To a great extent, the chickenhawks do whatever they can to make sure their own family doesn't encounter the risks of combat as well... They have no problem sending other parent's children to die for what they won't send their own children to fight for. One of the ways this is rationalized these days is the excuse of "an all volunteer military." If politicians were forced to send their own family members to fight on the front lines, we would likely see a different situation than what we see now... Chickenhawk boils down to those who put others at risk, the type of risk they wouldn't put themselves or their family in...
Those who have actually served our Nation are the ones who should ultimately engage such discussions. "Despite Kerry's courting, veterans say they trust President Bush more than Kerry as commander in chief, 56 percent to 38 percent, according to a report released yesterday by the University of Pennsylvania's National Annenberg Election Survey." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36807-2004Aug26.html http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/04/opinion/polls/main621136.shtml
There is nothing wrong with my reading skills. I take the article you posted, like all articles of opinions, with a grain of salt and take into account it's source and intent. Having said that, the author attempts to discredit his critics at best and dodges the basic questions which were posed to him at worse. Excuse....who cares what Kerry said; answer the question. Excuse......more like a whine about people that are whining about people like him. "I know you are, but what am I?" Or is it just an excuse to whine? Excuse......that's the definition of the slur and it's intended target. That's like complaining that "faggot" is only used to complain about homosexuals. What an absolutely moronic argument. Another excuse........the sentiment of Marshal was nothing more than a reflection of the majority sentiment of most Americans at the time BEFORE Pearl Harbor. A pathetic example to use in this argument. And yet another excuse and extremely poor example to use to support his position. McLellan was a tactical moron and Lincoln was an exceptional statesman. Unlike the majority of politicians today, Lincoln knew his place when it came to military decision making. He decided to press military action, but allowed those much more qualified than him to take care of the details of war. If Dubya had Lincoln's wisdom on the matter, allowed his Generals to make the calls regarding Iraq, we wouldn't be in this mess today. More excuses. Constitutional governance of leadership and the authority to wage war doesn't justify or excuse poorly made decisions due to lack experience on the part of those in authority nor does it lend intellectual credence to those that would vote such incompetence into power; TWICE. Would you want a surgeon or a nursing assistant to remove your appendix? Would you want the SWAT team or a rent-a-cop to rescue you from a hostage stand-off? Do you want a Ph.D. or a high school drop out to write the curriculum for your child? Do you prefer to hear about what's happening in the world from someone that actually goes to the news or from Joe-Blow fat-ass with an opinion and an internet connection? (It's plainly clear who here prefers the latter). The last straw and best reason for ignoring someone that would whine about someone whining about them. It's a classic tactic to attempt to draw your audience toward only your side of the argument: come up with reasons why people shouldn't listen to the other guy. A final weak attempt to defend yourself. The bottom line is those that are making this argument against criticism about their experience (or lack there of) doesn't want to discern the difference between an opinion and electing those that are QUALIFIED to publicly represent and serve them in the best interests of the public DESPITE their opinions.
I actually have some sympathy for the view that it is preferable that our leaders, particularly the President and Sec. of Defense, have military experience. At the same time, I would prefer that they not be career military. There is something about serving that gives one a realistic idea of what the military can and cannot do, and also impresses one with the human cost of war. Still, it is not a constitutional requirement, and in fact, the Constitution makes it very clear that civilians are to control the military, not vice versa. I have to marvel at how malleable liberals' views on this issue are however. When an authentic war hero who suffered horrible wounds and endured years ofsuffering ran against an admitted draft dodger, they snickered at the vet, Bob Dole, and embraced the draft dodger, a man who had expressed hisloathing for the military. I can't recall the chickenhawk epithet being used during his administration either, despite a string of fiascos. Now with the shoe on the other foot, Democrats seethe with manufactured rage if their few hitmen with military experience are not granted total immunity from debate. And we all know that all of this will be forgotten the moment they manage to elect a President with no military experience. What it boils down to is they are afraid to debate the actual issues, so they try to delegitimize those on the other side. The fact the country is at war and such attacks erode the President's authority in the eyes of our enemies concerns them not in the least. But what can yu expect from people who are more outraged by a dog barking at some terrorist detainee than American soldiers being kidnapped, tortured and mutilated.
Rubbish. He addresses the chickenhawk slur eloquently. Too bad your filters are contaminated. I think you're making excuses for not addressing the issue objectively. Do you have to be a surgeon or a nursing assistant to comment on healthcare issues? Do you have to be a SWAT member or a rent-a-cop to comment on law enforcement issues? Do you have to have a Ph.D or be a high school drop-out to comment on education issues? Given the state of journalism today, do you honestly believe you're getting the objective state about "what's happening in the world" from the mainstream media? So you believe chickenhawk is a justified label. May we then call you a chicken dove? So you are in favor of only veterans making decisions involving military use?
ok. some vets don't care. instead, narrow it to the tens of thousands of vets that were CONSCRIPTED, who served against their will. and their families. kids forced at the end of a gun by the state to kill innocent people for profit, and to be killed. doubtless at least a few of them also "had other priorities," and would have rather done something else - they just didn't have the political connections that the chickenhawks did. obviously military experience is not a prerequisite. but it does add legitimacy to orders calling for sacrifice if the orderer has a history of sacrifice himself.
If this is the case, then you must also lambast the thousands of others who received deferments as well. Are you telling me all those who got deferments had political connections? It is not "obvious" to many who use the term.
LOL LOL LOL.... thats like choosing between charles manson vs ted bundy to baby sit your 13 yr old daughter.
I provided a breakdown of my reasons for why this article is complete crap. It's poorly written and filled with pathetic excuses for evading a question that was posed to him. If he had the sense to at least omit the original respondent's email, he could have dispensed with the impression that he was avoiding the question about his own personal military experience or lack there of. It doesn't take a genius to know that much about writing such an article to see that he completely lost credibility and resorted to whining. You are certainly entitled to think what you like, but if you believe this to be "eloquent" then your taste is in your ass. I did address the issue. Who's having problems with reading comprehension now? Where is it that I stated anything about "comments" or opinions when it came to rights about having one in the face of inexperience? These comments where clearly meant to address the issue of experience when it comes to choices about those who are responsible for making decisions and getting the required tasks accomplished. Once again, who's having problems with reading comprehension now? It doesn't take a whole lot of effort to weed the propaganda from the events. One can easily watch or read only that which is relevant when it comes to current events and simply ignore the banter of opinions and talk show bullshit; if one chooses to do so. However, if you want to call this garbage from any source that caters to one target audience ladened with rhetoric about one political affiliation versus the other news, then don't expect me to take you seriously. You either can't formulate your own opinions without guidance and/or have poor taste and judgement when it comes to choosing your source of "news". Sticks and stones. You can do whatever you damn well please. However, you would be nothing less than a hypocrite to engage in the perpetuation of name calling regardless of your intentions. Personally, I don't find much difference between the reference of "chickenhawk" and "moonbat" when it comes to targets of criticism for one reason or another. To use either one as a matter of preference to your weapon of choice in a verbal duel is subjective. However, to whine about one insult or label as valid over another raises questions of maturity issues. I'm not adamantly opposed to having civilian leadership involvement in the decision process to use the military. I am vehemently opposed to civilian leaders that lack military experience insist on micromanaging the details of military tactics and rules of engagement. The pages of history are littered with examples of politicians completely fucking up a war. It is absolutely essential for civilian leaders to recognize their short-coming and limitations when it comes to making military type decisions and to turn the reins over to individuals more qualified if they are truly serious about a military victory. Unfortunately, it's hard to find a politician that places more weight on military victories over political ones when it comes to the use of deadly force.