Why the Public incorrectly evaluates candidates

[MorkandMindy]

It is that over-used factor called 'viewpoint'.

A professional politician has a hundred times as much time to go over the reasons for and expected results of an action than the public has.

So the public accepts that nasty things that happened were just oversights, 'oops I just made a mistake' because with the level of knowledge and attention we pay to the decision we could easily have made the same 'mistake'.


I recall that the public accepted that maybe G W Bush or even crazier, the CIA had just gotten a bit confused between Iran and Iraq.

The CIA has different researchers and specialists handling Iran from Iraq, the present and the histories of the countries are very different, and many things relating to Iran are called 'Persian'. Professionals confuse the two about as often as you mistake yourself for your wife.

G W Bush would not have made that mistake either. He lacked decades of experience and in his first term the more experienced people like Rumsfeld and Cheney, who also would not have made that mistake, made the big decisions.

G W Bush was a dummy, had only two Ivy League degrees, the first from Yale then one from Harvard, so he was a dummy only by the standards of a top German politician, a total genius compared with the rest of us.

 

[MorkandMindy]

The immediate relevance is to the Clinton candidacy.

There is clear evidence that she is a psychopath. Her supporters ignore it claiming that she just made one simple mistake, strongly arguing the case for destroying Iraq for 5 years against the mainstream Democrats.

And then another mistake anyone could have made of destroying the Libyan state. Maybe she got it confused with Liberia or Lithuania. You can't blame someone for making an honest mistake.

And she has a PR team to work out how best to 'explain' the things she has done.

 

[variant]

The immediate relevance is to the Clinton candidacy.

There is clear evidence that she is a psychopath.

I think you've got some throwing rocks in glass houses problems with diagnosing others with psychological issues.

And then another mistake anyone could have made of destroying the Libyan state. Maybe she got it confused with Liberia or Lithuania. You can't blame someone for making an honest mistake.

I'm not sure you understand what the secretary of states job is.

 

[7trees]

The immediate relevance is to the Clinton candidacy.

There is clear evidence that she is a psychopath. Her supporters ignore it claiming that she just made one simple mistake, strongly arguing the case for destroying Iraq for 5 years against the mainstream Democrats.

And then another mistake anyone could have made of destroying the Libyan state. Maybe she got it confused with Liberia or Lithuania. You can't blame someone for making an honest mistake.

And she has a PR team to work out how best to 'explain' the things she has done.

Are you saying these 'mistakes' are really policies for destabilizing other nations? That is, is the rise in radical Islam that came out of these mistakes a secret policy of the elite? Perhaps to justify building a totalitarian police state in the USA in the name of 'freedom'?

 

[MorkandMindy]

Have you read the Project for a New American Century? The actions advocated in that document included destroying and dividing into three parts Iraq, and destroying Libya. It came out in 2001 and is a neocon work so Hillary will be familiar with it.

Passing off those actions as 'mistakes' is therefore a deception.

Similarly the careful planning, a huge database of information relevant to each part of Iraq

and then the 'oops we forgot to make an exit strategy'.

 

[variant]

Have you read the Project for a New American Century? The actions advocated in that document included destroying and dividing into three parts Iraq, and destroying Libya. It came out in 2001 and is a neocon work so Hillary will be familiar with it.

Passing off those actions as 'mistakes' is therefore a deception.

Similarly the careful planning, a huge database of information relevant to each part of Iraq

and then the 'oops we forgot to make an exit strategy'.

So, Hillary Clinton is to blame for PNAC's destruction of Iraq and Libya?

Hmmmmmm....

 

[MorkandMindy]

Are you saying these 'mistakes' are really policies for destabilizing other nations? That is, is the rise in radical Islam that came out of these mistakes a secret policy of the elite? ...

No, it has taken a generation to produce those terrorists, and yes people have wondered why the US tolerates Saudi Arabia while it does that and why they are one of our best allies in the region.

But now the jobs we started, bombing Iraq and Libya, they are in finishing the job, so it was worth it.

 

[variant]

No, it has taken a generation to produce those terrorists, and yes people have wondered why the US tolerates Saudi Arabia while it does that and why they are one of our best allies in the region.

But now the jobs we started, bombing Iraq and Libya, they are in finishing the job, so it was worth it.

See when you explain things you have to actually draw A to B to C lines so that other people don't have to go through the same leaps of logic you have.

 

[MorkandMindy]

See when you explain things you have to actually draw A to B to C lines so that other people don't have to go through the same leaps of logic you have.

Yes, you are right.

Unfortunately my bed time is near and in the middle of doing the first post, well I posted it then tried to edit it, my internet disappeared for 25 minutes which often happens when I post about something political, so it came out even worse as a result.

Thanks for the feedback, gotta go.

cheers, Mork

 

[variant]

Yes, you are right.

Unfortunately my bed time is near and in the middle of doing the first post, well I posted it then tried to edit it, my internet disappeared for 25 minutes which often happens when I post about something political, so it came out even worse as a result.

Thanks for the feedback, gotta go.

cheers, Mork

Apologies then.

 

[RDKirk]

It is that over-used factor called 'viewpoint'.

A professional politician has a hundred times as much time to go over the reasons for and expected results of an action than the public has.

So the public accepts that nasty things that happened were just oversights, 'oops I just made a mistake' because with the level of knowledge and attention we pay to the decision we could easily have made the same 'mistake'.

And so why are Trump surrogates and sympathizers always having to rationalize "What Donald meant to say" every time he opens his mouth and says something irrational?

I recall that the public accepted that maybe G W Bush or even crazier, the CIA had just gotten a bit confused between Iran and Iraq.

The CIA has different researchers and specialists handling Iran from Iraq, the present and the histories of the countries are very different, and many things relating to Iran are called 'Persian'. Professionals confuse the two about as often as you mistake yourself for your wife.

Yes, and those professionals accurately predicted what would happen in Iraq if Saddam was removed. While I was on the Joint Staff J2 during the late 80s to early 90s (including the Gulf War), I read three different classified "Iraq after Saddam" analyses from both the CIA and the DIA that predicted the chaos that actually happened.

G W Bush would not have made that mistake either. He lacked decades of experience and in his first term the more experienced people like Rumsfeld and Cheney, who also would not have made that mistake, made the big decisions.

Bush only knew what he was briefed, and all the briefings had to go through Rumsfeld and Cheney. From what I have heard, Cheney personally went to Langley to twist CIA arms until they gave him what he wanted to fit his political agenda. Rumsfeld did the same thing at DIA. Actually, Rumsfeld actually took the DIA professionals out of the picture and created a separate hand-chosen group of amateurs to give him what he wanted or, as he put it, "To find what the others have missed."

The Director of DIA at the time of the Iraq invasion, Admiral Lowell Jacoby, had been my boss in the mid 90s, an astoundingly bright man. When he was called to testify before the Senate in 2003, he was asked, "What evidence did you have that Iraq posessed stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction?" He answered directly: "Senator, we had no reliable evidence."

What Cheney and Rumsfeld allowed the president to hear was not what the experts at CIA and DIA knew to be true.

 

[RDKirk]

Have you read the Project for a New American Century? The actions advocated in that document included destroying and dividing into three parts Iraq, and destroying Libya. It came out in 2001 and is a neocon work so Hillary will be familiar with it.

Passing off those actions as 'mistakes' is therefore a deception.

Similarly the careful planning, a huge database of information relevant to each part of Iraq

and then the 'oops we forgot to make an exit strategy'.

Cheney and Rumsfeld were leaders of Project for a New American Century.

Clinton was not a member.

 

[variant]

Sorry I read the previous post incorrectly.

Re-edit:

Cheney we can say knew exactly what would happen in Iraq because he said so:

But I don't know what this has to do with secretary Clinton...

 

[7trees]

While I was on the Joint Staff J2 during the late 80s to early 90s (including the Gulf War), I read three different classified "Iraq after Saddam" analyses from both the CIA and the DIA that predicted the chaos that actually happened....

You have firsthand and accurate information- What will that do to those who think only 'conspiracy crazies' think as you do?

Thank you for the informed and honest information.

 

[tickingclocker]

No, it has taken a generation to produce those terrorists, and yes people have wondered why the US tolerates Saudi Arabia while it does that and why they are one of our best allies in the region.

But now the jobs we started, bombing Iraq and Libya, they are in finishing the job, so it was worth it.

No, we don't wonder. We know. Oil. They had it when we needed it, and they stood against OPEC to keep it to a tolerable level for us when everyone else was paying the equivalent of $10 per liter. Businessmen like to keep their largest customers happy and coming back for more. Especially when they knew we could have bombed the smithereens out of them, waltzed in, and taken their oil and their country from them within a week. In other words, they knew which side their bread was buttered on. They didn't like Sadaam's butter. Ours was a bit more palatable.

That is why SA are our allies. What would they have done if we turned up our noses at their commodity? Flooded the world with cheap oil, desperate to sell it to... someone. Their sheikhs would still be living in tents today, instead of ornate palaces if it weren't for our craving for oil, and their craving for our money.

How many sons did their King have? Dozens. Osama Bin Laden was just one out of dozens who turned on his family's wealth first, then on the world.

 

[redleghunter]

The immediate relevance is to the Clinton candidacy.

There is clear evidence that she is a psychopath. Her supporters ignore it claiming that she just made one simple mistake, strongly arguing the case for destroying Iraq for 5 years against the mainstream Democrats.

And then another mistake anyone could have made of destroying the Libyan state. Maybe she got it confused with Liberia or Lithuania. You can't blame someone for making an honest mistake.

And she has a PR team to work out how best to 'explain' the things she has done.

You are barking up the correct tree IMO.


As an aside.....I had three encounters with CIA operatives in three different deployments to Iraq. All three were puzzling. All three were counterproductive. Two of three I was able to stop the madness the inept operators were heck bent on making happen. Yes they can be very stupid. Or did they truly know what they were doing? Either way what they were trying to do in two cases was just plain stupid and would have got Americans and innocent Iraqis killed.

 

[Nithavela]

There is clear evidence that she is a psychopath.

Clearly.

 

[Armoured]

The immediate relevance is to the Clinton candidacy.

There is clear evidence that she is a psychopath.

...Such as...?

Further, do you have any idea how common psychopathy is? Being a psychopath is not a negative trait, per se.

 

[Armoured]

You have firsthand and accurate information- What will that do to those who think only 'conspiracy crazies' think as you do?

Thank you for the informed and honest information.

He doesn't mean Obama causing ISIS.

 

[7trees]

He doesn't mean Obama causing ISIS.

It's up to him to say what he means not you to use it for your ego games- or to insinuate I don't understand him. I have noticed that you like to denigrate.
Cheap debating tricks are good for atheists but why not follow the example of a Catholic saint like Hildegarde of Bingen? Or is your Catholicism only on the surface?