Unless I’m mistaken, all of these men were in the military BEFORE they became legislators. I can’t think of any legislators that gave up their seats to actually fight in an armed conflict.
I cannot provide a specific column, so I can’t correct the Wikipedia article, yet, but Mike Royko was using the term “chickenhawk” in the late 1980s to refer to the sabre rattling among the supporters of G. H. W. Bush–and Royko wrote of borrowing the term from another pundit, so it was both coined and in use at least 15 years ago. (And I’m pretty sure that Royko used the compound word, not the two word epithet.)
The closest thing I can think of is in 1898 when Teddy Roosevelt resigned as Assistant Secretary of the Navy to fight in the Spanish-American War.
That would be somewhat equivalent to Paul Wolfowitz quitting and going off to war.
We can only dream 
Oh, sure, it’ll enrage a BUNCH of people on the right. That’s and ADVANTAGE as far as I"m concerned – might make them do something stupid. There’s no point in trying to convert the right, they’re not going to change. The idea is to get people in the middle to think differently about the war and its leaders. That it could do.
Just wanted to say nothing beats our veery own Cecil’s term, “Damn Fool War.”
It’s a damn fool war, started by twice-damned fools, and supported by trice-damned cowards.
And getting to say “damn fool” all the time and annoy all the “moral values” folks would be an added bonus.
Just wanted to say that a lot of the “trice-damned cowards” actually went over there. But I’m sure that that doesn’t even make a dent in your thinking, so keep using that wide paintbrush.
So where’s your righteous indignation when the conservatives swing that “amoral liberals” brush around, Doors? Or are you only selectively opposed to broad brushstrokes?
Lyndon Johnson resigned from Congress to serve in the military during WWII. Granted, he was stationed mainly in the United States.
Oooooh, you got me there! :rolleyes:
Once upon a time I used to be that guy. I grew up. When can I expect you to do the same?
As for your statement, it was outright incorrect and slanderous and you know it was, so why don’t you dispense with the bullshit and admit it? Confession is good for the soul, and for all the bullshit you put on these boards you’ve got a lot of confessing to do.
Lets translate your post, shall we?
I’ll use small words so that you can understand.
Treat them homersexuals like the second-class citizens they deserve to be, the perverts.
Fewer textbooks, less housing and healthcare for the poor. More yachts for Repbulicans!
More power to the rich, less power to the poor.
As Little Nemo said, more nigger jokes.
Superiority for Christians. Inferiority for others! (Possibly American flags for all).
Bring the government into the bedrooms of the nation.
Shut off your brain and let Pat Robertson’s opinions become your opinions.
Be xenophobic, medieval, closed-minded and otherwise afraid of change.
Yeah, a little too simple. Or is that what Americans are really like, naturally moronic with a few exceptions?
That remains to be seen.
A LOT of them ARE like that … enough to swing the last election. I mean, what does Bush really stand for, if not these values? But none of them like cowardice, which is why The Chickenhawk War will sting.
Thanks a lot for the effective outreach. rjung, I know you don’t think of yourself as “spokesman for the left” or anything, but I’d appreciate it if you’d try not to alienate moderate and sensible conservatives. Especially those who have shown the courage of their convictions and do examine their own beliefs. They’re the best type of ally we have against the neocon fantasists, and on the off-chance they can actually help us turn the tide, they’re also the best check against our own extremists.
On the subject of the OP… If we’re going to use broad brushes (and those are quite useful sometimes), we shouldn’t make them much broader than our intended target. If “Chickenhawk War” takes hold, how many serviceman-voters caught up in the conflict do you think won’t feel that brush?
The responsibility for the war lies squarely on the Chief Executive’s shoulders, and the miserable handling of it on his direct subordinates’ shoulders. Call it “Bush’s War” or “the Neocon Folly”, but don’t apply that chickenhawk label where it doesn’t belong.
This war is about a cowardly President floating his famous “political capital” on the blood of patriots.
Concur. It may well be necessary, at some point in time, for a President with no military experience whatsoever to make a gravely important decision and commit American soldiers to war. I can only hope that he does a better job of it than GeeDubya, but he should be free to make that decision on the facts at hand, without reference to his personal combat experience, or lack thereof. It is imperative that such a ghastly decision, when required, be made as entirely free of irrelevent considerations as humanly possible.
Beautiful. Just the point I’ve been making in numerous threads.
Glad to see you’re on board, elucidator.
I don’t think it’s that simple. Cowardice? Here’s one of my favourite quotes about cowardice, from Robert Louis Stevenson’s short story, The Suicide Club:
Contrast that with Bricker’s vision of a USA eerily similar to The Handmaid’s Tale and you begin to get a picture of what you’re up against:
Fear. Fear of uncertainty. Turns even good men simple.
It is just as imperative that the decision be made with as close and thoughtful consultation as possible with those who know more closely than he what it entails. It is vitally necessary, especially for one with such power, to be aware of one’s own ignorance.
I’m sure you agree that this decision was made without any such consultation.
So let’s focus instead on that arrogant ignorance which so dangerously pervades this administration. Deriding the “chickenhawks”, even where the label’s accurate for specific officials, obscures the real evil of how this war was decided, packaged and delivered. It’s a weak label which, IMO, actually diminishes the charges of dishonesty, incompetence, corruption and (if we’re really to be honest) imperial hubris.