Actually I don't think anybody thought your original question was incorrect. Asking what people thinking of a retired general is certainly not wrong and has been done many times before. Asking how a particular policy decision would effect small wars doctrine, or even a plank in a candidate campaign would certainly not be wrong. I certainly was interested in hearing from people who had served with Clark.
Bringing up the unrelated highly controversial political "Swift Boat" campaign even by reference from a previous election was punditry by Fuchs.
It could be considered whether intended or not to be disparaging Clark in the same way it was used against Kerry. As Culpepper also noted nobody likes a drive by slam with little content or reason. There is inherent bias in the structure of the sentence whether intended or not and as noted could be considered rhetorical.Originally Posted by Fuchs
I guess my original reaction was to the fact that people had been critical of Clark who had first hand knowledge of him, then Fuchs throws in the implication (intended or not) the current discussion might be the same as the Bush and Kerry 2004 issues. Thereby creating the perception of massive negative political bias by every previous critical poster.
I'm not so arrogant to think that it isn't possible that I over reacted. However, I stand by my reasoning if flawed as my perception of the events. Discussing politics and how they effect the affairs of small wars is important. Engaging in political punditry, feeding the propagandist machinery of politics, prosecuting ideology over reason, and failing to consider the issues even when disagreeing is not a good idea. There are a lot of other places where people can fling BS at each other.
I don't always agree with everybody and I enjoy seeing the perceptions and thoughts Fuchs brings to several of the debates. Heck I get yelled about one-liners too.
Bookmarks