Quote from hapaboy:
Your reading skills could use some beefing up. He is hardly making excuses...
There is nothing wrong with my reading skills. I take the article you posted, like all articles of opinions, with a grain of salt and take into account it's source and intent. Having said that, the author attempts to discredit his critics at best and dodges the basic questions which were posed to him at worse.
Kerry himself often played that card.
Excuse....who cares what Kerry said; answer the question.
Chicken hawk" isn't an argument. It is a slur -- a dishonest and incoherent slur. It is dishonest because those who invoke it don't really mean what they imply --
Excuse......more like a whine about people that are whining about people like him. "I know you are, but what am I?" Or is it just an excuse to whine?
The cry of ``chicken hawk" is dishonest for another reason: It is never aimed at those who oppose military action.
Excuse......that's the definition of the slur and it's intended target. That's like complaining that "faggot" is only used to complain about homosexuals. What an absolutely moronic argument.
George C. Marshall, our greatest soldier-statesman after George Washington, opposed shipping arms to Britain in 1940. His boss, Franklin D. Roosevelt, with nary a day in uniform, thought otherwise.
Another excuse........the sentiment of Marshal was nothing more than a reflection of the majority sentiment of most Americans at the time
BEFORE Pearl Harbor. A pathetic example to use in this argument.
General George B. McLellan had a distinguished military career, eventually rising to general in chief of the Union armies; Abraham Lincoln served but a few weeks in a militia unit that saw no action. Whose wisdom better served the nation -- the military man who was hypercautious about sending men into battle, or the ``chicken hawk" president who pressed aggressively for military action?
And yet another excuse and extremely poor example to use to support his position. McLellan was a tactical moron and Lincoln was an exceptional statesman. Unlike the majority of politicians today, Lincoln knew his place when it came to military decision making. He decided to press military action, but allowed those much more qualified than him to take care of the details of war. If Dubya had Lincoln's wisdom on the matter, allowed his Generals to make the calls regarding Iraq, we wouldn't be in this mess today.
Under the Constitution, military leaders take their orders from civilian leaders, who are subject in turn to the judgment of ordinary voters.
More excuses. Constitutional governance of leadership and the authority to wage war doesn't justify or excuse poorly made decisions due to lack experience on the part of those in authority nor does it lend intellectual credence to those that would vote such incompetence into power;
TWICE.
You don't need medical training to express an opinion on healthcare.
Would you want a surgeon or a nursing assistant to remove your appendix?
You don't have to be on the police force to comment on matters of law and order.
Would you want the SWAT team or a rent-a-cop to rescue you from a hostage stand-off?
You don't have to be a parent or a teacher or a graduate to be heard on the educational controversies of the day.
Do you want a Ph.D. or a high school drop out to write the curriculum for your child?
You don't have to be a journalist to comment on this or any other column.
Do you prefer to hear about what's happening in the world from someone that actually goes to the news or from Joe-Blow fat-ass with an opinion and an internet connection? (It's plainly clear who here prefers the latter).
Those who cackle ``Chicken hawk!" are not making an argument. They are merely trying to stifle one, and deserve to be ignored.
The last straw and best reason for ignoring someone that would whine about someone whining about them. It's a classic tactic to attempt to draw your audience toward only your side of the argument: come up with reasons why people shouldn't listen to the other guy. A final weak attempt to defend yourself.
The bottom line is those that are making this argument against criticism about their experience (or lack there of) doesn't want to discern the difference between an opinion and electing those that are
QUALIFIED to publicly represent and serve them in the best interests of the public
DESPITE their opinions.
