t's the hypocrisy of the 'chickenhawk' argument that's repellent though: it's generally made by people arguing against a point of view they'd have no respect for no matter who is holding it. It's just an opportunistic cheap shot.

The critique of the war never was, in whole or in part, that the people who hatched lacked military experience. That's a pathetic straw man that I don't think anyone here is dumb enough to see as ignorance on your part.

"Chickenhawk" was always a pejorative aimed at war cheerleaders who saw it all as a video game, who had no real appreciation for it but felt no compunction against cheering other people on to die. Christ, Madeleine ("What's the point of having this great military if you can't use it") Albright was a chickenhawk.

People who are and were wrong about the war were wrong despite their military credentials or their lack thereof.

The critique - ad hominem of course - of WAR PROPONENTS AND THEIR MOTIVES (not the war itself) is often based on that.

It's worse than foolish to take the weakest possible interpretation of your interlocutor's argument, ProWar. It's chickenshit.

Something more than mere support for a war without fighting in it is required to earn the "chicken hawk" label. Chicken-hawkism is the belief that advocating a war from afar is a sign of personal courage and strength, and that opposing a war from afar is a sign of personal cowardice and weakness. A "chicken hawk" is someone who not merely advocates a war, but believes that their advocacy is proof of the courage which those who will actually fight the war in combat require.

Over and over again, those who simply advocate a war in which the lives of other people will be risked label themselves strong and courageous. National Review's Cliff May this week argued that those who advocate wars are warriors every bit as much as those who actually fight them. Conversely, pro-war advocates frequently ascribe qualities of weakness, spinelessness, cowardice, hysteria, and anti-American subversiveness -- not to mention being “small hollow men [who] are the equivalent of those grubby little Nazis” -- to anyone who is against the war in Iraq or who favors an end to our occupation there sooner rather than later.

This dynamic requires criticism because it is so irrational, false and manipulative. There is nothing courageous or strong about wanting to send other people to war or to keep them in wars that have already been started. And there is nothing weak or cowardly about opposing the commencement of a war in which others will bear the risks. To the extent courage and cowardice play a role in war advocacy at all, one could argue that those who blithely want to send other people off to war in order to protect themselves against every potential risk are driven by fear and weakness. And those who are less fearful will require a much higher level of personal threat before believing that it is desirable and just to send other people off to risk their lives.

Link at sig.

Another example of your black and white thinking.

You're making the mistake of assuming there was "thinking" involved in that comment.

I have seen evidence that the man behind the moniker shooter242 often engages in this thing we call "thinking;" he just feels it is beneath him to do so when he comments here.

Our purpose in shooter's world is to validate preconceived notions he has of "liberals." Anything that reflects any hint of nuance goes right into the bit bucket. It's a crushingly efficient algorithm.

Listen up you twits, and I'll say it slow.... I.... am.....agreeing......with.......you.

Whom are you agreeing with, Shooter? You have been flying this "withdraw from everywhere, and let the world sort out its own problems," and nobody's saluted. I might be one of the few who actually agrees with the sentiment, but for probably different reasons (I have this peculiar distaste for empires), but even I am pretty sure that it's just another rhetorical hotfoot you're trying to plant on us.

I'd note that calling people "twits" is seldom effective as a means of rapport-building, butcha knew that already, didn'tcha?

Jaime, with a son in Iraq and relatives in both Colombia and Palestine, I literally cannot imagine your anxiety. It kind of seems like there should be a separate word for that kind of stress.

Hai tutta la mia comprensione...

If Glenn were "an ultra-lib, lol..." wouldn't that make McCain, like, LaRouche by comparison?

Or were you just bored and felt the neext to bang randomly on the keyboard?

Very interesting what people consider "left" or "right" in Salon.

You should try reading the foreign press sometime. Spin your head right around, it would.

people here do not believe centrists are reasonable policicians. They believe they are evil and responsible for just as much as the Republicans, they are just "Republicans Lite".

First, generalising about "people here" isn't helpful. there are a lot of "people here," for one thing, and it's not even entirely clear where "here" is in your analysis. Specifics are always better than generalities, otherwise it's just a lot of hand-waving.

From where I stand, there's not much difference, in the end analysis, between someone who wants to bomb Iran to further a diabolical plan for world domination, or someone who wants to bomb Iran to "stabilize the region" and "show American resolve." Iranians still die. Full stop.