Actually, his flight was delayed because the plane was missing the left wing.
Bill Clinton’s presidency wasn’t exactly a pacifist utopia, rjung. My involvement in a conflict was in relation to the war in Yugoslavia.
Now, those soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines ordered into action in this conflict were done so by a man with no combat experience himself. Point of fact, he had no military experience at all, and had used political influence to avoid service.
Now, did this invalidate his ability to send me and others in to fight?
How about FDR? Apart from the Civil War that was the largest conflict we’ve ever been involved in. Need I remind you that he had no active duty experience?
Care to call him a chickenhawk?
Operation Restore Hope in Somalia, conducted mostly during the Clinton administration, led to 29 American deaths, including the 18 Rangers killed in the Mogadishu firefight.
19 U.S. airmen died in the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996.
17 sailors were killed in the USS Cole bombing in 2000.
11 servicemembers were killed in combat in the former Yugoslavia and Kosovo during the Clinton administration.
Now, these servicemembers were ordered to fight, as I was, by a man who avoided service himself. Now answer directly, rjung, do you believe Clinton had the moral authority to order these servicemembers to fight and die?
Well STFU with the bring it on crap then. Really - if you’re so bloody gung-ho about it then get on out there.
Bush Sr. sent the troops into Somalia. They were there when Clinton took office.
The Cole and Khobar had nothing to do with ordering anybody into combat.
Kosovo had very minimal casualties, almost no combat and was a peace keeping mission after a war was over not an invasion or an initiation of war. It was also done at the behest of the international communitity, not in defiance of it.
Most importantly, Clinton did not invite terrorists to kill US troops with a numbnuts bravado statement like Bush’s.
Moto, content and context are your friends. You should visit them more.
Yes and the point is they’re full of shit. When the chips are on the table they fold like Superman on laundry day. Over my years I’ve had several confrontations with such people, they’re the first to run when you threaten them.
Thank you for missing the point entirely, Diogenes.
Let me put it another way: Did Bill Clinton have the authority to lead the armed forces given his personal history?
I think this chickenhawk argument is flawed on many fronts. First of all, it seems to impose a veterans status litmus test on political participation. I have argued against that for some time.
Secondly, it is an argument that is a complete non-starter politically. You have to go way back to 1988 to find a presidential election where the candidate with the more distinguished military record won. Before this, it arguably happened in 1984 and again in 1972.
It’s clear that nearly everybody can frame a candidate’s military service, or lack thereof, in context in a candidate’s life and then vote accordingly. Therefore, I can but assume that accusations of “chickenhawk” on these boards are merely a cheap rhetorical device substituting for actual reasoning.
Have at it if you wish, but it seems profoundly silly to me.
A little education for you, Mr. Moto:
“Chickenhawk” does not refer to someone who leads troops during a war while not possessing military credentials himself. Indeed, one can argue that it’s a good thing the Presidency of the United States doesn’t have military service as a prerequisite, as it encourages the office-holder to try to find nonmilitary solutions to problems first.
What “chickenhawk” does mean is someone who doesn’t have military credentials himself, but is all too eager to push for a military solution instead of a non-military one. This is especially true if the push for war includes trumped-up charges of “massive stockpiles” of WMDs, imaginary reports of “mobile chemical weapons laboratories,” and fanciful “remote-controlled drones” capable of crossing the Atlantic Ocean and attacking our shores.
I leave it to you to figure out which President(s) in the last fifty years fit that description.
What, and risk getting a clue? 
Thanks for the clarification, rjung. It just confirmed what was already quite obvious, that the term is used solely to denigrate Republicans and score rhetorical points.
Nice to see you so forthrightly express this point.
Isn’t really quite the same as
is it?
If I state that a particular term is used to describe Presidents who are forced to resign from office after being exposed as lying crooks, it would be harsh to say that that term’s sole use is to denigrate Republicans. Chickenhawk is equally applicably to leaders whatever their party affiliation. I would have no great issue with it being used to describe Blair, for example.
I don’t know if this has already been mentioned elsewhere or not, but I think it in line with the OP.
I don’t know if Task Force 6-26 is in any way affiliated with the SEAL’s that are depicted in the other recent photos. But if not, then this marks the third seperate incident of such events in prisoner detention centers.
And before anyone chimes in with “why play nice with terrorists”…
Because they probably didn’t become terrorists until they went through this.
America, you’re not helping yourself here. Why are you asking the rest of the world to help?
It’s not my fault if Republicans are the ones who love to cheer for war while leading from the rear…
Does that apply to me, rjung? Or Donald Rumsfeld, who was a Navy fighter pilot?
How about Colin Powell? I assume his military credentials aren’t suspect.
How about John McCain?
How about Tom Ridge? He was an Army staff sergeant in Vietnam.
Your posts merely demonstrate how pathetic this labeling is.
Just so! Let is not be distracted by this silly diversion about mistreatment of prisoners and its effect on our “cause”, when the really significant concern is the dastardly liberals and their name-calling!
Umm…since Libruls are all a bunch of little commie faggot pussies, why do the tough, manly, macho Righties spend so muc time playing the victim card?
-Joe
I’m no victim, Merijeek. I just call it like I see it.
In rjung’s world, you have to go with the war hero over the guy who didn’t serve. Unless that war hero was running against Bill Clinton, because everybody knows he’s a special case.
Mr Moto:
Funny how the two you choose to reference are precisely the two Republicans who did absolutely zero cheering for this conundrum whatsoever. In fact, they could as best be considered begrudgingly toeing the party line.
I can’t speak for rjung specifically, but I believe he was referring to the actual cheerleading folks like Bush, Cheney, Wolfoshitz, and Scooter Libby.
No offence, but this shtick is getting tiresome. Not every comment made is a reference to you directly.
Why not? By your standards I’m a cheerleader for the war.
I think you all know that casting such a label my way would be somewhat inappropriate.
The problem, though, is that others who did not serve have the same right I do to hold that view. I don’t get any special political status simply because I’m a veteran.
Therefore, slapping the chickenhawk on these folks seems inappropriate as well.
Call The Truth misguided, a warmonger, whatever. Just law off the chickenhawk shit. It’s tremendously tiresome.