What did we ever do without Glenn Greenwald? Here is a great post of his today discussing the nuances of the term "chickenhawk," in response to the current clucking and flailing of, you guessed it, chickenhawks (in this case the Boston Globe's Jeff Jacoby).
The gist of Greenwald's argument: simply supporting military action despite having never served is not necessarily being a chickenhawk. Doing so and then condescendingly puffing your chest as if you're the one out there risking your tail, is.
As an aside, get this quote from Jacoby's article:
Kerry himself often played that card. ``I'd like to know what it is Republicans who didn't serve in Vietnam have against those of us who did," he would sniff, casting himself as the victim of unmanly hypocrites who never wore the uniform, yet had the gall to criticize him, a decorated veteran, for his stance on the war.
``Chicken hawk" isn't an argument. It is a slur -- a dishonest and incoherent slur.
So Kerry was the one "slurring" political opponents who, we assume, were offering perfectly valid and honest criticisms of his war stance (we can assume so since the Republicans are here an analog of Jacoby, and Kerry an analog of Jacoby's critics). That's rich.
I swear, what is it with these people? Up is down, good is evil, and bravery is cowardice in the twisted mind of the neoconservative. Must be from the same gene where they get their deafening screech and their rubbery spine.
Update: fixed the Kerry analogy to Jacoby's critics, so that it makes sense.
1 comment:
The bravery of being out of range never goes out of style.
I say, if they like the war so much, why don't they go fight in it?
Post a Comment