The Bernoulli Effect

yea declaring that you hate chevy chase really went right along with this dumb article.

Look, Ford is a supporter of Bush and Rumsfeld, hmm I wonder why, because he is their forerunner! Of course anyone who is noticed for strongly criticizing Rumsfeld or anybody in the Bush administration is going to in turn be criticized by Bush forerunners (except Reagan, he's dead). Your argument, that we shouldn't listen to these Generals because they are well informed about military issues unlike the average Joe, is crazy. That's like saying we shouldn't give more credence to the words spoken by doctors about a terrible disease than we give to former politicians or the regular guy on the street. Of course their opinions have more weight, it's the field they are knowledgeable about, they are actually military quarterbacks, not armchair quarterbacks, like yourself.

Ford's argument really is: those Generals are bad men (and should be ignored) because they are unpatriotic! They aren't giving 100% support to the current adminsitration, which is what the current administration would have us believe is the definition of patriotism, though it's not.

It's a a ridiculously fallacious argument, that gets repeated over and over and over by supporters of the current administration, and you said (somehow with sincerity), "it's spot on."

Your reading comprehension, of both Ford's words and my own, leaves something to be desired.

Ford said that these generals shouldn't be allowed to dictate whether or not Rumsfeld should be fired. I agree. Ford said exactly fuck-all about patriotism--you're putting your own emotional nonsense into Ford's mouth. I acknowledged that these guys have a lot of military knowledge, and I also said that they don't have a say in whether Rumsfeld stays or not. Since the opinions of military personnel carry so much weigh with you, why don't you commission a poll to see how popular Rumsfeld really is?

Just because those guys were in the military doesn't mean they are right about any military matter that comes along.

Well, former President Ford is dead now, and your rebuttal merely repeats your previously stated mistaken opinions. Although he rarely said much anyway, at least there is one less forerunner for the amdministration to use as a propaganda tool.

Even though you are incapable of detecting inferences it doesn't mean they are not there. In the statement cited, Ford glorified Rumsfeld as some sort of military visionary and then attacked those who are critical of Rumsfeld, relying primarily on the age-old fallacious argument (that it's wrong, aka unpatriotic, to be critical of leadership during war):

"And, today, at a time of war, such an effort sends exactly the wrong message both to our troops deployed abroad and to our enemies who are watching for any signs of weakness or self-doubt."

This is one of the most repeated lies used to keep uncritical thinkers, like yourself, from questioning their leaders during war. I hope you've grown a little wiser in the past six months, but I wouldn't be surprised if you haven't.

And I see your reading comprehension hasn't improved either. Ford says explicitly that he "extremely troubled by the efforts of a group of retired generals to force the resignation of our Defense Secretary." Even to an "uncritical" thinker like myself, it seems obvious that this is the point of his statement. Take a deep breath and read slowly--I'll restate it for you: Ford is upset that these generals, who have no lawful right to make policy or personnel decisions, are demanding that Bush bend to their wishes. Ford goes on to confirm that my view is correct: "It is the President’s decision - and his alone." You don't seem to have addressed the legitimacy of this idea.

You said:

...relying primarily on the age-old fallacious argument (that it's wrong, aka unpatriotic, to be critical of leadership during war):

"And, today, at a time of war, such an effort sends exactly the wrong message both to our troops deployed abroad and to our enemies who are watching for any signs of weakness or self-doubt."

Again, you demonstrate no ability whatsoever to separate your emotions from what's written on the page. Please show me where Ford called these generals "unpatriotic". He did not demand that they be silenced (a la Daniel Pipes at UC Irvine), much less imprisoned. He did say it sends a wrong signal to our enemies. It's amazing how often the psychologically damaged reason-bereft inhabitants of the Left play the "criticism-is-unpatriotic" card. What does patriotic mean anyway? To say those on the Left are patriotic should be to say they embrace the ideas of the Founders: the primacy of the ideas of individual liberty, equality before the law, sanctity of private property rights, absolute freedom of speech (for Daniel Pipes as well as your generals), etc.

You do agree with all of these, don't you? If to you being patriotic means parroting the ideas of Chomsky and Zinn, you better find yourself another word, and another canard.