"I mean, if you had any mathematical training, you're talking something on the order of 2,700 people."
If you had any mathematical training you'd know that you can get a representative sample of ANY size population with basically the same number of interviews. A sample size of 400 will give you a margin of error of only +/-4.9% regardless of the size of the population sampled.
Of course, that's not even what Glenn was getting at. All he meant was was there any effort at all to canvas a variety of views.
Jesus. What a snivelling asshole.
Glenn, clearly you scare the shit out of these people. You're doing something right.
Charming.
Thank you for your blog.
Thank you for your work.
I wish you had had an opportunity to ask him what he meant by "substantive question". It seems that he really did not want to talk with you, which makes his emailing you his phone number very very odd.
Wow, I sure am impressed by Mr Cordesman. He's must be a real expert!
I'm convinced. Cordesman is clearly Very Serious.
That's a shocking display of defensiveness from Cordesman. Clearly, at least in the back of his mind, he knows that the trip was arranged and staged by the military. It's ridiculous that he's unwilling to answer any questions about it.
I found this bit interesting:
"If you want to know my opinion on an issue of substance, I'm happy to give it to you. Beyond that, forget it."
He'll give an opinion. You want to get some basic facts to understand more about the basis of that viewpoint? Forget it. You want hard data instead of his predigested opinion? Forget it.
Wow! I'm impressed by Mr. Cordesman's seriousness!
This is so bizarre, because I thought Cordesman was the only one of the three who had come to *pessimistic* conclusions, and was annoyed by Pollock & O'Hanlon's dishonesty. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense, unless O'Hanlon talked to Cordesman and lied about Greenwald… the questions were perfectly substantive.
Oh my gawd, what in the world is he so pissed about? I had always thought
Anthony Cordesman was an accomodating, intelligent, reasonable foreign policy guru.
Well, Glenn, these people just can't manage penetrating questions "of substance", only flimflam "of substance" by the MSM!!!
Thanks for the attempt with him.
Glenn, I read your column daily and have found you to be logical, respectful, and focused on evidence to back up your conclusions. Cordesman is way off the mark in his defensiveness.
You perform an important public service. Keep up the good work!
"You know, I'm perfectly happy to deal with any issues of substance. But I am fed to the teeth with this, with how I compare with Ken and Mike's opinions. If you want to know my opinion on an issue of substance, I'm happy to give it to you. Beyond that, forget it."
From the sounds of this, I think he resents being thought of as a junior partner to O'Hanlon and Pollack.
Not that he would clearly have been able to see what GG was getting at anyway, but I think this undercurrent of resentment made him all the more prickly.
"You know, I'm perfectly happy to deal with any issues of substance. But I am fed to the teeth with this, with how I compare with Ken and Mike's opinions. If you want to know my opinion on an issue of substance, I'm happy to give it to you. Beyond that, forget it."
Dr. Cordesman was not upset that you were getting at the fact that his trip was arranged. He was sick of being asked questions regarding the fact that he was there with Pollack and O'Hanlon and that they had such obviously different opinions (which you would realize, if you read either the Pollack/O'Hanlon op-ed or Cordesman's paper).
Read Anthony Cordesman's "Tenuous Case for Strategic Patience" and agree or disagree with it as you please. But I encourage you to found your opinions about his trip based on the paper, not on this interview.
However, if your political analyses consist of snap judgements, and you don't have the time or attention-span to digest a 22-page report, then go right ahead eating up Mr. Greenwald's lame attempt to sensationalize this interview.
Elizabeth, having read and digested Dr. Cordesman's report, I fail to see its relevance to this 'interview,' and your comment about it. Without a shred of supporting evidence, you characterize Glenn's posting of the conversation transcript as a "lame attempt to sensationalize this interview." You appear to share Dr.
Cordesman's pique; I wonder, what is the source of your anger? Your defense -- that Dr. Cordesman "is sick of being asked questions regarding the fact that he was there with Pollack and O'Hanlon and that they had such obviously different opinions" -- makes no sense in light of Glenn's question (the only one he was barely able to ask), namely, by what method were the Iraqis selected to be interviewed by the analysts? Were they only chosen by the US military, with its vested interest in 'good news,' or were the analysts able to pick some people at random, for comparison?
Frankly, I find Dr. Cordesman's attitude here especially baffling precisely because the tone of his report contrasts rather sharply with that of O'Hanlon's and Pollack' op-ed. Because he typically takes a more measured approach to analysis than they do, he was never a target for Glenn's criticism. His inexplicably snide condescension regarding statistical sample size disingenuously sidesteps Glenn's question completely.
yeah, i'm baffled 2. i thought cordesman would have something 2 say. sounds like he may've been getting a lot o meaningless questions so was 'once bitten, twice shy' many times over.
Commenting by HaloScan
