Wanker of the Day, plagiarist Jeff Jacoby:
“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?
Yeah, I’ve noticed that vets like Cheney, Bush, and Wolfowitz are more hawkish than pantywaists like Colin Powell, Richard Armitage, and Larry Wilkerson.
The implied proposal — that “decisions about war and peace [should be] left up to members of [group X]” — is absurd. For decisions of this sort, the appropriate standard is broad consensus. If people with combat experience oppose action, this is good reason not to act. If the broader society opposes action, this too is a good reason not to act. The constitutional (with a small “c”) principle of checks and balances recommends that major actions must be approved by diverse groups. Any other rule fosters rash action and social division.
Now you know that the chicken-hawk meme is starting to hit home. When <s>commanders of the 103rd chairborne</s> hacks like Jacoby (and especially Jonah Goldberg) attempt to demean the term, you know you’re on the money.
See, they don’t realize the underlying defect in their own logic: the commanders that DID argue against dear leader’s adventure were shown the door. Some pretty high ranking ones at that.
Too bad the age of enlistment is only 42, Jeff. You could have gone over and put your own damn ass on the line for your conserv-a-spew.
How does he know that I don’t mean it when I call him a chicken hawk? Because I do mean it! I mean it to the end of my days, weeks, and years and until he knows what it is like to leap from his bed at midnight and almost attack his wife because he thinks he’s in Iraq again! Fucking idiot! And Jeff, it isn’t a slur…..it’s a reality!
They eat chicken for lunch. Likely with mayo. Bravo!
I just got the below from Courage to Resist… Actions are gearing up. But this is why Watada is going to go to prison. Not for not going to Iraq… but for speaking his mind. GASP… how awful. I guess my comments about Bush would lamd my “free” ass in a death camp.
“Five years in prison for speech?
The Army has formally charged Lt. Watada two counts of making “contemptuous words” towards President Bush. In short, Lt. Watada has expressed his opinion that “our government led us into war based on misrepresentations and lies.” This is the first known prosecution of this “criminal violation” (Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice) since 1965. Could it be that because this opinion is so widely shared, that it is so threatening?
The Army charges that these same words also constitute “conduct unbecoming and officer and a gentleman.” As such, Lt. Watada now faces over five years in military prison for his opinions alone.
It is Lt. Watada’s outspoken stand for truth that has most angered Army brass. Even before he refused to board an Iraq-bound aircraft on June 22 with the 3rd Stryker Brigade, he was already under investigation for expressing his opinions about the war.”
against the law for him speak against his commander (President) in any way, shape, or form. He is subject to UCMJ punishment then, it is in the regulations. He is going to jail for that, he broke the existing law. I don’t want to fight with you about this but I am married to a military officer and I do know how that whole thing works. My personal life and situation is too hard on me to allow the situation that officers face to be misrepresent. People here deserve to know and understand the facts of the Lt. Watada situation. Without the facts we can’t fight the powers that be, we just manage to marginalize ourselves in trying to do things that way in my opinion. Military officers can’t say out loud to anybody many of the things that they might like to at times because it can be argued to be breaking that regulation in the UCMJ. They all signed the paperwork to follow the UCMJ, nobody forced any of them to sign away their right to that type of free speech but they did and so did Lt. Watada. I really want people to understand this so that hopefully they will understand that it isn’t that their military doesn’t care, but going to jail and placing your entire family in jeopardy for “saying” something plays largely in what officers are willing to say out loud and in public.
Then you might know just how those regs and codes aren’t “followed” right?
Might want to read more of the UCMJ because according to it all other sex other than missionary is bad, too. The sodomy section. And… adultery is frowned upon, too… unless you’re a raping children I guess.
The regulations… are “quaint”, too I guess.
I wish more had the balls to stand up. Isn’t that something worth fighting for? The right to stand up against going and killing people you feel are innocent?
I’d rather have an officer go to jail for refusing to be involved with an illegal occupation than someone who just follows orders and returns home to phoney parades.
They had regulations and rules for the engineers who drove the trains to the concentration camps, too. They had families of their own to look after, too. But they didn’t want those people speaking out either.
There’s a “good” reason for gags… it’s used to silent the truth.
It isn’t right.
That is why officers don’t take the risk Janet. Please, he was charged with it and now he’s going to jail and any other officer that says something that strikes those in charge the wrong way right now will also get the same treatment. So please do see that those regs are being enforced by the current enforcers. The regs aren’t quaint at all either. They are there for a reason and the reason goes all the way back to the Roman legions when the legions began becoming loyal to different generals and attempting to put them in power. The school of thought that spawned those regulations placed them there so that our military can’t become loyal to any one leader and then attempt to get on soapboxes amongst themselves and bring about a coup. When Clinton was president 60% didn’t think much of him at all but I never heard an officer speak openly any where about his personal dislike of Clinton. They are soldiers and they serve the civilians of this country under the leader that this people of America choose through election and the day after a new president takes office every soldier is expected to preform his duties as well as he/she did the day before for the people of America! It isn’t a quaint regulation and it isn’t going to be a regulation that is ever taken off of the books! The soldiers aren’t failing the civilians Janet, the civilians are failing the soldiers! I think I need to do a diary on all this to clear up any misunderstanding about any of this stuff and how it all works inside the paradigms that the Bush administrations refuses to work within but that almost every other administration before them has worked within to some kind of functional extent.
Uri Avnery
Is Beirut Burning?
22-7-06
Good Read from an Israeli in Israel, jump over and read the rest.
Oh, you just missed it. Tucker Carlson has discovered a hot blonde American stranded in Lebanon. Praise the lord and pass the ammunition.
Good one, Booman. The pantywaist Jacoby misses the boat. Those of us that have never had a shot fired at us in anger would do well to listen and heed those that have. It’s their ( chickenhawks’ )callous disregard of those who have been in or are in harm’s way – with their shitty, historical revisionism, constant lame – assed analogies to WWII, endless chest thumping, all the while playing those who have sworn to defend our constitution with their lives if need be – on the cheap that sickens me the most … we do well to beware of and be ever vigilant of false patriotism. Why a sonavabitch like Jacoby would even entertain the use of the word dishonest is way the hell over my head.
Brutal footage of Barbara Boxer defending rape-gurney Joe today (via FDL).