That Howard Dean
Tweet
How dare he be consistently right on every fragment of the Iraq question.
20 Responses to “That Howard Dean”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
Ian-
Either you’re for the chickenhawk meme, or you’re against it. Which is it?
Remember, there is absolutely no room for gray in the post 9/11 world.
He supported Afghanistan but didn’t fight in it. What a chickenhawk.
ian’s comment was obviously directed at the hypocracy of the chickenhawk meme used by many on this site. His point is quite valid.
He supported Afghanistan but didn t fight in it.
Because he didn’t want to be sent to the wrong country, IRAQ.
Either you re for the chickenhawk meme, or you re against it. Which is it?
Actually, you liberals are the ones who need to answer that question. You whip out the chickenhawk card faster than Paris Hilton does her Visa in Beverly Hills whenever the subject of Iraq comes up. But I can’t get you people to answer whether or not those who supported the invasion of Afghanistan but didn’t sign up or serve are also chickenhawks.
Oliver tried with some lame shit about supporting a “morally repugnant war”, but forgets that a good number of people consider our efforts in Afghanistan to also be morally repugnant. Oliver also contends we should be sending troops elsewhere to kill terrorists, but I don’t see him telling Mr. Brock that he needs to take a leave of absence to join the Marines.
forgets that a good number of people consider our efforts in Afghanistan to also be morally repugnant
A good number? 3%? 2%? And I’ve said numerous times those people are idiots. Consistency, look into it.
Thank you Jay C … I was obviously being sarcastic .. but the hypocrites (BTW: What is ‘hypocracy’?) in this situation are the libs. You call supports of the Iraq war chickenhawks, yet it’s okay to be for the Afghan war and not fight in it? Hypocrites.
Closest I could Google on such short notice, but here it is. 25% is indeed a statistical significant result, which means O and all his non-signing-up-to-go-to-Afghanistan buddies are indeed chickenhawks of the highest order.
Terrorism is not a tactic that can be controlled by war – it’s a criminal action which sold be dealt with by police action (if Bush hadn’t pissed away the support we had from other nations after 9.11, we could of done it effectively too).
I mean, we saw how well war worked in Iraq and Afghanistan, huh? *sarcasm*. The only thing that was accomplished was a complete alienation of our allies, massive civilian casualties, increased terrorist attacks/recruitment, a Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan, and the displacement of a secularized government in Iraq. Heck, Bush has done a great job achieving all of Bin Laden’s goals!
As far as the chickenhawk thing – I’m 100% against war, but I hate the label chickenhawk. I think it’s said that some people are so gung-ho for war, but I don’t see how I could be against war while advocating for another politician to be sent off to one. I’d rather see troops come home, then more head on over.
Just my opinion, though.
Jay-
Perhaps you should learn how to deal with individuals rahther than lumping them all together based on their alignment to a certain region of the political spectrum.
Ah, but then all your hyperbole and rhetoric wouldn’t have quite the same impact, now would it?
And for the record, the majority of you jackasses don’t have a clue as to what the actual meaning of the word chickenhawk is:
Study that last part. It makes a WHOLE lot of difference – not that folks like Jay or Ian would give a shit about something that pokes a giant hole in their stark raving notions. Like the notion that supporting an offensive war like Iraq is the same as a defensive war like Afghanistan.
But no doubt, we’ll hear them scream about how the best defense is offense, and up is down, and black is white…
So, what you’re saying, John S., is that liberal can call aconservative a chickenhawk, but a liberal can’t be one.
As the Church Lady would say, “How conveeeenient!”
Thanks, John S. That pretty much closes this ‘debate’. The chickenhawks (on this site, and in the White House)have obviously been working their points and chomping at the bit to try and fling their own obvious cowardice at “those f****ing liberals.” It really is simple: if you are a believer in our great leader and his wonderful war, then get yer fat ass over there and fight. Apparently, however, the vastly decreased pre-frontal cortex that results from a sloping neanderthal forehead seems to not allow this basic reasoning. Bunch of gutless retards.
Todd, we tried the law-enforcement approach in 1993, with the first WTC bombing. We tried it after the African Embassy bombings. We tried it with the Millenium Bombing Plot. And it was such a stunning success, wasn’t it?
9/11 was the first time we treated a terrorist attack as a military matter, and there has been exactly one likely terrorist incident on US soil since.
So you advocate returning to the same tactics that have such a remarkable record for failure? Thanks, but I’ll pass.
J.
I didn’t know that upon signing up for military service, you get to check the box for deployment in Afghanistan instead of the Iraq box.
Nevermind on the source John S. Surely you wouldn’t try and slip in a Wikipedia quote and pretend that it is the “definitive source”?
OT of course, but Dean was indeed correct in several cases for which he was vilified by the media and by the Clap Louder Society.
John S.
Please provide link to quote. Where did “Chickenhawk” definition originate?
It doesn’t matter where he got his stupid definition. It’s wrong no matter what, and those who have been using the chickenhawk slur haven’t been using it with qualifiers. There words have been simple. If you suppor the war, you either have to sign up to fight it in, or have served our country previously in the military. If not, you’re a chickenhawk.
It’s freaking hilarious to watch Oliver and John S. make human pretzels out of themselves to come up with ways to make it applicable.
Soon they’ll be saying, “There’s a difference between Iraq and a war supported by more than 72.36% of Americans, that’s defensive in nature, that started before a full moon, after All Saints Day, has the participation of France, is supported by people who drink Evian and have plasma televisions!”
Speaking of Howard Dean, the “Howard Dean” of the Viet Nam war, Eugene McCarthy, just died.