Does experience count?
 

This, from nationally syndicated columnist Georgie Anne Geyer, who revealed not long ago that she had considered Donald Rumsfeld a friend--until the Iraq war. (Chicago Tribune, July 9, 2004).

"When this unusual Republican administration was struggling to come to power four years ago, one of the major pluses for the electorate, surely for me, was that this group had more Washington and international experience than virtually any new administration in history: Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell. Among them and others, they supposedly knew the world like the back of their hands and would deal with it with expertise, sophistication and elan.

As it turned out, none of these men could even read a page in the Encyclopaedia Brittanica that might have alerted them to how Iraqis have behaved throughout history; they couldn't figure out where those much touted weapons of mass destruction were, or weren't, and their vast 'experience,' undiluted by modesty and inflamed with hubris, did not lend them any parlor manners with other governments in the world nor facility in husbanding the nation's resources in order to lead the world."

Already, the Republicans are questioning John Edwards experience, or lack thereof.

Geyer's thoughts might be a good point of departure for a discussion on the value of experience.

Joe B.

Re: Does experience count?
 

Shallow definition of friendship.

The author confuses friendship with friendly acquaintenceship. Or she has shallow relationships with others and has never had true friends. True in the complete sense of the word. In either case, fidelity and courage are not her strongest attribute, for a friend.

Bot

Posted by Botnst: The author confuses friendship with friendly acquaintenceship. Or she has shallow relationships with others and has never had true friends. True in the complete sense of the word. In either case, fidelity and courage are not her strongest attribute, for a friend.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually, I think it was Rummy who dumped her as a friend, after something negative she had written about the Iraq war. At least, that's the impression I got after reading the column in which she mentioned this. So all that bad stuff you said about her sense of friendship probably applies to the Rum Man. So I think it is that fidelity and courage are not HIS strongest attributes, for a friend.

Joe B.

I realize in my original post that I may not have made that clear.

Joe B.

Neither of us is certain, now.

Bot

Posted by Botnst: Neither of us is certain, now.

Bot

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

True. And unless we have Rummy's and Georgie's phone numbers, and can arrange a conference call, we can't be sure. But I read her column, and I have expressed the impression it gave me.

Joe B.

And we have learned,...what?

Posted by Botnst: And we have learned,...what?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The issue of the Rummy/Geyer friendship was only a sidebar to my original post, as I think you must know.

I was far more interested in seeing people's reactions to what she said--that is, her assessment of how experience does, or does not, really matter.

I only mentioned the friendship thing to give the forum an idea that this woman was, at one time, a friend of Rumsfeld's, a relationship that might demonstrate that she was not, nor is now, any sort of ideological zealot, so folks might be able to judge where she was coming from--at least to some degree.

Joe B.

I understand your post and believe you to be honestly portraying it.

What I learned from it was that she either was a false friend and thus, betrayal of her friendship meant little to her.

Or she was never more than a friendly acquaintance and abuses us, her readers, with a false pretense of true friendship.

In either case, her opinion suffers to the degree that she claims any friendship with somebody whom she then disparages.

Bot

Posted by Botnst: What I learned from it was that she either was a false friend and thus, betrayal of her friendship meant little to her.

Or she was never more than a friendly acquaintance and abuses us, her readers, with a false pretense of true friendship.

In either case, her opinion suffers to the degree that she claims any friendship with somebody whom she then disparages.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another false either/or. As a professional, she has every right to call em as she sees em. If Rumsfeld cannot handle her criticism of how he conducts his office, then he isn't much of a friend. It's the old love the sinner, hate his sin idea.

From my point of view, friends ought to be able to disagree, and still be friends. My circle of friends includes a pretty wide range, and I do not detect a reluctance to express disagreement among them. Sounds like it's much different with you.

Joe B.

Posted by Botnst: In either case, her opinion suffers to the degree that she claims any friendship with somebody whom she then disparages.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

She didn't disparage him, just what he did.

Joe B.

Posted by Botnst: Good point and makes a difference, but does not change my opinion of her, nor the degree to which I discount the opinion of a false pretense used as a tool of argumentation.

Bot

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, because she has revealed to her readers (in a previous column), that she once considered Rumsfeld a friend, but that the friendship did not survive her comments about the Iraq war, you find her opinions less worthy?

I just don't see it. In my mind, her opinions ought to be just as worthy of scrutiny as anyone else's. They stand, or do not stand, on the merits.

Most curious is how Rumsfeld escapes your judgment entirely. The fact that he let her stated negative opinions about something he did get in the way of friendship does not result in the same judgment you gave her.

Joe B.

To use friendship with a third party as a device to make an argument, It cheapens and demeans both the relationship and the writer.

Ever read the scandal when V.P. Thomas Jefferson demeaned President Washington to his correspondents? Recall at that time the Prez and Veep were the first and second vote getter, not a paired-ticket. The Veep disagreed with the Prez and impugned Washington's mental abilities. What was gained by Jefferson that could not be gained by honorable means and reasoned argument? If honor and reason are inadequate, why pursue a goal for which these attributes are insufficient.

In the end, Washington got a personal denial from Jefferson that any such letter existed (not knowing that Washington had it) and further, that he (Jefferson did not believe that. Washington accepted that and never revealed the letter or its source to Jefferson.

Joe,

Maybe if you delete the entire thread and start over without the reference to friendship, you can get the discussion going on the subject you intended.

I am actually in awe of Bush calling out Edwards on experience. It is like the argument over Kerry's Vietnam experience and Bush being AWOL for his National Guard Duty, and having anyone do anything but laugh at it.

If Cheney called him out on experience the discussion might seem less ludicrous. But Bush? And the response that Cheney could be President. Was that a Freudian slip? Jim

Based on the title of the thread, neither was it the intended topic of discussion. Jim

Oh. You really do believe that freindship is not an experience?

Cool. On that observation, I concede your point and will now drop it all.

Bot

In the context of how friendship was being discussed it has nothing to do with experience to qualify someone to be Vice President. Jim

Posted by JimSmith: Based on the title of the thread, neither was it the intended topic of discussion. Jim

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is so obviously true. It reminds me of the Paris peace talks--all that time wasted arguing about the size and shape of the table.

If Bot wants to apply a different standard of friendship to Georgie Anne Geyer than he does to Donald Rumsfeld, it doesn't mean s**t to a tree, as a friend of mine used to say. And of course, it has zippo to do with the issue of experience for high office, which was the discussion I had in mind when I posted it.

Joe B.

We'll thought I'd drop back in, same story, *****ing about the *****er. See ya

Non sequitor alert!!!

I never said anything about Rummy, I was talking about the author.

Talk about not meaning $hit to a tree....

Bot

Posted by Botnst: I never said anything about Rummy, I was talking about the author.

Talk about not meaning $hit to a tree....

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, that's the point, isn't it? You never said anything about Rummy because he's on your protected species list. You decided to take the incidental part of the original post, amplify it way beyond its importance, and judge one person in the friendship as corrupt, while ignoring the other.

Joe B.

That's because only one of them has apparently betrayed the friendship of the other in public, to make an editorial point, to sell newspapers.

Aside from that, what's the big deal.

Protected species my a$$. I'll go after policy if you want to, I love criticizing that. When I say criticize, I mean in the analytic, not polemic sense. Polemics are okay I guess but its kind of unsurprising, uneducating, unpleasant and therefore, boring.

But the Cult of Hate crap is just too weird.

Bot

Posted by Botnst: That's because only one of them has apparently betrayed the friendship of the other in public, to make an editorial point, to sell newspapers.

Aside from that, what's the big deal.

Protected species my a$$. I'll go after policy if you want to, I love criticizing that. When I say criticize, I mean in the analytic, not polemic sense. Polemics are okay I guess but its kind of unsurprising, uneducating, unpleasant and therefore, boring.

But the Cult of Hate crap is just too weird.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To criticize the work of a goverment official, when that is your job as a journalist, is not betraying a friendship. For you to assume Geyer's work is "polemical," not "analytical," is quite a leap. You've offered no evidence that you've actually read it.

Oh wait, you're the guy who can judge a movie without actually seeing it. That, I suppose, was your version of "analytical."

Joe B.

WTF should I offer you evidence of anything?

get real.

Did whatsername write the piece or Rummy?

Did she get paid or Rummy?

Did she claim friendship or Rummy.

Clown.

Bot

Posted by Botnst: WTF should I offer you evidence of anything?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You're right--why start now? Your version of analysis requires no evidence.

Joe B.

The discussion started nice and friendly and devolves in the usual pattern.



B

Posted by Botnst: The discussion started nice and friendly and devolves in the usual pattern.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And your part in all that was?

Joe B.

Follow the posts and see for yourself. I mad remarks about the author, you took exception. No big deal and I enjoy that give and take.

Then you give it this, " Oh wait, you're the guy who can judge a movie without actually seeing it. That, I suppose, was your version of "analytical."

And here we are, Joe. As usual.

Bot

The chain of your logic seems to suggest that one should a get an A in an English class for writing a review of a movie one has never seen. I'm giving you an "F".

Posted by Botnst: Follow the posts and see for yourself. I mad remarks about the author, you took exception. No big deal and I enjoy that give and take.

Then you give it this, " Oh wait, you're the guy who can judge a movie without actually seeing it. That, I suppose, was your version of "analytical."

And here we are, Joe. As usual.

Bot

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My remark was in keeping with something that you repeatedly affirmed on the Michael Moore thread. That bed was made by you; now you think it's a low blow when you're made to lie in it.

Joe B.

I'll weep and survive the acute dissapointment of not following WETF it is you mean.