A while ago, I took on the whole “chickenhawk” argument, shredding it as the dishonest, dishonorable tactic it is. Its transparency hasn’t diminished its popularity among its advocates, however.
A few bloggers have decided to take a leaf from Richard Pryor and some gay activists’ playbooks, though, and take the idiots’ most potent words (in their mind) and embrace them. Pryor led the movement to strip the power out of the word “nigger,” rendering it either taboo or powerless (depending on the utterer). The gays started proudly proclaiming themselves “queer” and “fags,” letting them answer what had been devastating insults with a casual “so?” dismissal.
In that vein, Captain Ed, Frank J, and Chief have decided to semi-formally incorporate the 101st Fighting Keyboardists, the Chickenhawks, whose proud slogan is “We Eat Chickens For Lunch.” (Personally, I would have preferred “Fighting Keyboardiers,” for a slightly more militaristic sound, but 1) nobody asked me, and B) it has a vaguely French flavor, so maybe it’s better off as is.)
I can’t formally commit Wizbang to joining this cause, since this ain’t my page, but I would personally be proud to be listed among their ranks.
They also serve who sit and type.
Paul:
Really?
J.
Count me in as well.
I thought this was a good dismantling of the “chickenhawk” meme:
Can’t do it? Don’t back it.
What’s particularly amusing is that it’s from a left-wing author who is particularly anti-god/religion, which makes him and the article pretty dang unimpeachable to them.
This is probably a good tactic to counter the personal invective of others. If I’m not mistaken, this is how the the Tories and Whigs got their names in England. But I think Jay you given too short shrift to the case that most pro Iraqi invasion advocates are and were armchair ‘chickenhawks” which you dismiss as a dishonrable tactic or ad hominem attacks. Let me quote you from an pre-Iraqi invasion article when there was so much gung -ho enthusiasm except perhaps significantly by many of the American military who had been through the fire themselves, ex-generals like Schwarzkopf and Zinni who said “It’s pretty interesting that all the generals see it the same way, and all the others who have never fired a shot and are hot to go to war see it another” I think it is fair to say that many of those who have never seen action or will never see action are more likely not to entertain action the further they are from the front lines. The doesn’t necessarily make the argument for war or not, right or wrong but it is as the two ex-generals say “pretty interesting”.
for some reason, the chickenhawk label doesn’t apply to me
I am in awe.
Well there’s not much to say when you guys are just going to parody yourselves.
You are what you eat.
Being a chickenhawk sure beats being a turtledove …
… for it’s kind of hard to soar with eagles, when you keep your head in the shell, to maintain a facade of “peace”.