being leveled at supporters of the Iraq War who have no prior military service. Bloggers with no prior military service are called members of the
on almost a daily basis by Markos Mulitsas' Daily Kos, himself a veteran of the U.S. Army. The phrase is used to shorten discussion about the war by making a personal attack and delegitimizing the person's credibility.
argument.
The Right has no identity phrase to delegitimize left-wing bloggers' anti-war stance equivelant to chickenhawk. But we on the right often resort to other personal attack tactics. Although we have no phrase to wrap the idea in, there is a glaring suspicion to many on the Right that many on the Left never served in the military because they hate it and our soldiers. They are against the Iraq War, we think, because they are against all war and the military men that fight them.
I had hoped, for methodological reasons, to include the same number of Left and Right leaning bloggers. I will continue to update this list as more data becomes available. It should be noted that not all of the Left-leaning bloggers took a clear early stand against the war in Iraq. Further, a few bloggers responded but asked that I keep the information confidential.
The number on the left is the TTLB Ecosystem Traffic Ranking between August 16-17. If there are mistakes in the list they were unintentional so please let me know by dropping me an e-mail.
While the N of the survey is too small to produce a statistically significant regression model, there are a few noteworthy observations from the initial round.
Of the 11 bloggers who responded from the Left, 2 of them--or 18.2%--had been in the military.
If you just look at the top 12 bloggers from the Right, none of them had served in the U.S. military.
However, of the top 21 bloggers who responded from the Right, 6 of them--or 28.6%--had been in the military.
The further down the TTLB Ecosystem rankings you go among bloggers on the Right, the more likely they will have been to have served in the military. The further up the TTLB Ecosystem Traffic Rankings you go among bloggers on the Left, the more likely they will have been to have served in the military.
So, among the top bloggers on both the Left and Right, only a minority have ever served in the military. Are bloggers on the Left draft-dodging haters of the military? There's no evidence to suggest that. Are bloggers on the Right warmongering chickenhawks eager to send others to war but not face that risk themselves? There is certainly no evidence to suggest that either.
Moreover, among top bloggers at least, it would seem that bloggers on the Right have a slight advantage in terms of numbers who have seen active military duty. There is no basis in reality, then, to the widespread accusation that the Right bloggers are members of the 101st Fighting Keyboardists.
I will update this post later as more information becomes available.
A number of others suggest doubling or tripling the sampling size for the same reason.
Judging from the response in the comments and my e-mail, my hunch is John is right. This is a testable hypothesis. Any one who would like to help me gather these data please drop me a line.
1
I am far, far down the list on the right bloggers list: I proudly served in the US Army (and got disabled doing it). If I had a choice, I'd do the same again.
Posted by: kimsch at August 17, 2005 06:22 PM (0QV98)
2
Rusty:
Does military school count? I mean... it's "military," in the sense that you wear uniforms and march and target practice, take courses in maps and strategy and weapons, wake up at 6:00 AM to the sound of reveille and go to bed to the sound of taps at 9:00 PM, salute superior officers, stand PI and GI, and don't see a girl for months. Does that count?
Did you get any responses like: Yes, Dungeons and Dragons?
Posted by: Demosophist at August 17, 2005 06:36 PM (zzime)
3
Good work!
It will be interesting to see if the trends continue ...
If you ever make it down far enough, you can tally me up as a (proud) member of the 101st Fighting Keyboardists ...
/TJ
... if only D&D counted!!
Posted by: TJ at August 17, 2005 07:29 PM (PL7dL)
4
Huh. That's pretty interesting, Rusty... Good for you for posing and researching a very interesting question. I hope you continue to follow up as you have the opportunity.
Me, I'm simply a small microbe in the system, but i *am* a military spouse (except he just retired at the end of May)... Does that count?
;-)
Keep up the great work, and I am really enjoying the new look!
-- R'cat
Posted by: Romeocat at August 17, 2005 07:46 PM (yDO4I)
5
I don't think we should count little Marky Zuniga since he pussed out and suddenly became a pacifist when he thought he might get deployed. He was just scammin' Uncle Sam for some college money, that's all, and now he's a big chickenshit propaganda whore for the enemy. He should be taken out and shot.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 17, 2005 07:59 PM (0yYS2)
6
there are a bunch of mil blogs like this
http://www.facesfromthefront.com/content/view/1/2/
I have not seen any that are against the effort.
Posted by: Mr. K at August 17, 2005 08:20 PM (b5A2b)
7
If you are including posters, then include me as ex USN, Viet Nam *era* vet.
This is not my real name, btw, so don't bother searching.
The military discourages speculation in public. This reticence may translate into whether or not someone starts a blog, or comments of something early, while interest is at a peak.
BTW, what the heck is a "TPS report" in this context?
Posted by: Phillep at August 17, 2005 08:26 PM (zNjIG)
8
Speaking as 1/3 of Wizbang, I never served. Too many medical issues to even bother trying -- no sense wasting their time and mine.
But I prefer "101st Fighting Keyboardiers." It has more of a military flavor, like "Grenadiers" or "Halberdiers" or "Bombardiers." "Keyboardists" is just too damned dull.
J.
Posted by: Jay Tea at August 17, 2005 08:34 PM (Q7zvB)
9
I believe I understand why you are attempting this, but I wonder if your methodology would provide a useful answer. Your model seems to be more descriptive than inferential to me. Not trying to shoot you down, just some constructive criticism.
Posted by: Fersboo at August 17, 2005 08:36 PM (OdjZa)
10
I am a special forces combat vet. I don't really care where I am on the list, I only care that our soldiers know that we support them!!!
Posted by: Jonathan at August 17, 2005 08:46 PM (wdVtc)
11
Fighting Keyboardist....Digital Brownshirt
man, I think they're scared of us.
Posted by: Jane at August 17, 2005 08:59 PM (6krEN)
12
"The Right has no identity phrase to delegitimize left-wing bloggers' anti-war stance equivelant to chickenhawk."
One could refer to them as the Ad Hominem Martyr's Brigades.
Posted by: Dex in TX at August 17, 2005 09:35 PM (TZFv/)
13
This comes really close to the question of who served more, and who served better or at all. It didn't fly in the election, but it does fly here. If you served then you know how badly you crave the opportunity to preach what you have been practicing for months on end. But all along, you pray for peace, because you know when it is your game day, you are not playing a game any longer. People are going to likely die before you have finished your job.
The left have people who have experienced this. But many also never grasped this, or really thought they would one day be called to duty. When that day came, they froze like deer in the head lights, urinated on themselves, and cried out for their mommies. Cowards. Stay away from me, I want someone at my back, I know is willing to watch it, man or woman.
Michael Yon Rules!
Posted by: Kstumpf at August 17, 2005 09:37 PM (sOLNr)
14
Some other blog did a survey like this a couple of years back. It went a bit further down both lists, so the numbers got a little higher on the right and stayed at about what you have on the left. But it didn't make any difference, because leftists are impervious to facts. The very next day the chickenhawk stuff was front and center again. As it will be again tomorrow, I'm sure.
Fwiw, I didn't quite make your list but I served in the Air Force.
Posted by: bp at August 17, 2005 10:17 PM (in0C6)
15
This argument is a red herring, but if you're going to play along, then your definitions need to be adjusted. Ever been under hostile fire while serving in the military? If yes,
combat vet. No?
non-combat vet/civilian. This eliminates phonies like Kos.
My cousin was in the Air Force for twenty years as a plumber. Technically, he's a veteran.
Now, so the folks on the Left don't feel left out, how many of the Leftie bloggers volunteered to be human shields to protect Saddam and thereby risk everything for their beliefs?
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at August 17, 2005 10:22 PM (RHG+K)
16
>>>"The Right has no identity phrase to delegitimize left-wing bloggers' anti-war stance equivelant to chickenhawk."
We could just call them what thet are-- Quislings and 5th columnists.
Posted by: Carlos at August 17, 2005 11:09 PM (8e/V4)
17
Its disgusting that you legitimize this fraudulent meme of the Left, Rusty.
Posted by: SPQR at August 18, 2005 12:15 AM (xauGB)
18
Why is it that the Left believe only deserters; pacifists; non-combatants; draft dodgers; and deranged parents of deceased servicemen are qualified to comment on the military and war. Anyone who uses the term chickenhawk is just a chicken and chickenhawks prey on them producing the ultimate end product "chickenshit."
This is what they should be termed.
They may be distinguished by those who insist on defining a Public Affairs officer as the equivalent as a bomb disposal expert; dust off pilot; thump gunner; jarhead; ranger; combat engineer; or anyone else who actually hears the sound of the guns.
By the way at which brig did Kos serve out his time?
Posted by: TJ Jackson at August 18, 2005 12:16 AM (hTthA)
19
Nope I was never in the military, grew up on many different bases,
dad was Navy. Son Army and daughter joing Air Force.
I'm just a civie.
But Mil sure has been a large part of my life. My dad was Navy,
died at the young age of 50. He had been out of the Mil for over 20 years, & yet Uniforms filled the place, his buddies came from all over the USA... It was a spectacular send off. Yes I'm soft on our Military.
This is a very interesting assignment... hope it goes forward, & we
get yet a better picture.
Pebble
Posted by: PebblePie at August 18, 2005 12:51 AM (Y5+8t)
20
This is funny even though it's sad. And that doesn't happen very often.
Posted by: Professor von Nostrand at August 18, 2005 01:32 AM (JVdjp)
21
If using hit counts as a the yardstick, we wouldn't be a 'top tier' blogsite for the purposes of your survey. In terms covering the War on Terrorism and efforts in Iraq, we consider ourselves a top percentile blogsite for getting the relevant news out.
I served 4 years as a Naval Officer and did a short stint in the Persian Gulf escorting US-flagged Kuwaiti tankers.
I have been tagged with the incredibly lame chickenhawk label a couple of times after handing the leftist her rear in a debate. They have rendered their very own prized monicker useless as it is thrown at anybody who supports our military and their efforts.
Labels don't matter, convictions with action do.
Posted by: Matter at August 18, 2005 04:30 AM (EjiXU)
22
"Ever been under hostile fire while serving in the military? If yes, combat vet. No? non-combat vet/civilian. This eliminates phonies like Kos."
Kos may be a phony (and wrong headed, a pissant, etc.), but he served, which is to his credit. Not that I agree with those who claim service gives one's opinions extra importance or insight on the question of the Iraq war.
I see military service as being mostly beneficial to those on the Left who can use it as an effective shield from critics calling them anti-American (even though service doesn't preclude being anti-American).
It's unfortunate that the Chickenhawk taunt is used, but it can't take the place of discrediting the arguments of the Iraqi war supporters. I find the taunt ironic given the Left's penchant for speaking out on all things, no matter their experience or situation.
JAWA, you should extend your survey to the top 100 (or even top 2000--I'd like to participate) blogs. The results would be more informative. Perhaps someone can set up a poll blog on this question.
Posted by: Pigilito at August 18, 2005 04:50 AM (L7Yx6)
23
"Ad Hominem Martyr's Brigades" was most excellent.
I always thought that Kos was disingenuous in using his service as a platform much as John Kerry was in using his. Simply because they both used it to seek to dishonor an honorable institution. I find that ugly.
While this is very interesting I think it only should be applied to those on the left who have used the chickenhawk argument. They're not interested in who may have served. They want you to be serving now. Today. In this war. And they want you wounded or dead so they can say, "See?" They are small minded.
Posted by: Oyster at August 18, 2005 07:06 AM (YudAC)
24
6 years 11B Infantry.
Been there, done that, got the t-shirt.
And yes, I would do it again in a heartbeat.
They can kiss my tired, beaten up ass.
Posted by: elliott at August 18, 2005 07:18 AM (XlQVK)
25
"Not that I agree with those who claim service gives one's opinions extra importance or insight on the question of the Iraq war."
I agree, it does give those who served a better understanding of what is involved and what the troops might be going through.
We have a volunteer military it should not matter if we serve or not when it comes to our opinion. If the left wants to demand that we can only be pro-war if we served, then the same should hold true for those calling the US military to get out of Iraq. They too should have served in the military if they want to comment on how our troops should be used. That would silence many of the decenters, and even then the left would STILL be wrong because under the 'ideals' of their party, we should ask the troops what THEY want to do....
I am in the Navy Reserves and made it to the Middle East (not that it should matter)
Posted by: Fred Fry at August 18, 2005 08:19 AM (JXdhy)
26
A Finn: Army of Finland, Ground Forces, Infantry, Kersantti or Korpraali. Well, within the next 180-360 days... 180 if regular infantry, up to 360 with specialized training for sniper, tank personnel, artillery unit, explosives specialist or something.
I have a bad feeling that I get assigned to some friggin' "peacekeeper"-mission in Aceh, Indonesia.
Posted by: A Finn at August 18, 2005 09:01 AM (lGolT)
27
Maybe we don't count as a top blogger, but count one of the Hyscience guys in a former United States Marine Recon, with a son now serving in Iraq a second time (unit and locale is classified). Another Hyscience contributor is currently active service, USN.
Posted by: Richard at August 18, 2005 09:02 AM (xFeJi)
28
Now if only I had the traffic to match my linkage! I coulda beena contenda!
I suspect, Rusty, the deeper you go into the smaller blogs, the greater the difference becomes.
Posted by: John of Argghhh! at August 18, 2005 09:37 AM (xlI10)
29
I believe your research bears out what John of Argghhh! said: "The deeper you go into the smaller blogs, the greater the difference becomes."
Being a smaller blog, I didn't quite make your list. If only you had doubled ... no, tripled ... your sampling.
I served in the Army. But the closest I ever came to combat was being in a zone that qualified for combat pay and the SWASM. Never under fire and never qualified for (or deserved) a combat patch.
Posted by: basil at August 18, 2005 10:20 AM (/kWTw)
30
To those who posted, "Maybe I don't count as a top blogger" -- well, the hell with that. I know your blogs and you qualify under quality, if not traffic. Thank you for your service.
Posted by: Captain Ed at August 18, 2005 11:02 AM (BGklN)
31
Agreed, I just wish I had a list of all the bloggers in the TTLB, then I could do a more rigorous survey. It's definitely doable to do a survey in which more powerful statistical tools could be used to analyze these data, it's just not in the cards, though, for a single blogger with a full-time job.
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at August 18, 2005 11:04 AM (JQjhA)
32
USN Democratic Veteran is, to judge from his ribbon rack displayed on his site, a United States Navy Veteran who is a Democrat.
Who likes to type 'preznit' ... a lot.
Perhaps too much.
and I say this as an Air Force Veteran commentor.
Posted by: BumperStickerist at August 18, 2005 12:12 PM (91GdR)
33
You know the deal here, Rusty. (Retired AF; 13 AD, 8 Reserves, for those who don't.)
However, I have had three, count 'em, three leftist clowns bust in the proverbial door and sling the "chickenhawk" label at me.
Memo to leftists: read a blogger's "About" page, before you embarrass yourself and give me fodder to embarass you further.
As for the the "chickenhawk" label itself, those who wield it should note that when they do and haven't served themselves, they make their own opinion worthless as well. But I'm using logic here.
Posted by: Juliette at August 18, 2005 12:20 PM (/leTf)
34
I think many are missing a bit of the point of the Chickenhawk thing, it's not a slam against someone who hasn't served, it's a slam against someone who goes on and on about how important and vital a war is while not actually risking anything in that war effort.
Sort of a talk the talk but not walking anywhere.
Now I’ve never really felt that there were as many “chickenhawks” as some anti-war types claim. In fact in some of their eyes I could match their broad definition as I support the war in Afghanistan but wouldn’t actually go there because I’d probably piss myself at the first loud bang.
But I think Nathan Tabor is an example of what I think a chickenhawk is, heÂ’s young and able bodied and
he just wrote this:
Liberals Hate Freedom, Not War
Blah strawman strawman bullshit blah bullshit then:
Conservatives, on the other hand, truly love freedom - so much so that when necessary, they are willing to fight to preserve and protect it, as well as to export it around the world and extend it to other peoples less fortunate than we are.
Blah strawman strawman bullshit blah bullshit then:
Listen up, Liberals! Why don't you want the women and children of Iraq to have the same freedoms as you do here in America? If you don't love freedom, move to Cuba. Then you won't have the rights you now enjoy, and you won't have to worry about your spoiled, pampered children having to go to war to defend them.
So he saying that conservatives (and I assuming he’s referring to himself as one but please correct me if I’m wrong) will “fight for freedom” and that Liberals will not and yet, as far as I know, he’s isn’t in the military fighting for any freedom, his own or Iraq’s. He has a chance to put his words into action and if you factor in the minor recruitment crisis there is no reason why he shouldn’t have his head shaved while being screamed at by a drill sergeant.
Unless heÂ’s a Chickenhawk or he was talking about all other conservatives.
Posted by: salvage at August 18, 2005 12:30 PM (xWitf)
35
A lowly Slippery Fish in the TTLB reporting here.
No military service and the opportunity to obtain it has long since passed. On several occasions I have regretted not answering that opportunity when it availed itself.
Being staunchly conservative presumably makes me a chickenhawk (which I'll gladly accept over the alternative.)
Posted by: I. Ronnie at August 18, 2005 01:23 PM (PCz2u)
36
I'm just a very hawkish little Marauding Marsupial but for whatever it's worth I'm a Viet Nam vet (Air Force REMF) and if they'd let me I'd ship out for Iraq yesterday.
Posted by: Bill Faith at August 18, 2005 01:32 PM (5vspZ)
37
Using the traffic rankings as opposed to the ecosystem rankings may also skew things, because the traffic rankings are based entirely on what Sitemeter reports, and Sitemeter is notoriously unreliable, and in more than one way. It mis-stated my traffic by almost an order of magnitude, which is why I got rid of it. (There are also ways to gin it to make it looks like you've got way more traffic than you do.)
And yes, I'd expand the sample size but, more important, I'd also find a respected left-of-center blogger to help you with this. The lefties aren't going to trust you, Rusty.
Mind you, my own suspicion is that war supporters will tend to be much more likely to have some military service in their background. You can see it in the polling results of military and ex-military, and in how well Bush did in the last election. Military people pretty overwhelmingly support the war effort, as do most of their families. That's just reality.
Posted by: Dean Esmay at August 18, 2005 01:34 PM (Fs6IG)
38
Rusty,
You said, "I just wish I had a list of all the bloggers in the TTLB, then I could do a more rigorous survey."
If you go here...
http://www.truthlaidbear.com/ecosystem.php
...you can click on the categories on the left, and get a list of all blogs in each category.
Posted by: I. Ronnie at August 18, 2005 01:37 PM (PCz2u)
39
Well there's only one way to solve these vicious homsexual communist attacks. Every war-blogger must put down the laptop, strip out of the coffee-mug PJs and head right down to the recruiter's office. I for one, will join everyone there after my last cup of Ethiopian French Roast (it's free trade).
See you at boot camp.
Posted by: Antioch at August 18, 2005 01:38 PM (5zXUI)
40
Aaron's cc: ~#82 No military service (unless you hold according to Pat Buchanan and most Muslims who'd say that because I'm Jewish that therefore -- despite being able to trace my American lineage probably a few centuries before Buchanan's -- I'm a dual-citizen of Israel and therefore not a civilian by definition)
Posted by: Aaron's cc: at August 18, 2005 01:52 PM (ov6Vw)
41
There's a problem with your initial hypothesis. The left (of which I am a member) isn't intending to say that any blogger on the right is a chickenhawk for supporting the war. Rather, it's those who have not served militarily, and could, who very vocally support the war and "the troops" but actually don't do anything. See, not serving in the military isn't the test, per se. It's those who spout off, while the extent of their support is a magnet on their car. Are they encouraging their friends and family to enlist? Or do they view that as a lesser choice than college and whatever career they currently have? Are they donating time/money to soldier's issues? Lobbying to increase pay and benefits? Railing against the cuts in VA funds by the President? Or are they simply saying, "This is a righteous war, go forth and fight it!" Are they condemning any who oppose as unAmerican or anti-troops?
I'm in the Army, 17 years so far. I don't expect, or want, everyone who supports this war to join. I do expect action, not ranting. Yellow Elephant is an apt phrase, it truly is easier to rant and rave than do something.
So, in short, can you have a valid opinion without service? Of course. But, if you are pro-war, you had better be doing more than just saying it. If you are anti-war, and are actually working hard to change opinion, get out the vote to change the power structure so things can change, what else is there? Ex-military who are anti-war bring a different perspective, but not necessarily a better one. Ex-military who are pro-war are the same. It doesn't legitimize an opinion. It's the whole package, fellas.
Posted by: torgeaux at August 18, 2005 01:59 PM (dqO+A)
42
Do I get any credit for knocking out the affiliate commissions (aka laundered money) earned by the Holy Land Foundation website in 2001? They were a front for Hamas based in Richardson, TX.
Posted by: Aaron's cc: at August 18, 2005 02:03 PM (ov6Vw)
43
It may be informative to extend the survey to immediate family members, putting in parentheses the number of parents, siblings, spouses and children in the military. Call it an empathy factor. With a brother, father-in-law and grandfather who served in the US Navy, I'd have a (2) after my name, a grandparent being non-immediate family so not counted.
I'd be interested to see the left's "empathy factor". My guess is that like many San Franciscans and Manhattanites who don't even KNOW a Republican, most on the left don't have anyone close to them with whom they could discuss a pro-military view. By contrast, most on the right survived the leftist indoctrination of the typical university staffed with tenured veterans of the 60's antiwar movements.
Posted by: Aaron's cc: at August 18, 2005 02:16 PM (ov6Vw)
44
Torgeaux: That makes no sense at all.
Mind you, I will point out that
all the anti-fascist, pro-Iraq-liberation bloggers I know have personally given time and money to charities that help our cause, whether it's Spirit of America, Operation Give, Valour-IT, or many others. But let's put that aside please:
The very act of speaking out in support of the war effort is in and of itself a form of support, and is worthy. It is an effort to educate and persuade voters, and it's just as legitimate as any of the other activities you mention.
Mind you, I think a real patriot does more than just speak out--he does make some personal sacrifices. I have, and so have all the other members of the so-called 101st Keyboard brigade or whatever that fascist pig Kos calls us.
Posted by: Dean Esmay at August 18, 2005 02:27 PM (Fs6IG)
45
Wow Aaron, that's some mighty fine guessing there. My guess is that you've never been out of your room, otherwise you wouldn't be making so many idiotic generalizations for the sake of proving your empathetic bonafides against us poor, sheltered folks in the city.
I'm a New Yorker from a military family, who has had cops on both sides of his family, I'm liberal, I know more than a few Republicans, fought with conservative faculty members at two different state schools and can think that a 'pro-military view' doesn't necessarily mean 'pro-war'.
There's a distinction there. Try and figure it out (hint: Many Generals, for example, don't LIKE war and would prefer to fight one only as a last resort).
Posted by: n.o.t.l.f at August 18, 2005 02:35 PM (EDlAL)
46
Dean: No, talking isn't doing. The very act of speaking out, if accompanied by both a reluctance to actually fight, and the kind of contempt for those who serve that pervades so many conservatives (neo, mostly), is actually not support. What personal sacrifice have you made? I'm not implying you haven't made any, but give a concrete example for us to compare the others to. You claim, amazingly, that "all the other members of the so-called 101st Keyboard brigade" have made personal sacrifices. What are they? And, calling Kos a fascist shows only that you don't know what fascism is. That kind of ad hominem attack makes me question your credibility.
Posted by: torgeaux at August 18, 2005 02:36 PM (dqO+A)
47
Torgeaux is right.
Aaron, it's nice that you were, you know,
close to the military and all, but I wouldn't count that as service. Nor would I equate having to face those mean old hippie professors with combat time, if that's what the heck you're trying to do.
TJ Jackson, I have served in two services in public affairs for over 12 years. Most recently I spent a year in Afghanistan. You can talk shit all you want, but my Combat Action Badge is on the way and I've got plenty of time on foot in tiny, sketchy villages. I know Rush told you that "staff pukes" don't count (and, he should know, having set out his war in order to think more clearly about it), but staff pukes aren't, I should point out,
anymore immune to bullets than grunts.
Posted by: nitpicker at August 18, 2005 02:44 PM (Sq+29)
Posted by: Howie at August 18, 2005 02:45 PM (D3+20)
49
Dean,
I've said this
elsewhere, but I think that tapping away at your keyboard and donating to charities is as different from serving in a war zone as saying you believe in God and living like you do. Ask any soldier you know how they feel about your equation.
Posted by: nitpicker at August 18, 2005 02:56 PM (Sq+29)
50
"As for the the "chickenhawk" label itself, those who wield it should note that when they do and haven't served themselves, they make their own opinion worthless as well. But I'm using logic here."
I have to comment on this. The label chickenhawk refers to one who espouses support for a war, but dodges personal sacrifice, usually in the form of military service. One who is anti-war who hasn't served can't be a chickenhawk, they lack the "hawk" portion.
One who espouses opposition to a war would not have to have served....in fact, in many cases, it would be a contradiction to have done so, see, e.g. Quakers.
Posted by: torgeaux at August 18, 2005 03:07 PM (dqO+A)
51
Boy, you clowns are stupider than I thought. This discussion just proves that you have no understanding of the simple concept of integrity. None.
Posted by: nobody at August 18, 2005 04:08 PM (trBLK)
52
Chickenhawks are people who support wars but have not served in the military.
Most liberal bloggers do not support the Iraq war, and therefore are not chickenhawks.
Wow, that was hard.
Posted by: Ryan at August 18, 2005 04:30 PM (qDkPq)
53
Ryan, I dare you to say that three times really fast.
Posted by: elliott at August 18, 2005 04:34 PM (XlQVK)
54
Most liberal bloggers do support the Afghan war, are they chickenhawks?
Posted by: salvage at August 18, 2005 04:40 PM (FyLRE)
55
Chickenhawks are people who support wars but have not served in the military.
Most liberal bloggers do not support the Iraq war, and therefore are not chickenhawks.
Wow, that was hard.
My grandfather sat out WWII working at Bethlehem Steel and farming. He was a Chickenhawk?
Most liberal bloggers do not support the Iraq war, and therefore are chickenshit.
BTW, 22 years USAF Active Duty. No combat time but came close to dying several times.
Posted by: Cowboy Blob at August 18, 2005 06:08 PM (iJgqu)
56
Me, CIB, 5 battle stars, grandson Marine just back from Fallujah, nephews in Kosevo [Army] and Iraq [Air Force].
Do you have no standing to discuss medical care unless you are a doctor, no right to opine on global hunger unless you are a farmer? If your mother wants universal health care you are, of course, volunteering in a hospital somewhere- oh, wait, that's a Bush daughter. Hillary's chick is???
A chickenhawk has demonstrated his ability to learn while a chickenchicken is as dumb today as he was last year.
Posted by: Walter E. Wallis at August 18, 2005 08:53 PM (K6i9N)
57
Bush-awol during Vietnam,Cheney sought a deferment never served,Rumsfeld-never served, Wolfowitz never served, Bill kristol-never served,Limbaugh-drug addict never served, Hannity-never served,O'Reilly-perv, never served,Daniel Pearl-never served,Powell- served but dumped the idiot squad in the end. Me-left wing liberal served U.S.M.C. 85-88. Proud marine just not proud of my government. Get onboard folks these fools have taken us all for a ride and they are getting rich in the process.
Posted by: chris at August 18, 2005 09:06 PM (iWAZH)
58
Validating somewhat the theory by John Donovan, I'm a very small blog that's retired USAF, plus there's 2 other small ones I frequent who are also military and wonder of wonders, all 3 of us are what you'd call conservative. :-)
Posted by: GunTrash at August 18, 2005 09:08 PM (r4gzE)
59
Not in the top 100 (or 100 thousand) bloggers but definitely on the right side and have never bought the chickenhawk argument. We belong to a representative democracy. I served ( 25 years active duty Navy) but that gives me no more say in a political debate than my brothers or sisters who were not in the military. Each of us gets one vote regardless of our personal connection to any particular issue at hand. The "chickenhawk" bs is an argument used when the left realizes they have no valid point to make. Sort of like profanity. When I swear it is an indication of a shortfall in my vocabulary.
Posted by: LargeBill at August 18, 2005 09:11 PM (9g0u+)
60
Digger was a damn dirty squid.
Posted by: Digger at August 18, 2005 10:34 PM (+BOBQ)
61
Bingo on LargeBill's contention on military service not being a superiority-in-opinion guarantor. It IS NOT an automatic guarantor of a superior position in this debate. Those of us with military service have THE SAME AMOUNT OF INPUT in our democracy as those who did not serve. Veterans know that they're defending both sides of the political spectrum when we enter service to our country, it's a given. That's the way it should be.
This 'military qualifier' is a BS leftist canard brought about solely to denigrate the opinions of those who disagree with the anti-war proponents.
The 'chickenhawk' logic is full of holes to begin with. If those on the left want to hold everyone in our democracy to a 'burden of action' (military service) before we make our decision on a war, then it should apply to EVERYONE in our society. Those who did not serve in the military and oppose the war should be held to the same standard of logic as those on the other side. Following the leftists' logic, those on the left without military service should be just 'chickens'.
Posted by: Matter at August 19, 2005 11:59 AM (EjiXU)
62
Mr. Wallis,
No one -- I repeat
no one -- is saying that those who haven't served can't have a say in the way the military is used. That's a straw man argument and you damn well know it.
Let me explain: If I said that highway taxes are worth paying, but not for me, would that be right?
If I said that speed limits are appropriate and save lives, but that I shouldn't have to obey them, would that be right?
Then why is appropriate for those of military age to argue that the human cost of the war is justifiable when they're not willing to step up to the plate and fill the ranks themselves when their country needs them? Is it right to say "I believe that American soldiers should be fighting and dying in Iraq, but there's no way
I'm going to join them?
Posted by: nitpicker at August 19, 2005 11:59 AM (aNHLp)
63
"Bloggers with no prior military service are called members of the 101st Fighting Keyboardists on almost a daily basis by Markos Mulitsas' Daily Kos, himself a veteran of the U.S. Army. The phrase is used to shorten discussion about the war by making a personal attack and delegitimizing the person's credibility."
So by their own "logic", no one on the left (excepting Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton) has any authority to criticize Bush.
Posted by: Buckley F. Williams at August 19, 2005 01:53 PM (O2fD/)
64
Chris - Rumsfeld was a Navy fighter pilot. Late 50's, I think.
Posted by: John at August 19, 2005 03:28 PM (7IFtu)
65
Nitpicker, that's exactly what you're saying.
If we agree that those who support the war but don't join the military are entitled to their opinions, then there should be no 'burden of action' to have this opinion. If the anti-war crowd can oppose the war without enlisting, then the same standard applies to those pro-democracy supporters who do not serve. It's their right to support our efforts in war and not serve. That's what veterans serve for.
Utilizing a tax or speed limit that is required by law is not a genuine comparison. As a society, we have decided that these two civic requirements are mandatory for the eligible participants for the public good. Society has decided that our military service is voluntary and even has placed strict requirements upon those wishing to. Totally different facets of civic duty.
Posted by: Matter at August 19, 2005 04:54 PM (EjiXU)
66
'chris' wins the prize for ineptitude and bad taste for his comment "Daniel Pearl-never served" (8/18, 9:26 pm). Daniel Pearl had his head cut off by Islamofascist thugs in Pakistan for being Jewish. No doubt 'chris' was thinking of Richard Perle, but if I made a mistake like that I'd burn my computer and never log on again.
Posted by: Dr. Weevil at August 19, 2005 04:59 PM (CH09K)
67
If we were to assume, just for 2 seconds, that the chickenhawk label is nothing more than a pathetic canard used by the left to denigrate the arguments of those on the right, then i would put forth that the only thing dumber and more inane than the chickenhawk canard would be the "un-american" or "unpatriotic" canard used by the right to demonize the left for it's arguments.
Posted by: Ickabod at August 20, 2005 09:46 PM (XKqBS)
68
It's also not fair to level 'unpatriotic' at Americans who express opinions against this or any war. That's what this whole debate is about: Freedom of Speech.
So, we're back to square one. Those who support the war without serving have the right to do so without qualifications set forth by those on the left. The same as those who oppose the war. Equal.
That's what veterans serve for.
Posted by: Matter at August 21, 2005 08:50 AM (EjiXU)
Posted by: BloodSpite at August 22, 2005 08:55 AM (eKJVW)
70
Army (1982 - 1984)
Ft Sill, OK.
Gun Bunny.
Bamburg, Germany
Gun Bunny
X.O. Driver
USMC (1986 - 1990).
San Diego
Quantico, Va
Albany, Ga
Data Dink.
Okinawa, Japan
Data Dink
(3 months in Philippines)
Posted by: Butch at August 22, 2005 09:18 AM (Gqhi9)
71
I wonder if the reason you find more service further down the right side, and further
up the left side, is because, on the right, service is more or less an accepted part of life, no biggie, while on the left it's a bit of an odd thing to have done. In other words, maybe the very fact that there's a correlation between serving and being high in the ranks of the left blogosphere says exactly what you'd suspect: that readers on the left are generally uncomfortable about their lack of personal connection to the military. So if one of theirs has actually served, he gets a significant boost in popularity.
This, of course, matches with the "chickenhawk" label flung around. We all know people are more likely to accuse others of their own secret sins. Calling someone a "chickenhawk" in lieu of serious argument says a lot about the secret fears and thoughts of the name-caller.
Posted by: Sponge Bob Triangle Pants at August 22, 2005 06:11 PM (1pXzw)
72
To chris, the liberal Marine:
Mr. Rumsfeld attended Princeton University on academic and NROTC scholarships (A.B., 1954) and served in the U.S. Navy (1954-57) as an aviator and flight instructor. In 1957, he transferred to the Ready Reserve and continued his Naval service in flying and administrative assignments as a drilling reservist until 1975. He transferred to the Standby Reserve when he became Secretary of Defense in 1975 and to the Retired Reserve with the rank of Captain in 1989.
Probably served as long as you, chris...
Navy, 5 yrs AD, 35 Reserve
15 months in Vietnam in MRF, 6 mo. Saudi Arabia, 1 year Bosnia
Posted by: John at August 23, 2005 09:01 AM (a2fpu)
73
Good lord, I despair of the intellect of some here. Either you are ignorant or willfully ignoring the actual arguments. No one is saying that you have to do something to support it, the label chickenhawk is for those who actively avoid service (Cheney, Bush, Limbaugh, to name a few), but who also actively support the very war they avoided. The bloggers on the right talk about how nobel the service is, but it's because it's easy to talk, not do. Not every war supporter who doesn't serve is necessarily a chickenhawk. But, there are a significant portion of the young/college republicans who view military service as a lesser thing, something you do if you can't get a real job, and they would never, under any circumstances, either join, encourage their kids to join, or encourage a friend to join. Matter says, "It's their right to support our efforts in war and not serve." Define support. Sticker? Loud bluster about the war? Yup, they do that. Doing something? Contribute money to vet causes? Adopt pets abandoned by military families? Lobby for proper legislation supporting those vets? None of the above? You don't get to talk to me.
Posted by: torgeaux at August 25, 2005 01:02 PM (dqO+A)
74
I don't know. It would be very easy to place me on the Right and count my military service as a plus in that collumn, but I'm not really a fit over there. I don't fit so well on the left either. I support the President and the War on Terror, but I am and have been a Democrat.
I have some experience with this kind of research and I'd be happy to help.
Posted by: RTO Trainer at August 25, 2005 02:22 PM (XCqS+)
75
Let's use an example: Mitt Romney. First, a quote about his own "service":
Romney, a graduate of Brigham Young University, served as a missionary for the Mormon church from 1966 to 1968. The Globe reported in 1994 that the missionary service and later resumption of college got him a deferment from military service. He later received a high number in the draft lottery, ensuring he would not be called.
Second, his current attitude:
``No, I have not urged my own children to enlist.I don't know the status of my childrens' potentially enlisting in the Guard and Reserve,`` Romney said, his voice tinged with anger.
And, finally, his position on the war:
A growing number of Republicans have begun to voice concern over the mounting American deaths, but Romney has been a stalwart backer of Bush's position, which is to remain in Iraq until a stable democracy is in place - even if it takes years.
Can I have your permission to call him a ChickenHawk?
Posted by: torgeaux at August 29, 2005 07:29 AM (dqO+A)
76
Ah yes, Dean Esmay, the hero of the GWOT, sitting in his mother's basement, clad in his feces-stained, greasy, three-day-old BVD's, wolfing down Cheetos and Dr. Pepper as he fights the war from his mighty keyboard.
A fierce warrior of the right, this obese and obtuse moron. Don't kid us, Dean: we KNOW you could never serve in the military; you're too fat and effete to qualify for service, not because your real noble purpose is to fight the political war at home.
The chickenhawks hate the left because they hate themselves. Imagine the self-hatred one must have because one is too fat, cowardly, or unfit to be a he-man warrior and fight a real battle one calls for so vociferously. Oh, my, the smell self-hatred oozing from these unctuous little creeps is almost paralyzing!
In order to help vanquish this self-hate, the right-wing cowards and fatties must--MUST--find examples moral and ethical cowardice much greater than their own, so they erect a strawman enemy which they call "THE LEFT." They pick out easy "leftist" targets any rational person would find repugnant and paint the entire political spectrum to left of Rush Limbaugh as being as equally repugnant as these easy targets. Pay no mind that American citizens of left-leaning ideology are not flying jet planes into buildings or killing other Americans en masse. Oh no. But we're still "the enemy."
If it makes these vile children sleep better at night to misdirect their self-hatred in this childish manner, so be it. If Dean Esmay or Dr. Weevil were sitting at a bar next to me and spoke as disrespectfully as they do to others on the Internet, I'd probably consider pounding their flabby bodies into a pile of dog meat--and trust me, that would not require much effort on my part; however, I am a man of peace and actually feel sorry for snarky, angry, and hateful little pissants like them, so I'd let them spew their childish filth with impunity. I could not imagine being as cowardly, effete, and puerile as they are, so I cannot imagine the pain and self-loathing they feel on a daily basis.
I could care less if any of you right-wing dingbats served or will serve in the military. I am sure the loudest of you loudmouths, and the most unapologetically pro-war and left-hating amongst you, are unfit to serve in the Girl Scouts, let alone in the military. So please--PLEASE--remain in Mommie's basement clicking and clacking away on your mighty warblogging keyboards. Go find the leftist "enemies" here in America, you big flabby heroic morons. Fight the good fight.
As you fester in your own filth as you type all this vile hatred against fellow citizens, I am sure it brings you great comfort and helps most of the more feverish fits of self-hatred subside and you can sleep.
So sleep tight, you heroes. I'm pulling for you.
Posted by: muscular veteran leftie at September 24, 2005 11:35 PM (FCMOa)
77
The notion that the further down the ecochain you'll go,the more Right Vets you'll find is absolutely true. True also is the fact that most folks currently in the service are reticent to post, for fear of their careers and security clearances.
Great job, and great topic.
Posted by: 5th SF Group in OIF at October 04, 2005 10:51 AM (d53nZ)
78
Good points from both sides, but i'm still for the war. No service (busted me in MEPS for previous injuries) Some actions (i.e. proven massacres of own civillian) must be stopped and some wars are justified. Lamentable but justified. Lock and Load 101st Keyboarders, I'll walk your 6 any day.
Posted by: Mike at November 04, 2005 08:22 PM (On0Qo)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Kim du Toit (Daily Rant)--Yes, South African Army
