You hear a fair amount of that from the antiwar crowd if, like me, you support a war but have never seen combat yourself. That makes you a ``chicken hawk" -- one of those, as Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, defending John Kerry from his critics, put it during the 2004 presidential campaign, who ``shriek like a hawk, but have the backbone of a chicken." Kerry himself often played that card. ``I'd like to know what it is Republicans who didn't serve in Vietnam have against those of us who did," he would sniff, casting himself as the victim of unmanly hypocrites who never wore the uniform, yet had the gall to criticize him, a decorated veteran, for his stance on the war.
``Chicken hawk" isn't an argument. It is a slur -- a dishonest and incoherent slur. It is dishonest because those who invoke it don't really mean what they imply -- that only those with combat experience have the moral authority or the necessary understanding to advocate military force. After all, US foreign policy would be more hawkish, not less, if decisions about war and peace were left up to members of the armed forces. Soldiers tend to be politically conservative, hard-nosed about national security, and confident that American arms make the world safer and freer. On the question of Iraq -- stay-the-course or bring-the-troops-home? -- I would be willing to trust their judgment. Would Cindy Sheehan and Howard Dean?
The cry of ``chicken hawk" is dishonest for another reason: It is never aimed at those who oppose military action. But there is no difference, in terms of the background and judgment required, between deciding to go to war and deciding not to. If only those who served in uniform during wartime have the moral standing and experience to back a war, then only they have the moral standing and experience to oppose a war. Those who mock the views of ``chicken hawks" ought to be just as dismissive of ``chicken doves."
You remember 'ol Kenny Boy, who emailed an argument to me, who then devolved into screaming "CHICKENHAWKYBABYNEOCON!" at me while I posted his ever-increasingly insane emails? You know that the person you're debating has no argument, no facts, and no clue when they whip out the old "chickenhawk" crap.
When someone calls me a chickenhawk, it's because they know they've lost. They know that they cannot counter a single argument I've put forth. They know that I have facts and logic on my side, while all they possess is a cesspool of BDS sufferers and flat out lunatics on their side. They're like screaming children who have just been put in their place by an adult, and now they're throwing their temper tantrum. "YOU NEOCON CHICKENHAWK! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!"
Me, personally, I get a kick out of it when people call me a chickenhawk. When little Kenny Boy whipped that comment out, I was laughing my ass off. Calling an active duty military member a chickenhawk is the height of idiocy, and it shows just how shallow little Kenny Boy's thought processes are. There are millions of veterans, many of whom have their own blogs, and I'm sure that they've been smeared with the same insult. Watching the Left fling their favorite word around is like watching a three-year old with urine running down his leg screaming "I DID NOT PEE MY PANTS! I DIDN'T! I DIDN'T!" The sheer absurdity of the situation makes you want to laugh and cry at the same time.
But I say let them keep calling us chickenhawks. We can make it like "Godwin's Law". You know, the first one to bring up a Nazi reference in the debate automatically loses? We can call this one "The Kos Dictum". When someone calls the other side a "Chickenhawk", you know that they have no substantive arguments whatsoever and can safely be ignored on any further debate on that subject.
Let's spread it around! The Kos Dictum! Go ahead Kos, call ME a chickenhawk! I dare ya!
And were we face to face, I'm sure he'd do it. And I would once again get to laugh at a mental midget.
No comments:
Post a Comment