« New Bin Laden Video or More Media Manipulation? | Main | Rob Port Eight My Vacation »

The Dumb Argument That Won't Die

Call it a weakness. We, the crack young staff of "The Hatemonger's Quarterly," enjoy strolling round the left-wing "weblogosphere," examining the current state of liberal opinion.

Although admittedly excruciating on occasion, our perambulations in the world of "moonbattery" sometimes yield fruit. Not terribly enlightening fruit, mind you, but fruit nevertheless.

For instance, thanks to our dutiful checking of numerous left-wing "weblogs," we have recognized that perhaps the weakest argument in the liberal arsenal is still alive and well. Used more often than Paris Hilton, this might be termed the "Chickenhawk Argument."

You know the drill, dear reader. A liberal "weblogger" will employ this dubious charge against any non-veteran supporter of the Iraq War.

For some reason, liberals seldom offer the same insult to those who support the toppling of the Taliban in Afghanistan, most likely because they support that particular military engagement themselves. Our lefty pals may cry "chickenhawk" a lot, but theirs is a very selective understanding of chickenhawkery.

An unhinged lefty "weblogger" called TBogg recently presented a perfect example of the chickenhawk charge. Accompanying a YouTube clip of Matthew Continetti, associate editor of The Weekly Standard on C-Span, TBogg opined:

After viewing this, I guess we can add Matthew Continetti to the list (that includes Jason Materra and Rob Bluey among others) of smirky slimy little cowards who think others should go fight wars while they stay at home and collect wingnut welfare.

By the time that we finally bring home the American soldiers who have served multiple tours of duty in Iraq, we should have compiled quite a list of these sunshine patriots just in case the vets want to personally thank them for their unique ideas about shared and personal sacrifice.

Ah, yes: Matthew Continetti is supposedly a chickenhawk. Accordingly, he doesn't deserve our lefty friends' usual liberal tolerance. Rather, he merits a pummeling at the hands of the soldiery.

Gosh, does an argument get any weaker than that? To TBogg and his fellow dolts, one can only support a particular government service (in this case, military action), if one takes part in providing that service. Only servicemen or veterans, therefore, can support the use of force.

Presumably, then, if you esteem receiving mail at your home, you're obliged to become a US postman. Similarly, if you favor national healthcare, you must sign up to be a nurse.

As the above examples demonstrate, this line of argument is arrant nonsense. And, coming from the mouths of most liberal critics, it doesn't even ring true. Aren't they clamoring for a military intervention in Darfur?

We suppose that, in support of such an action, TBogg and his ilk are fully prepared to enlist in the Marines.

(Note: The crack young staff normally "weblog" at "The Hatemonger's Quarterly," where they are currently wondering whether non-soldier supporters of toppling the Nazis in World War II were also "chickenhawks.")


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/22569.

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Dumb Argument That Won't Die:

» The Hatemonger's Quarterly linked with The Last Refuge of…Everyone

Comments (36)

The "chickenhawk" thing has... (Below threshold)
C-C-G Author Profile Page:

The "chickenhawk" thing has never really bothered me personally. Of course, that could be that I have a lefty-proof answer for it. [evil grin]

1. Chickenhawk, a proud vic... (Below threshold)
scrapiron Author Profile Page:

1. Chickenhawk, a proud vicious bird of prey. 2. Welfare, 99.999% + of welfare riders are left wing democrats to lazy to work and too dumb to get past the 'D' much less up to the 'R' on a ballot. Using either of these against a conservative republican proves how stupid the left wingers are.

C-C-GI am a Vet (RA ... (Below threshold)
Don:

C-C-G
I am a Vet (RA US Army) and thank you and the rest of the people that really do support the troops.

What is your reason for not... (Below threshold)
ec1009:

What is your reason for not fighting in the great war on terror? What will you say to your children when they ask, "What did you do in the war, daddy?"

ect, I will ask in return: ... (Below threshold)

ect, I will ask in return:

"Where the hell did you come from?"

You see, I have no children, and have taken steps to make certain that I never do.

Gee, that was easy...

J.

Hmm. Are you a joke Jay Tea... (Below threshold)
ec009:

Hmm. Are you a joke Jay Tea? Congratulations on not reproducing. Do you think that the "GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORROR" is also a joke?

He clearly thinks you are a... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

He clearly thinks you are a joke ec009.
Given the way you comport yourself, I cannot imagine why...

Jt's question to ec1009:</p... (Below threshold)
marc:

Jt's question to ec1009:

"Where the hell did you come from?"

Let me take the liberty to answer for him.... "A Moonbats test tube."

What do chickenhawks EAT, a... (Below threshold)

What do chickenhawks EAT, anyway?

What else but crow Jim? Ser... (Below threshold)
JFO:

What else but crow Jim? Seriously though the chickenhawk label and the traitor label are proof to me that the person making the argument has nothing of value to say. It's an easy out to complicated problems. I wish neither side used them

I've said -- repeatedly --t... (Below threshold)

I've said -- repeatedly --that the "Chickenhawk" argument is fundamentally dishonest. It is an attempt to change the subject of the discussion from the merits of the argument to the merits of the arguer. It is a thinly-veiled ad hominem attack, attempting to silence one's opponent without having to rebut their statements.

As such, a mocking response such as I gave ec109 is actually more than sufficient.

J.

Seriously though the chi... (Below threshold)

Seriously though the chickenhawk label and the traitor label are proof to me that the person making the argument has nothing of value to say. It's an easy out to complicated problems.

Yup. Too bad you don't feel that way about the hypocrite argument.

Jay. Your last com... (Below threshold)
RFA:

Jay.

Your last comment sums it up quite succinctly.
Bravo.

Yup. Too bad you don't feel... (Below threshold)
RFA:

Yup. Too bad you don't feel that way about the hypocrite argument.

12. Posted by Tom Blogical | July 15, 2007 8:12 AM

I think those antibiotics have gone to your head. Are you one of those hypocrites?

What is your reason for ... (Below threshold)
RFA:

What is your reason for not fighting in the great war on terror? What will you say to your children when they ask, "What did you do in the war, daddy?"

4. Posted by ec1009

I'm too old and the recruiter wouldn't let me re-enlist. Otherwise I'd be right there in the thick of it.

I think those antibiotic... (Below threshold)

I think those antibiotics have gone to your head.

I sure hope so. It is a sinus infection, after all.

"What did you do in ... (Below threshold)

"What did you do in the war, daddy?"

(assumes Patton voice)..."Well at least I won't have to say I shoveled troll shit at Wizbang"

What argument does the left... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

What argument does the left have? Seriously. The left doesn't care for the troops, mainstream democrats do but the left never did since Vietnam. When the left bases their whole argument on Bush lied, we are occupiers, we kill civilians, our soldiers are like nazis, Abu Grahib is normal behavior for out troops, our soldiers flushed the Koran down the toilet. All of these comments played out to the whole world and yet the left continues to say they support the troops. Nonsense. When it comes to the military and operations, I will listen to only the people I think have the best of intentions for our troops. GW has said many, many times that he thinks really hard before putting our troops in harms way. You know he means it by the expression on his face. So, There is no argument the left could put forward that would convince me that they have the best intentions for our troops and our country. A leopard never changes its' spots. ww

Just for the record, RFA, I... (Below threshold)

Just for the record, RFA, I thought it was clear that I was speaking to JFO directly. My comment was in reference to another thread here, which I don't really expect everyone to get, but then, I was speaking directly to JFO.

It's plain and simple proje... (Below threshold)
kim:

It's plain and simple projection. The shame they think we should feel is their own.
===========================

By the time that w... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
By the time that we finally bring home the American soldiers who have served multiple tours of duty in Iraq, we should have compiled quite a list of these sunshine patriots just in case the vets want to personally thank them for their unique ideas about shared and personal sacrifice.

This is the type of comment that demonstrates the profound ignorance of the left. With rare exception no young man in combat wants their sister, their girl friends, the too old, the too young, screw-ups, or cowards with them on the battlefield. The only people they want more of are well trained and motivated warriors like themselves.

What they want from people back home is unconditional support while they are in harms way. They want the best military leadership, the best weapons, the best armor, and all of the supplies they need. Providing these and more troops like themselves is how you support the troops.

So how do you get more young men to volunteer for combat? Money, privileges, care, and honor. The order depends on the person, but the money for combat should be substantial. Care of returning vets should be guaranteed without limitation. Anyone dishonoring the troops should go to jail. Veterans should have extra privileges not available to non-veterans.

Here are some examples of extra privileges:

• For however much time a veteran served in a combat zone they can declare tax-exempt status for that amount of time at any point in their lives. This benefit is most valuable to those who expect to be successful in life, so it attracts the young men from the upper economic classes.

• Any veteran should be able to either refuse juror duty, or join the jury pool at their discretion for the rest of their lives.

• Veterans should be guaranteed entrance into any collage or university that receives public funds.

• As now, Veterans would receive extra points when applying for Federal jobs, but they should get double the points for every year they server in combat.

• Veterans should take priority over minorities in Federal set asides.

• Veterans should get to vote twice in all elections of federal office. They show their veteran's ID and they are given two ballots.

When the liberals howl about creating a privileged class we'll just remind them it was their idea to have shared sacrifice. The privileges of Vets come at the expense of non-vets, and that's how the sacrifice is shared. As a veteran I would like to see the privileges made retroactive, but I would be willing to forgo that personal benefit to support this generation of veterans. With such incentives we could double the size of the military and having another 100,000 or so troops for duty in Iraq. That would be the best thing the nation could do to support our troops in this war.

I know none of this is going to happen so at some point we are going to bring the war home to America. By fighting it on American soil the liberals will be guaranteed the shared sacrifice they demand. My bumper sticker reads Bring the war home, it's what you voted for.

Much of the left really doe... (Below threshold)
Tim in PA:

Much of the left really does not seem to understand soldiers, nor do they seem to realize how incredibly annoying it is when they start using lame "but we're doing it for the troops!" argument.

It's condescending. They're volunteers, all of them, and it pisses them off when you treat them like victims while trying to pull the plug on them and make all their work meaningless.

Well, as a lifelong liberal... (Below threshold)
Veeshir:

Well, as a lifelong liberal (I prefer to be called a lefty or a commie), I am becoming disillusioned over the "chickenhawk" argument that many of my co-political buddies are doing. After all, if they're so dead set against the US, why aren't they in Iraq wearing suicide vests?

And if Bush is such a tyrant, why aren't they revolting (in the "revolution" sense, they're already revolting in the "disgusting" sense)?

Chicken-patriots, that's what they are. It makes me ashamed to be a life-long Democrat. Why, I might even vote GOP in the next election!

What is your reaso... (Below threshold)
C-C-G Author Profile Page:
What is your reason for not fighting in the great war on terror? What will you say to your children when they ask, "What did you do in the war, daddy?"

I will tell them that Daddy has a very serious genetic disorder (Hemophilia, if you must know) that makes him ineligible for military service.

In point of fact, I called the Navy recruiting office and was told that I was ineligible for even non-combat positions.

Thank you for asking, it provides a great opportunity for showing just how hollow the "chickenhawk" argument is.

One response I always make ... (Below threshold)
Lorie Byrd:

One response I always make to the chikenhawk argument is to call the libs on it. If they truly believe only those who serve in Iraq are qualified to have an opinion on it and/or influence war policy, then by all means let's just take a vote of all those people and do what they want. Considering the opinions of all those I know in the military and judging by the re-enlistment rates of those serving in Iraq, I am confident the result would be an overwhelming (to quote Jim of Sergeant Hook) "We don't want to come home until we win."

Lorie, I've successfully us... (Below threshold)
C-C-G Author Profile Page:

Lorie, I've successfully used that argument on them. It truly throws them for a loop, so they usually just ignore it. If I press them on it, they skulk away to another discussion.

This is the type o... (Below threshold)
The other Matt:
This is the type of comment that demonstrates the profound ignorance of the left. With rare exception no young man in combat wants their sister, their girl friends, the too old, the too young, screw-ups, or cowards with them on the battlefield. The only people they want more of are well trained and motivated warriors like themselves.

Good post.

What is your reason for not fighting in the great war on terror? What will you say to your children when they ask, "What did you do in the war, daddy?
/

If I were him I would say exactly what he responded with. But I would also add that he backed us with every means available to him at the time. I know this because I am an active duty military guy and he has actually helped me when I have needed help. And if he were able to serve I would gladly stand next to him on in any situation he were faced with, and I will stand next to him when and if he needs my help.

Now I ask you and all the others that say they support me, but do not support the war. How have you supported us? What have you done other than run your jibs on a online blog?

"You have never lived until you have almost died. Life, for those that fight for it, has a flavor that the protected will never taste."

It just occurred to me wher... (Below threshold)
iurockhead:

It just occurred to me where these pinheads came up with the whole "chickenhawk" argument: Starship Troopers. In that painfully bad movie, one could not become a "citizen" and vote or hold office until serving in the military and fighting the dreaded "bugs." A cartoonish and silly movie, only the typically gullible and uninformed liberal could take anything seriously from it.

On another site a while bac... (Below threshold)
cirby:

On another site a while back, one of the lefties posting in a thread tried the "chickenhawk" thing ("why don't you enlist?"), and immediately got responses from every single right-wing poster - most were ex-military and were too old to reenlist, a couple were current military and had either been to Iraq or were going there in the near future, and one guy was a civilian contractor in the Green Zone.

...and yes, I'm ex-military (Air Force), and am too old to reenlist. But I've been submitting my resume for employment over in Iraq. Almost had one job, too, but the contract went to a different company.

If I were him I wo... (Below threshold)
C-C-G Author Profile Page:
If I were him I would say exactly what he responded with. But I would also add that he backed us with every means available to him at the time. I know this because I am an active duty military guy and he has actually helped me when I have needed help. And if he were able to serve I would gladly stand next to him on in any situation he were faced with, and I will stand next to him when and if he needs my help.

Thanks, Matt... I am honored.

(Yes, I confirmed with Matt that he was referring to me in that statement.)

You've all missed the great... (Below threshold)

You've all missed the greater point here, TBogg is an ass with nothing to say.

After 9/11 I contacted a military recruiter only to be politely told that I was beyond the age limit.

Do you think that my mentioning this fact to a chicken liberal commenter would get him to back off? No. Just an a-hole with a canned attack. Like TBogg, it's best not to engage these folks.

Gordon, when I specify my r... (Below threshold)
C-C-G Author Profile Page:

Gordon, when I specify my reason for not serving, it shuts most of them up quite nicely (those that don't shut up right away either get asked if they are anti-disabled-folks or actively want to see me dead). Sure, they still are clueless about the war, but at least it stops one of their silliest "attacks."

That's all to the good, I think.

That's all to the good, ... (Below threshold)

That's all to the good, I think.

Indeed. Thanks for your thoughts.

ps You know who else is an ... (Below threshold)

ps You know who else is an ass? "Chip"

I come here on Sundays to pour my vitriol on him because he won't accept comments at Hatemonger's Quarterly.

God bless Phil Collins.

I once quoted Winston Churc... (Below threshold)

I once quoted Winston Churchill in a discussion and had a lefty call Winston a "chickenhawk" - which demonstrated the general ignorance of the users of the insult.

I am proud to be a vet and ... (Below threshold)
nogo war:

I am proud to be a vet and proud to be a lefty..
I don't use the term "chickenhawk" I don't blame Cheney for his deferments. I don't blame Bush for cruising through the Guard when unlike now..the Guard did not go unless they volunteered.
Most American men at that time did what they could not to go.
I joined at 19 not for any great patriotic reason. I joined after 1 year of college because I had a very low draft number and wanted some choice.

It is simplistic BS for someone to shout out "If you support Iraq..join or shut up"
It is equally simplistic BS for those who support Bush/Cheney actions in Iraq to claim we who oppose them.. that we "don't Love America"
or "hope more troops are killed" or "support surrender to terrorists."

Jingoistic BS from from BOTH sides...In a nation where everything leads to consumption..
Where our lives are bombarded by advertising slogans...it is not surprising that Both sides are reduced to slogans as a way to express their views...
....now I amoff to our local Farmer's Market..
"Have a nice day"





Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy