I have many family and friends that have been or currently are active-duty military members. I myself am a non-combat military vet. With the exception of a couple of the more thoughtful family and friends, all are blindly loyal, unreflective supporters of George W. Bush and his Iraq war. The twisted reasoning behind that sad statement isn't a complete mystery to me, but more than anything, quite frankly, I view it to be much more so a glaring statement about their individual values, morals, judgement and cognitive thinking ability (or lack thereof of all.)
Let me see if I can explain this, it's all extremely bizarre -- George W. Bush is great because ----- unlike the evil librul Bill Clinton, he sends men off to war in a manly fashion and he wants to kick some evil-doer ass! That's it! That's the extent of their swooning, teeny-bopper crush mentality for why it is they've got such huge hard-ons for George W. Bush. Good lord! If it wasn't so god-damned pathetic, it would be sort of cute in a creepy, incestuous Father Knows Best kind of way. But what's most baffling and infuriating to me is that these guys have never for a moment pondered the obscene paradox of the following facts, not made-up shit just because I have opposing views, but undisputed facts that are easily verifiable (if you truly gave a shit about the truth) from a myriad of sources in the public record:
1. George W. Bush used his family political connections to vault over a waiting list of hundreds of other draftees to land a cushy, state-side National Guard post defending the great state of Texas from marauding hordes of Viet-Cong. He received approximately $1 million in tax-payer funded military flight training, was subsequently suspended from flying (still no explanation or medical records indicating why) and eventually skipped out on the remaining year and a half of his 6 year commitment. Not a shred of evidence exists that Fly The Friendly Skies (literally) Lt. Bush ever sat his ass in a jet cockpit again -- and the Mission Accomplished stunt doesn't count as it was nothing more than political theater designed to thrill his sycophantic worshippers. So in a nutshell my friends -- you all support a draft-dodging slacker and wartime deserter who had no compunction about using his powerful connections to avoid the pitfalls and horrors of war and instead sent some poor, unconnected and unlucky slob to fight and possibly die in his place in the rice paddies of Nam while he partied hard in the "Champagne Unit" of his home-state Guard. Quite the macho hero you have there fellas. BTW -- John Kerry, actually volunteered for his Nam duty, unlike frat-boy George. And Kerry saw actual combat and was actually wounded -- and if you think the Swift-Boat Liars for Truth attack group hasn't been totally debunked and discredited I'll say it to your face any time, any place -- you're a fucking misinformed dipshit.
2. Bush puppet-master and VP Dick Cheney received 5 Vietnam draft deferments while vocally supporting that bloody war. Years later when asked about it in an interview, Cheney is quoted as saying, "I had other priorities in the '60s than military service." Gee Dick, why don't you go tell that face to face to the 58,159 American men and women whose names adorn the Vietnam Veterans Memorial wall in Washington, D.C.? Ohhhhh!! That's right!! Dick can't tell it to them face to face because they're all fucking dead!! Yep, they died so cock-sucking, yellow-belly cowards like Dick Cheney could kick back in their little red-neck towns, rack up a couple of DWI's, go to college, knock up his high school sweetheart all the while spouting vocal support for a war he himself didn't have the balls to go die for and, like his fellow coward at heart George W. Bush, took purposeful actions to avoid. Another stellar hero you've chosen to worship there my friends.
3. Practically the entire leadership ranks of the Republican party vociferously supports George and Dick's Big Adventure in the sands of Mesopotamia. Which is why it strikes me as extremely paradoxical considering the FACT that none of these war pigs (with one exception which I'll discuss separately) has ever worn a military uniform. I've always wondered what kind of man who has never served a day of military service, much less been in actual combat, could so indifferently send other people's children off to fight and die in war, especially a war that was built on lies and deception. Here's a well documented list of which prominent politicians (from both parties) have served their country's armed services and which have not. When I see that list of Republicans who have not served the first word that comes to my mind is Chickenhawks. To put it bluntly, a Chickenhawk is someone who strongly supports war, but is too spineless to volunteer to put their own life on the line for it. What I find the most offensive about these Repukelican hyenas is that they have the nerve to portray their party as the party of true patriots that will save America from the evil-doers and the Democrats as the party of traitors who are terrorist appeasers. Looking at that list of GOP Chicken-shit-hawks, the brazen hypocrisy of their attacks on Dems patriotism is mind numbing, and it's one of the principal factors that fuels my rabid disgust for the Republican party as it exists in it's present form today.
The one Republican exception I mentioned in item #3 above is GOP Senator John McCain. McCain's Vietnam duty and POW stint are without question to be honored. His service and sacrifice embodies all that is good about our fighting men and women. Which of course is why Bush sent his attack dog Karl Rove to smear John McCain in the 2000 South Carolina Republican primary. The same scumbag tactics were employed against Democratic Senators and Vietnam veterans Max Cleland in his Georgia senate campaign and of course against Senator John Kerry in his 2004 Presidential bid. Now, a decent, fair-minded person might ask the question -- what kind of people would employ lies and deceit to question and attack the patriotism of their political opponents whom also happen to be military and war veterans? And if you had an ounce of honesty in you, the answer to that question would be -- the same kind of people who would employ lies and deceit to plunge their country into an illegal and unwinnable war, a war, which by all available evidence, appears to be nothing more than a money-making venture for their family and friends who are all deeply embedded members of the military-industrial complex, the same military-industrial complex by the way that WWII hero and Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned Americans about in his famous 1961 farewell speech.
When candidly taking all of this information into account, analyzing it and putting it into proper context, it's unthinkable to me that any person in their right mind and with a functioning conscience would continue to blindly support men like George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and their neo-con friends. The Busheviks utilize code words and phrases like "Homeland", "evil-doers", "support the troops", "you're with us or against us", "watch what you say and what you do", and other propagandistic blatherings without shame. Only one doesn't need to be a studied historian to know that those same code words and phrases were once employed by men named Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Hirohito and others to cow their citizenry into blind allegiance and acceptance of their government's immoral deeds. I've no longer any doubt that there are many people in this country who would prosper and thrive under an authoritarian dictatorship. It's an inherent character trait of cowards to elevate their own fears, blind faith and allegiance to a higher plane of importance -- above more honorable virtues such as humility, compassion, skepticism, truth-seeking, informed dissent and a principled conviction to exposing lies and immorality wherever it lurks. As to me, my well of understanding and hope that people (particularly family and friends) will pull their collective heads out of their asses and recognize the reality of what's going on around them has pretty much dried up. It pains me to say it, but when the day (I didn't say IF) comes and I'm proven right, they had best not come to me begging for sympathy and forgiveness, because quite honestly I am not certain I'll have any left to share with them.
Watch the YouTube clip at the beginning of this post. Listen and analyze what's being said. Then either blissfully go about your Bush/Cheney worshipping ways or get off your ass and start asking questions and dissenting -- while you still have a choice in the matter.
Many people would sooner die than think; In fact, they do so.
Bertrand Russell
British author, mathematician, & philosopher (1872 - 1970)
----krazee
8 comments:
Since McCain is not a "chickenhawk," do you intend to support and vote for him?
If you'd have asked me that question 8 years ago, chances are I might have replied in the affirmative. I'll get right to the point and tell you quite bluntly that at this moment in time -- the answer is no -- and it hasn't a damn thing to do with McCain's honorable military service. The primary reason I will not be supporting McCain in this election is:
McCain feels a continuation of the disastrous Bush Iraq occupation policy is just hunky dory. That view is at odds with the non-ass-kissing military experts and spits in the face of the 60% of Americans who now feel that invading and occupying Iraq was not worth the price and want us to transition our troops out of that hell-hole as soon as possible. It's been 5 years and the Iraqi government has yet to live up to it's promises of political reconciliation nor made much progress in accepting responsibility for it's own internal security. Simply put, it's time we got out and shifted our focus and terror-fighting resources to Afhanistan and Pakistan, where Al-Qaeda is most prominently active, and bring home some of that $100 million we're flushing down the toilet in Iraq every day to address long neglected domestic issues like border and port security, crumbling infrastructure, job-creation, education, health care and alternative energy investment.
So, to summarize, since McCain is stating that he intends to prolong Bush's idiotic Iraq conflict and to sustain Bush's desstructive economic policies, I won't consider voting for him.
----k
So, in the final analysis, whether someone is a "chickenhawk" or not, you simply will not support anyone who supports the war. So why should anyone care if the person proposing policy has served or not? Policy is not right or wrong depending on whether you served or not. It is right or wrong in and of itself.
Response to Anonymous:
When I use the term "chickenhawk" it is meant entirely to call to account those politicians who vociferously support war, but have no stake in in it themselves and would not consider making a personal sacrifice for a war they vocally support. McCain doesn't qualify for chickenhawk status for obvious reasons. In his case, in my opinion, his support of Bush's war policy is nothing more complicated than a wrong-headed political gambit that he's reluctantly hitched his wagon to because he's the GOP Presidential nominee and there is no way the Republican poobahs are going to allow a war-dissenting GOP nominee to get anywhere near the Presidency -- just ask Ron Paul about that.
To answer your question though: simply stated, no -- I will not support any politician who supports the current policy on this specific war in Iraq. I supported the military action in Afghanistan post 9/11, even though I believe that the Bush administration has even managed to fuck up that affair as well. But at the time it was a necessary action/response to 9/11 and it had wide support from allies, muted dissension from non-allies, as it was the right conflict at the right time.
You say, "Policy is not right or wrong depending on whether you served or not. It is right or wrong in and of itself." Oh I couldn't disagree more. We're talking about war policy here, not formulaic domestic policy decisions, which though they may adversely impact the lives of many, are not the kinds of policy decisions which can result in somebody's son or daughter coming home in a body bag. If the policy you are proposing, supporting or voting for specifically involves sending young men and women to fight, and possibly die, in far off lands, a decision which has such a momentous impact on so many lives, your perspective on such a decision is necessarily more contemplative and serious if you yourself have had the experience of serving, and especially so if that experience involved first-hand knowledge of what war is and how it's destructiveness affects so many.
Now -- I'll head you off at the pass. John Kerry served in Vietnam. Saw the effects of war first hand. Yet he voted for the Iraq resolution giving Bush authorization to use force in Iraq. Other Dem military vets -- Max Cleland, Tom Daschle, Fritz Hollings, Tom Harkin also voted for the resolution. John Edwards and Hillary Clinton voted for the resolution. I hold them all accountable in the sense that I believe they were political cowards at a time when it counted most. They all stupidly opted to put faith in George Bush and Dick Cheney and cower before the corporate media drumbeats that were pining for the invasion of Iraq even though the intelligence, they knew, was suspect at best. All of them, to some degree or another, have since renounced their decisions, but that does not inherently absolve them of their share of responsibility for the human catasrophe that their decisions enabled.
As I inferred in the beginning of this response -- I cannot and would not apply the label of "chickenhawk" to John McCain. His military service and personal sacrifice absolutely negate such a label. However I do view his unwavering support for this stupid, unnecessary, corrupt war in Iraq as a reasonable benchmark for judging his character and integrity on ALL of the decisions he might make if he were to become President of the United States. The consideration of that benchmark is something I most certainly will be taking with me into the voting booth come November.
"your perspective on such a decision is necessarily more contemplative and serious if you yourself have had the experience of serving, and especially so if that experience involved first-hand knowledge of what war is and how it's destructiveness affects so many."
I served, and I don't think it's made me "necessarily more contemplative and serious." And to say that only people who have served are the only people who can properly decide such matters is simply a backhanded way shifting the debate from the issue or position in favor debating the legitimacy of the person holding a position on a psychological or other ground (the foreign policy version of saying "the only reason you're pro-life is because you're a man). You are simply side-stepping the objective argument of policy considerations in favor of saying that someone's background or state of mind disqualifies them from participation in a certain policy debate. My answer to that is usually: "Well, now that we know why I hold the position, how about refuting my position." Nice work if you can get it.
I can't and won't pretend to know what makes you think the way you do. If you've served as you say and feel that your military experience would not color or have a major influence on your decision to send other soldiers marching off to war, all I can say is that is some incredibly steely resolve you have there.
Secondly, I did not state that ONLY people who have served are the ONLY people who can properly decide matters involving this country in war. What I stated is what you repeated -- that I do believe it does make one "necessarily more contemplative and serious," -- (your own steely resolve notwithstanding) -- if they have had military service, and especially, combat service experience. Nor did I state that one's lack of military service thoroughly disqualifies them from participating in such deliberative matters. However, I absolutely do believe that not only is it fair, it is also fundamentally important to ask a politician who is a vociferous supporter of war, what their own experiences in matters of military service, and/or war, are or have been, and what level of personal sacrifice they themselves intend to proffer in support of the war they are publicly advocating for. Hell -- If I had it my way I'd take it a step further -- I'd mandate that every single politician who advocates for war needs to publicly disclose their entire financial portfolio to see if there is any chance that they, their family and their heirs might monetarily profit off of said war. I have no doubt that, if in October of 2002, when the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 came up for a vote, all of these politicians were first required to sit down with the families of 4 or 5 soldiers from their home districts who's fate rested on their vote, and disclose all of their personal financial dealings which may have had the potential to profit off of a yes vote for war, we very probably would have seen an entirely different outcome to that resolution. Yeah I know -- dream on.
Lastly -- let me revisit the core motivation for me posting this blog entry to begin with. The universally accepted definition of "Chickenhawk" is -- Chickenhawk (also chicken hawk and chicken-hawk; sometimes designated after a person's name by [c.h.]) is a political epithet used in the United States to criticize a politician, bureaucrat, or commentator who strongly supports a war or other military action, but has never personally been in a war, especially if that person actively avoided military service when of draft age. The key wording there is "has never personally been in a war, especially if that person actively avoided military service when of draft age."
Listen -- if you honestly are of the opinion that a guy like Dick Cheney who received 5 Vietnam war draft deferments (because as he's stated he had "other priorities"), or Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz (the Iraq war architects), who also avoided Vietnam service due to college deferments, are just as equally qualified to make decisions on sending people to war as are men like Jim Webb who as a first lieutenant during the Vietnam War served as a platoon commander with Delta Company, 1st Battalion 5th Marines, earned a Navy Cross, the second highest decoration in the Navy and Marine Corps for heroism in Vietnam, and also earned the Silver Star, two Bronze Stars, and two Purple Hearts, or, Daniel Inouye who as a combat platoon leader with the U.S. Army's 442nd Regimental Combat Team spent 20 months in Army hospitals after losing his right arm in combat in WWII, was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross (the second highest award for military valor), Bronze Star, Purple Heart with cluster and 12 other medals and citations, or even Bob Dole who was twice decorated for heroism, receiving two Purple Hearts for his injuries, and the Bronze Star with combat "V" for valor in WWII - - - - well my friend if that is what you truly believe all I can say is more power to you, and I see no compelling reason for us to continue this debate.
I can see why you would not want to continue it since it challenges the whole raison d'etre of the blog post: that men who have not served and been elevated to high office would somehow not have the advice of those who have or would micromanage the issue such as McNamara. While it is possible, it is not likely and the whole sound and fury generated over the issue by the hard left has given it a whole lot more cred then it is entitled to.
I can also see why it would be the end of the debate you want to have because you'd much rather concentrate on irrlevancies where you think you can win than the real issue where you lose. As I said, defining your opponents argument as out-of-bound right from the start by your presuppositions is nice work if you can get it.
Ok anon -- I'm game -- let's resume the battle.
Hey -- be my guest in declaring victory in the debate if it makes you feel any better -- even though, by my standards, you haven't done much to earn it and I refer specifically to the fact that you appear to be deliberately avoiding the core question of whether you believe that men who've never worn a military uniform and who, when it was time to serve their nation when their nation needed them most took deliberate actions to avoid serving, should now be totally entrusted to make decisions of war for other people's sons and daughters? It's not a complicated question in my opinion -- you may think otherwise. So, as it is, I view your claim to debate victory, quite frankly, as akin to a certain event that took place about 5 years ago, on an aircraft carrier off the coast of San Diego, where smugness, and hubris wrapped in faux patriotic platitudes permeated the atmosphere -- hmmm -- can we say Mission Accomplished?
You state that the likelihood that men who have not served (conveniently omitting the deliberately avoiding service part) and who've been elevated to high office would somehow not have the advice of those who have or would micromanage(?) war such as McNamara is unrealistic and irrelevant. To which I say that's fine and dandy, but it doesn't change the hard cold fact that, with this current administration, you have men who when it was their turn to put their own asses on the line in support of their country turned tail and ran - - chickenhawks. And these men are the final arbiters of deciding when this country goes to war and who's sons and daughters will be sacrificed in that endeavor. You can spin that and defend that any which way you want, but it doesn't change the ugly truth of the matter.
Finally it appears as well that you are presumptuously labeling me as being "hard left." I'm not sure what your personal definition of "hard left" is, but if it's the same definition employed by the likes of conservative spokespeople like Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and their ilk and conservative politicians like well --- like most of the GOP leadership, then to you it probably means that anyone who dares dissent against the Iraq war and Bush's handling of it and especially if they dare dissent openly is "hard left". Why don't you just stop beating around the bush and call me what you really want to call me -- a dirty fucking hippie? Believe me - you'll feel better about yourself being openly honest and I promise it won't hurt my feelings.
So listen -- if you want to continue debating this specific post and subject, or any other post or subject for that matter -- that's ok with me. I love a good rousing debate -- it's a hallmark attribute of a healthy democracy. I'll be attentive to your opinion even though I may boisterously disagree. If I didn't ever want to hear other opinions I would not have the comments section open on my blog. Unfortunately many on the right seem to believe that stifling debate and scaring Americans with somber threats is what constitutes patriotism -- remember "watch what you say, watch what you do"? (Bush Press Secretary Ari Fleischer at a post 9/11 news conference ominously implying that Patriotic citizens were supposed to accept the administration's version of events and not ask awkward questions.) That kind of forcible suppression of dialogue my friend, (and you may or may not agree), is a classic characteristic of a pernicious system of government called fascism -- http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=britt_23_2
In conclusion, feel free to keep this thread going, even though it appears we are both fairly entrenched in our views. I'll respond as time permits.
Post a Comment