Chickenhawk?
Written by Mike on August 17th, 2005Jonah Goldberg (once again) explains why the left’s charge of chickenhawk is spurious:
What’s interesting, to me at least, is that Mrs. Sheehan represents simply the latest installment in a long, nasty, desperate ideological campaign — and one that demonstrates the logical limits of identity politics.
Anybody who’s been on the receiving end of the “chickenhawk” epithet knows what I’m getting at. Various definitions of chickenhawk are out there, but the gist — as if you didn’t know — is “coward” or “unpatriotic hypocrite.” The accusation is less an argument than an insult.
It’s also a form of bullying. The intent is to say, “You have no right to support the war since you haven’t served or signed up.” It’s a way to get supporters of the war in Iraq, the war on terror, or the president simply to shut up.
But there’s a benefit of a doubt to be given. There are many people — I know because I’ve argued with lots of them — who don’t believe the “chickenhawk” thing is intellectually unserious.
And that is the problem. Anyone who seriously believes that one must fight in the war or be against it can’t be taken seriously on anything at all. The left whines about not getting respect, but do they deserve any? No, not as long as they continue to try and put forward such flaccid arguments as “chickenhawk”.
17
PM
Yeah, give me a call, same number. I am going back to ATL this Thursday.
17
PM
Ahh, the good ol’ days
Quotes from when Clinton committed troops to Bosnia:
“You can support the troops but not the president.”
–Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)
“Well, I just think it’s a bad idea. What’s going to happen is they’re going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years.”
–Joe Scarborough (R-FL)
“Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?”
–Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99
“[The] President . . . is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation’s armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy.”
–Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)
“American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy.”
–Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)
“If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy.”
–Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W Bush
“I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning . . I didn’t think we had done enough in the diplomatic area.”
–Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)
“I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our over-extended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today”
–Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)
“Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is.”
–Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)
Funny thing is, we won that war without a single killed in action.
17
PM
Goldberg is intellectually dishonest by conflating ‘identity politics’ with the absence of courage of conviction from the chickenhawks among us. It’s not an ideological argument at all. It’s a values argument. Value life? Why send others to sacrifice theirs in your stead?
18
AM
Spike, you just don’t “get it” and never will. It has been explained to you 1000x. We are gonna wax y’alls liberal asses in the ‘06 elections.
18
AM
Michael, Jesus was a liberal. Gonna wax Jesus’ ass next year, too?
18
PM
Spike, you are an anti-Christian bigot who knows nothing of Jesus.
18
PM
Matthew 5:43-48
18
PM
More Bible spam? I told you once before to stop posting inane passages from the Bible that you don’t understand to begin with. If you keep doing that I’ll have to ban your candy ass from commenting. You are not adding anything itelligent to the discussion, I have read the Gospel according to Matthew so please stop.
18
PM
“inane passages from the Bible”
Well, I wouldn’t consider them inane. That’s why I posted the ref. Who’s calling out whom?
18
PM
They are inane because they add nothing to the conversation. They are inane because I am convinced that you don’t understand or value them and are only bringing them up as a weapon to use against people who actually believe in the Bible. As a Catholic I find that offensive as well as annoying. So stop it or I’ll ban you. I have limits to how retarded I’ll let you behave on this blog.
19
AM
All of my citations have been relevant, had you followed them up, and in context. Ban me if you wish, but I believe in your words I’ve made my point. Peace be with you.
19
AM
You had a point?