thrown around frequently by left-wingers who think that it has some sort of meaning. IÂ’ve even heard it used against veterans who did not serve in combat -- in one case against the head of the Ameican Legion, who spent his time in the Army in Germany rather than Vietnam.
The irony is that those using it seek to undermine the moral authority of those who have not served or are not currently serving, while at the same time arguing that those who serve are either evil killers and terrorists or incompetent victims too dim to understand their exploitation. Ultimately, they believe only in the moral authority of themselves and those who are “enlightened” enough to agree with them.
Lately IÂ’ve been asking these folks if they have taken their turn shielding Iraqi civilians from the folks who are setting off car bombs among them. Andrew Cline offers a few more questions for them in a piece in the American Spectator.
Conservatives need to start flipping that coin to its other side by asking the following questions of anyone who levels the "chickenhawk" charge:
* Why are you not in Darfur feeding starving children?
* Why are you not on the Gulf Coast rescuing hurricane survivors?
* Why are you not in China protesting the political detention of dissidents?
* Why are you not in Swaziland teaching people how to prevent the spread of AIDS?
* Why are you not in Latin America training revolutionaries to overthrow corrupt regimes?
* Why are you not providing abortions to teenage girls?
Unfortunately, these sorts of questions donÂ’t do much to shut up the average hardcore Leftist, but it might get through to those who havenÂ’t consumed too much Kool-Aid yet.
1
Okay, here's how I would answer the chickenhawks who support a war they are too cowardly to join. First off, I did not support a president who unilaterally caused the crisis in Darfur, the hurricane, Chinese detention of political dissenters, AIDS, corrupt regimes in Latin America, or unwanted pregnancies. Perhaps if I had supported a president who caused those situations, I would be under a moral obligation to do so.
Secondly, if you are proposing a new public service corps, where I will have military-style pay, benefits, opportunity for advancement, analogous to those we provide soldiers, so that I can help address those problems, sign me up. I'm no gutless chickenhawk when it comes to promoting social good, even though I am under far less of an obligation to sign up than the chickenhawks who support the war but are too cowardly to fight it.
Posted by: Dan at Fri Sep 2 08:15:57 2005 (HBqfk)
2
Yeah -- but since I never supported Saddam Hussein, I can't be said to have supported the president who unilaterally caused the situation in Iraq, either.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Fri Sep 2 11:01:32 2005 (a2u3C)
3
And i love how liberals find a way to avoid their responsibility to put it on the line for policies they support.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Fri Sep 2 11:15:08 2005 (a2u3C)
4
I do support the policies I support, and I wish I could do more. And Bush attacked Hussein, not vice versa.
Posted by: Dan at Fri Sep 2 11:19:09 2005 (aSKj6)
5
Hussein violated every single UN resolution following the Gulf War -- compliance with which was a condition for the cessation of hostilities in 1991. As such, the US was under no obligation to refrain from completing the job that Bush 41 uwisely failed to complete in 1991. The responsibility for this resumption of hostilities therefore lays directly at the feet of Saddam Hussein.
We won't get into the genocide, the sheltering of terrorists, , etc that also justified the resumption of hostilities.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Fri Sep 2 11:50:56 2005 (a2u3C)
6
I do support the policies I support, and I wish I could do more.
Gee -- that is one of the arguments that leftists say is the sign of a so-called "chickenhawk". So I guess you do qualify as the liberal equivalent -- I support it, but doing anything about it would be mighty inconvenient."
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Fri Sep 2 11:52:41 2005 (a2u3C)
7
See above, RWR. Bush created this situation with your support - now you help him solve it.
I'm not arguing that Hussein was a good guy - I think the people who freely voted for him (were there any?) should also serve.
And I stand ready to enter the Public Justice Corps you have so generously offered to fund, and I'll encourage my children to do the same. Will the chickenhawks do the same?
Posted by: Dan at Fri Sep 2 12:04:32 2005 (aSKj6)
8
Like I said -- Hussein is the one who is responsible for starting this.
And like I said -- you are just a typical liberal unwilling to inconvenience himself for the thins he claims to support.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Fri Sep 2 12:09:34 2005 (a2u3C)
9
Hussein did not start the war. He was a bad person and a bad leader, but the person you supported started the war. Bush made the decision to attack. And you supported him.
I did not support the decision to create Darfur. I, unlike the chickenhawks, though, am willing to participate in the solution if you create a military-type support structure for me.
Truth is, the chickenhawks are casting about looking for an excuse to justify their cowardice. They are trying to equate solving problems they created with solving problems I did not create. That's intellectual cowardice. They have yellow in their veins and in their intellects. Disgusting.
Posted by: Dan at Fri Sep 2 13:54:21 2005 (aSKj6)
10
Yeah, i suppose if you start looking at the Iraq issue as of spring of 2003, you are right.
Unfortunately for you, intellectual honesty requires looking at the dozen or so years that predate the start of the current phase of the conflict in Iraq.
When looked at in its totality, Saddam Hussein is responsible.
I realize that means upsetting your little liberal house of cards -- as well as your "chickenhawk" mantra -- but thems the breaks.
And don't forget -- the decision was supported 2-1 by Americans.
So if chickenshits want to accuse us of being chickenhawks, so be it -- because they conveniently gloss over the broad base of American support for the war at its inception.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Fri Sep 2 14:48:53 2005 (dlwtI)
11
You know, RWR, you and I are not that far apart on this. I agree that Hussein was a bad leader, and that his evil predated Bush's invasion. I don't agree with you that Hussein's behavior justified an invasion, but I don't expect that I am going to convince you of my position (just as Bush's many, shifting "well, what about this reason?" arguments have not convinced me). I respect the fact that on this value judgment, your position is valid, as is mine.
I also agree that the war had substantial support at its launch - only a minority of us were pointing out that it was unjustified and unwise. I also agree that Bush won re-election by a 51-49 majority.
We just disagree on what those who supported the war and Bush's reelection should be doing. I think they should be standing up for what they believe. Others think they should cower.
Posted by: Dan at Sat Sep 3 04:30:31 2005 (aSKj6)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
