What say we return some COMPETENCE to government

When Cameron was looting the treasury as Secretary of War, Fessenden told Lincoln: "Well, he wouldn't steal a red-hot stove." When Cameron confronted him, Fesseden replied: "I'm sorry is said you wouldn't steal a red-hot stove." Having unwisely challenged a Senator in the halls of Congress, Cameron's days were thereafter numbered.

That history has forgotten that in the glaring light of the hagiography of Lee and Grant doesn't alter the justifiable criticism of exactly what Lincoln was spending two million dollars a day to buy. When the army left regiments in camp unarmed, and sent back the defective Belgian muskets Cameron had bought from a crony, when soldiers wool-shoddy uniforms literally disintegrated in the July sun of Virginia, when their shoes fell apart as the glue melted in streams they forded, you may be assured that they did not find them to be trivial and inconsequential things. You can bet that soldiers in Iraq without body armor, driving humvees without armor, don't consider such matters inconsequential.

That history may judge these matters as inconsequential has nothing to do with how the people of this nation do or ought to view them now. And you can attempt to distract the question with specific references to contracting if you like--you cannot alter the glaring evidence of incompetence in the prosecution of this war by the Shrub and his Forty Thieves of Baghdad--all of your "obviously politically motivated" slights notwithstanding.

You're not someone from whom i have ever felt i could get a lesson in history, so you ought to leave that subject aside. I am more than prepared to make a detailed analysis and comparison of the Russo-Turkish War of 1853, the Boer War, the failure of nerve and courage by naval officers leading to the bloody mess at Gallipoli--or any of the other examples you throw out there to attempt to suggest that it's not so bad in Iraq.

It's a stupid argument at all events, it's the old "Oh yeah, well what about those other guys" argument, which does nothing to excuse this incompetence. I breathlessly await you bringing Clinton into the picture next.

Don't you think that was a bit ... inflated?



You can hold your breath a bit longer, I'm sure.

The argument is hardly stupid - indeed it is particularly meaningful and relevant following your assertion that we are confronted with truly unusual and extreme levels of incompetence, venality, and wrong-headedness.

In addition there is the question of time and perspective. One as well versed in the details of history as yourself should have sufficient understanding of this point -- the detachment and comprehension of realistic human possibilities and what is required for the recognition of those few that truly stand out -- that is (or should be) a proincipal product of the study of history

One "proinciple" product of the study of history is the ability to differentiate between what only appear superficially to be similar events. So i certainly do not consider my statement to have been inflated when you try, for example, to compare this war to the Russo-Turkish War or to the Boer War. Once again, it's a stupid argument, because the venality and incompetence of one set of fools doesn't excuse the same in another set of fools.

The Russo-Turkish War was not a "pre-emptive" war on the part of either the French, the English, the Turks or the Sardinians. Louis Bonapart, the soi-disant Napoleon III, certainly did instigate strife in the Bethlehem incident which lead to the stand-off between the Sublime Port and St. Petersburg. But France only dragged England along unwillingly, and only succeeded in that because Aberdeen was such a political non-entity. Palmerston rather cynically went along in the hope of political gain, which was realized.

Nevertheless, it was the intransigence of Nicholas confronting the nervous defiance of the Porte propped up by the French which actually lead to a shooting war, and not a unilateral decision to invade another country on dubious and flimsy pretexts. Although the English displayed pathetic incompetence in their early logistical arrangements, nothing more could have been asked of the English soldiers than they performed at the River Alma, and in the defense of their position during the battles of Balaclava, at the Causeway Heights and at Inkerman. From the beginning, the French provided complete, even generous logistical support for their troops, to the extent that French soldiers taking pity on the English invited them in to enjoy their fires and some brandy in their snug cabins and tents. Aberdeen's government fell, Palmerston organized a "national" government, and the wrongs were righted. No such admission of fault or effort at correction has been forthcoming in this administration.

The Boer war was a fight that both sides were spoiling for, and Praetoria was only too happy to oblige. Certainly English hubris lead them to underestimate their opponents, and they suffered for it at Ladysmith and Spion Kop. They also quickly recovered, and began the long slogging fight to grind the Boers down. They used an execrable tactic in the invention of the concentration camps, in which thousands of old men, women and children died. However, far from disillusioning the public, the Khaki election of 1900 was a great political triumph in England.

Those events are not comparable to this war. And it is the deployment of such paltry and erroneous comparisons which leads me to say that i have nothing to learn about history from you.

You contradict yourself. Thanks, though for the recitation of the stupidity, venality, and waste of human lives that accompanied these wars. In this rather odd way, you make my point.



But I did not compare them in terms of the details to which you refer. You have missed the point in a blizzard of unnecessary detail.

I am generally reluctant to say that I have nothing to learn from anyone - I have been pleasantly surprised by many people, including yourself. Only a fool is unwilling to learn or denys the possibility.

So, in defense of your cherished crooks in the White House, you have now accused me of plagarism, followed by the contention that i'm a fool. You have not deployed a single argument by an historical comparison which supports your case. I have neither made your point nor contradicted myself. The Russo-Turkish war did not stem from a contention in France or in England, let alone in Sardinia, that they faced an imminent threat from the Russian Empire. The English did not contend that they were threatened by the Boers. The logistical failures of the English army in 1853-54 were the product of years of neglect and an insane organizational structure, and not the product of either the hubris or the incompetence of Aberdeen's government. The failures of the English army in South Africa definitely were attributable to hubris, but on the part of the military authorities on the scene and not on the part of the government. Even as the Boers rode circles around Buller, French and Kitchner were landing with the armies which would defeat them, and Baden-Powell was organizing the defense which would hold until he was relieved. You haven't made a case. Only a fool attempts to make specious historical comparison to bolster a partisan political apologia, although it is wonderfully reminiscent of the Marxist dialectical approach to history.

I did none of the things of which you accuse me. My point in the supposed comparison is clear, very limited and based on the qualities you enumerated in your post that started this. You are quibbling.

You accused me of plagarism. You accused me of being a fool. I had started a long reply, and then lost it. It's not worth the effort. You show you know nothing worth arguing about the Russo-Turkish War and the Boer War.

You are the one who is quibbling. You've failed to provide historical examples which hold up to close scrutiny, and you continue to ignore the feeble character of an argument which seeks to exculpate the incompetent by alluding to similar or greater incompetence elsewhere. Were you the victim of a physicians malpractice, i seriously doubt that pointing out other physicians who were equally or more incompetent would console you in the least.

True, but if I sued, the historically prevailinmg standard of care would be used by judge (and presumably jury - except in the tort lawyer's favorite counties) to determine the merits of my claim. THAT is the point.

By such a standard, and in particular in the comparisons which you have offered, Bush, Cheney and Rummy, Political Clinicians, would be in for an horendous judgment against them. The incompetence of the English military system in 1853 and the fumbling of Buller in 1899 cannot begin to compare to the willful stupidity of that crew.

However, my example was just to point out the silliness of your basis for argument. In fact, once again, the Russo-Turkish War, the Boer War, the Gallipoli campaign, the French in Syria or in Alergia and the American experience in Vietnam are not comparable to this war of unprovoked agression on the part of the current administration. That they launched such a war, and then have royally screwed up its prosecution only makes the matter worse.

BM

georgeob's standards of incompetence seem to require that incompetence needs to be grounded in a historical context.

Or that a cobbled-together historical context of dubious authenticity excuses said incompetence.

farmerman

george's relativism (cognitive and moral) is now habituated. He cannot get through a day without it. Any criticism of Bush, the Republican Party, or of America and he's slipping out to the alley to fix himself with a hit. He backs against the dumpster, pulls out a dirty old lanyard and ties off, quick beady-eyed look left and right, then it's in and hits the brain...

"Somebody else somewhere did something similar. Ahhhhh"

Sin Solved...Surcease and Innocence...all the Charity of Jesus - and available in typical American Self-Help style.

Even though the above post by blatham was addressed to my own personal self. I disavow any connection to its content. I take exception with blathams use of the word"habituate" in its intended context.

Carry on.

I just was reading the NYT on-line ed and see how the cost of the Hurricane will project to be over 100 Billion, with most of this in the SELA area.
Words like "deer in a headlight" and
"overused mantras from beleaguered staffers"
" it was a clearly avoidable event"
Are appearing in words from the GOP side.


I was listening to Hannity yesterday, he was predicting a full US "backlash" against the people who are criticizing the Administrations lack of action and the diversion of funds from SELA seawalls.

Sorry, that was a typo. Post should have been addressed to 'framerstan'.

I think a bit of cool-headedness; reason; and moderation is in order, so...

...either George Bush is the dumbest human being ever to hold high office or he is one of the best actors ever to get into politics.

This administration undoubtedly is the most inept I've personally ever lived through...and they should all be exiled for their incompetence.

"all roads lead to clinton". chapter 12,000. verse 9



he already has.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1558218&sid=c1feb6b59951942348223262e103a288#1558218



you already have

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1558218&sid=c1feb6b59951942348223262e103a288#1558218

How does he perceive this backlash to unfold? I can't wait to hear what my punishment will be

heh.... he'll just keep chorusing it along with rush, and so it will soon become the truth.

castanada had it right. perception is everything.

jeeez, i haven't thought about that guy in decades... .