Call it a weakness. We, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” enjoy strolling round the left-wing “weblogosphere,” examining the current state of liberal opinion.
Although admittedly excruciating on occasion, our perambulations in the world of “moonbattery” sometimes yield fruit. Not terribly enlightening fruit, mind you, but fruit nevertheless.
For instance, thanks to our dutiful checking of numerous left-wing “weblogs,” we have recognized that perhaps the weakest argument in the liberal arsenal is still alive and well. Used more often than Paris Hilton, this might be termed the “Chickenhawk Argument.”
You know the drill, dear reader. A liberal “weblogger” will employ this dubious charge against any non-veteran supporter of the Iraq War.
For some reason, liberals seldom offer the same insult to those who support the toppling of the Taliban in Afghanistan, most likely because they support that particular military engagement themselves. Our lefty pals may cry “chickenhawk” a lot, but theirs is a very selective understanding of chickenhawkery.
An unhinged lefty “weblogger” called TBogg recently presented a perfect example of the chickenhawk charge. Accompanying a YouTube clip of Matthew Continetti, associate editor of The Weekly Standard on C-Span, TBogg opined:
After viewing this, I guess we can add Matthew Continetti to the list (that includes Jason Materra and Rob Bluey among others) of smirky slimy little cowards who think others should go fight wars while they stay at home and collect wingnut welfare.
By the time that we finally bring home the American soldiers who have served multiple tours of duty in Iraq, we should have compiled quite a list of these sunshine patriots just in case the vets want to personally thank them for their unique ideas about shared and personal sacrifice.
Ah, yes: Matthew Continetti is supposedly a chickenhawk. Accordingly, he doesn’t deserve our lefty friends’ usual liberal tolerance. Rather, he merits a pummeling at the hands of the soldiery.
Gosh, does an argument get any weaker than that? To TBogg and his fellow dolts, one can only support a particular government service (in this case, military action), if one takes part in providing that service. Only servicemen or veterans, therefore, can support the use of force.
Presumably, then, if you esteem receiving mail at your home, you’re obliged to become a US postman. Similarly, if you favor national healthcare, you must sign up to be a nurse.
As the above examples demonstrate, this line of argument is arrant nonsense. And, coming from the mouths of most liberal critics, it doesn’t even ring true. Aren’t they clamoring for a military intervention in Darfur?
We suppose that, in support of such an action, TBogg and his ilk are fully prepared to enlist in the Marines.
(Note: The crack young staff normally “weblog” at “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” where they are currently wondering whether non-soldier supporters of toppling the Nazis in World War II were also “chickenhawks.”)