[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
More of the chickenhawk argument. I have no use for this, as I have said many times. And frankly, I would have expected better of Senator McGovern, a man who I respect personally, despite our political differences.
[/QUOTE]
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.
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.
[QUOTE=Merijeek]
To be fair, he prevailed against the pretzel.
[/QUOTE]
The pretzel left him on the floor, bruised, bleeding, and unconscious, but prevail he did.
[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
Wow, Cheney is taking some major stick today. He called Harry Reid’s withdrawal plan “defeatism”, andReid shot right back:I am really starting to like Harry Reid.
[/QUOTE]
9% approval ratings? Do you realize probably more Americans think the Earth is flat than think Cheney is doing a good job.
[QUOTE=saoirse]
The two of them have been compensating for making excuses when their country called them by starting a war that has no apparent end. You would think the fact that they’d started planning it in February 2005 would mean they would have had some sort of strategy.
[/QUOTE]
(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.
[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
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?
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
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.
[/QUOTE]
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.
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.