• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

So many bastards, so little time.

Never entrust democracy to any process that requires republicans to act in good faith.

Stamping your little feets and demanding that they see how important you are? Not working anymore.

My right to basic bodily autonomy is not on the table. that’s the new deal.

It’s pointless to bring up problems that can only be solved with a time machine.

American history and black history cannot be separated.

Democracy cannot function without a free press.

You come for women, you’re gonna get your ass kicked.

Since when do we limit our critiques to things we could do better ourselves?

“Perhaps I should have considered other options.” (head-desk)

Republicans are radicals, not conservatives.

Giving in to doom is how authoritarians win.

Petty moves from a petty man.

Washington Post Catch and Kill, not noticeably better than the Enquirer’s.

If you still can’t see these things even now, maybe politics isn’t your forte and you should stop writing about it.

Their freedom requires your slavery.

DeSantis transforming Florida into 1930s Germany with gators and theme parks.

If you voted for Trump, you don’t get to speak about ethics, morals, or rule of law.

Historically it was a little unusual for the president to be an incoherent babbling moron.

Hey Washington Post, “Democracy Dies in Darkness” was supposed to be a warning, not a mission statement.

Speaking of republicans, is there a way for a political party to declare intellectual bankruptcy?

Republicans don’t lie to be believed, they lie to be repeated.

You are so fucked. Still, I wish you the best of luck.

Tide comes in. Tide goes out. You can’t explain that.

Mobile Menu

  • Seattle Meet-up Post
  • 2025 Activism
  • Targeted Political Fundraising
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2025 Activism
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Operation Yellow Elephant

Operation Yellow Elephant

by John Cole|  July 1, 200511:11 am| 52 Comments

This post is in: General Stupidity

FacebookTweetEmail

Look- Operation Yellow Elephant is, in my esitmation, nothing more than a variation of a dishonest ‘chickenhawk’ meme. That doesn’t mean I didn’t and don’t see the humor in it all, however. It is, any way I look at it, funny. The chickenhawk stuff, a little less so. At any rate, it sure is pissing some people off, and as usual, people on both sides of the issue are going apeshit and Young Republicans are geting emails like this:

“Why do you hate Ameirca? I served when my country needed me. Are you saying you are better than I? What am I misunderstanding here? Or are you just plain YELLOW? I am curious, YELLOW.”

The obvious response to this is to state the following:

So what? I know, I know. These people are just pissed off that President Bush won reelection. There were mad that he was elected in the first place and now having nothing new and no educated position to attack from, they just simply make an attempt to create a controversy. But these people are not new. When was the last time I received a comment on this blog challenging President Bush’s proposal for reforming Social Security? Never. How come these hippies refuse to send me a statement about why they support the Democrat proposal for reforming Social Security. (Most likely because the Democrats still don’t have a plan!) The same goes for every other major issue of national policy. All they have is no-Bush. And they lost that vote…TWICE ALREADY. And they aren’t stopping….just wait until 2006 when there will be another round of Republican victories. These hippies will stop smoking pot for about 30 seconds, scratch themselves, and wonder why they keep loosing elections year after year.

Leftist hippies are the real threat to America – these “domestic terrorists” wish to destroy our country. They hope to remove everything we stand for. They strive the adoption of French as our national language and the forced conversion of the country to Islam.

Something is terribly awry when I start to look like a voice of reason in a debate. At any rate, Jon Henke has more on the chickenhawk silliness.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Teams Missing
Next Post: What Is At Stake »

Reader Interactions

52Comments

  1. 1.

    hadenoughofthisyet

    July 1, 2005 at 11:22 am

    Leftist hippies are the real threat to America

    I must not be a very good liberal. I don

  2. 2.

    Jon H

    July 1, 2005 at 11:30 am

    From paulschafer.com:

    If I was asked by my country to join the military in order to preserve these great traditions we share, I would do so in a heartbeat.

    Frankly, I doubt it, though this is often said, which is why I think it’s time for the President and others to come out and, you know, ASK.

  3. 3.

    Jason

    July 1, 2005 at 11:32 am

    What I found disturbing was this statement:

    What is the definition of vermin? Dictionary.com defines it as “Various small animals or insects, such as rats or cockroaches, that are destructive, annoying, or injurious to health.” In this instance, one could also apply the second definition “A person considered loathsome or highly offensive”.

    Yes, perhaps that is a better description of some of the liberals that today call themselves “leaders” in the liberal online community. Hey….look here:

    I hope it isn’t a violation of Goodwins law to wonder who else referred to their perceived enemies as vermin.

    It gets worse in the comments.

  4. 4.

    Tim F

    July 1, 2005 at 11:39 am

    Someone here, Stormy or Darleen or Ricky or whomever, please reassure me that this Schafer guy isn’t representative of your side’s thinking. Dude has gone totally unhinged.

  5. 5.

    eileen from OH

    July 1, 2005 at 11:39 am

    Y’know the one thing that cracks me up is the right still calls us “hippies” and “commies”. How old is that, anyway? We all started bathing years ago and the commune broke up after fights over the car. Now, we’re clean and drink latte whilst wind-surfing. Yeesh.

    eileen from OH

  6. 6.

    capelza

    July 1, 2005 at 11:48 am

    Hippies? And here I thought I was being driven around, as in “limosine liberal”, or as Barone said, living off my trust fund and feeling guilty about it.

    I really want to pop one of these little twerps in the nose. But then I’m a redneck, gun owning liberal. We’re like that.

  7. 7.

    p.lukasiak

    July 1, 2005 at 11:51 am

    The only people being asked by Operation Yellow Elephant to join the Army are those that support the President and his mission in Iraq. Personally, I’d prefer to see each College Republican publicly repudiate Bush, and demand his impeachment for deceiving the nation into an unnecessary, counter-productive and costly war that has no end in sight.

    But since

    1) that isn’t going to happen in the vast majority of cases, and
    2) we do have a serious problem, if not a crisis in Army recruitment, and
    3) the people who think Bush is neither honest nor competent are unlikely to put their lives on the line under his leadership
    4) the best recruits are those that have confidence in the leadership and the mission

    the obvious answer to the recruitment problem is to ask Bush’s supporters to join up. But they are avoiding service just like those that don’t believe in Bush — and come up with some of the lamest possible excuses for their pursuing their own craven self-interests while vocally supporting a war that they won’t fight.

    The “chickenhawk” meme is fully appropriate for these College Republicans, and its obvious that Operation Yellow Elephant is making them very uncomfortable, because it is hitting very close to home.

  8. 8.

    nyrev

    July 1, 2005 at 12:08 pm

    But wait, us non-Republicans really do want to hug your trees, steal your soap, and make you all speak French. After all, les francais avons les chouettes p

  9. 9.

    Tim F

    July 1, 2005 at 12:15 pm

    Why should young Republicans sign up? Their leader rooted for the Vietnam war from a beer hall in Virginia.

  10. 10.

    Mike S

    July 1, 2005 at 12:29 pm

    Leftist hippies are the real threat to America – these “domestic terrorists” wish to destroy our country. They hope to remove everything we stand for. They strive the adoption of French as our national language and the forced conversion of the country to Islam.

    I’ve never read this guy. Is that parody, hyperbol or is he serious? It’s one of the strangest things I’ve read. Everyone knows we want Ebonics to be the national language.

  11. 11.

    Barry

    July 1, 2005 at 12:30 pm

    And that’s why the chickenhawk term was coined for these guys. People saw right-wingers talking big sh*t about liberals and leftists, while Republican politicians got a free pass. And we see it now, as those who oppose the war in Iraq are accused of everything under the sun, while so many Republicans are very sure to let the war not inconvenience them. And it’s pretty clear now that these College Republicans aren’t ashamed of cheering the war from home, they’re flat out proud of it.

    Why are you so bothered by this, John? Traditional Republican values would say that those guys are scum. Of course, tradiational Republican values would call TANG-boy Bush scum. And Dick ‘other priorities’ Cheney, Karl ‘College Repuvblican’ Rove, John ‘The war was already lost in 1970’ Bolton, Tom ‘the minorities took my spot’ DeLay, Newt ‘too smart to die’ Gingrich’, and just about all of the current crop of Republican politicians.

    Hm. Perhaps I’ve answered my own question, after all.

  12. 12.

    Bruce from Missouri

    July 1, 2005 at 12:34 pm

    I would agree with you, if the military wasn’t facing a recruiting shortfall.

    But, since it is, it is time for war supporters to put up or shut up. It was Republicans who screwed the pooch in Iraq, after we told you not too, it is up to Republicans to unscrew that pooch.

    We told you not to do it, and we are not going to lift a finger to get you out of your mess. Republicans need to face the consequences of their actions. Maybe if you get your nose rubbed in your poo, you won’t do it next time.

    If we bail you out, you will never learn.

    And Republicans can make the calls to the families of casualties.

    Your war, you deal with it.

    **”You” refers to Republicans as a class, not you personally, John.

  13. 13.

    SherAn

    July 1, 2005 at 1:05 pm

    Frankly, I don’t understand why Republicans are so upset with the Yellow Elephant campaign. It’s not like they haven’t used flamethrowers to torch Democrats or Greens or even Independents, for that matter.

    The point is, the recruiting numbers are bottoming out. Instead of plastering a ribbon to the back of your SUV proclaiming your support for the troops, become one. It’s that simple. Uncle Sam needs you. The stop-lossed troops need you. They’ve done their time, and they need some relief.

    If you’re not up for enlisting in one of the branches of the military, then, goddamn it, be productive and go after all those sleazy politicians (on both sides of the aisle, thank you very much) who failed to heed the self-evident facts that the Veterans Administration was billions short and also the ones that failed to practice oversight on the Pentagon and its piss-poor materiel acquisiton system. How lame is it that armored vehicles are STILL in short supply, that soldiers do run short of ammunition, or any of the other FUBAR shortages? Kick their asses!

    Don’t be so frigging sensitive the Yellow Elephant campaign and just do the right thing. Save your flame-throwing energy for something more productive instead of supporting the sleazy politicians who allow these debacles to crop up with increasing regularity.

    And, John, you are so far removed from a “moderate” position that I wouldn’t know where to start. Don’t flatter yourself. Your rhetoric betrays you, and I have to tell you this: You’re talking out your ass six days of the week.

  14. 14.

    John Cole

    July 1, 2005 at 1:13 pm

    And, John, you are so far removed from a “moderate” position that I wouldn’t know where to start. Don’t flatter yourself. Your rhetoric betrays you, and I have to tell you this: You’re talking out your ass six days of the week.

    Precisely my point. When I start to look reasonable by comparison, something is whack.

    And if you check the archives, that would be seven days a week.

  15. 15.

    Marcus Wellby

    July 1, 2005 at 1:18 pm

    Ha! John, you’re not so bad. In fact, this is turning into my favorate blog.

    But what the hell do I know?? I’m a Democrat that likes Pat Buchanan.

  16. 16.

    albedo

    July 1, 2005 at 1:20 pm

    Gotta say, the best defense of the chickenhawk meme was posted here a while back. Basically, that we use the same logic all the time – if someone is trying to talk you into a risky investment, your first question is probably whether they’ve invested themselves.
    I’ve thought about this a lot, and just don’t see the objection to the “chickenhawk” tag. Unless it’s the oft-quoted misapprehension of the meme that “you have to have served to have an opinion.” Which, of course, isn’t it.

  17. 17.

    Barry

    July 1, 2005 at 1:27 pm

    Seconding Bruce and SherAn, I’d like to add another comment – the GOP ***will*** blame the Democrats for losing Iraq. And these College Republicans will be there with them. Twenty years from now, many of them will be the politicians front and center in the blame battalions.
    And all of those adult Republicans who paid for their child’s college education during this time, even though ‘9/11 changed everything!’ and ‘you’re either with us or against us!’ will be saying the same thing.

    Time to get our licks in early, before history jells.

  18. 18.

    BumperStickerist

    July 1, 2005 at 1:30 pm

    Well, somebody better tell the Young Republicans to kick it up a notch. I’d like to see a response made in the spirit with which Yellow Elephant was conceived:

    Sure, Liberal Hippy DoGooder Type – I’d like to sign up for the Army, be all I can be, enlist, join the officer corps – go to Iraq – but the Administration won’t let me do what I want to do which is simple: I want to kill.

    I mean, I wanna, I wanna kill. Kill.

    I wanna, I wanna see, I wanna see blood and gore and guts and veins in my teeth. Eat dead burnt bodies. I mean kill, Kill, KILL, KILL.”

    And then start jumpin up and down yelling, “KILL, KILL,” and see if the Liberal Hippy DoGooder type starts jumpin up and down with you and then both jump up and down yelling, “KILL, KILL.”

    And then say, “Bush, he’s just too much of a pacifist for our tastes. “

    apologies to Arlo Gutherie

  19. 19.

    Mike

    July 1, 2005 at 1:40 pm

    “But, since it is, it is time for war supporters to put up or shut up. It was Republicans who screwed the pooch in Iraq, after we told you not too, it is up to Republicans to unscrew that pooch.

    We told you not to do it, and we are not going to lift a finger to get you out of your mess. Republicans need to face the consequences of their actions. Maybe if you get your nose rubbed in your poo, you won’t do it next time.

    If we bail you out, you will never learn.

    And Republicans can make the calls to the families of casualties.

    Your war, you deal with it.

    **”You” refers to Republicans as a class, not you personally, John.”

    So the next time a Democrat is President and gets us into a war, what should we Republicans do? Sit it out? Gonna be a REALLY small Military…

  20. 20.

    Tim F

    July 1, 2005 at 1:43 pm

    Bush, he’s just too much of a pacifist for our tastes.

    Damn straight. If he hadn’t listened to the perfidious liberal hippies we’d have done the manly thing and nuked Fallujah.

  21. 21.

    CaseyL

    July 1, 2005 at 1:56 pm

    Mike: You mean, like the GOP did when Clinton went after Milosevic?

    Ah, come on, you remember what the GOP said then, right?:

    Senator Richard Lugar “This is President Clinton’s war, and when he falls flat
    on his face, that’s his problem.” [New York Times, 5/4/99

    Or, how about when Clinton went after OBL? You remember that, right? You remember how the GOP said OBL wasn’t a problem, terrorism wasn’t a problem… it was just ol’ Slick Willie wanting to distract attention from impeachment.

    You remember that, right? Sure you do!

  22. 22.

    Sojourner

    July 1, 2005 at 2:00 pm

    why aren

  23. 23.

    Rick

    July 1, 2005 at 2:20 pm

    The “chickenhawk” meme is fully appropriate for these College Republicans, and its obvious that Operation Yellow Elephant is making them very uncomfortable, because it is hitting very close to home.

    Keep on dreaming.

    Cordially…

  24. 24.

    Sojourner

    July 1, 2005 at 2:30 pm

    No need to dream, Rick. They’re already on the defensive.

  25. 25.

    CaseyL

    July 1, 2005 at 2:32 pm

    Re: Who Has Served, A guide to Chickenhawks

    Read it and weep:

    Chickenhawk Who’s Who

  26. 26.

    Rick

    July 1, 2005 at 2:39 pm

    Yeah, I’m sure this a War of the Worlds type panic.

    One reason I soil this blog is because it gives me a filtered perspective on the alternate universe of the far left, where ‘pubbies are sh*tt*n’ bricks and red roses over the latest bumper sticker offering from Mother Jones.

    Another is that I can trust John Cole to scour up the latest theocratic outrage. John being about the only “right of center” blogger so fretting, so I get to stay current on the religous fringe, and the anti-religious fringe and the same time.

    My, I do go on. Well, old age will do that.

    Cordially…

  27. 27.

    Sojourner

    July 1, 2005 at 2:43 pm

    Hey Rick:

    Why don’t you try something different… instead of offering insults and feeble attempts at humor, why don’t you actually DISCUSS something, make a substantive contribution to the dialog?

    You know, rather than disappearing when having to address the tough questions that accompany your position, take a stand.

    You might actually learn something.

  28. 28.

    Grand Moff Texan

    July 1, 2005 at 3:15 pm

    You might actually learn something.

    Posted by: Sojourner on July 1, 2005 02:43 PM

    I think you just answered your own question.

    It’s interesting that rejections of the chickenhawk label don’t get beyond the chicken to the hawk. I guess they hit the first part of that compound noun, realized it applied to them, and fruck out.

    But really, if you support a half-assed, half-witted imperial adventure (see where the “hawk” comes in?) as somehow necessary to your country, AND there’s a recruiting crisis bad enough for the military to start fudging their numbers, AND you’re of military age and good health, AND you don’t enlist, then kindly shut the fuck up. You’re a hypocrite.

    The subtext, however, is directed at the rich and “pre-rich” segments of the GOP faithful who, deploying GOP labor-theory to the WoT, are happy to let the poor, people of color, and foreign nationals do the real work. In that, the right is actually quite consistent, so here’s to you! Beating your chest about other people’s sacrifices is quite the privilege! Be like Bush!
    .

  29. 29.

    Mike

    July 1, 2005 at 3:18 pm

    “Mike: You mean, like the GOP did when Clinton went after Milosevic?

    Ah, come on, you remember what the GOP said then, right?:

    Senator Richard Lugar “This is President Clinton’s war, and when he falls flat
    on his face, that’s his problem.” [New York Times, 5/4/99

    Or, how about when Clinton went after OBL? You remember that, right? You remember how the GOP said OBL wasn’t a problem, terrorism wasn’t a problem… it was just ol’ Slick Willie wanting to distract attention from impeachment.

    You remember that, right? Sure you do!”

    Ah, so this is PAYBACK then?
    Okay, sure we can continue to play that game, no problem.
    Clinton wasn’t “my” President”, Bush isn’t “your” President.
    Yeah, that’s the best way to advance the country…

  30. 30.

    DecidedFenceSitter

    July 1, 2005 at 3:59 pm

    Mike,

    You asked a question regarding a hypothetical future event, if a Democratic President was elected, what should Republicans do?

    The answer was, “It’s already been proven. They WILL sit it out, and not support the president.”

    No it’s not the best way to advance the country. But much like nuke disarming, playing nice in politics has to happen at the same time, or else you’ve got one heavily armed side and one unarmed side.

  31. 31.

    RheGirl

    July 1, 2005 at 4:07 pm

    The chickenhawk argument is an illogical one. I have no idea why ideologues on both sides take it so seriously for – one gets pissed off and the other gets more delusional.

  32. 32.

    Sojourner

    July 1, 2005 at 4:10 pm

    It’s only illogical if you don’t have a problem with people sacrificing for other people’s causes.

  33. 33.

    RheGirl

    July 1, 2005 at 4:15 pm

    It’s only illogical if you don’t have a problem with people sacrificing for other people’s causes.

    It’s illogical because you’re saying that every person who supported the war should enlist. Along that same line of thought, every person who opposed the war should’ve been in Iraq before the war started to serve as a human shield.

  34. 34.

    Jeff

    July 1, 2005 at 4:35 pm

    After graduating from college, i was a Philly cop for six years because, like my father, both grandfathers, and three uncles, that’s what people in my family do.

    So, since I know what it’s like to pull over a van at 2:00 in the morning and walk up to the window of said van in an urban warzone (the Logan and Nicetown–which really isn’t that nice–sections) and most of you liberals don’t, unless you’ve ever worn a badge you can kindly go fuck yourselves and you are hearby not allowed to have an opinion on Rodney King, or any other issue of police brutality, unless, of course, you’ll be heading to your local police academy any time soon.

  35. 35.

    Simon

    July 1, 2005 at 5:18 pm

    Henke’s Afghanistan argument is as logically simple-minded and wrong as the completely bogus analogies to domestic public service positions. There is a need for more troops in Aghanistan only because Bush wrongly decided to invade Iraq before finishing the job there. If liberals started signing up for service in Afghanistan (as if they’d even be sent there!), it would only encourage future misguided military adventures for the wrecking crew in charge.

    The chickenhawk meme is correct not only because of the individuals’ in question refusal to serve when they are needed, but because no one vociferously cheering the war on is calling for any sort of collective national sacrifice – on any level, economic or otherewise (Bush’s latest weak attempt in his speech doesn’t even come close). If these people really feel the war is that important and that the majority of the people in the US would agree with them (and hate those wimpy liberals), why don’t they try to stoke the fire within their fellow countrymen? I can’t recall reading about any name-calling – traitors, enemy-coddlers, chickenhawks, etc – during actual noble wars, which this war is not.

    It’s all a bunch of fake, macho chest-puffing. We are not some magical nation unbeholden to the realities of fighting multiple wars. We are not infinitely powerful. The insane part to me is that none of these people even see the possiblity that the way the war is going, the recruiting problems, or negative public perception in general could be a result of the war being ill-conceived from the start or at least an indictment of the massive incompetence of those pursuing it. I think it’s fairly obvious that even if staunch war supporters are proven overwhelmingly wrong (using facts and stuff) on all their main tenets – or should I say the rest of their main tenets – most of their egos would not allow them to admit as much. Which leads them to the blaming of others for their own failures that we saw after VietNam.

  36. 36.

    Sojourner

    July 1, 2005 at 5:39 pm

    Along that same line of thought, every person who opposed the war should’ve been in Iraq before the war started to serve as a human shield.

    Um, no. It means that those of us who are against the war have no obligation to fight it. Therefore, if anyone is going to fight it, it will have to be the supporters. If they want it so bad, let them fight it. The consequences for their stupidity should be borne by them, not by others.

  37. 37.

    demimondian

    July 1, 2005 at 6:20 pm

    Um, no. It means that those of us who are against the war have no obligation to fight it.

    Ummm…bullshit.

    Sojourner, it’s not their war. It’s our war. It’s our military — the same one that did good things in Bosnia and in Montenegro. You may not remember the cold war, but I do — and, yes, Virginia, we needed a military then. And we need one now. So, whether you or I support this war — and I don’t — it’s our war. We’re stuck with it, like the stranger’s baby on the doorstep. We didn’t create it, we didn’t ask for it, and it isn’t fair to us…but it’s our problem now, all the same.

    No, it isn’t fair that white and rich chickenhawks run off at the mouth about the patriotism of “being a warrior”…as long as the risks run only to the poor or to people of color. That is reprehensible. But, you know what? It’s equally reprehensible to stand up and say you’re trying to protect those innocent poor and people of color. OK, Sojourner…go replace one of them. Let him or her stay home with his or her kids.

    Or are you a chickendove?

  38. 38.

    Mike

    July 1, 2005 at 8:04 pm

    “Mike,

    You asked a question regarding a hypothetical future event, if a Democratic President was elected, what should Republicans do?

    The answer was, “It’s already been proven. They WILL sit it out, and not support the president.”

    No it’s not the best way to advance the country. But much like nuke disarming, playing nice in politics has to happen at the same time, or else you’ve got one heavily armed side and one unarmed side.”

    There’s an important difference from what I can recall.
    You are correct that some Republican politicians opposed Clinton, and in my view this was probably nothing more than disingeneous politicking on their part. But this time around, we got a rather large majority of the Democratic base calling Republicans chickenhawks (from the safety of their keyboards I might add). That from what I can remember is a new wrinkle. A new nastiness that I don’t remember from the Clinton years. But perhaps I wasn’t paying enough attention. Regardless, I think it’s total bullshit. And I see nothing positive coming of it, I see only more partisanship which I suppose is what everyone wants these days. Certainly our enemies want it, I’m sure the Chinese, the French (yes, the French), Islamic Terrorists and others are enjoying the hell out of it. By the way, I also don’t recall any Republicans, no matter how radical, calling for shooting their commanders, stopping recruitment at schools or wishing for 1000 Mogadishus either, all of which the Left, or some elements of it have done.

  39. 39.

    Mike

    July 1, 2005 at 8:09 pm

    “Along that same line of thought, every person who opposed the war should’ve been in Iraq before the war started to serve as a human shield.
    Um, no. It means that those of us who are against the war have no obligation to fight it. Therefore, if anyone is going to fight it, it will have to be the supporters. If they want it so bad, let them fight it. The consequences for their stupidity should be borne by them, not by others.”

    You’re sure that’s how you want it to be?
    Only those that “support” a war a particular President gets us into fights it?
    You may wanna engage your brain before making that statement.

  40. 40.

    Simon

    July 1, 2005 at 8:17 pm

    Mike, Clinton’s military excursions didn’t spread our military so thin that we needed more troops and had recruitment problems. I agree with your point about nothing positive coming from all the name calling, but I guess that’s the kind of environment you create when your number 2 guy comes out and calls liberals pussies who want the troops to die. Or your popular pundits talk joke about executing liberals. Sorry buddy, it sucks, but your side poisoned the well long ago.

  41. 41.

    The Disenfranchised Voter

    July 1, 2005 at 8:19 pm

    “Leftist hippies are the real threat to America – these “domestic terrorists” wish to destroy our country. They hope to remove everything we stand for. They strive the adoption of French as our national language and the forced conversion of the country to Islam.”

    And these are the type of statements from people who call others “moonbats”.

    People need to start taking a look in the mirror.

  42. 42.

    Simon

    July 1, 2005 at 8:27 pm

    Let’s start from here. If you vociferously support a not so popular war, frequently mock those who disagree with you, and said war causes a shortage of new recruits, it would be patriotic to volunteer. Otherwise, you may be a chickenshit. You can still vociferously support the war and it shouldn’t invalidate your arguments. You’re just a chickenshit war supporter who talks a big game but doesn’t back it up. It speaks about your character, not necessarily your logic, although the two may be related.

    And by the way, I knew quite a few liberals/Dems who didn’t support all of Clinton’s wars, just like most liberals supported the war in Afghanistan. Lockstep support of military action just because your/my guy’s in charge is not healthy.

  43. 43.

    Sojourner

    July 1, 2005 at 9:58 pm

    Sojourner, it’s not their war. It’s our war.

    It’s our military, it’s not our war. Bush started this war based on lies. There’s no excuse for what he has done to the military and the country’s standing.

    If he wants to make it “our” war, he’d better admit that and start finding some international friends to help with it.

    It’s called tough love. Until he admits his mistakes, he’s on his own. I feel bad that American soldiers are dying because of this war but we need to focus on how to bring this war to a reasonable conclusion. Supporting Bush’s adiction to arrogance and hubris ain’t the way to go.

  44. 44.

    Sojourner

    July 1, 2005 at 10:03 pm

    I see only more partisanship which I suppose is what everyone wants these days.

    The Bush administration set the tone from the start and now they’re bearing the fruit of that choice. The reality is Bush has thumbed his nose at the Democrats and the liberals repeatedly. So he shouldn’t be shocked to find very little sympathy when his lies come home to roost.

    The folks with all the power set the tone. You can’t blame that one on the Dems.

  45. 45.

    p.lukasiak

    July 2, 2005 at 6:15 am

    The chickenhawk argument is an illogical one. I have no idea why ideologues on both sides take it so seriously for – one gets pissed off and the other gets more delusional.

    The chickenhawk argument may be “illogical”, but its effective because support for Bush and the way he runs this war is even more “illogical.”

    Lets face it, the Yellow Elephants who won’t join up consistently use “illogical” arguments to back up their support of Bush — Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, but the Yellow Elephants love to exploit that tragedy. The Iraq war is antithetical to “fighting the terrorists”, because the effect of what we are doing in Iraq is breeding more — and more experienced — terrorists.

    But the “killer” illogical argument is that staying in Iraq is essential to our national security — which may or may not be true, but staying in Iraq also represents a threat to our national security because nobody wants to sign up to fight that war, and the ability of the Army to respond to a real crisis is in danger. We have two “competing” threats to national security that can only be reconciled if those who believe in first threat sign up to avert the second threat.

    It all comes down to the question of leadership, and followership. Those who believe in the leadership need to be willing to follow that leader, and back up their support with effective action. But the Yellow Elephants are all talk, an no effective action. They support an illogical war, and illogical is being used to point out their hypocrisy.

  46. 46.

    Rick

    July 2, 2005 at 3:03 pm

    Why don’t you try something different… instead of offering insults and feeble attempts at humor…

    Soj.,

    Feeble!!!?? Well. being a zealot, I must redouble my efforts in expectation of obtaining a different result.

    Learn something here? Now *that* is funny.

    Cordially…

  47. 47.

    RheGirl

    July 2, 2005 at 8:22 pm

    Um, no. It means that those of us who are against the war have no obligation to fight it. Therefore, if anyone is going to fight it, it will have to be the supporters. If they want it so bad, let them fight it. The consequences for their stupidity should be borne by them, not by others.
    Now THAT is chickenshit logic. More so made by the fact that you continue to insist that a vocal opinion must be backed up by physical action. Very well. Here we go again:
    1. Those who support the war must enlist.
    2. Those who oppose the war should serve as human shields.
    3. That means there will be no armchair hawks or doves.
    4. OR – Those who support whatever military endeavor our country is on and wants to be part of it enlist, and those who vociferously oppose any military endeavor that involves killing bastards who like using car bombs get to protest on the street, and everybody else who doesn’t care can stay home and watch on TV and write their opinions on blogs like here.

    It’s called tough love. Until he admits his mistakes, he’s on his own.
    That’s the funniest thing I’ve read today re: the chickenhawk argument.

    The chickenhawk argument may be “illogical”, but its effective because support for Bush and the way he runs this war is even more “illogical.”
    That makes no sense whatsoever.

  48. 48.

    Sojourner

    July 2, 2005 at 10:33 pm

    Rick:

    Yawn

  49. 49.

    Sojourner

    July 2, 2005 at 10:39 pm

    RheGirl:

    Did it ever occur to you that there would be no car bombs affecting our soldiers if we didn’t start a war over there?

    The reality is that we have an arrogant president whose foreign policy consists of being the biggest bully on the block. So how does one go about stopping him? Cut off the fodder for his war machine. Without soldiers, he can’t start wars. If you’re a supporter of his war machine, then sign up and feed the machine.

    I want to starve Bush’s war machine. Accomplishing this has nothing to do with serving as a human shield.

  50. 50.

    Rick

    July 3, 2005 at 9:13 am

    Hmmm…I see our dispute here. I want the “war machine” to bleed the jihad, and shake up the corrupt ME status quo. Mission Being Accomplished.

    Even you “nothing to do” sorts will benefit. But I’m OK with that,as there are numerous instances of free riders in this life.

    Cordially…

  51. 51.

    Sojourner

    July 3, 2005 at 10:22 am

    Is that really what you want? I thought you wanted democracy in the ME? Which is it?

    Or is it ultimately just to spout “clever” words?

  52. 52.

    mf

    July 4, 2005 at 12:58 am

    The remark about the pot smoking hippies scratching themselves made me laugh so hard I was crying!

    That being said, I am one of those and……how offensive. We did grow up you know and many of us have jobs, kids, and everything, just like real people.

    I like your site, it’s reasonable and I appreciate a reasonable opposition.

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

On The Road -  ?BillinGlendaleCA - Gold! 1
Image by BillinGlendaleCA (5/10/25)

Recent Comments

  • Matt McIrvin on The Gifts That Keep on Giving (May 14, 2025 @ 4:35pm)
  • prostratedragon on The Gifts That Keep on Giving (May 14, 2025 @ 4:17pm)
  • bystander on Brief Media Note (Open Thread) (May 14, 2025 @ 4:11pm)
  • Geminid on The Gifts That Keep on Giving (May 14, 2025 @ 4:08pm)
  • Belafon on The Gifts That Keep on Giving (May 14, 2025 @ 4:07pm)

PA Supreme Court At Risk

Donate

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
War in Ukraine
Donate to Razom for Ukraine

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Meetups

Upcoming Ohio Meetup May 17
5/11 Post about the May 17 Ohio Meetup

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)
Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Hands Off! – Denver, San Diego & Austin

Social Media

Balloon Juice
WaterGirl
TaMara
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
DougJ NYT Pitchbot
mistermix

Keeping Track

Legal Challenges (Lawfare)
Republicans Fleeing Town Halls (TPM)
21 Letters (to Borrow or Steal)
Search Donations from a Brand

PA Supreme Court At Risk

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2025 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!