| Times Online | 0 | |
| Fox Boston | 0 | |
| Merc. News | 0 | |
| Big Govt | Obama’s Shock Troops: SEIU and Political Intimidation in St. Louis |
0 |
| NYT | 0 |
Audacity of Truth
Whiner-in-Chief:
"[W]hether the grumbling is about Republicans on Fox or bloggers in pajamas, there's a word for what the president and his aides are doing. That word is "whining." And nothing [...] does more damage to Obama's credibility or authority than the sense that a popular president is becoming the whiner-in-chief."
- John Nichols, Nation Magazine - 10/12/09
Revisiting the “chickenhawk” argument
Jim Geraghty has had enough, and lashes out at the NYT for parroting the chickenhawk argument:
The New York Times offers a lengthy “Political Memo” column detailing how the issue of Mitt Romney’s sons’ choice not to serve in the military has come up several times on the campaign trail in recent days.
Is this really how our friends on the left want this campaign to be fought? They really want that to be the make or break issue? Because the GOP can nominate a McCain-Hunter ticket, with both men having sons in uniform, and settle this really fast.
This issue can be turned around on the Democrats quite easily. Watch:
Hillary Clinton voted for both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. When is Chelsea Clinton going to enlist?
John Edwards voted for both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.. His daughter is in college. Will she be joining the military?
Barack Obama did not vote for the war – but he’s calling for more ground troops to be sent to Afghanistan, and threatened to send ground troops into Pakistan. When the Obama children turn 18, will they be enlisting? Does he have any family members in the military? Any in-laws or distant cousins? Isn’t he every bit of a “chickenhawk” to threaten U.S military force in a distant Muslim country without serving himself, or having his children wear the uniform?
The chickenhawk argument is no doubt the last refuge of desperate lefties looking to shut down the debate by accusing those who advocate war of being too chicken to actually fight in it or have a loved one who is/will. It’s always good to be able to turn the arguments around on them, as Geraghty did with what he wrote. Rarely will you find a lefty who responds back “why yes, I (or my loved one) did indeed serve” – and if he does, 9 times out of 10 he’s probably full of it.
Pundit Review tackles the chickenhawk argument as well here.
Prior/Related:
RSS feed for comments on this post.
8 Responses to “Revisiting the “chickenhawk” argument”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
Are we suddenly having a chickenhawk infestation? Every blog I hit has been infested this week. Anyone got the number to the Orkin® Man?
I am amazed at the “legs” this stupid Romney story seems to be having.
I suppose, though, I really shouldn’t be amazed, should I?
I was amazed at the legs on the Valerie Plame non-story.
I was amazed at the legs on ST…err…ummm…..yeah G-Monster I agree!
What I’m NOT amazed by is that they continue to use this tactic as if it has any real meaning.
The loon left would not recognize an act of national service if it was wearing a white tube top in downtown Tehran.
Loved it when Joe Scarbourgh dissed his own network saying on his first day the staff booed Bush. That musta been hard for Joe to say cuz msnbc has been workin on his brain and have damned near turned him into a lib.
ST said “The chickenhawk argument is no doubt the last refuge of desperate lefties…”
It breaks my heart, but I have to disagree. It is the first refuge. Because after all, in the lefty mind it shuts down debate instantly, and the one thing lefties will not do is debate.
And speak truth.
Okay, the TWO things lefties will not do is debate and speak truth.
And be civil.
THREE. Three things…