There are two recurring themes prominent in left-wing blogdom in the past few weeks - Karl Rove called anyone who disagrees with Bush a traitor (he did no such thing), and Republicans who support the war in Iraq but don't join the military are cowards, hypocrites, or both - it's the old "chickenhawk" smear. See here and here, for example. (Link warning: Blind hatred plus immaturity will often lead to vulgarity.)
Rove said that conservatives and liberals differ in their support for the war on terror. He did not say all liberals. He did not say all Democrats. The RNC provided evidence. The left-wing blogs say if you support a war you must enlist, or you're a coward and a hypocrite. They say Rove's comments were slander, that to the contrary they support the war on terror just as much as conservatives.
But considered together, these two arguments cut the other way just as well. By their own standard we would expect that liberals, especially those throwing around the "chickenhawk" charge, who support the war on terror would be enlisting to help fight it. So which is it? Do these liberals support the war, and they're going to enlist? Or was Rove right? Put up or shut up, boys and girls.
Now, they may protest that they were only talking about the war in Iraq, not the war on terror. Leaving aside for now the argument over the connection between the two, it is the same military fighting in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Assets are fungible, as they say. But they can't with any measure of good faith say their standard only applies to one war.
Of course, the whole "argument" that one must be in the military to support a military action is ridiculous. But those on the left know that, they're just throwing around disingenuous epithets to undermine support for the war and trying to shame those who disagree with them into shutting up.
Update: Michelle Malkin has another story about a member of the Coalition of Sedition showing his respect for the military and recruiters.
And Jay Tea at Wizbang has some thoughts on the "chickenhawk" non-argument as well.
Update: More on "chickenhawks" from Protein Wisdom.
Funny, and yet when I let them know that I have served for 16 years and been deployed to conflicts by both republican and democrat presidents they tell me that it's too bad I didn't get killed...
Comment by SSG K — June 27, 2005 @ 1:40 pm June 27, 2005
I came up with this: (SU)3: Short for "Shut Up, Suit Up, Step Up." Seems to fit here...I originally used it in a post about NOW and their noticable absense from any dialogue on the mis-treatment of women in the middle east under the name of Allah...I just hear crickets in the night...
Comment by Curt — June 27, 2005 @ 10:18 pm June 27, 2005
This is ridiculous....if I hear about this "mistreatment of women" crap, one more time,
my head is going to explode. I have served my time in the military and once supported this
president and his party. But now my brothers are dying for no reason. The "Sign up or Shut up"
does just refer to the war in Iraq, because that's the only war illegal war we are fighting
according to the Geneva Convention. All we are saying is if you have the balls stand on your
soapbox and call certain political members traitors that served in VIETNAM, then you have the
balls to go out and attepmt to back up your statements.
Comment by Josh — July 13, 2005 @ 2:05 pm July 13, 2005
Josh,
You are mistaken. The Iraq war is not illegal according to the Geneva Convention or any other convention. As for "political members", whatever that means, being called traitors, we have no idea what you're referring to there. There seems to be no rational basis for your double standard on the "chickenhawk" charge. It looks like nothing more than a hypocritical political attack.
Thank you for visiting and commenting.
Comment by The Editors — July 13, 2005 @ 5:42 pm July 13, 2005
http://www.komotv.com/stories/38738.htm
Off topic, but you have to see this.
Comment by patd95 — August 25, 2005 @ 12:31 pm August 25, 2005