Yesterday, Oliver made some bizarre comments regarding the whole ‘chickenhawk’ imbroglio, and I called him on it, because his remarks made no sense whatsoever. Still clutching to the chickenhawk slur like an alcoholic holds a bottle of cheap whiskey, Oliver once again tries to justify calling people chickenhawks, and instead, confuses himself about why we have a military.
Because Oliver has such a delicious sense of irony, he titles his post ‘The Chickenhawk Debate.’ I am glad Oliver agrees that we should debate this subject, but I am not sure what he thinks will be accomplished, because calling someone a ‘chickenhawk’ is not an attempt to debate issues seriously, it is simply an insult designed to silence those whose viewpoints Oliver disagrees with and finds unpalatable. Oliver chooses to debate the merits of a term that he employs to stifle debate- to strangle debate in the crib, and thinks he is accomplishing something. Alanis Morisette- this really is irony, unlike rain on your wedding day.
What is a chickenhawk? According to those with an infatuation with the term, it appears that the term has multiple meanings. Sometimes it means anyone who might have a hawkish viewpoint about any possible war, but who currently is not rushing out to enlist for the current war. Another alternative meaning that seems to be thrown around is anyone who has never served in the military, yet is advocating the use of the military. At its most offensive, the chickenhawk slur is used to attack elected leaders who may have never served in the military, or in President Bush’s case, elected leader’s whose military service just isn’t up to snuff to the rigorous standards for military service as stated by people like Oliver, Atrios, Ted Rall, and Tom Tomorrow.
One caveat to the chickenhawk slur is that a Democrat can never be a chickenhawk (unless they are a ‘DINO,’ which means the kool-aid crowd no longer considers their lifelong commitment to the Democrat Party valid- see Miller, Zell). Thus, even though he dodged the draft, lied about his draft status, and whatever else you want to believe, Bill Clinton, despite deploying the armed forces umpteen times during his Presidency, could never be accurately described as a ‘chickenhawk.’ The Democrat position on war to our cunning linguists using the chickenhawk slur is always a default ‘against,’ while he Republican position about any war is a default ‘in favor.’ Thus, when Democrats wage war, they were forced by events, whereas chickenhawk Republicans just raced into war, with, as Oliver stated:
Much like our president, vice-president and several other members of this administration, the warbloggers encourage using our military as some kind of toy to be trifled with, invading on whim when if they or their children were forced to serve they would likely be humming a whole ‘nother tune.
Of course, that assumes an idea more complex than “Hulk Smash” can make it that far up their noggins.
Aren’t we glad Oliver cleared that up for us? At any rate, there really is no way to debate the term chickenhawk. Let’s try, just for fun:
“You are a chickenhawk,” Mr. Loony Left stated. “You have never served in the military yet are ordering our troops into Kosovo.”
“You are an idiot,” Mr. Fascist Warmongerer replied.
And that really is about as far as you can take the debate- the assertion that not having served nor not currently serving in the military invalidates someone’s position on a military affair simply is not an argument- it is a loose assertion backed by no facts, logic, or reason. Let’s try some comparable statements:
“You have never worked in a garden in your life. You are not allowed to decide what vegetables you are going to have for dinner.”
“You have never played a down of football. You are not allowed to coach the Pee-Wee team.”
“You have never had any surgery performed on you. You are therefore forbidden to become a Doctor.”
It just makes no sense- it is not a valid form of argument, and it just makes no sense whatsoever. Which, of course, you should be well aware of- because when Oliver calls someone a chickenhawk, he doesn’t want a debate, he just wants them to shut up. Calling someone a chickenhawk is really just shorthand for:
“Nanny, nanny, boo, boo. I disagree with you, fathead. Shut up, you big meanie. I am going home.”
Apparently, Oliver is starting to realize this, because he is moving away from his initial statement yesterday to his statements today in this ‘Chickenhawk Debate.’
Here’s the point, and it doesn’t take a brain surgeon to get it: the people who are supporting and encouraging a war of first-strike aggression are the same people who didn’t/aren’t serving. Do you have to have been in the military to support or oppose war? No. But the usual way things go in America is that we don’t attack and invade others. The desk jockey warrior class thinks its okay to upend this – and why not? It’s not like they have to go fight it. That one or two or five of the warbloggers actually serve or have friends/family that serve does not change the thrust of this concept.
Now, a chickenhawk appears to be someone who has nothing to lose personally, and it has nothing to do with actual military service. Oliver even says so: “Do you have to have been in the military to support or oppose war? No.”
That clears things up. I guess chickenhawks are now people who disagree with pre-emptive strikes (and let’s excuse Oliver’s gross naivete “the usual way things go in America is that we don’t attack and invade others”- anyone want to make a laundry list of countries we have invaded, with or without cause?). Regardless, even with that definition, the term chickenhawk makes no sense:
“You believe in attacking and invading other countries, which is not the American way. You are therefore a chickenhawk. Your views on all military affairs should be summarily dismissed.”
Whatever. Not content to be merely wrong, in some tasty projection, Oliver then conflates his entire chickenhawk debate into his perception of Bush and Cheney and their real feelings about the military:
People like Bush/Cheney simply have no real respect for our soldiers. They see them as an ends to a means (“Bring ’em on!”) and as pieces on a chess board to be moved around on whims. When a leader deploys his army, especially one like ours in an operation this complex, he better have a better plan than “we’ll liberate Iraq and be back by noon”.
Read that again several times in all its stunning stupidity, because you will be hardpressed to find more dumb cogently compressed into three sentences in your entire life.
1.) The military is a means to an end. From the dawn of time, the military has been used to settle political disputes that could not be settled in other fashions. I am sorry this bothers you, but it is clear that a lot of things you don’t understand upset you. There isn’t even any internal consistency to this ‘argument.’ Assume we are a pacifist nation, yet we maintain our massive military. If we were attacked, should the President mobilize all firemen? The NAACP? The AFL-CIO? I would recommend he mobilizes the military- you know, that whole ‘means/ends’ thing.
2.) Anything Oliver disagrees or does not understand is now to be termed a whim. For example: “On a whim, Alan Greenspan and the Federal Reserve announced interest rates would not change.” Here is another: “On a whim, Congress passed and Clinton signed the DOMA.” See- anything you don’t like or disagree with you can term ‘whimsical,’ and then you are spared the dual duty of understanding your opponents argument and creating a rational response. It’s ‘Arguing for the Lazy, 101.’
3.) Oliver, despite no military service himself (how does he skillfully evade the ‘chickenhawk’ label when making proclamations like this) feels it necessary to provide military leaders aroud the world with some really useful advice- You should have a better plan than “we’ll liberate Iraw and be back by noon.” Sage advice, friends. Two questions- does this mean that Oliver is dropping the ‘Bush had no plan’ meme, and does this mean that Oliver really thinks that is all the current administration thought? The arrogance or ignorance is staggering- you take your pick.
4.) Oliver has slipped up and has fallen prey to the dreaded fallacy known as the false dichotomy, the false dilemma, the black and white fallacy- whatever you want to call it. According to Oliver’s reasoning, you can either see the military as an “end to a means,” or you can ‘respect’ the soldiers. Clearly this is not a binary construct, but oh well. Additionally, does Oliver mean that in order for a leader to ‘respect’ his military, he/she should let them decide who to invade and when and why? Maybe we are homing in on the ends/means confusion Oliver has displayed. Talk amongst yourselves. As Matt Stinson noted, Oliver sounds like Cleamenceau in reverse– “War is too important to be left to the politicians!”
At any rate, I think we should all be able to agree that the chickenhawk slur is not an argument, not a set of reasoning, not fact based, but merely an insult designed to stifle debate. If you can’t think about any other reasons, at least look at the fact that our Founding Fathers saw no reason for military experience to be a requirement to become President. And what, with the War Powers Act and Congress controlling the funding, there is no military service requirement there, either. All of Congress could be composed of chickenhawks- egads!
At any rate, even if the term doesn’t die, I am done with it. When I hear someone say it in public, I will fumble around in my pocket for a mint, or a piece of gum, or a lollipop, and I will hand it to whoever said it so they have something to occupy their feeble mind, just like a toddler trying to wait patiently in a Doctor’s office. When I am reading online, I am going to mentally subsitute the following phrase every time I see the word ‘chickenhawk:’
Look at big stupid me! I can’t form an argument and I am going to to try to shut up those who can.
*** Update ***
Jay has some thoughts, as does Sean Hackbarth.
*** Update #2 ***
I guess everyone was pissed at the attempts to resuscitate the ‘chickenhawk’ meme. Dean Esamy comments here, Baldilocks comments here, and John Hawkins comments here.
Andrew Lazarus
To my mind, you can’t be a chickenhawk unless you also accuse opponents of your pet military action (Iraq, Iran, etc.) of cowardice. That’s what puts Limbaught & Co. over the edge, and not Clinton and other Dems who “arranged” not to serve.
Dean
I seem to be one of the few of an age when it was simply assumed that having been in the military (or being IN the military) presumably made you one who was a warmonger.
While there haven’t been any polls of military personnel (AFAIK), the closest (a survey of readers of Defense News) indicated overwhelming support for the war on Iraq. One suspects that, if they were polled, the armed forces in general would probably exhibit similar characteristics (although such a poll would probably be bad for discipline).
If Oliver really wants to make the argument that only those who haven’t served are in favor of taking the war to the enemy, then one suspects he’s deeply mistaken.
As for the idea that preemption is a thing apart from the American way of war, one has to ask: Was FDR (chickenhawk that he was) engaged in anti-American ways when he authorized “shoot on sight” against German U-boats PRIOR to December 7th? Was he acting out of some non-military bravado when he dispatched pawns, I mean “volunteers” to places like China and England, put US Navy ships in harm’s way (including the sinking of the USS Reuben James), and acted like a belligerent IN SPECIFIC VIOLATION OF THE NEUTRALITY ACTS?
Just curious….
Pauly
Me too.
http://www.hereticalideas.com/archives/001413.html
And as John said, I’m done with it. Enough of slamming my head into a brick wall for the time being.
JPS
Yow! That’s gonna leave a mark.
Dean, goood points about FDR. But don’t you see, FDR was one of the good guys. A different set of rules applies to him (retrospectively), than to a bad guy like Bush. When a good guy breaks the rules, or stretches the truth near the breaking point, it’s OK because he’s doing what’s right. But Bush can’t be trusted that way. I hope I’ve cleared this up.
Which is why, John, Clinton was not, and could never be, called a chickenhawk.
Kimmitt
The “chickenhawk” argument applies to those who thought Vietnam was a good idea, but not a good enough one to be worthy of their personal service, and feel much the same way about Iraq — that they are delighted to send others off to fight and die, but when the time came for them to show the courage of their convictions, they took every available legal, quasilegal, and outright illegal means of avoiding doing so.
I don’t find it particularly compelling as an argumentative tool; thirty years ago is not now, and Iraq is not (yet) Vietnam. But it does illustrate well the state of mind of many of those who advocated this war — that war is something which someone else fights for you.
Terry
The historical record would indicate that post the American Revolutionary War, virtually all of our wars have been initiated and managed by leaders who were not active combatants. And re the closing comment of Kimmitt above, the ones opposed to the war in Vietnam were primarily the ones taking advantage of “..every available legal,quasilegal, and outright illegal means of avoiding doing so…” The ones responsible for our involvement were well beyond the draft age limits.
David Perron
I see the goalposts at the chickenhawkers have now broken the sound barrier. Kudos to the intellectually impaired at achieving this important milestone.
So, as I understand it, “chickenhawk” means precisely what you want it to mean in that particular usage. I guess it’s probably more elegant than “thingamabob”, but not much more descriptive.
Gregory Litchfield
John Cole – Interestingly enough, I came away from Oliver’s site with precisely the same interpretation of his argument as you did. According to his commentators, we got it wrong. How? I don’t know, and no-one will tell me what Oliver’s original point was supposed to be.
I can’t help but chuckle as the antiwar left disregards everything it has ever stood for in order to attack Bush and war supporters.
Civilian control of the military? Nope, best left to the professionals.
Freedom of speech for all? Nope, if you haven’t served, you don’t know what you’re talking about, so we have every right to shout you down as a “chickenhawk”.
Skepticism of the defense establishment? Nope, we should take them at their word. Sure, we’ve spent the last thirty years excising any member of the left who actually supports a strong and vigorous national defense (think Scoop Jackson). Sure, we never trusted anything that came out of the Pentagon since WWII. But now? Things are different.
Can’t attack someone else’s patriotism? Nope. You just can’t attack ours. We want soldiers to stay alive, by not sending them overseas to fight and die to protect America. You do. Ergo, we are patriots, and you are chickenhawks.
Hyprocrisy the greatest sin? Nope, only if conservatives and warmongers do it. Antiwar liberals, and our allies among the paleocons, are immune.
The staggering level of hyprocrisy from Oliver and Co. on this issue boggles the mind. How can they honestly put forth BS arguments, like the Chickenhawk debacle, with a straight face?
Ricky
Well, it’s a good thing that Oliver never supported pro-war John Edwards huh?
Oh, I can’t wait until the pro-war Hillary runs.
Charlie
It really shouldn’t be necessary to spend all this effort refuting the “chickenhawk” argument, seeing as it’s practically a textbook example of the argumentam ad hominem (circumstantial) and fallacious on the face of it.
It really shouldn’t.
Damn.
~A~
Well at least the title at the top of the page accurately describes it’s content. Chickenhawk, by the way, describes a person who fled from or actively resisted serving in a “time” of war when they were of lawful age who now advocate the use of military might to secure, at the very least “dubious”ends. That would include Clinton so don’t throw out that tired, “but what about the democrats!” argument. If Clinton jumped off a cliff would you? And the Pentagon didn’t exist during WWII, it was built after…and the fact that Bush et al provided bogus and hyped information in order to convince senator’s to vote for the Iraq war does not excuse Bush from doing so…I can understand being a little more understanding with the senators. They believed their president and made a mistake…the sin is that now…when everyone knows the intel on Iraq was bogus you still won’t admit it and look for other reason to support the war, like “We need to be safe and secure from terrorists” I think Ben Franklin said it best, “A country that gives up it’s basic freedoms in exchange for security deserve neither safety nor freedom.”
David Perron
Mmmm…okey doke.
Mark L
Ahhh . . . `A`
What “bogus and hyped information” exactly did Bush provide to “to convince senator’s to vote for the Iraq war?”
Please be specific. No “yellowcake from Niger in the SOTU” bilge either. Bush did not refer to Niger in that speech, nor did any Senator use it to determine his vote on authorizing force.
So give *specific* examples of “bogus and hyped information” upon which Senators made their decisions. Bad intelligence does not count, either. You have to base a decision on the information available, and unless you wish to yield to paralysis by analysis you have to base judgements on potentially bad intel. So only list specific examples of information falsified by the President or his staff — and only such examples that could have been made prior to the authorization vote.
John Cole
And the Pentagon didn’t exist during WWII, it was built after.
You idiots cant even get basic history right. The pentagon was built during WWII, completed in January 1943, and used for over 2 1/2 years during WWII.
Next.
~A~
Actually they began moving into the Pentagon in April of 1943. My point was that the Pentagon was not the full on end all beat all of military matters until after the war.
And Mark I will make my decisions and comments based on my own criteria and not yours. I will use what facts and figures I see fit. After all, if I had the information you would require to make an argument against the war I would be a key witness against this president at his impeachment. But your right, Bush did not specifically refer to Niger but he did refer to Yellow cake from Africa and that claim, like the claim of Iraq’s possession of WMD’s, has been debunked. And WMD’s were the big selling point to the senators, which is why yellow cake is relevent, it has to do with making nuclear weapons. And your also right that you have to make decisions based on the information at hand…Okay, I’ll bite…everyone was working in good faith….but now that we know it was all “bad” intel (which seems unlikely to me) don’t ya think we owe the world at least an “Ooops, our bad”?
Dean Esmay
I must admit, Andrew has a good point.
If someone called a war opponent a “coward” simply for not wanting to go to war, then retorting that he’s a “chickenhawk” is probably fair game. If said “chickenhawk” has never served and has no intention of ever serving, anyway.
That’s about the only time I could see it make sense, but it is a fair point I think.
Steve Malynn
Dean, the problem of your example is that while I served in Somalia, and would supposedly be immune from the label, my brothers who did not serve would have to defend themselves from the baseless canard in an argument.
Of course no one bases their pro-war arguments on the proposition that the AntiWar types are cowards, just that they are wrong for suborning US interests to foreign powers/appeasing terror. Well, appeasing terror trends towards cowardice, but the argument is still against a policy, not name calling.
“Chickenhawk” is pure name calling in place of making a policy argument.
~A~
Steve,
The whole “chinckenhawk” name did not start as name calling against people who were “for” the war. It started as a critisism of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld who rushed to war when they had in fact used either legal or dubious means to avoid service themselves during Vietnam when there was a draft. With the advent of the modern volunteer army the stigma of “Draft Dodging” can be avoided…but as it was used against Clinton (and rightfully so) it should also apply to our current crop in the whitehouse. It’s not just about the issues of the war…it’s the vehement way that Bush & Co. pushed the war even in the face of the largest demonstarations in the history of the earth and against the wishes of virtually the entire civilized world. Hawkishness is not the oppossite of passiveness. Hawkishness is the desire to harm even when it is against your own best interests.
Mark L
`A`
Of *course* you are going to base your comments on your own criteria. It is sooo much easier than having to depend upon facts. But imminent use of WMD was *not* the basis of the President’s call to use force in Iraq. It was Saddam’s constant violation of the *cease-fire* terms to which he agreed. (In fact, under international law Bush did not need to do anything — go to the UN, ask the Senate for a resolution authorizing force — because the way that Hussain had violated the cease-fire terms to which he had agreed, but Bush did both.) Hussain was in the position of demonstrating that he had *complied* with his agreements — fully and completely. He was on sufferance for 10 years, like a debtor that consistently refuses to pay his bill. We foreclosed. Yeah, he asked for one more chance. So would the debtor.
Of all of the world’s leaders, only Hussain had attained a trifecta — launching multiple wars of agression against neighbors, using unconventional weapons, and massacring his own population. He also funded an assassination attempt on an American President, and the first attack on the WTC. Then he chose to play games with us after 9-11.
Was the threat of his WMD less imminent than the Donks now say it was? Possibly, but HUSSAIN was responsible for the existance of the threat. He had eighteen months following 9/11 to give inspectors complete and unfettered access to his country — something he agreed to as a condition for stopping the Gulf War. He chose to make us think he had WMDs. That is no different than a felon, with previous convictions for armed assault, choosing to let the police believe he had a gun. Under those circumstances, if the cops shoot the guy, too bad if he wasn’t armed.
Bush stated his case on removing Hussain quite clearly. Hussain was a long-term threat to the United States, a threat which was a luxury we could no longer afford after 9-11. Bush gave Hussain opportunities to demonstrate that Iraq was no longer a long-term threat. Hussain spurned them.
But the administration’s case was based on the long-term strategic threat posed by Iraq. It does not matter what Donk spinners say now or what the press claimed then. All you have to do is look at the record.
Some Democrats *may* have voted for war because they were afraid of anthrax attacks or perhaps they were afeared that Hussain was going to attack them with Sarin next week, but I think that is their problem, not Bush’s. It indicates their inability to understand the case that was presented to them. So again — what “bogus and hyped information” did the President or his staff present — outside the imaginations of weak-minded opponents of the President, that is.
Dean
~A~:
But your own argument in your latest post suggests just how out of hand this is. You cite Rumsfeld, for example, when Rumsfeld in fact DID serve, just not in time of war (1957-1959, I believe), in the US Navy. Is this another example of you using what facts and figures that you wish? Or is this a case of the Pentagon being built in WWII, but not the “beat all” as you put it?
Facts are such inconvenient things.
And please cite a Republican who opposed Kosovo BECAUSE CLINTON DID NOT SERVE IN VIETNAM? One of the aspects that bothered some on the Right (frankly, not myself) about Clinton wasn’t his not serving (many did not serve), but his whole “woulda served, but didn’t quite support it, but didn’t really oppose it” dodging—the same kind of thing that was mocked w/ his “didn’t inhale” business.
What I, frex, found FAR more disturbing was his and his staff’s general lack of respect for military folks once he came into office.
You say, “It’s not just about the issues of the war…it’s the vehement way that Bush & Co. pushed the war even in the face of the largest demonstarations in the history of the earth and against the wishes of virtually the entire civilized world.”
Frankly, whether there are demonstrations or not is irrelevant. There were huge demonstrations in the mid-1980s against Pershing IIs and cruise missiles. Did that make the decision to deploy them wrong? Oddly, just as there were few demonstrations against Russian SS-20s then, there were darn few people who seemed to want to hold Hussein responsible now. Wonder why that would be?
As for that “civilized world,” I take it that Britain, Italy, Australia, and Poland also fall outside that august title?
Puh-leeze.
mark
You know,
All the people who shout “chickenhawk” as an insult at Bush for serving in the national guard during Vietnam (see A’s post above).
Guess how we know how they feel about national guard service, eh?
Mike
Why don’t we try turning all decisions about war over exclusively to the most hawkish, belligerent, and war-loving members of the military and/or ex-military we can find, eh? Think that’ll make the doomsayers, negativists, and Bush-haters happy at last? Or do you think their angry shouting would at last probably drown out the sound of car bombs, bomb belts, and AK-47s going off in streets all over the world, while they continue to dither and nitpick every last action taken against terrorism by any and all Republican elected leaders? Oh wait, I forgot – Bush wasn’t elected. Sorry.
Greyhawk
Let me add this: as a GI overseas I’m damn proud to read statreside blogs by the “chickenhawks” and would like to publicly thank anyone who has thus been taunted for their support over the past few months. Reading Blogs has been a fantastic alternative to the loonytunes passing as network news these days; I urge all “chickenhawks” to keep up the good work.
When I get back home I’ll buy you guys the drinks.
scott h.
Can’t we just agree that most warbloggers are chickenhawks, just like most anti-warbloggers are traitors? *ducks*
scott h.
After the “Chickenhawk Debate”, can we do the “Objectively Pro-Saddam” debate? *ducks again*
scott h.
Just to clear up any possible confusion, I do not think those who are anti-war are either traitors or “objectively pro-Saddam”.
John Cole
Scott- Stop it.
~A~
Mark, you say, “Of all of the world’s leaders, only Hussain had attained a trifecta — launching multiple wars of agression against neighbors, using unconventional weapons, and massacring his own population.”
Unfortunately you forget that this description fits the United States as well…for shame.
And Dean…I’m not citing a Reblican re: Clinton and Kosavo…I’m siting me. As a former Marine I would not have allowed a draft dodger to be president but hey! That’s just me…and Bush being AWOL from the Air National Guard is not slamming all guardsman…it’s just slamming a rich kid who went out and used his daddy’s influence to stay safe while others died in his place.
And Rumsfeld did serve in the Navy after college but that was after Korea when he used his college deferment to avoid being drafted. I do not claim that Rumsfeld is a chickenhawk anyway…I just intended to point out that the word was generally directed at Bush et al…and I did say that they avoided service during times of war by legal or other dubious means…that covers Rummy I think. The point is, he had the opportunity to serve and didn’t. That doesn’t mean he gets to have no say or can’t hold public office or can’t be the secretary of defense…it just means that when his country needed him he wasn’t there…take that for whatever you think it’s worth.
~A~
And Mark…I haven’t shouted Chickenhawk at anyone. I can, however, understand the feeling. I also understand why people might want to go to war with Iraq…I don’t pick on republicans. If this had been a democrat in office I’d be saying the same things. Like I said before…(and a point no one has answered yet) barring all the rhetoric and name calling, going into Iraq was a tactical and strategic lose lose situation…even if we could create a democracy there that was friendly to the US (which I doubt) it would still be surrounded by our (and now their) enemies and the daily warfare there would make the Israeli/Palestinian conflict look like club med.
David Perron
“Unfortunately you forget that this description fits the United States as well…for shame.”
Yep, I recall well in the days of my youth, when waged warfare most cruel against Canada and Mexico. Good thing we overthrew the government that tear-gassed the compound in Waco, but I hardly think that’s got much to do with use of chem/bio agents against one’s own citizens.
Anonymous
I wish the right had taken such an anti-“chickenhawk” stance during the Clinton administration. Fair and balanced, my ass. Selective outrage more like it.
Dean
~A~:
I’m curious, did you pick up the moral equivalency aspect in the US Marine Corps?
Viewing us as little different from the Iraqis, did you think that when you were in the Corps as well? Did you view your fellow Marines as equal to the Iraqi Republican Guard, and therefore as likely to fire upon American citizens as they were on their own citizens?
~A~
David,
I was refering to our own multiple wars of aggression (yes, against Mexico “Forget the Alamo”) and against other countries as well as I believe another person noted above… Panama, Grenada, and a host of others. We used a-bombs twice and killed indians and our own countrymen in the civil war. We killed slaves when we had them and it was legal. We worked through our difficult periods and learned from our own mistakes…What a wonderful world it would have been if France and England had invaded the US in the name of ending slavery.
~A~
I’m not sure about the “moral equivalency” your talking about Dean. It was Mark who said that Hussein alone in the world held the trifecta…I was just pointing out that our history is not without it’s own dark periods and in any case was not a comparison between Iraq’s army and ours. Though our military is increasingly being used against criminals inside ConUS to aid against the war on drugs…have they killed any Americans? I don’t know. And I don’t think we are that different from the Iraqis…people are people. And if you want to go by just numbers, we’ve killed far more Iraqi civilians than they’ve killed of our military so who would you call the “bad guy”?
~A~
And David,
We sold those Chem/Bio weapons to Saddam (when he was our ally) for that express purpose…to put down a rebellion. Four days after the UN blasted Saddam for that deed…we see the now historic figure of Don Rumsfeld meeting with Saddam in Baghdad, shaking hands and making all nice nice. How’d them chemicals we sent you work on them Kurds? Fine…fine…we’ll send anothe mess over in a week or two to use against them heathen Iranians. Lord, lord isn’t it nice to have a democratically elected secular leader named Saddam Hussein on our side against those hateful islamic jihadist!
brendan
Is “chickendove” the opposite of “chickenhawk?”
Mike
Greyhawk: that’s a mighty deep hole you’re a-diggin’ for yourself with those drink offers, buddy….
;)
Mark L.
~A~
You don’t read too good, do you?
Saddam Hussian = Leader
United States = Nation
Nation >
David Perron
Using atomic weapons against a country we’re at war with plus a few Indian massacres doesn’t equal using WMDs against your own people. Both of the above are horrible, but combining them is kind of like adding apples and Orange County.
I reject any assertion that somehow I or anyone else in this country is guilty of the sum of all bad things this country has done throughout history. We can play that game going a great deal further back in time until everyone in the world is just about equally guilty, and your argument is now worthless. Not that it was all that good of an argument to start with.
Thanks for making me laugh by digging up the old, tired, we-sold-Hussein-WMD claim. Completely incorrect, but still has humor value.
JPS
I should maybe let it go, but if I recall correctly Saddam Hussein did indeed buy anthrax from inside the U.S.
Not, mind, from the U.S. government. No, he bought his initial samples, before the sanctions, from a private chemical/biological research supply company and had them shipped by one of the very-rapid-courier companies (not sure if it was FedEx).
This of course gets turned into, The U.S. deliberately gave him his bioweapons program!! by people eager to blame us for every bad thing we didn’t stop, in order to slam us for bad things we did stop.
And it should be borne in mind the next time some equivocator says, regarding the samples of C. botulinum hidden in Iraqi scientists’ private homes, that they could just be research specimens and they don’t at all prove any bioweapons program was underway.
P.S.: No, I am not saying SH was behind the anthrax attacks of 10/01.
David Perron
Now, if the US government had only sold him that anthrax, and if he’d only used that anthrax against his own citizens, tildeatilde might have had a point. Sadly, no.
~A~
The point is that in the history of this country American Leaders who are “Individuals” ordered the use of nuclear weapons (the mother of all WMD’s). The ordered the killing of their own citizens in order to halt a civil war. And these leaders, though different ones at different times, waged wars of aggression against their neigbors and other countries and in other climes. I was not talking about anthrax…anthrax was not used against the Kurds. The chemicals weapons (not biological weapons) used by Hussein against his own people were provided By President Ronald Reagan…not President Clinton. And I’m not saying that anyone here or that any single individual is responsible for the past sins of our country. But that doesn’t excuse ignoring those sins or acting like our country is some knight in shining armor riding in to save the Iraqis when our history shows that our “leaders” have done things that are far worse that Hussein….And David, government By the People and For the People means we are RESPONSIBLE for our leaders actions.
Dean
~A~:
Are you arguing that somehow the Civil War was illegitimate? What are you claiming by bringing that example up?
David Perron
Ah. So this has us using WMD against our own citizens in what exact way?
Now, I can come up with a cite that runs counter to your claim; can you come up with anything substantial supporting it?
~A~
Dean and David,
In an earlier post there was a statement that Hussein alone held the “trifecta” of:
1. Useing weapons of mass destruction.
2. Going to war with his neigbors (Iran and Kuwait).
3. Killing his own people.
And no Dean I’m not arguing the illegitimacy of the civil war. I responded (earlier) to the post by stateing that the US also held the “trifecta” in question and cited past history as an example. I’m simply stateing that one of our leaders (Lincoln) had ordered Federal troops to attack and kill other Americans…see number 3 above. And David…the original trifecta point was not use of WMD’s against his own people. That was two points put together. And if you knew anything about Iraq you would know that Saddam did not consider the Kurds to be “his” people…much in the same way in our history the Irish, Italians, and Jews were not considered “Americans”. Also David, the article you linked too does more to support my claim than counter it. That Powell said he didn’t know about it is absurd on it’s face. The event was well documented by the UN days after it happened (hense all those photo’s we’ve seen of Kurds laying dead in the streets with little or no sign of decay) and Rumsfeld met with Saddam days after the UN condemned the action publicly and Saddam continued to receieve support from both our government and our private industry for quite some time thereafter.
The point was, that even if he alone in the world possessed the “trifecta” it would not be grounds for an invasion.
Kimmitt
“Guess how we know how they feel about national guard service, eh?”
Actually, it’s how I feel about men who skip national guard service during wartime in order to avoid taking a drug test that’s a little more relevant.
Dean
~A~:
Thanks for moving this thread into the surreal.
So, basically, there are no leaders that are remarkably bad.
Genocidal? Every nation’s had a genocidal leader somewhere in there.
Uses WMD? Well, if we throw in some uses of plague in the besieging of cities, most nations have a history of that somewhere, too.
Invades their neighbors? Ditto.
No way to distinguish among nations, or for that matter, among leaders. Lincoln=Saddam.
Thanks, ~A~. I wondered if you were worth responding to, now I don’t have to.
~A~
“So, basically, there are no leaders that are remarkably bad.
Genocidal? Every nation’s had a genocidal leader somewhere in there.”
Nope…never said that…we wern’t even talking about genocide.
“Uses WMD? Well, if we throw in some uses of plague in the besieging of cities, most nations have a history of that somewhere, too.”
If you wish…I was referring to nuclear weapons which are considerably worse than anything you’ve described or Saddam has done.
“No way to distinguish among nations, or for that matter, among leaders.”
Exactly my point. All nations wage war at some point and all have histories they’d rather forget. Useing that as an excuse to invade is preposterous…you’d have to invade the whole world…or maybe that’s Bush’s plan? Sneaky devil.
As for the sureal, it’s seems that you’re the one who’s turning a relatively minor dictator in what is basically a third world country into the “Great Satan” that threatens to destroy the entire world if not stopped. It’s not an accurate description of the situation or Iraq as a country…I know it makes it easier for you to sleep at night knowing your government has killed thousands in your name to think of them as “evil”…but that doesn’t make it so.
~A~
And Dean…it’s good to see that you agree with me that other nations, along with our’s, and Saddam’s, hold the trifecta that was referred to earleir. Kudos to you for taking off the blinders and seeing the worldfor what it really is.
JPS
This thread’s getting awfully long. Sorry, John.
~A~:
Can you please give me a link to a relatively neutral source documenting that the U.S. under Reagan gave Saddam Hussein chemical weapons, which he used against the Kurds? I find this difficult to believe and am interested in checking it out for myself. Please, no opinion/advocacy sites with an ideological axe to grind; just the facts, please.
~A~
And just so I’m clear…we invaded Iraq in 2003 to punish him for something he did between 1983 and 1988…that we knew he was doing then and know he’s not doing now. Huummmm….yes it all makes sense to me now.
~A~
JPS,
Scrole up to David Perron’s “counter” souce listed in his earlier post…it documents that we provided a host of Chemical weapons to Iraq for the purposes of their use in the Iran/Iraq conflict. I have no specific documentation, that gas was given to Saddam Hussein for the express purpose of killing Kurds…we obviously provided the gas prior to him using it on the Kurds and our continued governemntal support of his regime after the facts of the Kurdish Massacre were made public and condemned by the UN would be, at least, condoning the usage…that and the fact that we continued to provide those and other weapons to him after the facts were known would again tend to show that we condoned the manner in which he was useing them.
~A~
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,60702,00.html
JPS I think this is it…I copied it from David’s earlier post.
David Perron
~A~ needs to read more carefully. The article is about a NYT article that claims we sold chemical weapons to Iraq after we discovered they were using it on the Kurds. And what, exactly, is used to corroborate this claim? Why, nothing. Nothing at all.
“A spokesman for Powell called the latest allegations that the U.S. knowingly let Iraq use chemical weapons “dead wrong,” but would not further discuss it. Other senior military officials from the period and the Defense Intelligence Agency declined to comment.”
Hardly condemning.
darkjethro
Ok, Lets get one thing straight: Bush was not ever AWOL. This lie has been debunked. All documentation supports a clean record and interviews with all involved confirm. Just because it is your wet dream to paint Bush as a draft dodger, it ain’t so. At the time, he volunteered for a unit that was on active duty in Vietnam. That be the facts.
In reference to the supposed proof that the US gave Iraq the weapons it used to gas the Kurds in the link above. Hogwash.
The money quotes from the story above:
“The new revelations are evidence that the United States was more deeply involved in the Iran-Iraq war than previously believed. The U.S. had taken a firm anti-Iran stance to protect oil-producing states nearby from Tehran’s brand of Islamic zealotry, and it was long known that Washington gave Iraq intelligence assistance in the form of satellite reconnaissance.
According to the senior officials, who asked not to be identified, Reagan, Vice President George Bush and senior military officials supported the program that had more than 60 DIA officers essentially working for Iraq, giving Baghdad detailed information on Iranian strengths and troop deployments, tactical planning, airstrike plans and damage assessment. That support never wavered even though the administration knew that Iraq was using mustard gas, sarin and VX against Iranian soldiers.
Iraq never, however, explicitly admitted using chemical weapons to the U.S., though it became more and more obvious as the war wore on..
A senior defense intelligence officer at the time said that the U.S.’s paramount concern was that Iran did not win.
The DIA “would have never accepted the use of chemical weapons against civilians, but the use against military objectives was seen as inevitable in the Iraqi struggle for survival,” Col. Walter P. Lang, now retired, told the newspaper. ”
There is no evidence here that the US gave anything to Iraq other than sat.recon. as they were battling Islamic Fascists in Iran for their lives.
Close, but no cigars…
And, as was mentioned in an earlier post, Breaking terms of surrender is all the authorization we needed to go in.
To paraphrase “Bones”: What ~A~ says is unimportant, we do not hear his words…”
Heh.
Kimmitt
“Ok, Lets get one thing straight: Bush was not ever AWOL. This lie has been debunked. All documentation supports a clean record and interviews with all involved confirm. ”
Lies.
Bush refuses to release his military record, and all availble documentation leans heavily toward ditching to avoid a drug test.
Marko
My personal feeling is that no blogger on the left can object to the war unless they joined the military after 9/11 then declared themselves unwilling to fight in Iraq, took a dishonorable discharge, then took a below-minimum-wage job at Moveon.org.
Kimmitt
You forgot the part where they’re also Dean Meetup Hosts in their off time. Purity must be maintained.
(Okay, you can be a Kucinich Meetup host, too. But no Clark!)
russ
Oliver et al should consider the comments of John Hawkins of Right Wing News: The Chickenhawk Slur
(http://www.rightwingnews.com/john/chickenhawks.php)
On Veterans Day, I noticed that more than a few left-wing websites decided it was an opportune time to break out the “chickenhawks” slur again. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the word or who associate it with its more vulgar meaning, when the left uses the term, they are generally referring to a foreign policy hawk who has not been in the military and is not seeking to join up. You see, they’re of the opinion that only those who have actually fought in the military or who are willing to do so, should be able to advocate war. Of course, that’s not exactly what you’d call a “well reasoned argument,” but keep in mind that we’re talking about people who think that carrying a giant puppet head at an anti-war rally run by Communists passes for an eloquent statement about the war on terrorism.
But one has to wonder if these same people think of Woodrow “we must make the world safe for Democracy” Wilson as “Chickenhawk” Wilson? After all, Wilson, the man who launched our country into WW1, had been a professor of political science before he got into politics, not a military man. Then there’s FDR, a gentleman who certainly couldn’t be called a pacifist. In fact, old Franklin “Chickenhawk” Roosevelt led our country into the bloodiest war this planet has ever seen. Was he wrong to have done that since he never served in the military? Most of us would say “no,” but you have to wonder if the people who’re today hooting “chickenhawk” would disagree. We could even look to Bill Clinton and wonder why a President who not only didn’t serve in the military, but once wrote in a letter that he “loathed the military,” was not branded with a scarlet “Chickenhawk” for his rather aggressive foreign policy in Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, & Haiti.
Moreover, does it not seem a bit hypocritical that the very people who expect hawks to enlist in the military are not willing to make similar sacrifices themselves? For example, whatever you think of Rachel Corrie, the “peace activist” who was accidentally run over by an Israeli bulldozer while she tried to protect smuggling tunnels used by terrorists, you couldn’t have accused her of being a hypocrite if she had ever called someone a “chickenhawk”. Similarly, while you would be wrong to act as a human shield at a North Korean gulag, in front of a terrorist enclave in the West Bank, or at a bomb making warehouse in Tikrit, at least no one could claim that you were asking others to do what you were not willing to do yourself. But if you decry “chickenhawks who advocate war while they’re safe at home,” please don’t claim some sort of moral high ground if you “advocate refusing to prosecute the war on terrorism while safe at home” yourself.
It’s also worth pointing out that the people who reproach “chickenhawks” for their lack of military experience don’t seem to apply that same concept to anything else. For example, are these same individuals refusing to take a position on the actions of their local police department if they’ve never been a policeman? Do they believe that John Ashcroft knows best if they have never worked for the DOJ?
Here’s an idea that’ll allow you to find out where they really stand. The next time you hear someone gripe about “chickenhawks,” ask their opinion about how President Bush has done since his election in 2000. Then, if they’re intellectually consistent people, you can expect them to say something like, “I really can’t properly evaluate what the President should or shouldn’t do because I have never been President myself”. After all, that’s what they expect the people they call “chickenhawks” to do when it comes to the military isn’t it?
In addition to that, I think it’s worth pointing out that while the exceptional men and women who serve in our armed forces may be experts at combat, that does not mean that ALL of them are geniuses at foreign policy or the best arbiters of how we should handle a situation that might lead to blood being spilled. If you don’t believe that, simply think back to “Operation Northwoods,” a plan conceived of by the Joint Chiefs of Staff which featured fake terrorist attacks on American citizens that could be used as an excuse to start a war with Cuba. Of course, that mad scheme never came to fruition because JFK wouldn’t hear of it, but it certainly wasn’t a bunch of “chickenhawks” who cooked the whole thing up.
If you wanted another example of the fallibility of a military man’s judgement when it came to war, you could look to George McClellan who ran against Lincoln for the Presidency in 1864 and planned to give up on the Civil War if he won.
I would even go so far as to point out that Wesley Clark, an ex-general with a distinguished military record and a Democratic candidate for President, assured Bill Clinton that just the threat of force would be all that it would take to get Slobodan Milosevic to agree to peace in Kosovo. Not only was Clark dead wrong, but later during the Kosovo conflict, British General Sir Michael Jackson refused a Clark order to block a “Russian advance towards Pristina airport in Kosovo” and famously explained his actions by saying,
Mark L
“Lies.
Bush refuses to release his military record, and all availble documentation leans heavily toward ditching to avoid a drug test.”
Kimmitt. . . isn’t he the blogger that on a thread about lying leftists (on this blog as I recall) stated that Dick Cheney claimed that Hussain had reactivated his atomic program and was actively pursuing development of one? As I recall, this Kimmitt used a statement that Cheney made on “Meet the Press” to buttress that “Bomb Meme,” but edited out of the discussion a statement made later in the show by Cheney where Cheney, upon being asked to clarify by Russert, Cheney clearly stated that he had mispoken earlier.
Lies?
Gee Kimmitt, how kind of you to add a truth advisory to your statements now. Telling us in advance that the next statement is going to be a lie. Very thoughtful.
Kimmitt
The nice thing about someone who links to support for his contentions, unlike you, is that you can visit his sources and judge for yourself. If you don’t think that my sources support my conclusions, that’s fine. Heck, you might even convince me. I definitely learned quite a bit from the Cheney discussion.
But your style of argumentation isn’t meant to convince or to get at the truth. It’s meant to degrade your opponent and obscure the facts. Which is why you declined to address the substance of my post and launched an ad hominem attack.
It’s the opposite of the style of argumentation which brings me to this weblog. I like having discussions with smart people who disagree with me and can back up their assertions.
Bird Dog
Simply put, calling someone a chickenhawk is an epithet since the intent is to insult the opponent. At that point, debate is over. The only rational response is to call the guy a flaming dumbass and move on.
JPS
~A~,
Thanks for the link–I appreciate it.
As I read that story, though, it does not say we supplied Iraq with chemical weapons. It does say that we provided advisors and intelligence despite knowing Iraq was using chem weapons against Iranians on the front.
Regardless of the (a)morality of that decision (and it’s a tough one for me to defend), I think there’s a big difference between knowing they used gas on Iranian troops (and deciding we still weren’t going to risk letting Iran win), and actually giving them the gas to use.
scott
It’s all one big grey area and thats how ‘they’ planned. Breed confusion and assumptions and the truth gets buried so deep that nobody is interested in it anymore…and then the next sensational story breeks and everyone looks the other way and forgets. Convenient right? Trust nobody with that much power. Especially governments…especially our own…we are the most powerful right?
Nick
I’m a veteran of Desert Shield and Storm as well as Just Cause.
To me, this whole chickenhawk thing is ludicrous. Vietnam was over 30 years ago.
Except for people like Jane Fonda and Lieutenant Calley (of Vietnam), I think the statute of limitations on people’s conduct during that deeply unpopular war has run out. IT JUST DOES NOT MATTER NOWADAYS.
The other thing I want to comment on is that I think it is rather interesting that most of the people who fling the chickenhawk epithet are those who don’t have military service themselves. For example, Michael Moore: I don’t see any military service listed in his biography. What about Al Franken? It’s nice that he does USO tours, but he was old enough to have served in Vietnam, but I don’t see any claim that he did.
One more thought on Vietnam: That was the most divisive war in American history. Boatloads of people used every means at their disposal to duck service there. This includes Democrats and Republicans and everyone in between.
And I have no doubt that a lot of the people who use the chickenhawk slur who were not old enough for Vietnam would have tried to dodge service there if they had been.
The bottom line is that the chickenhawk slur is only applicable when dealing with hypocrisy or false allegations. If someone who never served derides someone else as a chickenhawk, that’s the pot calling the kettle black.
Personally, I wish that people would just stop using this term, but I guess that will never happen.