Another howler. Yeah, as Woody suggested, it’s absurd to conjecture that Ike had any clue whether or not invading Normandy made any sense in the larger picture of defeating the enemies that threatened America…
Could we have a smarter group of wingnuts ? I’m really bored by these morons…
September 12th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
Reg says:
“So whether a war is effectively in the interests of U.S. national security and serves to “make America safer†is beyond the scope of a “dedicated military professional†?
Talk to General McClellan and the President the New York Times called “Ape-faced Lincoln” about that, you demented, degenerate copperhead, or ask General McArthur whether President Truman did or did not turn out to be his Daddy, you blinkered partisan ideological hack nut-job.
I realize many here don’t read books, but for anyone interested in the general question of whether American military servants have the right to advocate political policy, see Robert Caro’s third volume on LBJ for a neat precis’ of how and why President Truman cashiered General McArthur for advocating dropping the Big One on China.
Woody is exactly correct. He said:
“No one asked Gen. Eisenhower if the Normandy invasion made America safer. That was decided by Washington. Eisenhower focused on conducting the war rather than justifying it.”
Christ on the Telephone! Some of you Iraq war-haters are now so desperate for a ten-minute tactical advantage that you actually argue for the duty of Generals to suborn the power of democratically elected office-holders.
I smell facism and reeducation camps, yes I do.
September 13th, 2007 at 6:13 am
What Woody wrote: “No one asked Gen. Eisenhower if the Normandy invasion made America safer. That was decided by Washington. Eisenhower focused on conducting the war rather than justifying it.”
How reg interpreted that: “Another howler. Yeah, as Woody suggested, it’s absurd to conjecture that Ike had any clue whether or not invading Normandy made any sense in the larger picture of defeating the enemies that threatened America… Could we have a smarter group of wingnuts ? I’m really bored by these morons…”
Difference: I said that no one asked Ike and that he concentrated on the war. reg changed my statement to read that I said that Ike had no clue.
Response: See the big difference and intentional distortion due to desparation. Could we have a smarter and more honest group of “moonbats?”
September 13th, 2007 at 6:55 am
Chris Matthews on on “Hardball” two nights ago:
Chris Matthews on “Morning Joe” today:
Chris Matthews must have transformed into a wingnut in reg’s view.
Ref: Flip-Flop: Matthews Now Says Discussing National Security Not Petraeus’s Job
September 13th, 2007 at 7:18 am
“Hack” will do.
September 13th, 2007 at 7:28 am
In answer to one of the most fundamental questions one could ask about a war, Petraeus said, “I don’t know.” Later he did what you claim he shouldn’t do, which is backtrack and paint an affirmative answer. It’s hard to imagine Eisenhower or any other general equivocating about whether World War II actually served the interests of U.S. national security. Actually, it’s unimaginable. Bringing McArthur and the atomic bomb into it is evidence of just how desperate you are to rationalize what was an obviously disastrous moment for the Bush war rationale.
You guys truly are a bad joke.
September 13th, 2007 at 7:31 am
“you actually argue for the duty of Generals to suborn the power of democratically elected office-holders.
I smell facism and reeducation camps, yes I do.”
Frankly, you’d have to be completely fucking nuts to spin something that emanated from a simple question asked by a leading GOP senator into that conclusion.
As I said, smarter wingnuts PLEEEEZE !!!!
September 13th, 2007 at 7:33 am
“I realize many here don’t read books”
The issue isn’t reading, it’s comprehension.
September 13th, 2007 at 8:32 am
The opposition party in WWII wouldn’t have asked such a stupid question to a general and wouldn’t have pushed for an answer after being initially turned down, and decent people wouldn’t use the fact that he later did so to score such useless political points.
Further, our enemies and the battlefields of today are much more complex than they were sixty-five years ago.
You’re so deparate that you resort to bad examples and rationalizations. You can never win because your side is wrong.
September 13th, 2007 at 8:39 am
This isn’t World War II, Woody. Doesn’t it bother you that a conservative, pro-military Senator would be even moved to ask such a basic question of this war and this general ?
You’re really one of the most pathetic specimens of rank partisan dementia I’ve ever encountered. Truly part of the rot that’s dragging our country into a ditch…
September 13th, 2007 at 8:41 am
“the battlefields of today are much more complex”
So complex that they defy rational explanation in terms of our national security ?
Apparently so if you’re a GOP hack.
September 13th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
“You can never win because your side is wrong.”
And therein lies the silly playground speak: “your side”. For some of us, this isn’t a game. I know you love your sports metaphors, but there comes a time to grow up and figure out solutions. Please stop wasting our time–it’s embarrassing and tiresome to read.
September 13th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
“You can never win because your side is wrong.”
And therein lies the silly playground speak: “your side”. For some of us, this isn’t a game. I know you love your sports metaphors, but there comes a time to grow up and figure out solutions. Please stop wasting our time–it’s embarrassing and tiresome to read.
September 13th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
Sorry about the double post–I had to use my middle name in case I was getting filtered…
September 13th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
OK Woody a question. If this really is like WWII where is the draft? How about raised taxes (to 90% at the margin) to pay for it? Gas and meat and sugar rationing? War Bonds?
Tell me Woodster, what have YOU sacrifiecied for the Noble cause?
September 13th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
I wonder if Woody and Reg have jobs, or are they paid to comment on this blog? If all the ex-generals can’t convince Woody that Bush is (as many have already mentioned) idiot, what hope does Reg have?
But they sure provide some good one-liners like the one below by reg.
“the battlefields of today are much more complexâ€
So complex that they defy rational explanation in terms of our national security ?
Apparently so if you’re a GOP hack.
September 13th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
Sarcastic I thought you knew Reg, Woody, and the rest of the regulars here were visited by Michael Anthony on behalf of a mysterious benefactor (initials JBT) and showered with wealth of an undisclosed amount to bloviate on these here inter tubes!
September 13th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
I’ve read where 40% of us (God help me) STILL think Iraq and 9-11 are connected. One thing about living in fickle economic times, you sure can keep the public distracted.
How about those polls that Turner has posted here before showing the gross ignorance of Americans about Iraqi casualties? Those are especially revealing and ghastly. When asked how many Iraqi casualties there have been so far in the Iraq war (this was about 6 months ago), the average response was 10,000. As was pointed out at the time, this was off by at least a factor of 10 and if you go by the Lancet Study methods, possibly even a factor of 60. I don’t think it’s so much about keeping people distracted either. I know the media really blows, but I think that poll shows a special kind of ignorance right there and there really is no excuse for it.
September 13th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
John Mc, as an aging educator I tend to think of knowledge acquisition as occuring from the particular to the general. Translated: most folks tend to figure stuff out in terms of how it affects them first, and then generalize outward to others who are not them. It’s not the only way to learn, but it’s not uncommon. So, when I used the metric about Iraq and 9-11, it was ‘short hand’ for saying a good percentage of the population barely grasp “here.” Expecting them to know something about “there” is the next level up. You are, of course correct. Americans are ignorant of the Iraqi casualties. I didn’t mean to suggest otherwise.
September 13th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
And, the bit about “a fickle economy” was only to acknowledge a sort of cognitive interference that makes, for may people, this week’s bills a more pressing concern than the specifics of the reasons for our military involvement in Iraq.
September 13th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
LOS, I agree with your observations on how people generally learn, but to me the kinds of ignorance that we’re talking about here, Iraq-911 relationship and Iraqi casualties, is mindblowing and I’m reluctant to take the onus of responsibility off of the people who believe such things. Yes, the media sucks and people have everyday concerns, but given the amount of info that people have convenient access to today, I think this takes ignorance to another level. It seems to me that people are forcibly keeping their heads in the ground.
September 13th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
people are forcibly keeping their heads in the ground
I believe I’ve heard that referred to as “willful ignorance.” There are many reasons for that to occur. It’s beyond me to catalog them all. Ignorance can appear to be the problem, but it’s the willful part that’s difficult to unseat. You may not want to take the onus of responsibility off the folks who exhibit it, but in my experience those who are willfully ignorant don’t assess themselves as ignorant, and would resent your efforts to suggest to them that they are. You may suffer (be upset) for (at) their ignorance, but they don’t (aren’t). You’ve heard the adage: You can lead a horse to water…. Which I finish ….but if you shove their head under to drink, it’s animal abuse.
June 2nd, 2008 at 1:04 am
poker regeln blind…
Déjà wo kann man poker spielen gioco di roulette texas holdem odds www party poker com black and jack…
June 2nd, 2008 at 12:16 pm
texas holdem wahrscheinlichkeiten…
Mucho play baccarat online juego ruleta de la fortuna web casino world championship poker casinos en ligne gratuites…
June 6th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
c139 motorola ringtones…
Per vegas casino online play poker game holdem poker gratis free motorola razr ringtones poker texas gratis…
July 14th, 2008 at 11:19 am
poker 5 card draw…
Sono juegos poker erotico gioco poker online gratis poker texas holdem gratis poquer online gratis juegos flash poker…
March 25th, 2010 at 3:57 pm
Arthritis in canines can be a huge hassle that many people never even think of in older dogs.