Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Chickenhawks
Posted by: Jon Henke on Friday, July 01, 2005

I've previously posted (Starship Bloggers) on the sheer dishonesty of the "chickenhawk/101st Fighting Keyboarders" argument, noting that purveyors of the meme don't actually believe in the principle...they just like the demagoguery.

But let's take the arguments made by Max Blumenthal in The Nation, and echoed far and wide across the 'Sphere:Left by bloggers like...
  • Digsby: "It is unfair in the extreme that stop loss orders and extended tours are being forced upon the "volunteer" army when those who support the war are unwilling to put themselves in physical danger."


  • Rising Hegemon: "I think both of these finger pointers should be asked about whether they want their kids to enlist to join this "noble" fight or whether its up to other families to spill their blood, while they collect the treasure?"


  • Kos: "Leaders lead by example. I doubt either of these two senators or the president would be willing to send their children and/or grandchildren to Iraq. Yet they expect others to take a bullet. They expect other families to make the sacrifice they themselves would not."


  • And led by Jesus General, who's been pushing the "Operation Yellow Elephant" campaign: "The objective of OPERATION YELLOW ELEPHANT is to recruit College Republicans and Young Republicans to serve as infantry. They demanded this war and now viciously support it. It's only right that they also experience it."

I've just assumed that these arguments are dishonest demagoguery, but could I be wrong? Do these bloggers sincerely believe that the supporters of a war have a duty to sign up and take the consequences themselves, rather than leaving it to others?

Well, perhaps.

Take note of Mystery Pollsters post on the post-9/11 liberal reaction. Take note of the immediate liberal response to Karl Rove's suggestion that liberals shied away from war, in which bloggers throughout the left side of the 'sphere declared their support for the war in Afghanistan. Howard Dean declared that "I supported the Afghan war, and I think most Democrats did, and we probably need more troops in Afghanistan..."

So, I eagerly await news that the entire left side of the blogosphere is signing up for a hitch in Afghanistan.

I mean, they spent the past week telling us how they demanded that war and now viciously support it. It's only right that they also experience it, right?

UPDATE [McQ]: Sharp as a Marble thinks it important to note that in reality the Chickenhawk meme has broad application:
ChickenCops – People who call 911 expecting the police to protect them when they’re too scared to join the force themselves!!! This can also apply to the unreasonable request that someone douse the flames engulfing your house if you’ve never shared a seat with a dalmation on the way to a 3 alarm inferno yourself.

ChickenJanitors – People who expect their toilets to be clean but can’t lower themselves to quit their high paying jobs to do it!

ChickenPOTUS – Individuals who kvetch about the president and don’t have the fortitude to run for the office themselves!
Heh ...
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
I understand the annoyance, Jon, but I don’t see that it’s useful. The chickenhawk smear is an illegitimate argument no matter who uses it; I don’t know whether banning the trolls that spout it works better than just ignoring them, but I don’t see why we should take them more seriously than, say, people wearing their underpants on their head.

And, yes, I understand, the folks that you mentioned are being hypocrites. This isn’t what you’d call news, or anything. :)
 
Written By: Moe Lane
URL: http://moeticae.typepad.com/
Actually, Jon, the moniker "101st Fighting Keyboarders" has a pretty nice ring to it. I say wear it proudly as you do your part in shoring up patriotic support on the home front in the face of the niggling defeatism of the left. If you are of the 101FK then they are of the E-Taliban. ’Nuff said!
 
Written By: D
URL: http://
Not only did they support our invasion of Afganistan then, they are still howling that our focus should be in Afganistan, where Bin Ladin is believed to be taking refuge, instead of Iraq.
 
Written By: Doug Purdie
URL: http://www.onlybaseballmatters.com
Is there a "101st Fighting Mommy Squadron?" ’Cause I’d join up. I’ve already been through Basic Training— three times.
 
Written By: Wacky Hermit
URL: http://organicbabyfarm.blogspot.com
I’ve had enough of the meme meme. As with articles that include variations of "reach out to," I stop reading when I see "meme." It smacks of overdone faddism, but that’s just me[me].
 
Written By: The Owner’s Manual
URL: http://gcruse.typepad.com
Who cares? The fact that they have to move the argument from the idea of the thing to the personal means that they have already admitted defeat. Let them ramble on and humiliate themselves.
 
Written By: Shark
URL: http://www.qando.net
Here’s the problem. Lots and lots of people (with excellent reason) have no confidence at all in the honesty, competence, and integrity of the civilian leadership with regard to Iraq. And they have serious questions (again with excellent reason) with regard to the mission in Iraq, and whether our current approach is counter-productive to America’s best interests.

You aren’t going to get these folks to join up. As a result, we have serious problems, verging on a crisis, in Army recruitment right now.

The logical place to look for recruits to fight the war in Iraq is among those who are of the proper age, and believe in both the civilian leadership and the appropriateness of the mission in Iraq. But these folks —- most notably the College Republicans —- want to avoid serving their country as well. They think that someone else should be doing it, even though they support the war and the White House.

That’s hypocrisy, pure and simple. And Operation Yellow Elephant is designed to do two things: point out that hypocrisy, and hopefully shame tens of thousand of the President’s supporters to put their asses on the same line that they put their rhetoric.

 
Written By: p.lukasiak
URL: http://
You aren’t going to get these folks to join up. As a result, we have serious problems, verging on a crisis, in Army recruitment right now.

Uh, no we don’t. It’s certainly being characterized that way, but it just isn’t so.

That’s hypocrisy, pure and simple.

So tell us, when did you serve in Afghanistan?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
No, HERE’S the problem with smart-asses like yourself. You have no concept of what service to your country means. You can’t join the army "to go to Iraq." You join and then you go where you’re told, not where you want to go.

So let’s say I join (again) and get sent to Korea (again). Now what?

You libs are so fucking clueless it truly staggers the mind. No one is trying to "avoid" service. Service is voluntary, period.

Only ten percent of the population ever served in the American Revolution, quite sufficient to settle England’s hash, and they were the world’s superpower at the time.

What you’re saying is that you wish these kids would go over to Iraq and get killed, you just don’t have the balls to say it out loud, you nutless wonder.
 
Written By: Jeff
URL: http://
"No one is trying to "avoid" service"
Actually during the draft for Vietnam, it was avoided, which was the original specific "chicken hawk" attack leveled at some administration and congressional republican hawks lack of service. (Incidentally, it was actually more in reference to the smears directed at Kerry for his service and willingness to defend the country by those that never served themselves, not Iraq. again:
http://lautenberg.senate.gov/~lautenberg/press/2003/01/2004224A36.html)

"What you’re saying is that you wish these kids would go over to Iraq and get killed, you just don’t have the balls to say it out loud, you nutless wonder. "

No, what were saying is that we wish the current administration would have prepeared better, thought more, and been more patient to get the information right before sending the current military men and women over to get killed over a threat to our country that did not exist. (No, not the threat of terrorism, that exists. The threat of Iraq having WMD’s.)

And yes, it was about WMD’s and the threat to the US.
Here are two speeches by President Bush, on whitehouse.gov outlining the "Why Iraq?" question.
Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat 2002-10-07
Saddam 48 hour warning 2003-03-17

And here is the Jount Resolution to Authorize the Use Of Force 2002-10-02

You cannot honestly tell me that humanitarian resons are more than a cursory afterthought in any of these, where they are even mentioned at all.


The idea behind "chickenhawk", as I said before, is that those who don’t pay full price tend to overuse a resource. McQ has a point that about supporting Afghanistan and not serving... but we on the left are vulnerable to that more due to oversimplifying the argument, rather than deficiencies in the core argument itself. McQ’s janitorial analogies are amusing but not sufficiently accurate, due to that whole no one actually trying to kill you for being a janitor adding to the "real cost" of those involved beyond paying paychecks.

 
Written By: Tito
URL: http://
The annoying thing here is the complete and total disingenuousness of those flinging the "Chickenhawk" rhetoric around - I still believe that the best response is insistence on their prescription for the Iraq situation. After all, it’s the one fact the Left can’t escape - they can criticize our reasons, our motivations for toppling Saddam’s regime, but what’s done is done.

And given that, serious consequences hinge on what we do in Iraq. Particularly if we abandon Iraq at this stage - what does the Left have to offer as a solution here, beyond "bring the troops home now"? That’s what I have yet to hear from any of them - rather than impugning the character of those who support this war, what alternative answers exist? Bring those arguments forward and submit them for scrutiny - if they exist, if the Left actually has any to offer.
 
Written By: RS
URL: http://
Jon, you are definitely right as a matter of general principles. But when people on the right are smearing everyone on the left as "traitors" and "objectively pro-terrorist," the left has a right to ask this question: why aren’t these people who are so quick to smear people who served (i.e. John Kerry, Kos, Max Cleland, etc.) so afraid to sign up. And when army recruitment is down (sorry folks but it is), and the President is urging people to join, it is legitimate to ask why his two unemployed daughters don’t join up —- Roosevelt’s kids joined up during WWII.

It is also entirely legitimate to ask in a more general matter, why the poor and lower-middle class shoulder so much of the military burden? I recognize that the last question is applicable to both left and right.
 
Written By: Anonymous
URL: http://www.qando.net
It is also entirely legitimate to ask in a more general matter, why the poor and lower-middle class shoulder so much of the military burden?

Well first who says its alll "poor and lower-middle" class? But to answer your questions directly:

Because they volunteered.

We do have a volunteer military, you know?

why aren’t these people who are so quick to smear people who served (i.e. John Kerry, Kos, Max Cleland, etc.) so afraid to sign up.

You have no idea if they "smeared" anyone nor do you have any idea whether they’re ’afraid’ to sign up.

Pure assertion.

In fact, what you instead see is an opportunity for a different use of an old, tired and disengenuous rhetorical device to stifle debate. A bit like yelling "racist" if anyone on the right happens to question the efficacy of affirmative action or the like.

Same song, different verse.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
"No one is trying to "avoid" service"
Actually during the draft for Vietnam, it was avoided, which was the original specific "chicken hawk" attack leveled at some administration and congressional republican hawks lack of service. (Incidentally, it was actually more in reference to the smears directed at Kerry for his service and willingness to defend the country by those that never served themselves, not Iraq. again:
http://lautenberg.senate.gov/~lautenberg/press/2003/01/2004224A36.html)

"What you’re saying is that you wish these kids would go over to Iraq and get killed, you just don’t have the balls to say it out loud, you nutless wonder. "

No, what were saying is that we wish the current administration would have prepeared better, thought more, and been more patient to get the information right before sending the current military men and women over to get killed over a threat to our country that did not exist. (No, not the threat of terrorism, that exists. The threat of Iraq having WMD’s.)

And yes, it was about WMD’s and the threat to the US.
Here are two speeches by President Bush, on whitehouse.gov outlining the "Why Iraq?" question.
Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat 2002-10-07
Saddam 48 hour warning 2003-03-17

And here is the Jount Resolution to Authorize the Use Of Force 2002-10-02

You cannot honestly tell me that humanitarian resons are more than a cursory afterthought in any of these, where they are even mentioned at all.


The idea behind "chickenhawk", as I said before, is that those who don’t pay full price tend to overuse a resource. McQ has a point that about supporting Afghanistan and not serving... but we on the left are vulnerable to that more due to oversimplifying the argument, rather than deficiencies in the core argument itself. McQ’s janitorial analogies are amusing but not sufficiently accurate, due to that whole no one actually trying to kill you for being a janitor adding to the "real cost" of those involved beyond paying paychecks.

 
Written By: Tito
URL: http://
The issue is actually the credibility of our national leadership.

If our national leaders cannot even persuade their strongest military-age supporters to sign up, how can they possibly persuade the rest of the country to continue to support our intervention in Iraq?

Remember: It’s Our Military, not some distant "Other" like "that military family down the street." In theory, we’re all in this together.

-
 
Written By: Karl Olson
URL: http://
Karl Olson:

So, what could be better evidence of the utter failure of national leadership than the inability to meet military requirements through voluntary enlistment in the first place. It must be evidence that either the war is unjust or the leadership is incompetent, no?

In which case, I think it safe to say that neither Abraham Lincoln nor FDR nor Harry Truman were, in any way, shape, or form, suited to lead our nation in wartime.

Indeed, FDR, having presided over a shocking intelligence failure (when we were reading Japanese codes), having deliberately invited attack by the Germans (by engaging in not only wartime planning w/ a belligerent prior to the outbreak of hostilities but deliberately undertaking attacks against German forces w/o the benefit of a declaration of war), having deliberately placed US forces in a more vulnerable location (Pearl Harbor, rather than San Franciso and San Diego, the main US Pacific Fleet anchorages at the time, a location that was subjected to surprise attack in Fleet Exercises in the late 1930s), then is utterly unable to meet wartime manpower requirements, despite the fact that we were attacked first. Instead, he maintained the draft.

Of course, the fact that FDR had not served himself (and, no, polio was not the reason, he was healthy and of age during World War I and the Spanish-American Wars) only goes to show that chickenhawks are unsuited to lead the nation in wartime.

I take it you would agree w/ that assessment?
 
Written By: Lurking Observer
URL: http://
I dislike Max Cleland, Kos and John Kerry and I served in Afghanistan. Does this absolve me from having to make logical arguments or provide evidence in support of them when it comes to those people, or any other issue? Certainly not. The reverse applies as well - flinging "chickenhawk" out and acting like you have just sealed the argument closed is just as silly as the above proposition.

Unfortunately there are too many that wish to carp and point at fault. Devoid of ideas, solutions and constructive advice - they resort to name calling. This does nothing useful for anyone.
 
Written By: Major John
URL: http://www.miserabledonuts.blogspot.com
The idea behind "chickenhawk", as I said before, is that those who don’t pay full price tend to overuse a resource.

Full price? Full price in the military cuts out future career options.

Of course, those who don’t pay the full price for sanctions do tend to overuse them. Alas, I don’t think that was your point.

 
Written By: Mark Flacy
URL: http://
Geez - I just realized my mother was a chickenhawk. I mean, she supported going to war against the Axis Powers in 1941, but she didn’t enlist or even apply for a job in one of the vital industrial war plants.

Of course, she was in her early teens at the time, but that wouldn’t count, right? And she lived in Northeastern Mississippi, where no significant war industries existed, but that wouldn’t count either. And, of course, as a member of a family barely one step above sharecropping, she had to do her part running the family farm and caring for the smaller children in her large Depression-era family - but that doesn’t count either. Right?

The only way her stance on World War II would have any moral credibility is if she took direct action. Geez, Mom, how could you?

I’m so ... disgraced.

 
Written By: RS
URL: http://
McQ: Well first who says its alll "poor and lower-middle" class?

Not me. Read my post, I said shoulder "so much" of the burden not "all" of it. And look it up, they do shoulder a disproportionate burden in the military. If you dispute that, you probably dispute that the sky is blue as well. . . . You wingnuts live in fantasy land —- everything is great in Iraq, we went to war to create a democracy, there is no torture going on, the libruls hate America, we have no recruitment problem, etc., etc.

 
Written By: Anonymous
URL: http://www.qando.net
Not me. Read my post, I said shoulder "so much" of the burden not "all" of it. And look it up, they do shoulder a disproportionate burden in the military. If you dispute that, you probably dispute that the sky is blue as well. . . . You wingnuts live in fantasy land —- everything is great in Iraq, we went to war to create a democracy, there is no torture going on, the libruls hate America, we have no recruitment problem, etc., etc.
Well bless your heart ... feeling a little put upon are we? Obviously resorting to name calling means there’s not much substance left.

I can tell you now, after 28 years service, the people I served with weren’t from the "poor" or "lower middle class" in the norm. The vast majority were solid middle class kids with solid middle class backgrounds who were in the military for a variety of reason, few of them economic ...

Maybe you’re not aware of how it works here in the blogosphere: you make the assertion, you get to prove it. Otherwise it’s assumed your assertions is no more than another in a long line of cherished "librul" fantasies.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
"No one is trying to "avoid" service"
Actually during the draft for Vietnam, it was avoided, which was the original specific "chicken hawk" attack leveled at some... blah, blah, blah
Vietnam was over 30 years ago, Cronkite. We don’t have a draft in this country anymore - it’s an all-volunteer army. Ergo, one cannot "avoid" serving if one is not required to serve. Thanks for trying to obfuscate the point with whatever that was you were trying to say. BTW, I spoke to my brother tonight. He also voluntarily served 8 years and he agrees that you’re not making any sense and to please knock it off. Thanks.
over a threat to our country that did not exist.
From your link:
Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof—the smoking gun—that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. As President Kennedy said in October of 1962, "Neither the United States of America, nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world," he said, "where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nations security to constitute maximum peril."
I know that doesn’t make a dent, Tito - that’s the sad part. Don’t worry, plenty of brave lads and lasses who volunteer to keep you safe, anyway.
McQ has a point that about supporting Afghanistan and not serving... but we on the left are vulnerable to that more due to oversimplifying the argument, rather than deficiencies in the core argument itself. McQ’s janitorial analogies are amusing but not sufficiently accurate, due to that whole no one actually trying to kill you for being a janitor adding to the "real cost" of those involved beyond paying paychecks.
So, McQ handed you your hat on that one, but your argument is still valid because "janitor" is not a high-risk occupation? How about fireman? Don’t ask someone else to risk their life to save yours if you’re not willing to drop your your career to be a fireman. Or a cop - don’t let me hear you on a 911 call replay, Tito. Not unless you’re willing to go through the police academy and wear a badge.



 
Written By: Jeff
URL: http://repatriate.blogspot.com
I get a kick out of this argument. Generally, it comes from the same people who decry Bush not serving in Vietnam but who voted for Clinton twice (and who will vote for Hillary over any Republican, service or no, when the time comes).

Well, guys, there is an emergency via the deficit.
I wonder if p.lukusiak sent back his/her Bush tax cuts?
Did kos?
Did Duncan?
Did Josh?
Did Drum?
Did Digby?

I see a bunch of folks bemoaning other people getting tax cuts (the folks who have achieved more....green is never an attractive color) but they sure like *theirs*. Seems like it’d be pretty easy for them to remove the stigma of the obvious HYPOCRISY involved when they don’t do what they support and expect others to do for them.

I can do the math, if they need it. It’s pretty simple: just pay the Clinton tax rates, retroactively to 2001. Since we have an urgent situation, isn’t it about time the folks supporting higher taxes signed up instead of sitting at your computer demanding that I and others do it instead? I’ll be in the corner holding my breath and awaiting the "yes, but....it’s different" retort, which I can almost set my watch by.
 
Written By: Ricky
URL: http://www.rjwest.com/blog
purveyors of the meme don’t actually believe in the principle...they just like the demagoguery.

Right. Just like purveyors of the "objectively pro-terrorist / traitor" meme, which you yourself have pointed out in the past is nothing but Republican bullshit. The "chickenhawk" thing is little more than a response to the attempts by Republicans to smear the entire left. Also note the blogs you linked to: those guys are all pretty far left, and you really don’t see the more reasonable centrists like Yglesias, Marshall, and so forth promoting this nonsense. Whereas on the other side, you do see people like Glenn Reynolds, a supposed moderate, embracing an only slightly watered-down version (really more that it’s just couched in polite academic phrasing) of the wacko right’s rhetoric.
 
Written By: Mike C
URL: http://
Just like purveyors of the "objectively pro-terrorist / traitor" meme, which you yourself have pointed out in the past is nothing but Republican bullshit
That is Republican "bullshit", though I don’t think the presence of bullshit on one side renders the presence of bullshit on the other side any less objectionable.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
That is Republican "bullshit"

Looks like I missed that thread. Could you provide a backlink? Your search function provides me with no hits on any of those keywords.

 
Written By: Mark Flacy
URL: http://
Ehhhhh.........

So I need to go serve in Afghanistan now, hmmm?
As is usual these days, you have missed the point entirely. Without the Iraq debacle, there would be no problem in Afghanistan. And by ’problem’ I’m referring to the fact that bin Laden is still at large. Iraq is what has stressed our military, Iraq is what ruined our international prestige, and Iraq is what has divided this country so much. Our military could have handled the bin Laden operation just fine if the leadership had made better decisions, but they didn’t. Oops, don’t think I’m supposed to point that out. :/

This crap about liberals having to go to Afghanistan is a pretty pathetic attempt at taking the spotlight off you bunch of cowards. And I hope you’ll all pay attention in the coming days and weeks and notice that no one else is repeating your horse crap.
 
Written By: sean
URL: http://
the problem with Liberals signing up to fight in Afghanistan is the same problem for many soldiers who signed up after 9/11 - they THOUGHT they would be fighting a JUST war but then got suckered into Iraq.

There is NO WAY one who supports war in Afgh. and NOT Iraq should have to fight - the military & the Bush Admin. see these two separate conflicts as one in the same. They are NOT the same! So when you figure out HOW I can join up to ONLY fight in Afgh. - you let me know! You can send me a postcard from Iraq as well. Im sure you wont do either.
 
Written By: Matt
URL: http://spaces.msn.com/members/mbolha/
Lurking Observer-

Here’s what you said: [begin excerpt]

Karl Olson:

So, what could be better evidence of the utter failure of national leadership than the inability to meet military requirements through voluntary enlistment in the first place. It must be evidence that either the war is unjust or the leadership is incompetent, no?

In which case, I think it safe to say that neither Abraham Lincoln nor FDR nor Harry Truman were, in any way, shape, or form, suited to lead our nation in wartime. [end excerpt]

That’s your interpretation/spin, not mine. I’ll put it this way: If my leadership were that incompetent (you said it, not me), I wouldn’t even think of starting a war (whether it’s just or "unjust").

Don’t forget: Unlike 9/11 and Afghanistan, we started a war with Iraq. We attacked Saddam at the time and place of our choosing.

Nevertheless, President Bush is quite correct: We’re stuck in Iraq whether we like it or not.

So why did our Army miss its recruiting quota by 7,000 in the fiscal year that just ended? And why did the Marines miss their monthly quotas earlier in 2005, when this almost never happens?

The goal of Operation Yellow Elephant is to confront hypocrisy and save the Bush Administration, the Republican Party and America. Competent, credible national leadership would persuade its strongest supporters to consider military service, and/or to encourage their eligible relatives and friends, their circle of influence, to do so.

Isn’t the whole point of leadership setting a good example for the rest of us?

Karl Olson
 
Written By: Karl Olson
URL: http://www.operationyellowelephant.com/
I love how you idiot chickenhawks try to rationalize and justify why you’re not serving in the wars that you support when called out on your abject hypocrisy!. As someone who served in the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment (HOOAH!!!- Not that you fake patriots would know what hooah means) for three years who’s sick and tired of the fake patriot schtick, I can come from a place where I can call you all hypocrites! Bottom line: the American military is overextended due to lack of sufficient recruitment. Put up or shut up. At least the protesters in the streets are actually standing up for something, unlike you hypcrite chickenhawks. If you young Republicans and armchair Fox News "patriots" have the energy to confront the antiwar movement in the streets, then you have the energy to walk your hypocrite asses to the recruiter’s office. This "commie-treehugger-liberal" did his time in the sands of the Middle East, now it’s time for you young Republicans and you potbellied, complacent armchair conservatives to do yours! And by the way, the whole "not signing up for the wars I support doesn’t make me a hypocrite anymore than not becoming a cop means I don’t support law enforcement" argument is a lame,quasi-intellectual copout, and you all know it!! Supporting a conflict and not serving in it doesn’t make you a hypocrite in and of itself, of course, but not serving in a war you support, while calling those who don’t support it(for many, many valid reasons) traitors DOES make you a hypocrite, and of the worst kind. If idiot Reagan hadn’t sent Rummy to set up weapons deals with Saddam in 1983, then maybe we wouldn’t be in this mess now! It’s the foreign policy, stupids!!!
 
Written By: fascistfighter
URL: http://
As someone who served in the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment (HOOAH!!!- Not that you fake patriots would know what hooah means) for three years who’s sick and tired of the fake patriot schtick, I can come from a place where I can call you all hypocrites!
Wow.

Now, if you had only served more than triple that time in 3ACR, you’d approach my length of active duty service in a line unit. Had you served more than 7 times that amount on active duty, you’d approach McQ’s length of service in line units.

So, why, exactly, are we supposed to be impressed with your single hitch in the Army? How does it allow you to call us hypocrites? Really, I’m keen to know.

Ass.

 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider