Even More Incompetence

Couldn't listen at work, but I snatched a glance -- your lighting is a lot better than Chait's. Poor guy's MPB makes him look as if he's sporting a mohawk.

Wow, after reading that Chait piece you linked, actually hearing his views was really surprising. Maybe it's just that some things become clear when you actually have to face the person you're talking to (or when you're watching two people talking) then when you're reading what they had to say. This is a really clear example of how different a dialogue is from two sets of writers responding to each other's ideas.

I was really flabbergasted by his "you really think they'll invade Syria?" line. As if the idea that hawks might attack foreign countries is such an outlandish suggestion that it need not be clarified. If it is true that America would never invade Iran or Syria, we have to wonder how much our foreign relations with those governments are complicated by the apparent belief those nations have that they will be invaded.

At worst, it shows the same sort of frightening rationale that was used for invading Iraq--the assumption that the Administration's goals are always exactly the same as your goals--even assuming that the Administration is lying about their real goals if their stated goals differ from your goals. Essentially, assuming that the ambiguous intentions of those in power will play in your favor. It's scary.

Hey, is the video sped up? Real Player says the time is 53:58. Is that how long you were talking? You guys sure talk fast and nod rapidly.

"I think it might be my worst lighting ever, which is a fairly impressive feat in light of the track record."

I keep trying to explain to you that the most flattering lighting comes from below, optionally with a green tinge. Holding a flashlight in your lap pointed upwards will give you the requisite gravitas for good punditry.

"I was really flabbergasted by his "you really think they'll invade Syria?" line. As if the idea that hawks might attack foreign countries is such an outlandish suggestion that it need not be clarified."

For those operating in the reality-based universe, the odds of this administration invading Syria approach zero.

Don't let me interrupt your paranoia, however. I understand it gives meaning to some folks' lives.

ye godz, you look hideous!

"I was really flabbergasted by his "you really think they'll invade Syria?" line. As if the idea that hawks might attack foreign countries is such an outlandish suggestion that it need not be clarified."

Good lord. I finally listened to the MP3, and it's far worse than I expected. The question wasn't whether or not the current administration was likely to invade Syria. It was whether or not a Hillary Clinton / Dick Holbrooke administration was likely to invade Syria to export democracy !!!!!!!!!!!

Matthew, you've badly lost touch with the precepts of mainstream Democratic Party foreign policy. Get back in touch with those precepts prior to writing your book, por favor. Currently, you're fighting against some genuine straw men.

As usual, Chait is right about most things in the dialog.

-----

Regarding the anti-incompentency thesis:

If you want to be serious about this, Matthew, and avoid doing full battle with straw men, you need to pin down your terms quite a bit more.

When you say the Iraq war wouldn't have succeeded even if the Bush administration had run it better, what do you mean?

If you mean that there was almost no way for America to create a multi-ethnic democracy in Iraq with 150,000 Anglo-American troops, then I fully agree with you.

But you're not pinning down your terms, and you're trying to say something much broader with very imprecise thinking.

Or put another way, you really are arguing against 2003 era Tom Friedman.

Thinking you are arguing against 2003 era Jon Chait, or thinking you are arguing against 2009 era Dick Holbrooke means you've badly lost the focus of your argument.

You're both right about McCain.

And I'm simply shocked to learn the truth about Matthew's involvement with the Columbian drug cartel. I had always thought that was a baseless rumor.

As Yglesias pointed out and Chait had to accept (but Petey hilariously refuses to), his previous understanding of the administration's intentions was flawed--he didn't expect Bush to try to export democracy (i.e. Chait thought that Bush was lying) when actually that's what Bush did. Your track record of judging what people would do in the past was pretty awful, therefore I don't put much stock in your judgment of the what people will do in the present and future.

Moreover, there are clearly a lot of people both in America and the rest of the world who share Yglesias's point of view--that hawks want to invade more countries. That's why we call them hawks. Especially when we here so much talk of "clash of civilizations" and "existential crisis". Even if you're capacity to read their minds was absolutely perfect, and you were correct that no more nations will be invaded, then the failure of Chait, Bush, Clinton, etc. to make their intentions clear is completely insane--clearly, there are a number of nations in the world that look at Iraq and suspect that when we're finished there that they are next, which explains why they refuse to negotiate with us. Why should they put aside nukes if they think invasion is inevitable?

It's a bizarre trait of some guys--they put complete faith in your judgment of other people's intentions (Bush obviously wants peace, Iran obviously wants armageddon) and they think those judgments should be absolutely clear and plain to everyone. In other words, the only "reality" you're capable of seeing is the reality in your head, and moreover you simply can't understand why everyone doesn't see exactly what's in your head.

If you folks disagree with 2003 Friedman, then didn't it occur to you that you would gain a lot of credibility by distancing yourself from his position? Not just for you guys as posters and commentators, but for our nation as a whole?

It's Chait who was going against a straw man--the idea that the "incompetancy dodge" means that there was no incompetancy whatsoever in running Iraq. THAT was the ultimate straw man. You get on Matt's case for thinking that people who talk about how good it is to invade countries actually want to invade countries, and you think that straw man makes sense?

Not to mention that the whole distinction between invasion and ground troops on the one hand, and air strikes, special forces, and destabilization campaigns on the other is kind of moot when we already have a bunch of ground troops stuck smack in the middle of a tribe that sympathizes with Iran. As long as those troops are stuck there, there is no strategic difference between an invasion and any other attack.

If you want to be serious about this, Matthew, and avoid doing full battle with straw men, you need to pin down your terms quite a bit more.

Thinking you are arguing against 2003 era Jon Chait, or thinking you are arguing against 2009 era Dick Holbrooke means you've badly lost the focus of your argument.

Oh, spare us. If you want to point to the early article in which Chait says, "We should support the invasion of Iraq solely for the purpose of destroying the WMD programs; once we've done that, we should install a new strongman and get out," do so. To the extent that Yglesias (and everyone else on earth) misunderstood Chait, the fault lies with Chait.

Moreover, Chait's position--which appears to be that bad people will do bad things (including attempt to get nuclear weapons), so we should get rid of bad people everywhere--is moronic. I wish Yglesias had pressed him on that point, but he didn't. To Yglesias's credit, he explicitly noted that (a) there was real disagreement on this point, but (b) it wasn't his particular focus, and (c) he wasn't going to press Chait on it. It's not the least bit clear why Chait doesn't favor a ground invasion of Iran--though he seems to leave open the possibility that he'd support an air assault--which has bad people trying to get a nuclear weapon. At best, he's against it because "Iraq was a special case." Yeah, that's convincing. I wonder if he'd feel differently if we had the troops available, or the Iraq war hadn't been such a hash.

"As Yglesias pointed out and Chait had to accept (but Petey hilariously refuses to), his previous understanding of the administration's intentions was flawed"

How do I refuse to accept this?

I'm not saying Chait has some type of papal infallibility for everything he says or has ever said, just that he's correct about most things in the bloggingheads dialog.

"Your track record of judging what people would do in the past was pretty awful, therefore I don't put much stock in your judgment of the what people will do in the present and future."

So, given that Matthew was far wronger than Chait about Iraq, does that mean we should put even less stock in Matthew's judgment than Chait's?

This all seems like a very blunt instrument for judging the accuracy of what people of good faith are currently saying.

"Chait's position--which appears to be that bad people will do bad things (including attempt to get nuclear weapons), so we should get rid of bad people everywhere--is moronic."

Sometimes I wonder if you have a brain tumor and I should stop picking on you, SCMT.

This is a befuddling and weird characterization of what Chait was espousing.

So restate his position, Petey. Or was that your reservation of the right to claim, three years hence, that you always thought Chait's position was wrongheaded?

How do I refuse to accept this?

It negates your point.

So, given that Matthew was far wronger than Chait about Iraq

To what are you referring to?

mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
turkiyemirc
mircturkiye
mirch
mırch
mirc indir
mirc yükle
mirc yukle
mırc indir
mırc yukle
mirc turkiye
turkiye mirc
turk mirc
mirc turk
türkçe mirc
türkce mirc
türkçe mırc
turkce mirc
turkçe mirc
turkçe mırc
turkce mirc
mirc chat
mirc sohbet
mirc ara
muhabbet
chat
blog
muhabbet
forum
forum
turkiyeforum
türk forum
mirc
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
sohbet
chat
bedava sohbet
turksohbet
turkiye sohbet
sohbet odaları
bedava chat
chat odaları
türk chat
türkiye chat
turkada
turkmirc
mirc inndir
karar

porno
sex
hikaye
sex
hikaye
porno
sex
sex shop
seks shop
güzel sözler
mirc
porno
güzel sözler
hikaye
mirc
hikayeler
mirc
kelebek
elektronik sigara
elektronik sigara
elektronik sigara
sex
porno
hikaye
sex
porno
mirc
seks shop
hikayeler
hikaye
sex
hikayetube
sex |
porno |
hikaye |
sex hikayeleri |
sex hikaye |
sex porno |
seks shop |
geciktirici |
penis büyütücü |
hikaye |
hikaye |
sex |
videohikaye.com |
sex |
porno |
hikayetube.com |
porno |
mirc |
yüzük |
güzel sözler |
elektronik sigara |
pilli sigara |
elektronik sigara |
elektronik sigara |
elektronik sigara

diyetle kilo verme

erotic shop

diyet ürünleri

thans you comment lui san

Thank you very much for this information.
sohbet
sesli sohbet
chat
muhabbet
mirc
evden eve nakliyat
mirc
mirc
sohbet
kelebek
chat

Thanks Best Regards
mirc
mırc
mırç
mircturk
mirctürk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mırc indir
mirç indir
mirc yükle
mırc yükle
mirc yukle
mırc yukle
mirch
mırch
mirc turk
turk mirc
mırc turk
mircada
mircturkiye
muhabbet
mirc sohbet
mırc sohbet
mirc chat
mırc chat
mırc ındır
mirc ındır
türkçe mirc
turkce mirc
turkçe mırc
turkce mırc
oper mirc
sohbet
forum
chat
online sinema
catlak
türk forum
turk forum
kafkas
kafkasya
ders
siyaset
izmir
karşiyaka
karsiyaka
forum
karsıyaka
sohbet

penis büyütücüler

harbiarkadas.com
harbiarkadas.net
harbiarkadas.org
itirafet.org
ebedava.net
elektronikmarket.net
ameribress.com
clitoriacream.net
superspenisbuyutucu.com
megabress.com
rednightperformans.com
performansartirici.com
penisplus.tv
penispluspenisbuyutucu.com
penispluspenisbuyutucu.net
cinselmerkez.com
aseks.net
erotikcamasirlar.com
vajinatr.com
bakirevajina.com
cinselkozmetik.com
kozmetikmedikel.com
eturknet.com
tecavuz.net
yutuvideo.com
ponotubesex.com
laraperuk.com
sackanagimerkezi.com
peruksa.com
perukmarket.com
aseks.com
aloveshop.com
erotikgiyim.com
geciktiricispreyler.com
geciktiricihap.com
geciktiriciler.com
azdirici.com
bayanuyarici.com
fntazialemi.com
fantaziservisi.om
cinselmazemeler.com
cinselfantaziurunleri.com
erotikdakikalar.com
erotikmarketiniz.com
seksmarketiniz.com
sekshatlari.com
erotikdergiler.com
erotikderginiz.com
penisbuyutucuviprx.com
penisbuyutucuvigrx.com
penisbuyutuculer.com
vigrxpenisbuyutucu.com
sismebebekler.com
sismebebekshop.com
yemekeviniz.com
sanalmarketiniz.com
elektronikmarket.net
ebedava.net
kontortr.com
elaydin23.com
turkcellkontorcu.com
aveakontoral.com
vodafonekontoral.com
toptankontorcu.com
cinselkozmetik.com
bayanpartnerler.com
erkekpartnerler.com
kizarkadaslar.com
yonjaarkadas.com
siberalem-siberalem.com
sexpartnerler.com
sekspartnerler.com
erotikpartnerler.com
gencyuz.com
erkekarkadaslar.com
bayanarkadaslar.com
yemekeviniz.com
sanalmarketiniz.com
baskahaber.com
medikalkozmetik.net
kozmetikmedikal.com
zayiflamavediyet.net
zayiflamahapii.com
zayiflamabandii.com
kilovertr.com
zayiflamatr.net
diyettr.com
toksinbandi.net
botoxtr.com
botokstr.com
selulittedavii.com
selulitgiderici.net
selulitkremii.com
catlaktedavisii.com
catlakgiderici.net
catlakkremii.com

sex shop