« Robbing Peter To Rob Paul | Main | A Cross Blog Betting Challenge »
Saturday, February 05, 2005
Behold The Lord Of All Chickenhawks
Shorter Vice President Jonah Goldberg: I had other priorities in the early 21st century than military service.
ntodd
[Longer NTodd: the thing that pisses me off about Jonah's litany of reasons he couldn't possibly serve is that they are things that could apply to pretty much everybody in Iraq right now (what, our troops are all rich so their spouses and kids don't suffer from the loss of income?) and really smack of the same elitism we've always seen: overall, the wealthy send the poor to do the fighting. Yes, there are some rich idealists, but especially with an all-volunteer force the burden is disproportionately on the Jessica Lynches, not on the Jonah Goldbergs.
What's more, I would be sympathetic to his decision not to fight if he didn't throw out a bunch of lame excuses. Just say "I don't choose to go". That's why I'm not in Iraq right now--instead I tithe to the American Friends Service Committee to do good works, which is hardly noble service on my part, but frankly, I'm also a lazy coward. I have great respect for the two Vermonters who have died recently serving our country in Iraq and Afghanistan--one a Marine and the other an healthcare worker. Thank goodness for such noble people who don't just write about their ideals, but put them in action.
Anywayz, the "boohoohoo, I'm 35 and have a kid and my family can't afford losing me" is just crap.]
February 5, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/25771/1784381
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Behold The Lord Of All Chickenhawks:
Comments
Between you and me, NTodd, Pillsbury Dough Boy needs to be singled out as the lamo amongst lamos.
I'll go so far as to say that the reason that Bill Buckley retired is the dumbing down of National Review. Yes, Bill is a sick puppy in a lot of ways, but he was committed to intelligent, rational discourse.
The day he walked in and realized he was in charge of a dozen monkees flinging poo was when he checked out.
Posted by: alt hippo | Feb 5, 2005 7:03:38 PM
Shorter chickenhawk accusation: Only someone who has served or does serve in the military can favor military action.
A wonderful theory!
Posted by: Hubris | Feb 5, 2005 7:07:20 PM
althippo - I think the fact that Goldberg has an irrational hatred of Vermont demonstrates without a doubt that he is the lamest of all.
Hubris - not quite. I don't think someone needs to serve or have served to be in favor of military actions. Duh, most people *aren't* in the military! Regardless, we seem to have a great deal of rah-rah war supporters at the highest levels of power and media visibility who would never consider risking their asses, yet question *my* patriotism for being against it.
Posted by: NTodd | Feb 5, 2005 7:15:58 PM
BTW, I knew this shorter would bring you out of the woodwork, Hubris! You've been way too quiet of late. :-)
Posted by: NTodd | Feb 5, 2005 7:22:58 PM
If anyone questions someone's patriotism solely for being against the war, that's easy enough to deal with in its own right.
I should probably stay away from this one, since I find Cole's arguments to largely consist of an appeal to his own authority, in a nifty circular sort of logical fallacy.
I always find it funny when the thousands of folks who do not Arabic or Persian, and are not scholars vis-a-vis the Middle East, yet feel free to analyze things like the rest of us slobs, throw up Cole's degree/research/expertise shield as some sort of magical talisman (I'm not referring to you, by the way). A lack of formal expertise does not taint their own opinions, of course.
Posted by: Hubris | Feb 5, 2005 7:25:55 PM
That should be "folks who do not [speak] Arabic or Persian..." My apologies.
NTodd, I gotta come up for air from the booze and whores every couple of days.
Posted by: Hubris | Feb 5, 2005 7:28:30 PM
So I guess Jonah bin-Lucianne is among the 34% of Republicans (see two posts ago) who DOESN'T believe in serving his country, "right or wrong."
OK then.
Posted by: vaara | Feb 5, 2005 7:34:52 PM
I should probably stay away from this one, since I find Cole's arguments to largely consist of an appeal to his own authority, in a nifty circular sort of logical fallacy.
Well, there's appeal to authority and then there's Appeal to Authority. You've gotta acknowledge that some people actually know a lot about certain things and that gives them more credibility on an issue than people who only read the funny papers. And recall that Goldberg attacked Cole, who I think rightly was pissed off for having his analysis called into question by a puke who has thus far been factually wrong on pretty much everything.
What I find incredibly funny is in the column that started this ruckus, Doughboy complains about "moving the goalposts". Uh...that's what the war apologists have done: mushroom clouds -> WMD related program activities -> no more torture at Abu Ghraib -> look at all the purple fingers!
I always find it funny when the thousands of folks who do not Arabic or Persian, and are not scholars vis-a-vis the Middle East, yet feel free to analyze things like the rest of us slobs, throw up Cole's degree/research/expertise shield as some sort of magical talisman...
Yes, THAT'S definitely Appeal to Authority, and it always makes me cringe.
So I guess Jonah bin-Lucianne is among the 34% of Republicans (see two posts ago) who DOESN'T believe in serving his country, "right or wrong."
Heh, I hadn't even made that connection!
Posted by: NTodd | Feb 5, 2005 7:47:52 PM
Last thing before I depart for the evening: When I supported Clinton regarding intervening against the Serbs, none of my liberal friends called me a chickenhawk, even though I was over eighteen at the time. One can support military intervention in good conscience without having military experience, and I've been consistent in this view. Chickhawkery accusations are pure ad hominem that have nothing to do with the validity of the position on the subject issue.
Have a good night.
Posted by: Hubris | Feb 5, 2005 7:55:40 PM
Chickenhawk is a term reserved for those who do what Goldberg and his ilk do. I'm not surprised you weren't accused of being one. It doesn't mean, in my view, a war supporter who doesn't fight--it's someone who wouldn't ever fight. I also wouldn't call you a hawk.
Posted by: NTodd | Feb 5, 2005 8:06:13 PM
PS--don't do too much whorin' and drinkin' this weekend. Tomorrow's the Super Bowl, and you gotta be at your peak.
Posted by: NTodd | Feb 5, 2005 8:06:54 PM
Tomorrow's the Super Bowl, and you gotta be at your peak.
Yeah, the heck with all this chickenhawk stuff... I guess we'll find out who the real Patriots are tomorrow. Let the Eagles (be) sore!
(Actually, though I have both Pats and Eagles supporters among my friends, I'll miss the game this year: an old friend is performing a concert for the first time in a long while, and of course I'll be there instead of watching the game... even if it costs me my macho image [heh] with my colleagues.)
Posted by: Steve Bates | Feb 6, 2005 1:06:06 AM
I declare, under the will of the TBogg,
Whereas, he is a total Chicken-Hawk with no fighting spirit,
Whereas, he engages in total right-wing propaganda filled with lies,
Whereas, he simply is just a total fucking asshole,
Whereas, he is progeny of one Lucianne Goldberg, Queen-Bitch,
Henceforth, the being known as Jonah Goldberg commonly shall be only referred to as "The Thing from Lucianne's Vagina".
Posted by: Barnaby Yeh | Feb 6, 2005 3:59:28 AM
Last thing before I depart for the evening: When I supported Clinton regarding intervening against the Serbs, none of my liberal friends called me a chickenhawk, even though I was over eighteen at the time.
And unless you were magically going to obtain some "mad" flight skills, or suddenly get trained to serve in some capacity for the Navy or Air Force over the course of a few months there is no way you could have contributed as a member of the armed forces.
In addition, the Balkans argument is a red herring (or should I say a more gigantic red herring...perhaps a red whale?) for three other reasons.
1. The size and scope of activity in the Balkans was from the get-go dramatically less ambitious and costly both in terms of expenses AND people and remained that way.
2. People like Jonah Goldberg VEHEMENTLY opposed it for no other reason than Clinton did not. Not exactly a principaled stand.
3. Not only has Goldberg continued and continued and continued to pump his little "faith-based" argument for continuing Bush's ruinous policy in Iraq, he's been to say the least favorably inclined toward taking military action elsewhere. Not once has he said, "I may have been wrong and Juan Cole (or others right)". For that matter, I doubt he said anything like that about the Balkans either.
In short, he is a douchebag that MORE than deserves his chickenhawk labeling.
Posted by: attaturk | Feb 6, 2005 6:38:49 AM
attaturk,
I don't think the comparison is a red herring.
If the chickenhawk criticism made sense, it would operate in any situation where we take military action in a case where we have not been attacked. However, it is selectively applied only to those situations where the critic opposes the military action in question. It's a non-argument.
I didn't read Goldberg back in the Clinton era. If he opposed going in against the Serbs simply because Clinton favored it, then he's worse than inconsistent and can be criticized on that basis. However, it doesn't have anything to do with chickenhawkery.
I understand the appeal of the chickenhawk insult, since it's a great counter to the inane argument that everyone who opposed the war is unpatriotic. But two wrongs don't make a right.
Posted by: Hubris | Feb 6, 2005 7:46:32 AM
Yeah, attaturk, I don't think it's a red herring.
That said, I do agree with points 2 and 3, and disagree with my esteemed colleague from Harvard. I don't think 'chickenhawk' means what Hubris thinks it means. Or maybe I don't. But I only use it with real hawks who always loudly denounce critics of war, glorify it and yet always seem to conveniently have a hangnail that prevents them from dying with the poor folks.
Goldberg and Cheney and Bush and Limbaugh fit the bill. Hubris does not. Nor do most war supporters.
For the record, I opposed the war with Serbia. I think Clinton and the European powers really missed a golden opportunity years earlier to support non-violent action to prevent Serbian aggression. Too bad nobody pays attention until things boil over. For more, read Civil Resistance in Kosovo.
Posted by: NTodd | Feb 6, 2005 9:06:31 AM
Yeah, attaturk, I don't think it's a red herring.
That said, I do agree with points 2 and 3, and disagree with my esteemed colleague from Harvard. I don't think 'chickenhawk' means what Hubris thinks it means. Or maybe I don't. But I only use it with real hawks who always loudly denounce critics of war, glorify it and yet always seem to conveniently have a hangnail that prevents them from dying with the poor folks.
Goldberg and Cheney and Bush and Limbaugh fit the bill. Hubris does not. Nor do most war supporters.
For the record, I opposed the war with Serbia. I think Clinton and the European powers really missed a golden opportunity years earlier to support non-violent action to prevent Serbian aggression. Too bad nobody pays attention until things boil over. For more, read Civil Resistance in Kosovo.
Posted by: NTodd | Feb 6, 2005 9:10:49 AM
Hmm, Hubris has a point. It's unfortunate that Goldberg saw fit to dignify the "chickenhawk" accusation with such an incredibly lame defense. ;)
Posted by: kc | Feb 6, 2005 1:46:39 PM
Buy me stuff off my 
