I really thought that back in 2002, Christopher Hitchens had effectively put the whole chickenhawk meme to bed. But the argument, if you can call it that, still exists in various forms.
One of the funnier variations (and yes- something can be insulting and stupid and still be funny- you have heard of SNL) is Operation Yellow Elephant. Now, mind you, I find the whole Operation Yellow Elephant thing a bit amusing myself, because, quite honestly, it is pretty damned funny that John Amato tried to put a recruiting advertisement in a College Republican publication and they refused because it was ‘too negative.’
Any way you slice it, that is worth a giggle. Reminds me of the kind of stuff Michael Moore did when he was still moderately amusing. It reminds me of the kind of stuff Evan Coyne Maloney is still doing. And, quite honestly, I dont think it would hurt a bit if more of the future leaders of the RepublicanParty and the country (presumably) had some military experience. But other than fun litle games like Operation Yellow Elephant, the whole ‘chickenhawk’ meme is a pretty nasty little piece of, well, nastiness. Hitchens, to his credit, takes it on another variation of the meme:
Oh, Jesus, another barrage of emotional tripe about sons. From every quarter, one hears that the willingness to donate a male child is the only test of integrity. It’s as if some primitive Spartan or Roman ritual had been reconstituted, though this time without the patriotism or the physical bravery. Worse, it has a gruesome echo of the human sacrifice that underpins Christian fundamentalism.
Can we just stop this and move on to real discussions of what is going on? I mean, I served, so if you want my opinion to count and your opinion to be null and void because you didn’t, fine by me. I wouldn’t mind it if Justin Raimondo or Barbara Boxer or Sheila Jackson Lee or any number of chowderheads were silenced. I also wonder what the polls might look like if only military members and veterans were allowed to comment on the operations in Iraq.
But, since that isn’t the way we work things, I am perfectly content to listen to them and ignore them at my leisure. Enough with this ‘chickenhawk’ business already -except Operation Yellow Elephant, which at least has the benefit of being creative and amusing.
albedo
As I see it, the point of calling people Chickenhawks is not to deny them their right to free speech, or an opinion. It’s to point out that there’s something a little less than honorable than vociferously championing an (undermanned) war that you yourself (if eligible) can’t be bothered to support in any fashion other than flaming the anti-war left on blogs.
Everyone’s entitled to an opinion in America. Even loudmouth pussies.
albedo
change “you yourself,” to “they themselves.” I know John’s a veteran.
John Cole
The practical intent of calling someone a chickenhawk is to get them to shut up- what you have listed is a distinction without a difference. According to the chickenhawk silliness, Dick Cheney would never be able to comment about matters of war unless we turn on the wayback machine and send him off to Vietnam or whatever.
The Chickenhawk meme is stupid and offensive, but O.Y.E is pretty amusing.
albedo
“According to the chickenhawk silliness, Dick Cheney would never be able to comment about matters of war unless we turn on the wayback machine and send him off to Vietnam or whatever.”
Well, nice though sending DC to another era would be, I would never say the Veep’s lack of service should keep him from commenting on (or starting) a war. I do, however, think it’s fair to point out that there’s something a bit, I don’t know, unseemly about it. As I think there’s something unseemly about some bloggers and Young Republicans that unwaveringly cheerlead the war, but wouldn’t dream of joining up in a million years.
SomeCallMeTim
I’ve never understood the unhappiness with the chickenhawk argument, as it’s one we use in lots and lots of situations. I’m not crazy about the analogy, but it’s no different than asking whether someone who is arguing in favor of some hare-brained investment is investing his own money. We do that all the time; we’d think anyone who didn’t find out the answer to that was relatively foolish. (The flip side, of course, is that we might wonder whether people who are against the war with family in the military are best listed to as well. But neither the Dems nor the Republicans make that argument for obvious reasons.)
Brad R.
The reason OYE works is because many chapters of the College Republicans are so eager to go Coulter on anyone who disagrees with them, calling everyone who disagrees with them “cowardly peacenik traitors” and such. Plus, you get hilariously inept responses like this:
What about the Republicans in our society who are working in other careers – police officers, firefighters, businessmen and women, contractors, teachers, lawyers, scientists….and so fourth. The issue isn’t about the capability of one person – it is about a general need of oneself and as a society it is a common understanding that we want the best people to do the best job.
As Lionel Hutz of the Simpsons once said, “Good for you, son, because if there’s one thing the world needs, it’s more lawyers.”
Andrew J. Lazarus
I agree that the chickenhawk meme lacks a certain logical basis: I can’t imagine it being used against non-veteran FDR. I think iot gets both its saliency and popularity with we liberals because the Republican Youth Twerp Brigade (echoing many elders who should knkow better) have been insinuating that opposition to the war&mdashand even to the abuse of prisoners is caused by unmasculine cowardice. Coming from clowns who think tearing down a Kerry poster is equivalemt somehow to serving at the front, that’s pretty rich. Hitchens has revisited this issue again recently. Coming from a man who has never shirked from denigrating his opponents, he stands as a fine example of Dutch courage.
Brad R.
Hitchens has revisited this issue again recently. Coming from a man who has never shirked from denigrating his opponents, he stands as a fine example of Dutch courage.
Yeah. Hitchens is one of the best political writers on the planet (not that I agree with him on everything, but his prose is just fun to read), but he really is a pretty nasty guy (read his book on Mother Theresa if you don’t believe me…
Andrei
That isn’t the argument.
It’s not about who served and who has the right to an opinion based on military service. It’s about having a specific opinion and a willingness to put one’s money where one’s mouth is with regard to that opinion, especially when things aren’t going as planned or going as well as they should be.
Of course people or leaders don’t have to do anything to have valid opinions about something as dramatic as war, but then they shouldn’t get upset when they are called chickenhawks about their lack of personal actions versus their abundance of rhetoric.
FWIW, Dick Cheney probably wouldn’t be called a chickenhawk for not serving during Vietnam if his actions. rhetoric or policy decisions were actually competent with regard to engaging in war. The easiest way to avoid being called anything and to defuse meme’s like the checkihawk meme is to actually do the right thing when it’s your turn to lead.
Actions speak louder words, right?
Al Maviva
Interesting. I am really amazed that pussies who never risked anything for anyone, calling other men cowards. I actually enjoy getting called a chickenhawk for expressing pro-war views, because I can drop the hammer on idiots who throw that accusation around, having served close to a decade, including with an infantry unit that got pretty heavily engaged in GWI. So I can usually win that argument until the White Feather bearer shifts to another equally illogical axis of attack. Personally, I would have been happy to know about any support for us from college campuses during GW I. All I ever saw were a bunch of smelly protestors with signs calling me & my busload of deploying friends names, as we rode to the airbase to fly out.
Ironically enough, I’m presently seeking a national guard commission with a deployable unit, in spite of having to lose 25 pounds, slip through medical exams with my old age (mid 30s) and shaky ankles. It’s going to cost me dearly – assuming the unit deploys again, trading in my posh attorney gig for Lt. pay is going to hurt. (Whoops, there goes the house…) But I think it’s important, and if there are vacancies, somebody had better by God step up to fill them, and I hope to be ready to take my physical and submit paper by mid-fall. I wish some of the folks who are so hateful toward Republican college kids, Bushwa and pretty much anybody who disagrees with them could turn some of that on the folks who swear they only live to kill Americans, like this guy, but hey, that’s probably wishing for too much.
iocaste
I generally don’t think that you need to say you would personally do something in order to support it — you shouldn’t have to volunteer to be an executioner to support the death penalty, for instance. In fact, when it comes to certain decisions we prefer the objective reasoning of someone who has no personal experience with the subject (like, say, jurors).
And obviously, we can’t make decisions about war based on who would volunteer — we might not have entered WWII, for example, if entering the fray was conditioned on individuals’ willingness to enlist.
That said, there’s a difference between not volunteering personally — which is guaranteed to get you shipped to Iraq — and not supporting a draft. A draft, at least, says you understand that the sacrifices will fall on some portion of the population and you will put yourself into the lottery with everyone else for the greater good. It’s a “behind the veil” kind of logic. But the College Republicans et al aren’t in support of a draft either — they want this war to be fought entirely by people other than themselves, who are generally, at this point, signing up because they have few other career options and are young and lured by big bonuses. That’s a horrible statement about sacrificing the poor to benefit the rich.
John Cole
That is even dumber than how I described the chickenhawk meme. Under that logic, Colin Powell can’t have a say in military matters because he isn’t rushing off to the local recruiting office. I could go on and on, but I really don;t have the time to sit here and explain why the chickenhawk meme is stupid.
Jon H
There are different shades, or applications, of the chickenhawk meme.
For example, the OYE shade is different from the one that was being applied during the whole spat comparing Kerry’s service to Bush.
The OYE thing, to me, is pointing out that, for many vocal young members of the GOP, the commitment isn’t remotely matching the rhetoric, especially given the enlistment shortfalls of recent months (apparently didn’t happen in the latest month, however.)
They’ll call Democrats traitors, they’ll talk about how we’re in a clash of civilizations, a battle for the very existence of our nation, the greatest threat since WW2. But even when enlistment is down, they believe that they can contribute to the war effort by doing, well, not much of anything.
They’re fighting the war on terror with about as much effort as they put into running for class president. Maybe less.
That’s some threat to civilization, that is.
It’s not so much saying they *can’t* speak in support of the war unless they enlist. It’s more about deflating their rhetoric and pointing out how shallow their support for the war really is. They can talk about the terrible threat we face, but their actions show that they aren’t really all that terribly concerned about anything but scoring cheap political points.
But, hey, they’re free to support the war, and we’re free to make fun of them. Just like Republican politicians are free to espouse conservative fiscal policies while spending like drunken sailors, and we’re free to make fun of *them*.
At least, that’s how I see it. Others may take a different view.
Andrei
See? Actions. They speak much louder than words.
I have rarely agreed with anything you have said in these comments Maviva, but if you serve again and are sent to Iraq, then you have my upmost respect as true patriot.
As for:
I couldn’t disagree more with that point of view to be honest, although I do agree with the rest of your statement.
Andrei
Ok… let me add something that I stated later, but you seem to disregard outright because I left it out of that cited paragraph:
It’s about having a specific opinion AS A LEADER OR SOMEONE IN CHARGE DRIVING DECISIONS and a willingness to put one’s money where one’s mouth is with regard to that opinion WHILE BEING IN A LEADERSHIP POSITION, especially when things aren’t going as planned or going as well as they should be.
There? More explicit for you?
So to your analogy, it would like Colin Powell being in charge of the army, instituting a policy that has recruiters dress in dresses on the job, then turning around and telling everyone to keep at it when they are telling him that the dresses aren’t working to increase recruitment. If Powell were unwilling to get in a dress himself to see that dressig in a dress really doesn’t work for recruitment, how much credibility would he have in your eyes as a leader making decisions?
(Snarky analogy I know, but you called me dumb so I give you a dumb analogy in return.)
RSA
I think that the chickenhawk meme appeals to two natural though perhaps simplistic beliefs. To put these in blatantly provocative terms,
“If you believe so strongly that X should be done, why don’t you do something besides talk about it?” and
“Don’t ask someone to do something (dangerous, painful, etc.) that you wouldn’t be willing to do yourself.”
These are oversimplications, but I think most non-philosophers would say they’re reasonable. And Bush, Cheney, et al., have their histories. . . So, anyway, it surprised me that John should be accepting of, for example, the kind of College Republicans Max Blumenthal writes about in The Nation (if I’m overgeneralizing, no offense is meant):
By the time I encountered Cory Bray, a towering senior from the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business, the beer was flowing freely. “The people opposed to the war aren’t putting their asses on the line,” Bray boomed from beside the bar. Then why isn’t he putting his ass on the line? “I’m not putting my ass on the line because I had the opportunity to go to the number-one business school in the country,” he declared, his voice rising in defensive anger, “and I wasn’t going to pass that up.”
Very Cheney-like. Should we ignore Cheney’s opinions on military matters now? As John points out, that would be silly; he was the Secretary of Defense for four years. But I think it’s natural to view his four deferments as something he made up for later, rather than something that’s completely consistent with a hawk’s historical profile.
Mike S
I’ve always found it a bit silly. But I’m not sure which is sillier, the argument or some of these excuses.
Don’t make lame excuses. Just tell the truth. Iraq looks scary as shit and I realy don’t want to go through that. Soldiers are returning to duty with prosthetics so a “nagging football injury” seems pretty weak.
One thing you have to give Howard Dean is the fact that when Chris Mathews asked about his deferment he was pretty honest. He came straight out and said he didn’t want to go to Vietnam.
Brian
You’re talking about Chickenhawk 2002 here – you can’t have an opinion about the war if you haven’t served. (That’s the strawman version anyway. I don’t know that anyone would actually agree to that statement).
Chickenhawk 2005 states simply that if you are an able-bodied person who is eligible for service in the military (Army/Marines/NG etc.) AND you think this war is an epic clash of civiliation like WWII, the fate of the world hangs in the balance, etc., then you should head to the nearest office and sign up because they’re running a little short. If the military won’t have you in any capacity, perhaps you could become a civillian contractor and drive a truck between Baghdad airport and the Green Zone or something.
If you don’t do this then you’re blowing smoke about how important this war is. Or you’re a coward. Or have no confidence in the civillian leadership of our nation at this moment and feel no need to die for them. (Can’t say I disagree with you there). You’re voting with your feet. Actions speak louder than words.
John Cole
Then you are a merc.
John Cole
Or a war profiteer.
Mike S
John
I’v never seen you comment on the mercs. What’s your take?
Joey
I’ll assume that those making the “chickenhawk” argument have recently returned from a stints in the American Brigade of the “insurgents” in Iraq. Or,they served admirably as “human shields” before both Gulf Wars.
If not, then they just need to STFU.
Mike S
Joey obviously served and got a brain injury.
Al Maviva
Andrei, please. I’m the same asshole I was 15 minutes ago. Don’t thank me for doing something you think is morally reprehensible. That’s cheap grace. Wear your spite like a sheriff’s badge, pal. It’s not very flattering on you7 when it’s shaped to look like a poppy.
Besides, it’d be gratifying to get my hands on the likes of the guy profiled in the article I linked to above. Yes, I lost a couple friends in the WTC and a buddy’s sister in the Pentagon attack, and the thought of payback has crossed my mind. My motives are not entirely pure. Then again, the profiled Jihadi is the kind of guy that justifies the fly paper theory for the Iraq war. If he wasn’t in Iraq, 9/11 would’ve emboldened him to apply to flight school in the U.S., or to take a job adding chlorine to your water supply, or guarding your local nuke plant. It ain’t simple.
Joey
Well, if you’re so opposed to the war, Mike, put your money where your mouth is,get over to Iraq and physically place your body between, say, a terrorist safehouse in Fallujah and a bulldozer.
Or are you not as brave as Rachel Corrie?
Jon H
Just like all the jihadis in Afghanistan, fighting the Soviets, prevented any attacks against Americans during the 1980s, right?
Oh, wait, there was the Lockerbie bombing, and the discotech, and the Beirut barracks, and the hijacking of that passenger jet where the SEAL was killed. I’m probably forgetting some.
So maybe flypaper doesn’t work so well after all.
Jon H
Joey, your mistake is in thinking opposition to the war necessarily implies that the main motivation is an excess of concern for the health of the Iraqis, the insurgents, etc.
That’s not it.
Joey
Yeah, Jon, because sitting around in America and carping about “Bush’s evil war” has really helped bring it closer to its end.
Direct action, maaan! Just like the 1960s!!!
Again, just STFU
The Disenfranchised Voter
The whole chickenhawk statement isn’t about getting people to shut up, it is about getting them to serve. If you constantly vocally support the Iraq war, and believe it is as important as the Bush Administration is then you should be signing your ass up for the service.
It is a legitmate claim. If I truly believed in the Iraq War I would have signed up long ago.
capelza
Oh boy, here I go. I think this Operation Yellow Elephant is freakin’ hilarious. As for the current Chickehhawk meme thingy, it is more valid than the earlier one. I read that Nation article earlier and read other things about the College Republicans. Very uncharming.
As for that “hammer dropping”? It does work both ways. Husband is Vietnam Vet (Mag 15 and Task Force Delta), step sons are vets (one 8 years in the 101 Airborn and another in the Oregon Natl. Guard). In fact, 4 generations of military that I know of.
It is amusing to whip out that bit of info when confronted by some belligerent pro-war but never served fellow who has gotten into my face because we are dirty commie traitors, yada, yada, me, my husband and my kids, everyone are opposed to this war in Iraq most strenuously. In fact when the youngest boy was being recruited by the Marines my husband (the ex-sgt.) pulled “the voice” out of his belly and hollered the poor guy out of the house. He hates this war that much.
I suppose the ultimate irony here is that as the military is straining, we have decided that if the kid did choose to sign up, we would not stand in his way. Not so twits in the College Republicans can be carry on with their bad selves, or for Bush, Cheney, etc, but for the Military itself.
Sojourner
Absolutely, it’s a reasonable issue. There’s something a bit unseemly about an administration whose most hawkish members never served. And combine that with an almost complete lack of war planning, lack of armor and other protective materials, lack of financial support for National Guard families who have been financially devastated by this war, and significant cuts in veterans benefits… One might reasonably conclude that this administration feels entitled to have the children of the less well off fight their war for them.
eileen from OH
I don’t think you have to have served to support the War. But I do think that if you have influence and a pulpit that the least you can do is use it to encourage enlistment.
By all accounts, we are overstretched and recruitment/retainment is a huge problem. I don’t ask that war supporters serve, or that their kids serve, in order to prove their pro-war bonafides.
But I’m at a loss to understand why Bush and all those in Congress who denigrate those who disagree with the War aren’t beating the drum and encouraging enlistment. One comment last night from Bush was the first and only thing we’ve gotten.
How ’bout if Rush and Sean take a break from calling liberals “traitors” and spend some time encouraging their listeners to enlist?
eileen
Darleen
I think I’ll go to Dennis Prager
Since the 1960s, with few exceptions, on the greatest questions of good and evil, the Left has either been neutral toward or actively supported evil. The Left could not identify communism as evil; has been neutral toward or actually supported the anti-democratic pro-terrorist Palestinians against the liberal democracy called Israel; and has found it impossible to support the war for democracy and against an Arab/Muslim enemy in Iraq as evil as any fascist the Left ever claimed to hate.
There were intellectually and morally honest arguments against going to war in Iraq. But once the war began, a moral person could not oppose it. No moral person could hope for, let alone act on behalf of, a victory for the Arab/Islamic fascists. Just ask yourself but two questions: If America wins, will there be an increase or decrease in goodness in Iraq and in the world? And then ask what would happen if the Al Qaeda/Zarqawi/Baathists win.
If you have something actually constructive about how to WIN the war, fine. If you are just the screaming about how BAD this war from your Bu$Hitler-phobia, you long for the days of Papa Saddam and you just can’t WAIT for the jihadists to win, then you are an immoral quisling. Period. And that includes the mendacious “chickenhawk” meme.
meshugga schmucks.
demimondian
Whoa, Nelly! (Or, at least, John.)
The military won’t have any part of me — neurological disorder, ergo disqualified — so the closest I could ever get to serving in combat was the contribution of my talents to the development of better weapons — as a contractor. What in God’s name gives you the right to criticize that? I did what I could, and I would have done more, but there was nothing more that I could do.
John Cole
Demondian- read it again.
If you are not in the military and work as a civilian contractor, the smear is not chickenhawk, it would make you a war profiteer or a merc.
I wasn’t calling you anything.
eileen from OH
Well, I would say that a constructive thing to say on how to win the war is to get more soldiers who are willing to fight it. And a good way to do that is to ASK them.
I don’t have a Bush/Hitler phobia and I’ve never served. But I do know that war takes sacrifice and the duty of a leader who takes us into war is admitting a) that sacrifices must be made and b) that we ALL must share those sacrifices. Outside of our soldiers and their families and friends, how has the War touched any of us – personally? Besides having to bear the financial burden, I mean.
Were we asked to forego tax cuts to pay for the war? Were we asked to conserve oil, to reduce our dependency? There is no national purpose, no coming together in this effort, both because many of us felt we were lied to but, more importantly, because we weren’t really ASKED to do anything outside of the ambiguous “support” the troops. Which for the majority of Americans seems to consist of putting a sticker on their cars and trashing liberals.
Americans are a generous and giving people. That Bush has not asked anything more than lip service for the effort is HIS fault, not ours.
So, my “constructive” idea is for Bush to be straight with us on what’s happening and give a reasonable forecast (not timetable – just lay out precise conditions under which the “job is done”), dump the incompetents he’s got running things (beginning with Rumsfeld) and ASK for more than the vague “stay the course” blah-blah-blah. And that includes making a real, sincere, request for recruits. Gee, that could even make a great theme for a speech.
eileen from OH
James Emerson
Hmmmmm….
Once the lying and deception began no moral person could oppose it, even though there were no WMDs ot connections to Al Queda.
Once the bombing began no moral person could oppose it, even though the bombing began well before the President asked Congress for a war resolution, and was thusly illegal under both domestic and international law.
Once the torturing began no moral person could oppose it, even though torture violated the Geneva Conventions, the UN Convention on Torture, and the USMJ.
I’m unable to get the hang of this rationale. Does it have something to do with rabid support of a failed president? Well, so much for your immoral relativity.
Here is a much better protest as patriotism quote
“The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else.”
But then Teddy Roosevelt was a known communist too I suppose…
Andrew J. Lazarus
This mystifies me completely. I’m curious: does it also hold for Iraqis? That is, if there were Sunnis who were opposed to the insurgency for many excellent reasons, once the insurgency began, are they morally required to support it?
Behind this self-assured “reasoning” lies either a non sequitur or mere locative distinction (our wars are moral imperatives, and theirs are moral abominations) of no real weight whatsoever.
Andrew J. Lazarus
Follow-up for Darlene: discuss the morality of William Jennings Bryan’s resignation from the Wilson Cabinet over World War One. Was Bryan an immoral person? Do not use the Scopes Trial in your answer.
Patrick Chester
Someone claims the chickenhawk meme isn’t about silencing people, it’s about:
…which moves you away from a position where you can easily discuss the merits of the present war, effectively silencing them. How convenient. Plus, if the person who opposes your view happens to die in combat, you can use his corpse to speak against the war, slap his friends and family in the face and say he died for nothing. Win-win for the anti-war side!
So, it’s definitely about silencing… and getting that annoying person with views the anti-war types don’t like as far away from them as possible, since boot camp and advanced training will keep them away for months while you guys can wail and knash your teeth at the quagmire without that annoying “chickenhawk” to point out that you’re wrong. Even more conveniently, those who fling the “chickenhawk” slander around don’t have to actually do anything to “prove” their worthiness. Funny that.
Patrick Chester
…since the lies and deceptions weren’t coming from the people supporting the war. Like, oh, claiming the bombing happened before the resolution in 2002. Gosh, I wonder what you must have left out in your efforts to deceive people?
Oh look: more deception. Sorry, but the real abuses inflicted on prisoners by US military personnel have been dealt with. Try another lie.
Since your rationale is a strawman composed of lies and deceptions of your own, I’m not surprised it’s so easily knocked down. Maybe you should stop projecting your own problems upon the people who don’t agree with you.
Reid
So, all those who oppose Bush’s tax cuts are sending back their tax refunds … aren’t they?
Geek, Esq.
The whole Chickenhawk theme is of course inappropriate as a way of invalidating someone’s opinions and arguments.
However, it is a perfectly valid counterpoint to the Rush Limbaugh/Charles Johnson crowd who call liberals wimps, pussies, cowards, traitors, defeatists, yada yada yada. The fact is that Duncan Black has done as much to help defeat the insurgents in Iraq as virtually all of Glenn Reynolds’ blogroll combined (with a few notable exceptions of course),i.e. nothing.
It also gains traction at a time when the all-volunteer army is being compromised by administration policies. If folks are going to advocate war policies that exceed the capability of an all-volunteer force, they should really do simple arithmetic first. And they had damn well better enlist (assuming they’re eligible) before advocating a draft.
albedo
“So, it’s definitely about silencing… and getting that annoying person with views the anti-war types don’t like as far away from them as possible, since boot camp and advanced training will keep them away for months while you guys can wail and knash your teeth at the quagmire without that annoying “chickenhawk” to point out that you’re wrong. Even more conveniently, those who fling the “chickenhawk” slander around don’t have to actually do anything to “prove” their worthiness. Funny that.”
Ridiculous. You think a single one of these College Republican pussies have been moved to actually enlist by liberals posting on blogs? Gimme a break.
On your last point, though, you’re right – us chickenhawk slanderers don’t have to do anything. Because we haven’t been shouting to the high heavens about “clash of civilizations” and “the most important struggle of the 20th century” for the last four years. Money, meet mouth. Pretty simple.
Mike S
Joey passes Darrell in the sheer idiocy catagory.
Mr Morality, Dennis Prager, hasn’t had a show in the last 5 years where he didn’t lie at least ten times. His religion is a club and his God has become the GOP. The rest of your screed just proves you listen to the fool.
Sorry, but the real abuses inflicted on prisoners by US military personnel have been dealt with. Try another lie.
And you know that how?
If you are not in the military and work as a civilian contractor, the smear is not chickenhawk, it would make you a war profiteer or a merc.
Not anywhere I have seen. However if you want to talk about Blackwater or the mercs who were just kicked out of the country for firing on our troops, have at it. There are plenty of people and companies who are there to help and need the money, but there are many others that are robbing this country blind. Those are the war profiteers.
Even more conveniently, those who fling the “chickenhawk” slander around don’t have to actually do anything to “prove” their worthiness. Funny that.
Or you can slap a yellow ribbon on your car, accuse people who opposed the war of being traitors and that proves your worthiness. Funny that.
Then you can underestimate the wounded by 5/1 and underfund the VA by $1,600,000,000 after defeating every single Democratic amendment attempting to add more money. Good thing you got rid of that Republican who used to head that committee. That fool was always trying to spend money on veterans, those ungratefull bastards.
rilkefan
Al Maviva, not to speak for Andrei, but I think I share his attitude, which is that service to your country, even (esp?) in a unwise badly-mismanaged war, is admirable, in wartime doubly so. I am furious at Cheney and Bush and Rumsfeld for this war, but I have nothing but respect for those doing the sacrificing.
Patrick Chester
albedo wrote:
Nope, I think it’s what you guys want, I didn’t say it was going to work for you.
Mike S wrote:
Yes, funny in that I never claimed that and I doubt many of the icky awful people who disagree with you have done so either. That’s almost hilarious how you flung that out, in fact. If it wasn’t so pathetic.
albedo
“Nope, I think it’s what you guys want, I didn’t say it was going to work for you.”
Well, wrong you are. I want our military (including any hypothetical Young Republican enlistees) to not be squandered on an ill-advised attempt to nation-build under patently false pretenses. However, I do reserve the right to call bullshit on anyone who spends their time lobbying for a further expenditure of soldiers’ lives and my tax dollars without considering enlistment in our (badly depleted) Armed Forces.
Mike S
Oh Patty, if you think the term traitor hasn’t been bandied about incessantly then you are willfully ignorant. Funny that you would take my comment about so many on the right personally. I wonder why that would be?
Kimmitt
So, all those who oppose Bush’s tax cuts are sending back their tax refunds … aren’t they?
Sure, if it means we aren’t liable for the debt incurred by the tax cuts, too.
Seriously, the chickenhawk meme should be reserved for the truly egregious examples — the Dick Cheneys of the world. Even if I thought the Iraq war were a good idea, my various ailments make me patently unfit to serve. That doesn’t change the quality of my analysis.
Patrick Chester
Oh, I’ve seen it. Just not quite as much as you claim. In fact, I tend to see more of what can only be called “pre-emptive defenses” of the charge. Things like, making an anti-war statement combined with a cry of “don’t question my patriotism!” … before anyone can even answer. Or claiming charges leveled at specific groups (like those with the Solidarity with the Iraqi Resistance-like placards and t-shirts) are applied to anyone who opposes the war… except they’re not.
Probably because you used the word “you” in your response addressed to my comment, and English doesn’t have a plural version of “you” like French (“vous” IIRC, been awhile since I took a class) or other languages.
Exact quote: Or you can slap a yellow ribbon on your car, accuse people who opposed the war of being traitors and that proves your worthiness. Funny that.
Perhaps you (….and I mean YOU specifically) should have indicated you were making yet another broadbrushed smear instead of an immature slam at someone specific. You know “you damned neo-cons” or something similar? I’m sure you can come up with something suitably insulting, or maybe using the female form of my personal name strained your mind too much?
Thanks for showing your inner childishness, btw. It only shows the kind of shallow, abusive little person you are. (…gosh, I wonder what Mike will say in response, judging from his tendency to broadbrush?)
AlanDownunder
AlMaviva,
I agree with John Cole. Past or present service or non-service is irrelevant to whether an invasion is wise, justified, competently conducted or undertaken for reasons given.
Corollary: you’re no less misguided about Iraq than the chickenhawk Vietnam-dodgers who pushed for invasion or the yellophants who won’t put their balls where their mouths are.
However, if you call war critics girlie men, wimps, pussies, appeasers etc, I’ll cut you some slack. Strange thing though – that kind of talk more usually comes from chickenhawks and yellowphants.
Aaron
I hope this project works and gets more people to join up.
And libs, we need guys in Afghanistan, too, so if you supported that war – hurry and enlist.
Not to mention North Korea and France.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Apparently the comments in here pissed off all those College Repubulicans…
That is the only way I can rationalize all these blind supporters of the Bush Administration and the war commenting on here of all a sudden.
Paul L.
Two can play this “chickenhawk” games.
I am glad you leftist fans of the “chickenhawk” meme served in Bosnia, Afganistan, Haiti, etc.
McQ at The QandO Blog pulls it better than I can.
http://www.qando.net/Details.aspx?Entry=2088
“I am deeply insulted by some commenters
The Disenfranchised Voter
“Just as those who oppose the war have zero moral standing unless they
p.lukasiak
Ah, thank goodness for hindsight….
we liberals threw around the “chickenhawk” meme in 2002 because of our knowledge that the chickenhawks in the Bush regime were engaged in a campaign of lies and deception in order to get this nation into a war with Iraq — and the knowledge that those who have served in combat would never have acted in that manner. It was the complete disregard for the lives and welfare of our soldiers in pursuit of a neo-con fantasy of a foreign policy that appalled us.
And it turns out we were right, of course. No one who had ever served on the ground in combat would ever have chosen to “go to war with the army you have” when there was no serious post-invasion planning or exit strategy, the army was not fully equipped with the proper armor, and there was insufficient forces deployed to secure the country.
This was an “optional” war, and the primary reason we invaded Iraq when we did was that time was running out on the rationale for the war itself. We already knew before the war started that the “Iraq is pursuing nuclear weapons” stuff was lies, that the stuff about stockpiles of WMS was lies, and that the stuff about significant new WMD production was lies. If we hadn’t gone to war when we did, Blix would have concluded what Kay and Duelfer eventually did — there were no WMDs, no WMD programs, and no plans for WMD programs, and even the bizarro legal theories used to justify the invasion would have been blown to smithereens.
Only someone who had never fought in a war side-by-side with his brothers-in-arms would ever consider going to war on false pretenses, or would ever consider rushing to war because the rationale for the war was being mooted.
In other words, only chickenhawks would have sent us into this war. The left, once again, has been proven correct.
Matt
As I did serve, I presume that service lends credibility when I say that I firmly believe the vast majority of liberals in this country to be both cowards and traitors.
And the liberals who say “we respect your service” i find it patently absurd that you evidence that respect by undermining the war at every opportunity, supporting politicians who spin lies and halftruths to undermine the commander and chief and spend more time worrying about the “false pretenses for war” then supporting your own country.
You don’t think our soliders ask their officers why democrats don’t support them or the war ? You don’t think every time Durbin claims conditions at Gitmo is akin to nazism, when its the jihadists who are attacking our troops, throwing feces, etc, it makes our job just that much harder?
Many, many liberals ARE cowards and traitors and what a surprise, the words of many of the posters here simply confirm that.
Geek, Esq.
Matt:
No, your comments just indicate that you’re a garden-variety Freeper/Dittohead/LGF’er.
caleb
As long as the stupid “liberal=traitor” meme around, so will the “non serving supporter=chickenhawk”.
Tis the sad state of politics today.
Actually…..politics really have always been this dispicable, it just seems more so in this day and age of technology where everyone can have a cheap “printing press” if you will.
___________________________
As for this…”You don’t think our soliders ask their officers why democrats don’t support them or the war ? ” *
equals…….
I am sure our troops were asking that about Republicans while in Bosnia. *
*Both statements are stupid, stupid, stupid.
Tim F
I erad a bit in the NYT abotu anti-war activists targeting recruiters that really pissed me off. If you want to protest this war, fine, picket the White House or petition your Senator, but trying to weaken America’s general military radiness is a low blow. Even if they accomplish something, it’ll be a tactical victory and a strategic defeat.
ape
surely the ‘chickenhawk’ concept, which Hitchens and others distort, has nothing to do with the validity of any individual’s pro-war view. It is concerned with exposing the disparities of experience of war between the poor and the privileged. The suggestion is that Buchanan and Bush etc behaved in a manner that would not have been available to an ordinary joe.
That said, some of the Chickenhawks go way beyond advocating a particular action: they are generally pro-war and reckon themselves Sun-Tzu style philosophers: Limbaugh (who lied about his draft status and the reasons for it) has coined what he calls the ‘Limbaugh Doctrine’: “The world is governed by the agressive use of war”.
And Michael Savage is just a tosser.
metalgrid
I think the chickenhawk meme is justified when applied to a certain segment of the pro-war camp. Pulling a Rove and painting every pro-war person with the same brush isn’t justified by any means. There are valid reasons for the war on Afhganistan, and as a result, it is vital that it be specified what pro-war stance you intend to qualify and ridicule with the chickenhawk meme.
If you are a reasoning and analytical individual, you owe it to yourself to examine the situation and determine for yourself which is justified and which is not. Myself, I feel the war in Afhgnistan and the nation building there is justified. Not only was there a reason to invade, if humanitarian efforts move you, it is a perfect place to bring freedom and capitalism to. Then again, running around burning down their farmers only means of subsistance isn’t a good way to go about it either – and yes I’m talking about our exported drug war to that region. The Afghanis were far worse off than Iraqis when it came down to needing (not neccessarily deserving) help. So I am of the pro-war camp when it comes to that war.
I would have preferred an invasion of Syria rather than Iraq if the intent of the second invastion was to have established an arab dominated democracy in the midst of the middle east – but apparently, the Iraq war was the culmination of a vendetta between the mid-east oil barons in cahoots with our current administration against some dictator. In addition, it split our forces to two fronts as well. The worst part is that we have no indication that things will get better in terms of how this administration treats our military. Right now, it has been treated like a red headed stepchild. Slapped around, given poor salaries, given inadequate equipment, badly deployed with many a tactical snafu. In addition, once they are injured or unable to serve any more, they are discarded like so much trash. I work part time at a VA hospital, I hear the stories, I see some of the most numbing sights next to actually being there. Our government is just not in the habit of treating our boys with the dignity and monetary rewards that they deserve for putting not only their lives, but their faith in our country on the line out there.
So if you truely cared more about our soldiers and less about the war, you’d be one step closer to realizing why it is so important to have valid reasons for being in a war.
My point here (and there is one), is that we need to honor the sacrifices of our soldiers by treating them better and picking wars that warrant their sacrifice. Which is why military might in the form of manpower shouldn’t be thrown about unless it’s in self defense where you would lose more people if you didn’t bring in the military. It has to be a measure of how many of our lives are saved vs. how many lives of our soldiers we sacrifice. Without the threat of WMD from Iraq, that equation does not compute in favor of a war in Iraq.
With that said, I’m all for whatever will get our people out of Iraq the soonest, and I have no confidence that our administration will get them out of their (with their past record of planning and mistakes), with the fewest casualties. If furthering a chickenhawk meme will cause people to shut up and think or rethink the whole strategy because their own asses are on the line, or the asses of their loved ones, I think it’s purpose would be served.
Jim Allen
John:
Re: “The practical intent of calling someone a chickenhawk is to get them to shut up”, I think you missed a few words. The practical intent of calling someone a chickenhawk is to get them to put up or shut up.
Darleen
Lazarus
WJB was not immoral for resigning. If he had gone out and actively tried to undermine the military efforts to win WWI, that would have been immoral.
And the likes of LEFTISTS (not all liberals are leftists) such as the Stalinist ANSWER, NION, Michael Moore, Ted Rall, ‘Screw em’ Markos, Chomskites, and all the hilariously named “Peace & Justice” groups such as I encounted in San Diego in March are four-square behind the defeat of American troops in Iraq and against any democracy in the ME. Hell, look at how they aggitate for the destruction of Israel! Not one of them, and not one of the ‘Bring back Saddam’ group here is interested in the US military or a US win. The contemporary American Left is all about the power of the ‘group’ to remake a society in its collectivist image.
That’s why they supported Stalin, apologized for Pol Pot, kissed Arafat’s ass, supported the continuation of Saddam’s reign and want to see the US defeated in Iraq.
It’s why they are so enamored of jihadists and radical Islamism.
Like is attracted to like.
Sojourner
Absolutely! The only way to truly show our support for the troops is to send them off to a war based on lies, a war that has not been planned to even minimum standards, without the armor and other protection they need, and then cut their benefits so they won’t get the care they need when they come back.
If that’s your definition of supporting the troops, you’re absolutely right. The libs do not support the troops that way.
What a moron.
Darleen
Jim
put up or shut up?
Well, when are YOU booking the next plane fight to Baghad to find some explosives to strap around your body and scream Allah Akbar! as you blowup American troops?
STFU yourself
Tim F
As long as we’re tossing out stabbed-in-the-back theories Darleen, you know who I think stabbed America’s glorious fighting forces in the back? Rightwingers who went hysterically batshit whenever reasonable people pointed out deficiencies in our leadership. If leaders refuse to acknowledge that they are capable of mistakes then they will continue to commit mistakes and fighting men will die for no reason.
Jim Allen
Darleen —
Strapping exposives to my body and screaming “Allah Akbar”? Blowing up American troops?
WTF?
I’d suggest decaffeinated coffee for a few days. Just saying.
Jim
Andrew J. Lazarus
Darlene, were the founders of the State of West Virginia immoral? You may recall that when the Commonwealth of Virginia seceded from the Union over their opposition, not only did they refuse to fall silent, they formed West Virgnia and fought on the other side.
I suggest you give up on this ieda that people who don’t fall in line behind Bozo the President are immoral, because it’s downright silly. Corollary: Dennis Prager is nor much of an ethicist.
Tim F
Paul, keep in mind that Rummy was a Navy fighter jock. That’s not to say that flyboys don’t have a certain cavalier attitude about war relative to ground troops, but he has served.
Darleen
Tim and Jim
If the supporters are supposed to “shut up” unless they actually enlist and lift a rifle, then the opponents need to “shut up” unless they lift a rifle or a bomb belt against American troops.
No?
Then recognize that supporters have the right to support American troops and an American win against jihadists by whatever means are available to them, including speech just as the Left is using speech (and giant puppets) to defeat America.
We either fight jihadists over there, or we fight them here.
I lived through the Cold War and at the very least the Communists had some rationale self-interest in surviving. The death cult of Islamists don’t have that and I refuse to sit around and wait for the next attack on American soil.
BinkyBoy
When did this become a real “war”? When did Congress issue a formal declaration against anothing state?
They enabled the President of the United States to use military force for the security of America. Sorry, thats still not a “war”.
And those Iraq Veterans out there will find that out in the future when the VA won’t treat them as real veterans.
Darleen
Geez, Laz
So I guess the immorality of the sign “we support our troops when they shoot their officers” just doesn’t register with you?
Jim Allen
Darlene —
Re: “If the supporters are supposed to “shut up” unless they actually enlist and lift a rifle, then the opponents need to “shut up” unless they lift a rifle or a bomb belt against American troops. No?”
No.
Jim
Darleen
Sojouner
re: war based on lies
I guess, then, the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 doesn’t count? (just one of numerous public calls for regime change)
Ah that Papa Saddam! at least the trains ran on time and the mass graves were unmarked.
Tim F
Funny I had a post about that same idea above. Does Tim McVeigh represent you as a right-winger? The Michigan Militia? A.N.S.W.E.R. doesn’t represent “the left” either. So spare us your cooked-up outrage. Go trolling for lunatics and you’ll find them anywhere.
Mike
Darleen,
Apparently you have never heard that it is better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and prove it. No, the Iraq Liberation Act does not count. Congress did not declare war. Go read the declaration of WW2 and the subsequent non-declarations of every war since then and realize that we have not actually outright “won” a war since WW2.
Mike
BumperStickerist
hmmmmmm ….
ChalkenHawks: Liberals who support public education but aren’t themselves public school teachers.
Sojourner
Mindless ditto head. You have no clue what it means to support the troops other than to try to get them killed. Glad you’re no friend of mine.
Defense Guy
The truly funny aspect of the chickenhawk meme is that you just never heard about it during Bosnia, Somalia or any of the many instances in Haiti. If you can wrap your mind around why this is so, then you will understand that this argument is pure politics.
If I am to speak out against child abuse, am I required by this logic to smite some child abusers?
Jim Allen
Re: ChalkenHawk
OK, I’m a liberal, and a former public school teacher to boot, but that’s funny!
Mike S
Darleen works valiantly to overtake Joey who edged out Darrell just last night. I wonder if they are all related.
rilkefan
Defense Guy, the army wasn’t on the brink of being broken during the action in Bosnia. There was plenty of bitching and moaning about the war effort from leading Republicans, though.
If you supported Bush’s claim that child abuse was the most critical issue in America – that our existence as a nation and individuals depended on rooting out every last one, and that those who disagreed are hurting the country – and there was a critical lack of rooters, and you refused to do some smiting as you say (perhaps because you just got into law school) or to encourage those around you to do so, then sure, that’s chickenhawkery.
Sojourner
I think Darleen’s previous name was Darrell. They both have that hysterical, gonna-wet-my-pants tone to their posts.
Defense Guy
rilkefan
Oh, I see, your real concern is that this conflict is leaving us undermanned in general. Fine, then shouldn’t the chickenhawk meme, or more generally the call to sign up, go out to everyone? Why is it being applied to only those who currently support the war?
The other part is that if we are to say that only those who have, or are currently, serving have any right to discuss this war. The what right do those, who have not served, have to talk about the subjecy at all. I think, hope, that in this country where we demand our right to speech on any subject, it is a bad idea to start limiting that speech to only those who have an ‘expertise’ on any particular subject matter. Do you agree?
I was also under the impression that enlisment was very low under Clinton.
I am with you on smiting child abusers though. Perhaps we should start today.
Sojourner
Gee, I don’t know. Maybe because if those of us who were against the Iraq war had been listened to, this wouldn’t be a problem?
Defense Guy
Perhaps, but then Saddam would still be running his thugocracy. Which, if you care only for the freedom of our citizens is no problem I suppose.
Sojourner
It wasn’t a problem for the U.S during the 80’s when he was by far at his worst. In fact, he had friend of U.S. status back then. So why did it suddenly become a problem now?
Defense Guy
Sojourner
That argument is akin to the idea that since women in this country didn’t have a right to vote once, they should not now. Are you really going to argue that the best course of action to right a wrong is to continue the actions that make it wrong in the first place?
Mike S
I think Darleen’s previous name was Darrell.
Isn’t that against the cardinal rules of the GOP? Next thing you know they’ll want to marry themselves.
p.lukasiak
Paul, keep in mind that Rummy was a Navy fighter jock. That’s not to say that flyboys don’t have a certain cavalier attitude about war relative to ground troops, but he has served.
Tim…that’s why I used the phrase “fought in a war side-by-side with his brothers-in-arms”. Rummy never came close to doing so…. or at least no closer than “Sidewinder-by-sidewinder” :)
Mike S
Of all of the Air Force and Navy pilots I know, around 10 I think, not a single one has a “cavalier” attitude about war.
rilkefan
DG, you’re arguing against a strawman version of the chickenhawk charge. To go over it again, the claim is that prominent commentators/politicians/leaders who say the Iraq war is for national survival should face up to the shortage of trigger fingers and set an example by providing some, esp. if they impugn the motives/patriotism/cojones of those who opposed the war in part because of this issue.
Don
And the liberals who say “we respect your service” i find it patently absurd that you evidence that respect by undermining the war at every opportunity, supporting politicians who spin lies and halftruths to undermine the commander and chief
I think it’s sad that someone can live in a democracy with freedom of speach for any amount of time and still call voicing an opinion and trying to legally alter things from within the system “undermining.” If anything is Harming America it’s so many people insisting that it’s impossible to disagree with courtesy and respect.
Defense Guy
rilkefan
No strawman here. The argument is false on it’s face and any cursory view of history and/or the rights of free speech should show that to you. The argument itself is designed to either get everyone who is for the war out of the way (if they did sign up), or to shut them up because they don’t meet your particular level of ‘expertise’ on the subject.
The argument itself is a flight of fancy, so you will forgive me if I use whatever I wish to counter it. Since we are playing in the land of make believe anyway.
Sojourner
It’s about using limited resources wisely. In order to go into Iraq, U.S. troops had to be diverted from Afghanistan. Why was that a good idea, especially in light of the Bin Laden dead or alive BS? The Taliban is working hard to re-group and the quality of life there is very though.
While we’ve been stuck in Iraq, both Iran and North Korea have become more dangerous – they are much more of an immediate threat than Iraq was. But we lack the troops and international credibility to do anything serious about that.
And Iraq has become the premier training ground for terrorists who will, no doubt, apply their skills on U.S. territory. Yet in no way has the government done a good job of implementing protections against such an attack. The resources aren’t there because of the war and the tax cuts.
On the ethical front, hundreds of thousands of people continue to die in Africa. That’s certainly a much larger number than were affected by Hussein but we lack the resources to do anything significant about that.
So, the answer is no.
p.lukasiak
Of all of the Air Force and Navy pilots I know, around 10 I think, not a single one has a “cavalier” attitude about war.
really? and how many of these pilots have come back from serving with PTSD?
How many have ever had to pick pieces of human flesh off of their uniforms that once were attached to their squadron mates?
Kimmitt
You know, the funny thing is that Darleen is actually an alias for Rep. Robin Hayes.
PS: Don’t Feed The Trolls.
Mike S
So the only people who don’t have a “cavalier attitude” about war are those that fit into your catagory?
What a silly comment.
Barry
“The practical intent of calling someone a chickenhawk is to get them to shut up- what you have listed is a distinction without a difference. According to the chickenhawk silliness, Dick Cheney would never be able to comment about matters of war unless we turn on the wayback machine and send him off to Vietnam or whatever.
The Chickenhawk meme is stupid and offensive, but O.Y.E is pretty amusing.”
Posted by John Cole
John, it was originally to make fun of all of those Republicans who supported the Vietnam war, as long as they didn’t have to actually go there. And to hit back at those Republicans who insulted the patriotism of anybody who didn’t support that war.
It serves the same purpose again, in this war; one in which our recruiting problems would be over, save for these College Republicans, who seem to have acquired the bodies of 45-year old men, at such a young age. And it hits back at those who freely accuse all non-Bushies of hating america.
I’m sorry that it bothers you so, John. However, look at the good side. After watching the current generation of GOP politicians, these new chickenhawks won’t suffer for the next couple of decades, wondering if they will have political problems, standing on the stage next to Iraq war vets. They’ll sleep peacefully at nights, knowing that the Iraq war equivalent of the Swift Boat Liars are ready and willing to (dis)serve America.
Bernard Yomtov
The chickenhawk charge is perfectly valid. We have a recruitment problem. We are effectively coercing at least some people into the service. There are those who are advocating a draft.
So let’s see. There are able-bodied people who are all for the war, which means they are in favor of forcing other people to go fight in Iraq while they themselves are unwilling to do so, because, gee, they’d rather go to business school. Reminds me of Cheney, et al who was all for the Vietnam War, but had “other priorities” when it came time to sign up.
And you think they shouldn’t be criticized? Get serious.
Foghorn
Defensive Guy gets it all wrong. The chickenhawk meme depends on able bodied Republicans to vociferously verbally support the war while avoiding service at all cost. Its object isn’t to silence Repbulicans but to point out a) what a bunch of hypocrites they are b) how overheated their rhetoric is
Dems can be pretty whiny but the Republican spasms over chickenhawk are hilarious. Especially from those who have spouted off that Dems hate America, undermine the troops etc..
cynical ex-hippie
“The truly funny aspect of the chickenhawk meme is that you just never heard about it during Bosnia, Somalia or any of the many instances in Haiti.”
And Clinton never ONCE said, “Bring it on!”
Or claimed to be pleased with the progress after 1,700 deaths and 10,000 maimings. If you don’t count allied Iraqis and civilians that is, and apparently we don’t.
Clinton respected his predescessor, and sought his advice. Clinton did not deride the patriotism or character of anyone who disagreed.
Finally, can I point out that Amnesty International protested loudly against Saddam in the 1980s, only to be dismissed by Rumsfeld?
How many times to liberals have to be proven right?
cynical ex-hippie
Another pro-war argument bandied about lately is the roach motel theory. That we are drawing terrorists into Iraq to fight them. If that is the case, how do you feel about the President using our troops as bait?
patriotboy
Chickenhawk 2005 states simply that if you are an able-bodied person who is eligible for service in the military (Army/Marines/NG etc.) AND you think this war is an epic clash of civiliation like WWII, the fate of the world hangs in the balance, etc., then you should head to the nearest office and sign up because they’re running a little short.
That’s exactly what I was thinking when I colored the first elephant yellow.
mike
The term ‘chickenhawk’ is appropriate, but overused. Not everyone who supports a military intervention but never served is a ‘chickenhawk’. Its when a person who avoided combat derides those who oppose it as ‘cowards’. The right-wing has for a while tried to brand liberals as ‘wimps’ and themselves as ‘tough and patriotic’. Its nonsense of course. Legitimate disagreement can occur between ladies and gentlemen, but when people like Limbaugh and Rove and their enablers keep spouting off about ‘liberal traitors’, they need to be put in their place. They cross the line of being people who genuinely disagree, to ‘new McCarthyism’, and they certainly deserve to be called on their sh*t.
War is serious business. I say this as someone who was in the military and experienced it. We need to treat it seriously. As someone who votes Democratic, I resent having my patriotism challenged by people like Rove and Limbaugh. If they are going to try and position themselves as such tough-guys and all who disagree them as wimps, well…if you hit someone with a cheapshot, don’t be surprised if that person swings back and punches you in the face. The truth can hurt ;)
My .02 cents
mike
The term ‘chickenhawk’ is appropriate, but overused. Not everyone who supports a military intervention but never served is a ‘chickenhawk’. Its when a person who avoided combat derides those who oppose it as ‘cowards’. The right-wing has for a while tried to brand liberals as ‘wimps’ and themselves as ‘tough and patriotic’. Its nonsense of course. Legitimate disagreement can occur between ladies and gentlemen, but when people like Limbaugh and Rove and their enablers keep spouting off about ‘liberal traitors’, they need to be put in their place. They cross the line of being people who genuinely disagree, to ‘new McCarthyism’, and they certainly deserve to be called on their sh*t.
War is serious business. I say this as someone who was in the military and experienced it. We need to treat it seriously. As someone who votes Democratic, I resent having my patriotism challenged by people like Rove and Limbaugh. If they are going to try and position themselves as such tough-guys and all who disagree them as wimps, well…if you hit someone with a cheapshot, don’t be surprised if that person swings back and punches you in the face. The truth can hurt ;)
My .02 cents
firebrand
Amazing. One long string of comments, and all the left can do is resort to whining about why they can use a stifling tactic like “chickenhawk.” Did any of you lefties even bother to go through the thinking here, instead of shifting the subject to your good old reilable Bush hatred? It doesn’t matter whether you serve or not – EVERYONE’S opinion on the war is valid, pro- or anti-. And just because some right-wingers go around calling you lefties traitors, that doesn’t mean that “the right wing” is going around doing it as well, any more than people like ANSWER or Ward Churchill represent the entirety of opinion on the left. You may be clueless to this (as to a lot of other things in my opinion), but opinions on the right-side of the political equation are as varied as those on the left. True, some righties do call liberals traitors, the same way that some lefties call conservatives chickenhawks. But all of this is just a smokescreen to shut down debate and close off other people’s opinions – the point is that even if you are vehemently pro-war and have done whatever you could not to fight in the war, that doesn’t make your opinion any less valid or give it any less reason for it to be heard. Vehemently supporting a war that one sees as a life-and-death struggle and then refusing to fight it obviously shows a lack or moral fiber, but that doesn’t mean the opinion isn’t worth considering, or that you don’t have to engage it. When you say “chickenhawk,” you don’t mean “put up or shut up.” You mean “SHUT THE HELL UP YOU NEOCON FASCIST.” That’s the intent. That’s the objective. It’s the same when some righties call liberals “traitors” – it’s a tactic to put the other side on the defensive and take the focus off of the merit of their arguments. But just because one side does it doesn’t make it right for the other side to do it. So you lefties go ahead and defend your use of the word “chickenhawk.” Just like when righties call you traitors, it’s below the belt and you know it is. And I have yet to see a single leftie here actually admit that this is the case.
Sojourner
The war is a moral issue. So someone’s lack of moral fiber is a factor. Encouraging less well off people to fight the war of the entitled is a tremendous ethical issue, especially for an administration whose policies have so clearly been slanted to the benefit of the wealthy.
Accusations that liberals are traitors is a whole different thing. We’re being criticized for not supporting the policies of this administration by people who are too stupid to understand that the government and the U.S. are not identical.