- Subscribe to this message's RSS Feed
- Mark Thread as New
- Mark Thread as Read
- Float this Thread to the Top
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Printer Friendly Page
Robert McNamara Is Dead
- Mark Message as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to this message's RSS Feed
- Highlight This Message
- Print This Message
- E-mail this Message to a Friend
- Report Abuse to a Moderator
07-06-2009 03:13 PM
Robert S. McNamara, perhaps the most influential defense secretary of the 20th century, who helped lead the nation into the maelstrom of Vietnam and spent the rest of his life wrestling with the war’s moral consequences, died early Monday at his home in Washington, the Associated Press reported, citing his wife, Diana. He was 93, and according to the news agency, had been in failing health for some time.
Rather than talk directly about McNamara, I want to take a moment to plug an outstanding documentary by Errol Morris, called The Fog of War, in which McNamara sits in an empty room, staring into a camera, answering questions posed by Morris. It's one of the most powerful documentaries I've ever seen, at times absolutely heartbreaking, sickening, searching, reprehensible. Like most viewers, I imagine, McNamara spends a portion of the documentary in tears, voice quavering at what he's done.*
It's hard to argue that what McNamara did wouldn't qualify him as a war criminal, and his attempt (sometimes reluctantly) to approach full transparency and a full mea culpa is absolutely engrossing. It's hard to not root for him and empathize with him in parts. At others, anger for him can be overwhelming. Midway through the documentary, McNamara recalls the observation that Curtis LeMay once made, that had the U.S. lost WWII, they'd have been tried as war criminals for their firebombing campaign in Japan. As he tells it, the Philip Glass soundtrack pulses with greater urgency as dozens and dozens of images of destroyed Japanese cities flash on screen with their names and the numbers of dead in each, along with an American city of corresponding population: Detroit, Philadelphia, San Francisco, etc.
And while the full mea culpa never quite comes, McNamara admits the failure to know the intentions of the enemy (in Vietnam: a war for independence over ideology) and the iron mandate for all warring powers to exercise their might proportional to both the threat and the goal. The lessons are immediately resonant for the present day, and if there's one injunction McNamara's commentary issues repeatedly, it is that we have failed to learn these lessons, and we must be accountable for this failure.
Here's a link to the trailer for those curious. Again, I just can't recommend it enough:
___________________
* - Probably the most powerful bit is actually in the DVD extras, where McNamara tries to read the Dylan Thomas poem "The Hand That Signed a Paper Felled a City," where he repeatedly almost breaks down and has to choke out the words:
The hand that signed the paper felled a city;
Five sovereign fingers taxed the breath,
Doubled the globe of dead and halved a country;
These five kings did a king to death.
The poem goes on for a few more verses and can be found here.
Re: Robert McNamara Is Dead
- Mark Message as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to this message's RSS Feed
- Highlight This Message
- Print This Message
- E-mail this Message to a Friend
- Report Abuse to a Moderator
07-07-2009 03:25 AM
Re: Robert McNamara Is Dead
- Mark Message as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to this message's RSS Feed
- Highlight This Message
- Print This Message
- E-mail this Message to a Friend
- Report Abuse to a Moderator
07-08-2009 02:51 AM
Choisya wrote:
Thanks a lot Monty - very informative and somewhat chilling. I guess that Iraq proves that the 'Shock and Awe' of Iraq proves that the lesson was not learned.
Yes, but in the case of the "lessons" per se, we naturally haven't learned them, otherwise they wouldn't be brought up. By that, I mean that the lessons were framed both by Morris and McNamara in such a way as to address the Iraq conflict. If we'd already internalized those lessons and stopped making those mistakes, the lessons wouldn't be very entertaining or compelling. McNamara himself was extremely critical of the US's rationale for war, its evidence and its strategy, so that comes through when he's reflecting on Vietnam, because he's drawing both from his errors and also from errors that he sees as continuing up to the present. There might be an exculpatory impulse at work — "See, people are still doing this, so I can't be all that bad" — but it seems almost too obvious for him to be going for that.
As an aside about the lessons, Morris actually wrote them himself, drawing what he saw as 11 core themes of his talks with McNamara. When he presented them to McNamara, ol' Bob disagreed with their wording, so he came up with his own lessons. If I remember correctly, they are also on the DVD, but you can read them here.
Re: Robert McNamara Is Dead
- Mark Message as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to this message's RSS Feed
- Highlight This Message
- Print This Message
- E-mail this Message to a Friend
- Report Abuse to a Moderator
07-08-2009 09:27 AM
Monty: You may be interested in this Truthout article, 'McNamara's Ghost, by William Rivers Pitt.
Re: Robert McNamara Is Dead
- Mark Message as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to this message's RSS Feed
- Highlight This Message
- Print This Message
- E-mail this Message to a Friend
- Report Abuse to a Moderator
07-09-2009 07:54 AM
Choisya wrote:
Monty: You may be interested in this Truthout article, 'McNamara's Ghost, by William Rivers Pitt.
I hate to invoke the complaints of a former interlocutor of yours on this board, but when Truthout posts opinions, I tend to find it the product of the self-righteous only sometimes invoking the self-evident. (I have no problem with its reprinting actualy articles.) The same goes for HuffPo, which I enjoy reading, but only rarely tends to say something substantive amid its MASSIVE FONT outrage.
The outrage in this article's case draws a comparison between Vietnam and Afghanistan/Iraq. It's a false equivalency, and it's lazy and, frankly, stupid. If the author had settled for Vietnam and Iraq, he'd have been much better off. Good show, for him, run with that: run away, columnist.
Trying to draw an equivalency between Vietnam and Afghanistan is just intellectually lazy and stupid. No Vietnamese, either North or South, ever engineered the deaths of nearly 3,000 Americans. Nor did any Vietnamese cells attempt or accomplish that.
But why let that get in the way of moralizing? This author obviously didn't. He saw a tenuous connection to a recent news event and thought, "I can faintly connect that to the thing I want to be angry about!"
Good for him. He's argumentatively bankrupt and stylistically boring. He doesn't even make being wrong interesting.
Re: Robert McNamara Is Dead
[ Edited ]- Mark Message as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to this message's RSS Feed
- Highlight This Message
- Print This Message
- E-mail this Message to a Friend
- Report Abuse to a Moderator
07-09-2009 11:59 AM - last edited on 07-09-2009 12:45 PM
I hate to invoke the complaints of a former interlocutor of yours on this board, but when Truthout posts opinions, I tend to find it the product of the self-righteous only sometimes invoking the self-evident. (I have no problem with its reprinting actually articles.)
I'll stop posting Truthout stuff altogether then, just to be on the safe side - that will please my 'former interlocutor' if he is lurking. He didn't achieve that in 5 years. I thought that Rivers Pitt was a respected US author and journalist - my mistake. Sorry to have offended your 9/ll sensibilities but I am stupid enough to see an 'equivalency'. Possibly I am 'argumentatively bankrupt and stylistically boring' too.
L_Monty wrote:
Choisya wrote:
Monty: You may be interested in this Truthout article, 'McNamara's Ghost, by William Rivers Pitt.
I hate to invoke the complaints of a former interlocutor of yours on this board, but when Truthout posts opinions, I tend to find it the product of the self-righteous only sometimes invoking the self-evident. (I have no problem with its reprinting actualy articles.) The same goes for HuffPo, which I enjoy reading, but only rarely tends to say something substantive amid its MASSIVE FONT outrage.
The outrage in this article's case draws a comparison between Vietnam and Afghanistan/Iraq. It's a false equivalency, and it's lazy and, frankly, stupid. If the author had settled for Vietnam and Iraq, he'd have been much better off. Good show, for him, run with that: run away, columnist.
Trying to draw an equivalency between Vietnam and Afghanistan is just intellectually lazy and stupid. No Vietnamese, either North or South, ever engineered the deaths of nearly 3,000 Americans. Nor did any Vietnamese cells attempt or accomplish that.
But why let that get in the way of moralizing? This author obviously didn't. He saw a tenuous connection to a recent news event and thought, "I can faintly connect that to the thing I want to be angry about!"
Good for him. He's argumentatively bankrupt and stylistically boring. He doesn't even make being wrong interesting.
Re: Robert McNamara Is Dead
[ Edited ]- Mark Message as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to this message's RSS Feed
- Highlight This Message
- Print This Message
- E-mail this Message to a Friend
- Report Abuse to a Moderator
07-09-2009 06:47 PM - last edited on 07-09-2009 07:14 PM
Choisya wrote:
Sorry to have offended your 9/ll sensibilities
I'm not aware of what a 9/11 sensibility is, but I'm pretty sure I don't have one, other than to say that there is no reasonably analogy between the murder of 3,000 people in an attack on American soil and the gradual adoption of a French anti-insurrectionist imperial war as an extension of domino containment theory. The two generative causes couldn't be more unrelated.
Choisya wrote:
I'll stop posting Truthout stuff altogether then, just to be on the safe side - that will please my 'former interlocutor' if he is lurking. He didn't achieve that in 5 years. I thought that Rivers Pitt was a respected US author and journalist - my mistake. Sorry to have offended your 9/ll sensibilities but I am stupid enough to see an 'equivalency'. Possibly I am 'argumentatively bankrupt and stylistically boring' too.
Of course not! There was nothing personal meant by it in the least. A link isn't you, and if it were, I'd be a lot of really gross things based on the links I've pranked friends by sending to them! And post Truthout away, if you like. Enjoy yourself. My problem with them — a personal one — is that their op-eds tend to be terrible, whereas their aggregated and reprinted articles tend to be much better. As a news aggregator, it's very useful. As a font of opinion, it's often really simplistic.
To wit, Rivers Pitt might well be a respected author and journalist. But if he is, it's not because of writing op-eds like that. There are few if any conceptions of history that can draw an analogy between America's precipitate cause for intervention in Afghanistan and its cause for intervention in Vietnam. Yet he hangs his ire on this broken framework. It's factually flawed, leaving only moral tedium in its wake. It's lazy, it's agonizingly familiar by now, and it sabotages itself via its own arguments.
It reads instead like someone who needed to generate words to exchange them for a paycheck simply scanning the headlines in desperate search for a syllogism. He saw McNamara was dead, said, "Hey, he started a war I disagree with. You know, there are wars going on right now that I don't agree with. They must be the same." The column writes itself after that.
Farrah Fawcett died today. As one of Charlie's Angels, she undertook the hardest and most dangerous missions to make sure we all were safe. In a way, she was the seventies avatar of all our angels — our sons and daughters. But would Bosley have sent the Angels on a mission with bad intelligence? No. And yet that's what we've done to our own angels in Iraq. We've sent them on a dangerous mission with flawed and manufactured intelligence. Perhaps its time to consult a different set of angels to protect our sons and daughters: the better ones of our nature.
I am Rivers Pitt, and I have thought these things.
Run that baby!
Re: Robert McNamara Is Dead
[ Edited ]- Mark Message as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to this message's RSS Feed
- Highlight This Message
- Print This Message
- E-mail this Message to a Friend
- Report Abuse to a Moderator
07-09-2009 06:51 PM - last edited on 07-09-2009 06:55 PM
Karl Malden died today. As an actor, he portrayed WWII general Omar Bradley in Patton and knew what it meant to represent the most honorable and dedicated Americans in service. As a cop in the Streets of San Francisco, he knew what it was to keep his fellow citizens safe. And as a spokesperson for the American Express Card, he knew what it meant to promise ordinary Americans accountability and reliability. Yet what would Karl Malden say about our current misadventure in Iraq? He might say that we weren't keeping his boys safe. He might say that we had no probable cause. Indeed, of a legitimate casus belli, he might say, "Don't leave home without it."
I am Rivers Pitt, and these are all my words.
Re: Robert McNamara Is Dead
- Mark Message as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to this message's RSS Feed
- Highlight This Message
- Print This Message
- E-mail this Message to a Friend
- Report Abuse to a Moderator
07-09-2009 07:04 PM
Michael Jackson died today. As the King of Pop, he had no actual kingdom, but he often felt that he spoke to and for all mankind. I wonder what Michael would say about our commitment to Iraq and Afghanistan right now. I think I can safely say that we were lied into both by a smooth criminal who won't stop until he gets enough. By enough, I mean shady oil profits, footholds in another part of the world, and death. Personally, I think Michael would say that that sort of thing is bad and not in our human nature. And, if we were to be true to our word as Americans, the first thing we'd do is start workin' day and night — to beat it.
I am Rivers Pitt, and I have observed.
Re: Robert McNamara Is Dead
- Mark Message as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to this message's RSS Feed
- Highlight This Message
- Print This Message
- E-mail this Message to a Friend
- Report Abuse to a Moderator
07-10-2009 02:09 AM
Steve McNair died today. The victim of a murder/suicide at the hands of his young, Iranian-American mistress, Sahel Kazemi, McNair's tragic end reflects the threat to those who get into bed with Iran. As an NFL quarterback, the shock and awe of McNair's flashy passing yards and rushing TDs was hampered by nagging injuries and a final season that saw McNair punished by linebackers who had learned to impede his stealth and speed. Despite leading his team to the very goal line of victory in Super Bowl XXXIV McNair's final pass of the game would come up a yard short of a mission accomplished. In his final days, McNair was a weekly victim of punishing sacks, just as our targeted, young military men and women daily fall victim to IEDs in Iraq and Afghanistan.
But, there's a lesson for America from McNair's early days in Tennessee--in relinquishing the OILer, he became a Titan.
Re: Robert McNamara Is Dead
[ Edited ]- Mark Message as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to this message's RSS Feed
- Highlight This Message
- Print This Message
- E-mail this Message to a Friend
- Report Abuse to a Moderator
07-10-2009 02:42 AM - last edited on 07-10-2009 03:57 AM
(Thoughts.) Cannot begin to comment on the sledgehammers cracking nuts via sarcastic wit here. Best not to try. Best to withdraw from the field altogether and leave it to people far more erudite than I. Best to realise that my contributions are not up to the high journalistic standards of this board.
I am Choisya and have been found wanting.
Re: Robert McNamara Is Dead
- Mark Message as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to this message's RSS Feed
- Highlight This Message
- Print This Message
- E-mail this Message to a Friend
- Report Abuse to a Moderator
07-10-2009 04:50 AM
Of course not! There was nothing personal meant by it in the least. A link isn't you, and if it were, I'd be a lot of really gross things based on the links I've pranked friends by sending to them! And post Truthout away, if you like. Enjoy yourself.
Although I am fearful of contradicting an all-powerful Moderator, this is not how your responses have seemed to me. I took the trouble to post another McNamara piece and addressed it to you. You did not have the courtesy to thank me but instead launched into a castigation of the author and indirectly of Truthout, a publication which, as you well know, I alone frequently link to but which you have not formerly criticised. This was, by implication, a criticism of my judgement, further exacerbated by your OTT sarcasm about the author and the article itself, which I had some sympathy with, especially the view that 'the passing of McNamara and the death of all these soldiers belong to the same column, because they are all part of the same, long, sad, blood-soaked story'. Both your OTT posts about this matter have made me feel as big as a pea, lacking in judgement and unworthy to lick your boots, so whether you meant nothing personal, it certainly did not come over that way and you perhaps ought to consider the effects of such misplaced (sledgehammerlike) erudition, which can have the effect of sending someone away with their tail between their legs.
L_Monty wrote:
Choisya wrote:
Sorry to have offended your 9/ll sensibilities
I'm not aware of what a 9/11 sensibility is, but I'm pretty sure I don't have one, other than to say that there is no reasonably analogy between the murder of 3,000 people in an attack on American soil and the gradual adoption of a French anti-insurrectionist imperial war as an extension of domino containment theory. The two generative causes couldn't be more unrelated.
Choisya wrote:
I'll stop posting Truthout stuff altogether then, just to be on the safe side - that will please my 'former interlocutor' if he is lurking. He didn't achieve that in 5 years. I thought that Rivers Pitt was a respected US author and journalist - my mistake. Sorry to have offended your 9/ll sensibilities but I am stupid enough to see an 'equivalency'. Possibly I am 'argumentatively bankrupt and stylistically boring' too.
Of course not! There was nothing personal meant by it in the least. A link isn't you, and if it were, I'd be a lot of really gross things based on the links I've pranked friends by sending to them! And post Truthout away, if you like. Enjoy yourself. My problem with them — a personal one — is that their op-eds tend to be terrible, whereas their aggregated and reprinted articles tend to be much better. As a news aggregator, it's very useful. As a font of opinion, it's often really simplistic.
To wit, Rivers Pitt might well be a respected author and journalist. But if he is, it's not because of writing op-eds like that. There are few if any conceptions of history that can draw an analogy between America's precipitate cause for intervention in Afghanistan and its cause for intervention in Vietnam. Yet he hangs his ire on this broken framework. It's factually flawed, leaving only moral tedium in its wake. It's lazy, it's agonizingly familiar by now, and it sabotages itself via its own arguments.
It reads instead like someone who needed to generate words to exchange them for a paycheck simply scanning the headlines in desperate search for a syllogism. He saw McNamara was dead, said, "Hey, he started a war I disagree with. You know, there are wars going on right now that I don't agree with. They must be the same." The column writes itself after that.Farrah Fawcett died today. As one of Charlie's Angels, she undertook the hardest and most dangerous missions to make sure we all were safe. In a way, she was the seventies avatar of all our angels — our sons and daughters. But would Bosley have sent the Angels on a mission with bad intelligence? No. And yet that's what we've done to our own angels in Iraq. We've sent them on a dangerous mission with flawed and manufactured intelligence. Perhaps its time to consult a different set of angels to protect our sons and daughters: the better ones of our nature.I am Rivers Pitt, and I have thought these things.Run that baby!Message Edited by L_Monty on 07-09-2009 07:14 PM
Re: Robert McNamara Is Dead
- Mark Message as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to this message's RSS Feed
- Highlight This Message
- Print This Message
- E-mail this Message to a Friend
- Report Abuse to a Moderator
07-10-2009 09:10 PM
Choisya, I'm sorry for not thanking you for posting the link, if that's what you expected. In that case, thank you. I'm sorry we disagree about its worth, and I'm sorry if we disagree about the overall worth of Truthout. My overall attitude toward the site doesn't mean that it lacks value, as I've said; nor does it mean enthusiasts for it lack the same. If you'll recall, I was very critical of Everyman's blanket "liberal lies!" criticism for the site, specifically taking him to task for tarring a link you once posted as irresponsible "Truthout liberalism," when in fact they had been reprinting an article from another publication with established and agreed-upon bona fides. If you'll also recall, I was just as critical of that poster's (heh) liberal linkings to a conservative news-aggregator site (an political alternative to Truthout) that suffered similar problems in terms of its commentary (and even famously once linked to an internet hoax and in another instance was reprinting stories from WorldNetDaily, a site that once claimed that Clinton was using Y2K as an excuse to enslave Americans via the UN troops of the New World Order). In short, whatever my feelings about a site you like, I've been more than willing to defend its merits when I felt it should be defended. And even if you don't want to accede to that generous of an interpretation, we can at least concede that I've been equally critical of sites of all political stripe that reprint articles from multiple sources.
As for matters of personal offense, I don't know what to tell you. I've never seen a friend recoil as if wounded because she's said she enjoys Shia Labeouf, and I've said he's one of the most godawful actors of his generation. I've never had to apologize to a stranger who's said, "I enjoy Smash Mouth," when I've replied, "But they suck. So. Much." In each case, that's because we assume that a third party is not either one of us. Now if one of them had said, "My appreciation for this is deeply reflective of who I am as a person," that would be occasion for tiptoeing, as the appreciation is indicated as being inexorably tied to who that person is. However, you never said anything of the sort in this case, instead offering a link presumably without any restrictions on what kind of opinion I could form about it. (And there shouldn't be restrictions of that kind for anyone here. It's almost functionally impossible to have differing opinions on the worth of events or ideas if every poster can lay claim to a personal, emotive connection to third-party topics that assumes any negativity on them is an attack on that poster.)
Now if you want to defend or argue Mr. Pitt's article, fire away. I'm happy to keep going. I'm sorry you didn't find my lampooning his syllogistic structure funny, but that's all I was going for: a funny comment on a person — Mr. Pitt — and his article, and not on any person here. You claim you've been judged and found wanting. I say it's Mr. Pitt's article that's wanting and not you. I've explicitly said this twice. If you want to assume I'm not being truthful, that's fine, and I can't argue you out of that. But if you want to engage in an argument about who is being victimized or attacked, I would suggest that imputing to me an attack I didn't make and then ignoring my specific assertion that I did not make one are two direct aspersions on my character and do significantly more ill than my alleged attack on you via that very indirect method of proxy jokes about an article written by a person you've never met. Basically, I don't feel anyone is being attacked here, but if it's important that we make the discussion about whose feelings are being hurt by criticism (instead of McNamara or Pitt or Afghanistan or Iraq or Vietnam), you are dishing it out as amply as you are allegedly taking it. So it's pretty much a wash. Let's talk about something else.
Re: Robert McNamara Is Dead
- Mark Message as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to this message's RSS Feed
- Highlight This Message
- Print This Message
- E-mail this Message to a Friend
- Report Abuse to a Moderator
07-11-2009 01:01 AM
Let's talk about something else.
Agreed but some other time. I am meeting Jon in London today and am in Italy next week.
L_Monty wrote:Choisya, I'm sorry for not thanking you for posting the link, if that's what you expected. In that case, thank you. I'm sorry we disagree about its worth, and I'm sorry if we disagree about the overall worth of Truthout. My overall attitude toward the site doesn't mean that it lacks value, as I've said; nor does it mean enthusiasts for it lack the same. If you'll recall, I was very critical of Everyman's blanket "liberal lies!" criticism for the site, specifically taking him to task for tarring a link you once posted as irresponsible "Truthout liberalism," when in fact they had been reprinting an article from another publication with established and agreed-upon bona fides. If you'll also recall, I was just as critical of that poster's (heh) liberal linkings to a conservative news-aggregator site (an political alternative to Truthout) that suffered similar problems in terms of its commentary (and even famously once linked to an internet hoax and in another instance was reprinting stories from WorldNetDaily, a site that once claimed that Clinton was using Y2K as an excuse to enslave Americans via the UN troops of the New World Order). In short, whatever my feelings about a site you like, I've been more than willing to defend its merits when I felt it should be defended. And even if you don't want to accede to that generous of an interpretation, we can at least concede that I've been equally critical of sites of all political stripe that reprint articles from multiple sources.
As for matters of personal offense, I don't know what to tell you. I've never seen a friend recoil as if wounded because she's said she enjoys Shia Labeouf, and I've said he's one of the most godawful actors of his generation. I've never had to apologize to a stranger who's said, "I enjoy Smash Mouth," when I've replied, "But they suck. So. Much." In each case, that's because we assume that a third party is not either one of us. Now if one of them had said, "My appreciation for this is deeply reflective of who I am as a person," that would be occasion for tiptoeing, as the appreciation is indicated as being inexorably tied to who that person is. However, you never said anything of the sort in this case, instead offering a link presumably without any restrictions on what kind of opinion I could form about it. (And there shouldn't be restrictions of that kind for anyone here. It's almost functionally impossible to have differing opinions on the worth of events or ideas if every poster can lay claim to a personal, emotive connection to third-party topics that assumes any negativity on them is an attack on that poster.)
Now if you want to defend or argue Mr. Pitt's article, fire away. I'm happy to keep going. I'm sorry you didn't find my lampooning his syllogistic structure funny, but that's all I was going for: a funny comment on a person — Mr. Pitt — and his article, and not on any person here. You claim you've been judged and found wanting. I say it's Mr. Pitt's article that's wanting and not you. I've explicitly said this twice. If you want to assume I'm not being truthful, that's fine, and I can't argue you out of that. But if you want to engage in an argument about who is being victimized or attacked, I would suggest that imputing to me an attack I didn't make and then ignoring my specific assertion that I did not make one are two direct aspersions on my character and do significantly more ill than my alleged attack on you via that very indirect method of proxy jokes about an article written by a person you've never met. Basically, I don't feel anyone is being attacked here, but if it's important that we make the discussion about whose feelings are being hurt by criticism (instead of McNamara or Pitt or Afghanistan or Iraq or Vietnam), you are dishing it out as amply as you are allegedly taking it. So it's pretty much a wash. Let's talk about something else.
Re: Robert McNamara Is Dead
- Mark Message as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to this message's RSS Feed
- Highlight This Message
- Print This Message
- E-mail this Message to a Friend
- Report Abuse to a Moderator
07-11-2009 04:12 AM
Choisya wrote:
Agreed but some other time.
Let us celebrate our understanding with the adding of chocolate to milk.
I am meeting Jon in London today
Oh, have fun! He told me he might meet up with you. I'm not sure what that'd be like in person, but I'm sure the photo I've seen of Jon would be of no help. As far as I can tell, he's a slender person who lives in a world of black and white atop an elevated train track that appears to be an album cover for someone who writes half-country/half-blues music. Not very helpful, is it?
and am in Italy next week.
Wow! If you have time to answer, where? If not, osmotically feel the best wishes for your trip being sent out from this post.
Re: Robert McNamara Is Dead
- Mark Message as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to this message's RSS Feed
- Highlight This Message
- Print This Message
- E-mail this Message to a Friend
- Report Abuse to a Moderator
07-11-2009 10:50 AM
Choisya wrote:Let's talk about something else.
Agreed but some other time. I am meeting Jon in London today and am in Italy next week.
http://wordsmithonia.blogspot.com
Re: Robert McNamara Is Dead
[ Edited ]- Mark Message as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to this message's RSS Feed
- Highlight This Message
- Print This Message
- E-mail this Message to a Friend
- Report Abuse to a Moderator
07-12-2009 08:20 AM - last edited on 07-12-2009 08:28 AM
Wow! If you have time to answer, where? If not, osmotically feel the best wishes for your trip being sent out from this post.
Thanks. I am in Florence, staying here, when I am not out and about visiting gardens and art galleries.
The meeting with Jon and his beautiful girl friend went very well indeed, although he looked much younger than his telephone voice!
I am switching off the computer now because my screen has gone ominously pink!
L_Monty wrote:
Choisya wrote:
Agreed but some other time.
Let us celebrate our understanding with the adding of chocolate to milk.
I am meeting Jon in London today
Oh, have fun! He told me he might meet up with you. I'm not sure what that'd be like in person, but I'm sure the photo I've seen of Jon would be of no help. As far as I can tell, he's a slender person who lives in a world of black and white atop an elevated train track that appears to be an album cover for someone who writes half-country/half-blues music. Not very helpful, is it?
and am in Italy next week.
Wow! If you have time to answer, where? If not, osmotically feel the best wishes for your trip being sent out from this post.