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.


Comments are closed.