If you read the article you’ll notice that the chickenhawk argument is a relatively small part of it. He also takes the Bush administration to task for damaging our national security, running up huge debts, and being outrageous liars. And he makes a prediction:
But, yeah, I highlighted the chickenhawk argument because I thought it was amusing that someone many people on the right consider the epitome of the “wimpy Democrat” was smacking Dick Cheney around.
Enemy hell. Bush is barely smarter than snack foods.
To be fair, he prevailed against the pretzel.
-Joe
I don’t buy the rejection of the chickenhawk argument. By Cheney’s deferments and Bush’s dodging Vietnam in favor of the Champagne Squadron, they established that war is a last resort for them personally. I would be OK with that if those two pursued a policy of war being a last resort for everybody else. But it wasn’t- war was the first resort, the only resort.
Like I said, barely smarter.
The pretzel left him on the floor, bruised, bleeding, and unconscious, but prevail he did.
Great, so 12 years from now we get to look forward to Jeb declaring war on Rold Gold.
-Joe
9% approval ratings? Do you realize probably more Americans think the Earth is flat than think Cheney is doing a good job.
Jeez, there you go again with that. :rolleyes:
Damn. I wish I had a blow job.
…and anyone who uses that as a straight line, has to mail me five dollars.
If they continue to decrease the amount of salt on their pretzels, I will fully support this war.
Well, duh. I don’t imagine there’s any conservatives using the chickenhawk argument now. But how many of them were using it back in 1992 and 1996?
(bolding mine)
It all makes perfect sense now. Bush invaded Iraq in 2003, but if he didn’t start planning until 2005, then no wonder it’s a mess.
I’m even more interested in those liberals who said a candidate’s war record matters greatly in the 2004 and 2000 election, yet seemed to think that in the 1996 and 1992 election, when war heroes were running on the Republican ticket, that it was time to put the whole Vietnam mess behind us.
One of those making the claim at that time was one John Kerry, interestingly.
Funny how that goes.
Funny is right. But it is funny-haha, not funny-curious. The war heroes on the GOP tickets were George Bush and Bob Dole who served in WWII, so any statements John Kerry made about Vietnam had nothing to to do with disparaging their military service. You argument is a non-sequitur at best, and a transparent attempt to deceive at worst.
There was no pretzel.
Tris
Nonsense. Every intelligence agency in the world knew there was a pretzel.
-Joe
By far the most surprising thing to me about McGovern’s comments is the fact he’s alive. I could have sworn he died a year or two ago.
If you’re going to change the topic, shouldn’t you start a new thread?
Saying that we should put the war behind us and that being a non-veteran doesn’t disqualify a candidate from being elected isn’t the “chickenhawk” argument. In fact, it’s pretty much the exact opposite - the chickenhawk argument is when somebody says a candidate is unfit because he’s not a veteran.
And as long as we’re clearing things up, a strawman argument is when a person realizes their position is undefendable, so start defending a position from a different argument in hopes that nobody will notice they changed the subject.