Posted on 11/18/2005 7:00:01 AM PST by Nasty McPhilthy
Next time you hear some idiot Liberal identify a Conservative as a “chicken hawk,” tell him or her to go buy a gun. Yep, that’s right, tell him to go buy a gun and when next he needs the police to rescue him from a burglar, or robber, or mugger, or car-jacker, or angry neighbor, take care of it himself. After all, Liberals wouldn’t want to ask somebody else’s “boy” to risk being killed unless they themselves were willing to put on a police uniform and do the job themselves. That is essentially what they are telling those of us who support the war effort isn’t it? They make that suggestion without any knowledge of our background or service status. It is just a blanket epithet used by those on the left in an attempt to invalidate, in some way, the otherwise unanswerable arguments in favor of the war used by those of us who support it.
The Leftists have no reasoned arguments capable of withstanding our scrutiny, so they resort to name-calling like some fifth-grader. “Chicken hawk!” It comes out like, “Four eyes!” “Retard!” “Neocon!” On second thought, maybe I’m insulting fifth-graders; it rings true more of third-or even second-graders. Well that’s to be expected when the sources of these epithets are people who react to events out of emotion, as children usually do, rather than out of reason, like adults.
The additional assumption made by these reaction based insulters is that those of us who take a stand in support of our troops and the war in Iraq do so because we don’t have to run any risk to ourselves. This of course is also an unreasoned assumption on their parts, again coming out of a complete lack of knowledge of the target’s background. Now while it is a fair assumption that most critics of the war, both pro and con, have never been in uniform or fought in a military action, simply because there has been no draft since the mid ‘70s, the assumption that we know nothing of risk for that reason is a sure sign of ignorance. If one is a fireman and never served in the military, for example, yet is pro-war is he a “chicken hawk?” What about a pro-war policeman, is he a “chicken hawk” if he criticizes John Murtha? One is immediately led to the realization that this term is a meaningless blanket insult intended to evoke an emotional response in the target, in hopes of preventing him from expressing a reasoned argument.
Let’s carry it a bit farther though. Let’s consider those of us who are employed in one of the other favorite target industries of the Left, the oil industry. Are the roughnecks out on the drilling and production rigs “chicken hawks” if they support the war? Have you ever been on a drilling platform 120 miles out at sea in the Gulf of Mexico? Have you ever stood on the drilling floor of a rig? Have you ever worked as a derrick-hand, walking the finger-boards, slick with mud, sixty or eighty feet in the air on a night so cold that your hands cramp up in your gloves? Have you ever stood on the shale shakers when the drill bit hits a gas pocket, and your drilling mud has so much gas in it that it comes up half as heavy as when it went down the hole, and the slightest spark could send the entire rig up into a ball of fire? Are those the “chicken hawks” to which the Liberals are referring? What about the guys in those “awful” refineries? When they are out there opening and closing valves that restrict the flow of forty-thousand barrels of oil per day at 200 psi, or tightening a leaking flange on a gas line, or just sitting in the control room situated in the middle of half a million pounds of gasoline flowing through 700 degree pipes at 500 pounds of pressure, are they the “chicken hawks” to which you on the left are referring? Maybe it’s the guy working high steel in construction, or maybe the guy who’s replacing a transformer on one of the electric company’s domestic lines, maybe they are the “chicken hawks” to which you on the Left are referring.
You see, once you begin to examine the original claim, it suddenly becomes apparent how hollow and irrelevant the label becomes. No, not everyone in life performs high risk jobs like those to which I have alluded, but a lot of folks have and still do, and a lot of them support the war in Iraq, and the war on terror, and a lot of them support the President, in spite of what you Liberals in your little conclaves think. It is a socialist myth that the measure of a man’s worth is the degree to which he risks his life or performs physical labor and it is a Left-wing myth that one can only declare his support for the war effort if he is in uniform. It is an argument without substance, a chimera. Of course that holds true of virtually all of the claims and arguments made by those on the Left.
Perhaps the better measure of a man (or woman) is how much he contributes to the success and well being of the nation. Does the work that he does generate revenue? Does the work that you do create jobs, or are you a drag on the country. I would submit that someone like John Murtha is less qualified to criticize American policy than the owner of a hardware store. As a Congressman, Murtha is a net drain on the nation, a leach drawing pay at the expense of taxpayers. If he has voted for any pork, if he has voted for unnecessary legislation, if he has supported abortion rights and in voicing his desire to cut and run from Iraq, his credentials become questionable. In providing Al Jazeera with its lead story he has furthered the cause of our enemies.
A certain over-the-hill, has been woman hack writer from Texas is fond of describing the President as “shrub” and “all hat, no cattle.” That is a precise description of the arguments proffered to America by the Left, “all hat, no cattle.” Their claims consist of lies (the President “cherry picked” the intelligence presented to the Congress and the American people to get us into a war with Iraq), insults (American voters are dupes, fooled, stupid, gullible, and the like), epithets (Neocon, Chicken hawk), and twisted half-truths ( the intelligence on WMD’s was wrong so the President lied to go to war) submitted to the American people by the Democrats and repeated uncritically by their cheerleaders in the press, in the guise of reasoned argument. The Democrat “Leadership” attempts to pawn off theatrics (remember the special closed session or the Senate) for policy. Their publicly stated policy is to divide and conquer the Republicans for the next election, a tacit acknowledgement that they have no policies, principles, or proposals to present to the electorate, only empty rhetoric. I must say, that is not much of a platform for the Democrats to run on, “divide and conquer.”
So, I’ll end as I began, next time you hear a Liberal refer to someone as a “chicken hawk” kindly direct them to the next gun shop, that is unless you happen to be in San Francisco, in which case, just make sure they have paid up their funeral insurance so that the other tax-payers don’t have to foot the bill.
Better a Chicken Hawk than just a Chicken.
I prefer "Peace Queer"
Another analogy would be: "Do you care about the homeless and the poor?" "Why have you not quit your job to work in a shelter?"
How about calling the "Cut & Runners" Hawk Chickens.
That just made me hollar with laughter. "peace Queer" That will live in my memory. You have earned, if not immortality, a level of longevity that will compete with john kerry's chin.
Use it freely!
This chickenhawk label is a bit of sophistry that attacks the right of anyone to an opinion and is designed to cut off the legitimacy of a debater's argument rather than the content.
It's usually put forward by those who weren't the victim of an abortion--and therefore have no right to speak on the subject--if you accept their premise for debate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.