I've harped on this before, but one reason chickenhawks are unashamed of staying out of the military is that they are, in fact, affirmatively proud of not being in the military. Military service is for the lower classes, for people whose parents aren't wealthy or who just lack sufficient talent or entrepreneurial spirit to do something more remunerative than joining the military. (As Dylan once sang, you "join the Army if you fail.")

The military, for these people, essentially constitutes a servant class. It exists, as all things do, to make affluent conservative white men feel good. So Rush really means it when he calls troops who question the war "phony soldiers" -- their job is to please him (and Rich and Jonah, etc.) and, when they question the war, they aren't doing it. They are being uppity servants, and really, who can stand those?

Of course Bush didn't serve in Vietnam. That would be like expecting him now to help out scrubbing pots in the White House kitchen. And a well-off volunteer like Kerry? Just an idiot. (Or a fiendishly clever plotter of a future political career.) A bereaved mother asking aloud why her son had to die? Silence, wench.

In this sense, I don't think that we are a nation of Rich Lowrys. Most Americans, I believe, sincerely respect our military and the dedication of those who serve in it. We really believe all that crap about them representing the best and bravest of us. We understand, as the soldiers do, that their lives must sometimes be sacrificed, but it hurts us in our souls when this occurs, and we don't think it should occur unless it is truly necessary. That's why Bush had to tell so many lies to get a majority of us to support his war. The Lowrys and Limbaughs, though, look upon soldiers with pure, utter contempt, as chattels, political tools, disposable equipment, no more to be mourned than the Risk pieces scattered on the floor because you overturned the board when you realized your sister was winning.

"Chickenhawk" is an interesting term that different folks define differently, but as I see it, McCain is excused from chickenhawkery not by virtue of his service in a previous war, but by his age. He would not be fighting in this war in any event, so his willingness to fight is a moot point.

To me, a chickenhawk is someone eligible to enlist who cheerleads for a war and claims that said war is vitally important, but declines to fight in said war, preferring to leave the icky no-fun parts to others. The chickenhawk is unmoved by the fact that the military desperately needs more soldiers to prosecute the war he asserts is so important, and he believes that his willingness to advocate wars in which others will do the fighting makes him more manly and courageous than those who oppose such wars.

Bush, for example, was a chickenhawk in Vietnam. He supported the war but wanted no part of it himself. McCain, by contrast, was a heroic warrior in Vietnam. Now, they are both soulless old men who send soldiers off to die for nothing, and bask in the applause of the chickenhawks.

Silenced, do you think Rudy really believes that the USA, rather than the USSR, was primarily responsible for defeating the Nazis, or is he just being politically smart by pretending historical ignorance? Maybe it doesn't matter. As you suggest, an accurate thumbnail description of WW2 would be that the USSR defeated Nazi Germany, with some assistance from America and Britain. But you just cannot say in this country that the Russians saved the world, can you? If, as many believe, defeating Nazism was humankind's greatest achievement, how could it not be an AMERICAN achievement?

Southerners (and when I say southerners, I mean white male southerners, as do most people, consciously or not, when they say "southerners") are a strange breed. Flag-waving super-patriots whose greatest heroes led an armed insurrection against the USA... I lived in the Deep South for a number of years and never did figure that out.

Bill M, I don't think Jewish neocons explicitly claim to speak on behalf of all Jews, but that claim is implicit and inescapable when they accuse people who disagree with their ideas of being anti-Israel and/or anti-semitic. This they have done many times, though I lack the technical savvy to provide links.

Bethincary (speaking of anti-semites), how delightful to see you taking part in this discussion. Perhaps you can revive your proposal for a U.S. military draft that is limited to Jews, or share the latest progress in your groundbreaking research into the ethno-religious significance of the surnames of our military dead. Fuck you, you sick, brain-dead, bigoted asshole.

Dirigo: "Seems to me your attack on bethincary was over the line, and I'd say an apology is in order."

Not likely. (Perhaps when Glenn becomes president of AIPAC...)

LWM: If you want to be an apologist for rank bigotry and tie yourself in knots excusing and rationalizing it, that's your prerogative. But it interests me not at all.

Bethincary: Fuck you.