July 24, 2006
"Chicken hawk" isn't an argument. It is a slur -- a dishonest and incoherent slur. It is dishonest because those who invoke it don't really mean what they imply -- that only those with combat experience have the moral authority or the necessary understanding to advocate military force. After all, US foreign policy would be more hawkish, not less, if decisions about war and peace were left up to members of the armed forces. Soldiers tend to be politically conservative, hard-nosed about national security, and confident that American arms make the world safer and freer. On the question of Iraq -- stay-the-course or bring-the-troops-home? -- I would be willing to trust their judgment. Would Cindy Sheehan and Howard Dean?But they're not. In their minds, they have some kind of self-designated moral authority to stand in front of Walter Reed Medical Center and insult our wounded veterans.
The cry of "chicken hawk" is dishonest for another reason: It is never aimed at those who oppose military action. But there is no difference, in terms of the background and judgment required, between deciding to go to war and deciding not to. If only those who served in uniform during wartime have the moral standing and experience to back a war, then only they have the moral standing and experience to oppose a war. Those who mock the views of "chicken hawks" ought to be just as dismissive of "chicken doves."
Then you have the Left-wing pinheads who try to have it both ways regarding support of the troops. You can't say you "don't support the mission, but support the troops". I can't think of a more ridiculous assertion. That's like saying, I support the players on the team but I don't support their effort to win the game.
Here's the skinny: if you don't support the mission than by extension you support its failure (and more for political reasons than anything else, which is sick). If you support the failure of the mission then you, in fact, support the failure of those carrying out the mission - which means you support the failure of the troops. In other words, you DON'T support the troops. You're just afraid to say you don't support the troops because you're worried that people will think you're not patriotic.
Most Liberals hate the military and everything it represents. If they could disband every branch and create a "Department Of Peace", they certainly would. Which is why they can't be trusted to defend this nation or be put in charge of it's national security.
So when these wingnuts taunt the supporters of our military as "chicken hawks" they make themselves feel superior enough. But for the rest of the country, they remind us why they should never be returned to power again.
July 19, 2006
One of the major failings of liberals (and liberalism in general) is an attitude that reeks of smugness, of arrogance, and of a sense of intellectual and cultural superiority. They're enlightened, the rest of us are not. And, as a matter of policy, they know what's best for us poor unwashed dolts living between Manhattan and Berkeley, and Brentwood and Georgetown. Limousine liberals often fail to connect with "regular" people because they talk down to them, primarily because liberals view so many of their values with contempt - especially if we're talking about the South.I find this to be especially true of those who aspire to be Limousine Liberals; those average folks, especially in Blue States, who see themselves as a cut above the rest of us ignorant, flag-waving rubes - all the while enjoying the smell of their own farts.
111 queries taking 0.1081 seconds, 223 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.