June 08, 2004
Idiotic? Hardly.
John Cole calls me idiotic for repeating Rumsfeld's statement "It's quite clear to me that we do not have a coherent approach to [terror]."
Cole's inability to argue civilly aside, context doesn't invalidate the criticism, it simply complicates it. The entire quote is:
Rumsfeld: I’m certain we have not been successful. As the Prime Minister, I forgot whether he mentioned it in his remarks or at the dinner table, but clearly, if the schools that are teaching young folks are teaching them terrorism and suicide bombing and hatred instead of mathematics or science or language or things that can help them become productive members of the society, we’ve got a problem. The world has a problem. And it’s quite clear to me that we do not have a coherent approach to this.
The US (and our "coalition") has NO comprehensive plan to change the conditions leading to terrorism. We have plans for attacking terrorists, but social conditions lie utterly ignored and unhelpful ideological currents are rendered worse daily as we detonate weddings and torture prisoners. It's not that there are no coherent plans for dealing with the problems, it's that Rumsfeld has consciously ignored them. While he laments the meager funds aimed at starting non-demagogic schools, he runs a policy spending $200 billion to unpopularly occupy a country that didn't birth a single one of the 9/11 terrorists. Instead of changing the schools, he's giving them lesson plans on US Imperialism and Western overreach. That he knows what needs to be done yet doesn't do it makes him either incompetent or counterproductive -- either way, the guy's not doing his job. Criticism of such myopic policy-making isn't "idiotic", blind support of it is.
Update: Hah! Now that's dodging a criticism! Resort to ad hominem's, complaints over misinterpretation and psychological analysis. Refrain from mentioning that what Rumsfeld is begging the world to do he himself is not doing. Ignore that this makes his department an obstacle on the road to global coherence. Forget what hypocrisy means. Get hung up on semantics. Get really angry. Demand that others read what Tagorba says. Forget that Tagorba is simply saying that Rumsfeld is criticizing a global approach. Don't mention that America is part of the globe, thus we are part of a global approach. Be John Cole.
John Cole is blindly supporting the adminstration, the John Cole, no way.
On to the topic; most hawkish people know that without social change in the Arab world we can never defeat terror, but wish go about changing their society in a way which furthers the culture which produces terrorists. I don't have a solution, but know democratization by invasion in not the correct path.
Posted by: andrew r at June 8, 2004 04:26 PMIs it really a distortion to conclude that the administration doesn't have a conherent plan on the basis of Rumsfeld's remark that the whole world doesn't have a coherent plan? Isn't the United States part of the world? If the US had a coherent plan, would it make a lick of sease to say, as Rumsfeld said, "[W]e’ve got a problem. The world has a problem. And it’s quite clear to me that we do not have a coherent approach to this."?
And for crying out loud, why is it, according to John Cole, a "ham-handed attack on the administration" to point out that the Secretary of Defense acknowledges that neither we nor anyone else are carrying out a coherent plan? What, is John Cole opposed to coherent planning or something?
Posted by: rea at June 8, 2004 04:37 PMEzra 3 Cole 0
Posted by: Snaporaz at June 8, 2004 04:42 PMThere are plans which are planned and plans which are unplanned, but planning for plans requires planning for the planned.
Posted by: Atrios at June 8, 2004 04:45 PMI'm shocked that you would resort to quoting people of such low moral character as donny rumsfeld in the first place, Ezra.
I know, it's the 'economics of blogging' that forced you to resort to passing off such low brow journalistic work as news...How could you?
I will now, and forever more, think of you as the Jerry Springer of blogging.
Posted by: rick pietz at June 8, 2004 04:47 PMYeah, I noticed he's not running that war -- nor is Ridge or Bush. Blogged the question yesterday -- who the dickens is steering the ship?
Scorpio
Eccentricity
Yeah, I noticed he's not running that war -- nor is Ridge or Bush. Blogged the question yesterday -- who the dickens is steering the ship?
Scorpio
Eccentricity
Wow, long time since I've heard Brownshirt J mentioned anywhere... like Instacracker, he's more and more irrelevant with each passing second.
Posted by: dave at June 8, 2004 04:54 PMHey, what do you think about a "spinoff" handle for John Cole's site?
How about "twice the age, half as smart?" even better would be "twice the age, twice as dumb", but that misses the opposition.
This also probably wouldn't work, cause John Cole is probably younger. But still, imagine the possibilities!
Posted by: JC at June 8, 2004 05:06 PMJC-
Cole is in his mid to late thirties, not quite twice the age but close enough. This is my guess because he said something about getting out of the military in the early nineties, back when I was in first grade.
Posted by: andrew r at June 8, 2004 05:14 PMI see John Cole has again fallen prey to the misconception that being a monumental idiot makes him an expert on idiots.
Posted by: John Y. at June 8, 2004 05:28 PMHe does call his blog "Balloon Juice-Hot Air and Ill-Informed Banter" which sounds aptly titled considering his posts.
Posted by: Oh-Mega at June 8, 2004 05:48 PM'John Cole: six letters in common with Juan Cole, and fuck-all else.'
Posted by: ahem at June 8, 2004 06:01 PM"There are plans which are planned and plans which are unplanned, but planning for plans requires planning for the planned."
How much planning could an unplanned planned plan if the unplanned could plan plans?
Posted by: rea at June 8, 2004 06:20 PMHah! Rea, brilliant.
Posted by: Ezra at June 8, 2004 06:21 PMOkay, this is outright being a catty bitch, but I'll ask anyway- is there an honest count on exactly how much of Cole's hit counts are based solely on fishing for responses from Ezra and hoping for a link from Pandagon? I swear, I went to that site and every other freaking post was a link to Pandagon.
Does Ezra's comment-spam policy apply to trackback spam as well?
Posted by: August J. Pollak at June 8, 2004 06:48 PMAhh man, I hate to bring down the level of discourse here, but can't I just say 'fuck that guy'? And I ask this question every time you mention him: Why bother? John Cole is a featherweight. His style of argumentation is, as you note, all heat and no light. I know it's your blog and you can write about whatever you want but, geez, aren't there bigger fish in the barrel than Assjuice John Cole?
Posted by: Lo Ping Wong at June 8, 2004 07:21 PMDoes anyone care that Rumsfeld was saying something that is completely accurate and worth stating publicly?
Posted by: ekg at June 8, 2004 07:49 PMI will now, and forever more, think of you as the Jerry Springer of blogging.
Huh? You do realize that he quoted Rumsfeld in order to critique him, right? Or was that supposed to be a joke?
And oh, Cole's a total asshole. There are actually lots of other guys who are farther to the right than he is. But the main reason why he's so unusually offensive isn't where he stands on the political spectrum, but the fact that he's a dick.
Posted by: JP at June 9, 2004 01:30 AMThat Liberal Media, www.thatliberalmedia.com, has a nice post on the matter. It also contains links to the speech transcript as well as further dissections of it. In short, what you quoted is not what he said, but a 'cherry picked' version of the speech. You may wish to check the transcript before you sound off.
Posted by: allison at June 9, 2004 06:11 AM