Only a General can beat Bush, therefore he must be supported

[chadm]

Here's an excellent piece from indymedia that exposes this fallacy:

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/09/271974.shtml

"The Michael Moore argument then becomes this; only Wesley Clark, because he is a "GENERAL", can (supposedly) beat Bush therefore he must be supported. In other words the peace movement must vote for a Bush clone because only the Bush clone can beat Bush... It will be very interesting to see which sectors of the peace movement will fall behind this shameful policy."

So, let me get this straight, peace-lovers are supposed to vote for a war-monger to have peace...or is it to have less war?

I'm beginning to think that most people on this board are fine with death and destruction as long as the stock market is doing ok.

[tjdee]

1. Are all military men warmongers?

Yeah, the American people are going to buy that.

:eyes:

And Wesley Clark is a warmonger even though he *does not* think we should have gone to war with Iraq--because he has fought for the country.

Amazing, the things I learn on DU.

[dfong63]

3. it makes as much sense as Moore's argument

... that we need a general to insure us against being "Dukakisized".

if Moore's right, then we might as well make West Point a prerequisite for being president. fooey on that. Clark is no more qualified to be president than Arnie is to be governor.

[tjdee]

10. Well,

I'm just saying that Clark is not a warmonger just because he was in the military, and that all military men are not warmongers.

In fact, a charge like that doesn't even address the issue of can he beat Bush or not, which is the point of the article he/she linked to.

[Bake]

11. Oh really?

"Clark is no more qualified to be president than Arnie is to be governor."

Let's see... a Rhodes scholar, economist, four-star general and Supreme Commander of NATO forces ... decorated veteran who has devoted pretty much his entire life to service of his country ...

is no more qualified than an lousy actor and former bodybuilder... whose idea of discussion of the issues is "a pump is better than coming" and "I'll Be Baaaaaack"???

That's just about the stupidest thing I've heard in GD today. And that's saying a LOT.

Bake

[IranianDemocrat]

15. WORST. POST. EVER.

eom

[Classical_Liberal]

17. Quote Moore saying this please or shutup.

Moore just said he supported his candidacy. I didn't see him say anything about Clark being the only one that can beat Bush. Moore also said he wasn't sure he would vote for Clark. He said he like Kucinich and Dean. The person who wrote this article was also being dishonest.

[FlashHarry]

24. Absolutely untrue.

Clark has a shitload of foreign policy experience. He's got a Masters degree in philosopy and economics from Oxford. I'd say he's got a helluva lot more experience than Arnold.

[Classical_Liberal]

26. It's also not true that Moore even made that claim

.

[bigendian]

2. Boy, that essay sure changed my mind!

It seems the "echo chamber" is working at both ends of the political spectrum.
Each link in the essay linked to the same source. What a clusterf**K!

-on edit-

"circlejerk" is a better description.

[dfong63]

6. you're mistaken

Each link in the essay linked to the same source. What a clusterf**K!

there were many links in that article, and they did NOT all point to the same source. the cited sources were other articles on indymedia, fair, zmagazine, and others. check your facts before calling something a "clusterf**k".

[ShimokitaJer]

4. Better a military dove than a chicken hawk

It has overwhelmingly been those without military experience who have been the quickest to call for war, not merely in this administration, but in the past as well. Those with actual military experience understand the consequences of going to war far better than the likes of Bush and Cheney.

I disagree totally with the idea that only a general can beat Bush, but characterizing all military as warmongers is the kind of talk that makes it REALLY easy for the pundits to accuse Dems of not supporting our troops.

[chadm]

8. You have a point

But military personel are trained killers...which is fine in self defense, but when was the last time our military was used in self-defense?

[disgruntella]

5. interesting article

However, I don't think the author of it wants any of the Democratic presidential candidates to win. Sorry, but I can't hitch my wagon to that in 2004.

[Pastiche423]

7. I agree

w/your statement, "I'm beginning to think that most people on this board are fine with death and destruction as long as the stock market is doing ok."

It is very upsetting to me, that some of the same people that were here at DU one year ago, have forgotten what we were protesting and why.

But then, that's me. I am against the needless slaughter of human beings.

clark is anti-war, my ass!

[Cheswick2.0]

9. Michael Moore is an idiot, always has been

He makes good movies but he has no political judgement at all. He should shut up and go make movies with messages.

[ComerPerro]

12. Its not that only a general can beat Bush

Its just that it would be very easy for a General to beat Bush. Beat him like a rented mule.

I don't care who the candidate is, as long as they hammer Bush and ask him why he pretends to be a war hero despite his horrid service record.

Of course, this is assuming that there are actually debates.

[fishnfla]

13. If we're gonna have a war on terrorism

rather have a general in charge than a chimp

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

14. I think that is a horrible indictment of people on this board who were for

the most part against the war.

I also think that while Indymedia plays a valuable role, there will be no candidate pure enough for them and they will ultimately undermine any Dem candidate thus leading to a Bush victory and thus leading to more war.

[Terwilliger]

18. now you sound like Ashcroft

"If you criticize the president, you're helping the terrorists"

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

30. and you sound like ann Coulter making up shit I never said

see how it goes when we base our opinions on how it sounds versus what was actually said?

[Pastiche423]

23. How can it be a horrible indictment of people on this board who were for

the most part against the war when some of those same people here are supporting a mystery military "war hero"?

When I protested the war, every Saturday from Ocotber 10, 2002 until March 15, 2003 (w/the exception of two Saturdays) I meant it! I certainly did not do it for my health.

Now some of those same people are not only supporting a mystery military "war hero", but are stating that's the man we need to lead our country???

Please explain to me that thought process.

[Classical_Liberal]

25. Clark was against the war!

Most of the people who protested aren't pacifist. They thought Iraq was an unjust war because the Iraqies weren't involved in Al Qaeda and posed no threat to the US. However the original premise of the article is based on the lie that Moore said Clark was the only one who can beat Bush. There are supporters of Clark who believe this and have stated it but Moore didn't use those words or anything like them.

[Pastiche423]

27. clark was against

HOW the war was executed. He is not anti-war!

Some of the real anti-Iraq war people really need to adjust their bullshit meters.

[IranianDemocrat]

31. You're a liar and I caught you!

"The issue to me has been that we have known for a long time that Osama bin Laden is a problem. The difficulty was always to mobilize the American people and bring enough comprehensive pressure to bear to do something against terrorism. Well, 9-11 did that. But the administration has squandered a lot of the international goodwill that came our way after the attacks and is now squandering our domestic energy by forcing us into Iraq."

This shows he is clearly against the WHOLE war.

[Classical_Liberal]

32. He is against the Iraq War

not just how it was executed. If they aren't a threat, and not involved in Al Qaeda why would we make war on them at all.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

29. Actually many Clark supporters on DU are relatively new posters

and were not on the board then. I know you and I are not 100% in agreement about pacifism and I have not decided who will get my vote yet.

To be sure, I am NOT completely enrolled in Clark yet but I honestly think that a General that understands all the aspects of war is far less likely to commit troops in CREATING instability globally than an opportunistic oil baron.

[Sterling]

33. Me too and Clarks cheerleading on MSNBC turned off anti war people

How can you be against the war and then compliment the technique of the military invasion. I know that was the last thing on my mind when the bombs started dropping but Clark was like a proud football fan when he discussed the invasion on MSNBC.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

34. It's Very Easy, All It Takes Is Some Objectivity

You can say Rommel was a brilliant general without endorsing Nazi Germany. You can say Pearl Harbor was an effective tactical strike without supporting Imperial Japan. You can say American troops rolled up opposing Iraqi forces with shockingly dominating power without favoring the invasion.

Military analysts, of course, do this all of the time.

DTH

[Terwilliger]

16. I feel your cynicism

and embrace it

[Classical_Liberal]

19. Cynicism should be based on facts though

Quote Moore saying " Only a General can win.

[Terwilliger]

20. I hope he didn't

I certainly don't agree. I was very surprised to hear Moore give Clark kudos.

[Classical_Liberal]

22. He didn't say it.

. He did compliment Clark. Or is that like helping the terrorists? Here is the article. There was clearly no argument that Clark was the only one who caould beat Bush.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/index.php?messageDate=2003-09-12

[Starpass]

21. two points

1. It's such idiocy to fall for this "military officers" are blood sucking vampires itching for war. We have a three star in the family and it's far from the truth. In fact, it's a matter of practicality---they don't want war because then THEY have to perform and do things right. If they fuck up, boom, there goes the career!!! In fact it was the military that kept fighting with Bush and Rummy about this friggin stupid Iraq invasion and how stupid they were in not thinking rationally and reasonably. Remember, one guy who pushed as much as he could to get some common sense into these idiots was Powell...until they stuffed him.

2. I have a hard time falling in line behind someone who is so "liberal" that he seals his papers away so that his followers don't get a sent of what he is really about. That's the one who will be Bush III. His little "fiscal conservatism" comes from beating the "social liberalism" right out of your hides. He appeals to an internet brigade and the wings that vote in primaries. He has no appeal to the general public.

[Rowdyboy]

28. Sure stirs up a lot of people here...

Remains to be seen how the country will feel about a plain spoken, brilliantly educated, economic professor/Commanding General. How well does that compare a group including a small state governor, 2 representatives, 4 senators, an ex-senator and a preacher/activist? I don't know for sure. I know, however, that I, for one, consider his entrance to be the highpoint of the campaign so far and the first truly good news.