Politech relates some military reaction to the speech, all of it positive. Which leads him to this:
Memo to the left wingnuts who’ve been telling those who believe in the war (as an alternative to just leaving Saddam in power) that the chickenhawks need to join the military: it’s good to see that so many servicemembers and their families see the war as the president does. Now won’t you wackjobs please shut up?
May I propose that all who opposed the liberation of Iraq and called its civilian supporters “chickenhawks” please remove themselves to someplace like North Korea where they can experience the kind of life the Iraqis had under Saddam? Otherwise I may have to call them “terrorchickens”.
UPDATE: Mr. Goldstein is annoyed with the infantile name-calling as well:
One of the silliest arguments confronting pro-war supporters is the infantile “chickenhawk” accusation frequently floated by those swimming in the shallow end of the anti-war pool—the idea being, in theory, that if you aren’t a member of the military, you aren’t entitled to express a public opinion on the Iraqi war. Of course, in practice, non-military personnel such as those who are quick to use the chickenhawk argument are themselves permitted to express an opinion on the war—provided it’s the correct opinion, namely, that the war is illegal and immoral, and that Bush and his cronies are evil lying scum…
The idea that one need volunteer for military service in order to speak publicly in favor of the war creates any number of crazy analogues (for instance, is it okay to speak out against slavery if you’ve never owned or been a slave?)—not to mention presumes a commitment on the part of those anti-war speakers who invoke the chickenhawk argument to join the insurgency, should they wish to argue against the need for war.
Sadly, the chickenhawk argument, though logically puerile, can prove quite rhetorically effective—in the same sense that charges of homophobia and racism have proven effective in debates over gay marriage and government funded affirmative action programs: such charges, cynically delivered, tend to stifle substantive discourse, forcing one side of the argument onto the defensive by changing the focus of the debate from the issues themselves to the character of certain professors of those issues—and in that regard, they help to sustain the status quo.
Indeed.
You know, I can find at least as many quotes from people in the military who disagree with Bush.
And re-read what you linked.
The military isn’t uniformly supporting Bush – they are simply doing what they’re told:
That’s not exactly a ringing endorsement of Bush; it’s a statement of the military’s function.
Here’s another:
Which you probably wouldn’t have much knowledge about, never having worked closely with members of a military.
For some reason, the following comes to mind about those “civilian supporters”:
Can’t imagine why…
Oh, and the Iraqis are experiencing the kind of life under Saddam today.
You know, I can find at least as many quotes from people in the military who disagree with Bush.
So do it.
Which you probably wouldn’t have much knowledge about, never having worked closely with members of a military.
So now you’re not a terrorchicken because you did battle with Powerpoint in a conference room? You’ve just reached a new level of absurdity, so congratulations.
Well, let’s look at it this way: at least the Iraqis aren’t as bad off as the Chinese, where the Party members profit from the suffering of the prison labor and protesters are murdered en masse.
It’s been done. takeittokarl.blogspot.com has some comments from liberal military and ex-military.
But seriously, the military is obligated by law to support the commander in cheif. They cannot express political opinions. So your “support” argument is disengenuous at best. Exploitative at worst.
Leave the military out of it. The decision of which countries to invade is a civilian decision, one which should be debated among civilians. Civilians have the obligation to make these decisions, the military has the obligation to follow civilian leadership.
In that spirit, tell us all about how Saddam perpetrated 9/11 and Saudi Arabia is our ally.
Why is it necessary to repeat this all the time?
Saddam didn’t perpetrate 9/11, but that’s not the only crime against the US in the past or the future, so it’s not specifically the issue. Saddam was out of compliance with the Gulf War treaty, he was a genocidal maniac,and he was a threat to the US in the future. Any one of those reasons was enough to remove him from power, or don’t you give a rat’s ass for human rights?
Ah, you still don’t want to admit it.
We were also out of compliance with the Gulf War treaty, and being a “threat in the future” is not a “threat now,” which is what al Qaeda, and its national sponsors, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are.
Incidentally, USA Today reports today:
Complain all you want, but if you’re not willing to sacrifice, you’re being disingenuous.
And no, I didn’t “do battle with Powerpoint,” but rather worked on technologies to meet threats that were directly deployed on US submarines, as well as another nation’s submarines.
You’re out of your league here, Richard.
Fortunately, Iraq is a land war.
We were also out of compliance with the Gulf War treaty,
No, but we are the greatest threat to world peace and social justice ever, and generally a bad nation that won’t sign the Kyoto Treaty or the ICC or the Comprehensive Recycling Treaty, right?