Republican Chickenhawks

[Boogyman]

Here's some humor for ya...

"The Deck of Republican Chickenhawks"

THEY'RE ALL FOR WAR...
AS LONG AS THEY DON'T HAVE TO SERVE!

Dick Cheney
Karl Rove
Elliott Abrams
Paul Wolfowitz
Richard Perle
John Ashcroft
Newt Gingrich
Bill Bennett
Sean Hannity
Katherine Harris
Lynne Cheney
Ann Coulter
Rush Limbaugh
Bill O'Reilly
Brit Hume
Roger Ailes
Ari Fleischer
Phil Gramm
Ted Olson
Tom DeLay
Bob Barr
Jeb Bush
Bob Dornan
Trent Lott
Kenn Starr
Ken Adelman
Saxby Chambliss
John Bolton
Andrew Card
Don Evans
Michael Ledeen
Roy Blunt
Antonin Scalia
Steve Forbes
Dennis Hastert
Tim Hutchinson
Mitch McConnell
Don Nickles
Tony Snow
Mark Souder
Pat Robertson
P.J. O'Rourke
George Will
Clarence Thomas
Gary Bauer
Ted Nugent
Michael Weiner
Dan Quayle
Bob Ney
Walter Jones
Alan Keyes
Jerry Falwell
Matt Drudge

Check out the site.... it's hilarious!

http://www.chickenhawkcards.com/archive.html

[Hoodoo]

Boogey, Is there supposed to be some significance to this post? Just wondering.

[Boogyman]

Boogey, Is there supposed to be some significance to this post? Just wondering.

Obviously. :rolleyes:

[Arizona Mikey]

While I don’t think it’s MANDATORY for a person to previously serve in the military before they can support a war effort decades later (any war, not just this one) I do think that it’s telling that the people who seem to beat the drums loudest for war are so often people who avoided military service themselves.

Don’t know what that’s supposed to mean - but it’s an interesting observation nonetheless.

[Boogyman]

While I don’t think it’s MANDATORY for a person to previously serve in the military before they can support a war effort decades later (any war, not just this one) I do think that it’s telling that the people who seem to beat the drums loudest for war are so often people who avoided military service themselves.

Don’t know what that’s supposed to mean - but it’s an interesting observation nonetheless.

It means they are Chickenhawks... ;)

[deguello]

Another canard from the left, which having lost its ability to reason logically ,is limited to bumper sticker demagoguery.If Boogy's reasoning is corect, then FDR should have resigned the presidency,in WW2 since he never served in the military either.Further, those leftist apeasers, like Murtha, and Sheehan don't have the right to complain about US war crimes in Iraq, since they havenever experienced one .In fact,by Boogy's logic, citizens should have no rightto participate in politics, since politics leads to laws, and only lawyers should design legislation.Finally,the troops seem to hold these so called chicken hawks in high esteem,because they, unlike,the pink doves of thedemocrat party,support them in the war on terror. Deguello

[Boogyman]

Another canard from the left, which having lost its ability to reason logically ,is limited to bumper sticker demagoguery.If Boogy's reasoning is corect, then FDR should have resigned the presidency,in WW2 since he never served in the military either.
Did you forget that FDR had polio? He couldn't have served if he tried.

Most of these Chickenhawks were in excellent physical condition when they cowardly squirmed out of serving their country.
Further, those leftist apeasers, like Murtha, and Sheehan don't have the right to complain about US war crimes in Iraq, since they havenever experienced one .
What? John Murtha is a decorated combat veteran who served as a Marine in Vietnam. You think he's never seen the horrors of war? Get your facts straight.

Cindy Sheehan gave the ultimate sacrifice for her country, her own son. I think that gives her every right in the world to say whatever she damn pleases about this war or anything else, for that matter.

You call yourself a patriot but you disrespect the very people who made personal sacrifices for America.
In fact,by Boogy's logic, citizens should have no rightto participate in politics, since politics leads to laws, and only lawyers should design legislation.
Wrong. I never said anything even remotely close to the words you're trying to put in my mouth. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of those who have "cut and run" from military service themselves and are now accusing actual heroes like Murtha of "cutting and running".
Finally,the troops seem to hold these so called chicken hawks in high esteem,because they, unlike,the pink doves of thedemocrat party,support them in the war on terror. Deguello
Oh so now you think you can speak for all the troops? How so, have you served yourself? Or even been to Iraq?

Funny, there's a hell of a lot of Iraq veterans who are speaking out against this war, including almost a dozen Generals.

And in case you don't have a television or a radio, the majority of Americans (whether they served or not) believe invading Iraq was a mistake, that we need to get our troops out, that the Bush administration misled us, and that Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror.

But you don't think their opinion matters, do you? Let me guess, they've all been "brainwashed" by the "liberal media", huh?

Yeah, you're "logic" is so much more sound than mine. :wacko:

[freesw]

"The best story concerns Rush Limbaugh, the ferociously bellicose radio personality, who allegedly had either ... or an ... ... anyone who has listened to Limbaugh's programme can imagine the dripping scorn he would bring to the revelation that a prominent Democrat had skipped a war over something like that."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,777572,00.html



The facts about Limbaugh
http://www.snopes.com/military/limbaugh.htm
"since talk radio host Rush Limbaugh is one of the most popular media proponents of the conservative political viewpoint and has been a vociferous critic of a young Bill Clinton's efforts to avoid the Vietnam-era draft, it's not surprising that the question of Limbaugh's own military status should be a common one.
...

When asked about this issue nowadays, Limbaugh dismisses it as "Internet BS," as in this excerpt from a transcript of a December 2002 call to his radio program:

CALLER: And Rush you never mentioned how you dodged the Vietnam draft.

LIMBAUGH: I didn't.

CALLER: Yes, you did. You claimed you had a boil on your butt . . .

LIMBAUGH: No, you see, that’s part of popular mythology that is out there that I have not whined nor complained about, Greg. But that is just a bunch of internet BS and hyperbole. Never happened. Was not the cause, wasn’t the case.

These kinds of responses, provided by Limbaugh on his show and available on the rushlimbaugh.com web site, are unconvincing and dissembling. Why not just give a straightforward answer to the question? After all, "I had a knee injury" is a simple explanation (and hardly an embarrassing one), but dismissing the issue as "Internet BS" and railing against "Internet conspiracy theories" sound too much like the response of someone who is evading the question. Instead, Limbaugh provides non-responsive "answers" when queries are posed by quickly steering the focus away from himself and claiming that "the message is that unless you've been a member of the military, you have no right to support it" (which isn't the message at all — the message is about whether it's hypocritical for those who escaped the draft to criticize others who did) but doesn't address the issue of his own draft status in the least.
... "

[bill.l.johnson]

Hey Boogy,

Why is it that the chicken's who want to be hawks were the first "cut and runs" back when they shoulda, woulda, coulda served.
Why are the ones questioning the chicks and their false bravada being described as unpatriotic and traitors, when they were the ones who actually served their country (McCain, Murtha, Powell, Clark etc.).
How do neocons sleep at night knowing that someone elses kids are protecting them and theirs. Probably as well as they did when they cut and run in their youth because they had other things to do.
If we elect any more of them then we get what we deserve. They have had their chance and really didn't measure up. The arrogance of absolutely rejecting people with experience and ignoring history is inexcusable.
I'm sure glad you stir the pot like you do. Keep it up.
And by the way I am not a liberal and have served and am still serving.
I have to do what the CINC says but I don't have to like him nor respect him,
only the office.

[Hoodoo]

Jeez, maybe we need to change the Constitution[what's that anyway?] to provide that only Veterans can be President in time of war. We likely also need a Federal law to establish that only Veterans or active duty Military can even comment on military matters-unless they are a Democrat of course.

[Arizona Mikey]

On reflection, I think that perhaps calling the administration’s current crop of pro-war Neocons “chickenhawks” is probably inaccurate. More properly, I’d say, they might instead be considered merely “elitist” and “arrogant.”

Most of these pro-war Neocons, I believe, fancy themselves as being among America’s “intellectual giants” - far too talented and gifted to have their precious lives cut short as cannon fodder in some war that they nonetheless deem necessary. Dying on the battlefield, they probably think, is instead the unpleasant obligation held by the nation’s “little people.”

Just my two cents.

[allmons]

the country's citizens. I would much rather that men and women trained for war be killing the terrorists over seas than see blue haired old women and scroungy teenagers killed in American shopping centers.

If any of you are under the illusion that the Islamofascists won't kill you and your family because you don't support Bush/Cheney, you had better do some research NOW.

Let me add that this war was brought to our doors, regardless of who was President. Do you think Al Gore would be any less aggressive protecting America? Or John Kerry? Given the hard choices the Islamofascists have given us, I suspect any of the men who ran for President would try to protect US Citizens, with any means available. It was Mr Bush's bad luck to be on watch when the crap hit the fan. It could just as easily been Al Gore on watch. I didn't like Mr Gore or Mr Bush, but I don't impugn their motives in trying to protect our country.

Nobody LIKES war, but some of us would rather fight over there than in the streets here.

[Boogyman]

Hey Boogy,

Why is it that the chicken's who want to be hawks were the first "cut and runs" back when they shoulda, woulda, coulda served.
Why are the ones questioning the chicks and their false bravada being described as unpatriotic and traitors, when they were the ones who actually served their country (McCain, Murtha, Powell, Clark etc.).
How do neocons sleep at night knowing that someone elses kids are protecting them and theirs. Probably as well as they did when they cut and run in their youth because they had other things to do.
If we elect any more of them then we get what we deserve. They have had their chance and really didn't measure up. The arrogance of absolutely rejecting people with experience and ignoring history is inexcusable.
I'm sure glad you stir the pot like you do. Keep it up.
And by the way I am not a liberal and have served and am still serving.
I have to do what the CINC says but I don't have to like him nor respect him,
only the office.

Bill L., Thanks for your service and again for your post. Your words testify to the way many service personnell are feeling about this administration, but for obvious reasons are wary of speaking out, because of the possible consequences. Consequences that this administration have created and used against all that disagree with them.
It's a sad state of affairs when our elected "leaders" not only ignore those with real experience, but attempt to defame them and accuse them of being "unpatriotic".

[Boogyman]

Jeez, maybe we need to change the Constitution[what's that anyway?] to provide that only Veterans can be President in time of war. We likely also need a Federal law to establish that only Veterans or active duty Military can even comment on military matters-unless they are a Democrat of course.

That's not at all what's being said here.

The issue is that the Bush Neo-Cons who insisted on invading Iraq did so against the advice of those who had the most experience and wisdom regarding war.

The issue is that the Bush Neo-Cons have accused those who have made real sacrifices and served their country honorably of being "unpatriotic" and "cowards" when they themselves avoided service.

The issue is that the Bush Neo-Cons use this despicable tactic of character assassination as a political tool to defame anyone that disagrees with them in order to grab power and keep it, no matter what is good for the country or not.

Hoodoo, all I ask is you think about these issues instead of responding with your automatic, knee-jerk reaction of liberal-hating and Clinton-bashing.

Open your eyes.

[deguello]

Dear Boogy; nowhere in your rant do you addressthe crux of my argument: that not having served inthe military disqualifiesa person from supporting a war. FDR is the best example.With your flair for halftruths you implied that hewould have served but for polio.What you left out,is that FDR contracted polio at the ripe age of 39, not exactly the optimal time to re-enlist.How about some honesty Boogy? If a poll had been taken after d-day most americans would have favored a truce with Hitler;one does not run foreign policy on polls, Clinton did that, and we got 911.Bush did not mislead us into war he acted on the same intelligence conclusions reached by the British, French, Germans and other govt.s: Did they all lie? No terrorists in Iraq? Of course not,also,Sadam was a nice guy, Osama is just a misunderstood civil engineer,Bush lied,The demmocrats have a viable plan to defeat terrorism, and you are a deep political thinker.Of course Cindy Sheehan has the right to criticize the war(although her son who volunteered to return to Iraq is tuning over in his grave),but her right is not greater than those mothers who have lost sons and daughters in the war,and continue to support it;thedifference is that the media ignores them.Murtha is a war hero sowhat? it's his statements defaming his feloow marines that I criticizenot hiswar record, as you well know.Since you question my patriotism I'll question your motives;while pretending to be a gun owning political moderate,you are just another US hating left winger, seeking to infect this board with your hatred. Incidentally,I served in the navy(if that matters),and don't mind in the least, that there are those who never served,who support the war.One final point:I don't appreciate being called a wacko,if you want to sink to the level of arguing by personal insult(the favorite method of the left),I'll gladly accomodate you.With a handle like Boogy it should be easy, Let me see..boOger, bugger,bugger, etc. You get thepicture.Incidentally menbers: look at the Front Page Magazine Website,and click on AnneCoulter's hilarious esay on Democrat flaccidity on the war on terror. It's a hoot! No terrorists in Iraq!Boogy you're a scream. Deguello

[Boogyman]

Let me add that this war was brought to our doors, regardless of who was President.
Which war? Iraq? You do YOUR research. Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9-11. This administration used every dirty trick in the book in an attempt to connect Iraq to 9-11, including leaking the name of a CIA agent who's husband's "crime" was telling the truth about the absence of yellowcake uranium.
Do you think Al Gore would be any less aggressive protecting America? Or John Kerry?
Aggressive? Or competent? There's a big difference between blind, ignorant, fist-pounding aggressiveness and intelligent, well-advised, precision execution of an effective campaign that actually accomplishes the mission, not just falsely declaring so.

Al Gore or John Kerry would have done a hell of a lot better job than these incompetent liars. We would have Bin Laden by now, and wouldn't have wasted hundreds of billions of dollars creating a mess in Iraq, destabilizing the entire middle east, and disrcrediting America's reputation throughout the world.
Given the hard choices the Islamofascists have given us.
Who says we have to accept only those choices? Who says we have to play by the terrorist's rules? Terrorism means to spread terror. The Bushies have not ony fallen for it hook, line, and sinker, but have actually embraced terror in order to spread fear amongst American citizens as a tool to control and manipulate the population into supporting them.

Wake up!

[deguello]

Which war? Iraq? You do YOUR research. Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9-11. This administration used every dirty trick in the book in an attempt to connect Iraq to 9-11, including leaking the name of a CIA agent who's husband's "crime" was telling the truth about the absence of yellowcake uranium.

Aggressive? Or competent? There's a big difference between blind, ignorant, fist-pounding aggressiveness and intelligent, well-advised, precision execution of an effective campaign that actually accomplishes the mission, not just falsely declaring so.

Al Gore or John Kerry would have done a hell of a lot better job than these incompetent liars. We would have Bin Laden by now, and wouldn't have wasted hundreds of billions of dollars creating a mess in Iraq, destabilizing the entire middle east, and disrcrediting America's reputation throughout the world.

Who says we have to accept only those choices? Who says we have to play by the terrorist's rules? Terrorism means to spread terror. The Bushies have not ony fallen for it hook, line, and sinker, but have actually embraced terror in order to spread fear amongst American citizens as a tool to control and manipulate the population into supporting them.

Wake up!
You really slay me Boogy, you really do! Saying that that pathetic,marxoid slanderer, of us troops who never voted for a single one of the principal weapons systems in use today by our armed forces, and who votedto CUT funding for the cia before 911,takes surreal humor to heights unequaled sincethe time Clinton claimed that oral sexwas not sex. As for Gore, the global warming bore, I can picture him asking the epa to file an environmental impact statement before dropping a bomb On an al quaeda lair.Bush unleashing terror? are you off your meds? Has he executed anti-war protestors? closed down opposition newspapers? or harassed them with irs audits as clinton did? Incidentally, Kerry Gore, and other prominent dems who claim that Bush lied about theexistence of wmds believed that they they did inded exist when Clinton said they did.But seriously Boogy, you are beginning to worry me Take some meds and email me in the mornig. Deguello

[Bill]

Another case where people can't debate without taking it personally.

It's funny how Republicans get so bent out of shape if someone holds a mirror up to their actions... it wasn't so long ago that Republicans were bashing Clinton for avoiding the draft...

This started off as a reasonable debate, but again there are always a few in the crowd here tends to degenerate good threads into total crap.

[Boogyman]

nowhere in your rant do you addressthe crux of my argument: that not having served inthe military disqualifiesa person from supporting a war.
That's because the "crux of your argument" is your shamelessly false fabrication. I never said anything like that, you did. I have made it clear several times:
The issue is that the Bush Neo-Cons who insisted on invading Iraq did so against the advice of those who had the most experience and wisdom regarding war.

The issue is that the Bush Neo-Cons have accused those who have made real sacrifices and served their country honorably of being "unpatriotic" and "cowards" when they themselves avoided service.

The issue is that the Bush Neo-Cons use this despicable tactic of character assassination as a political tool to defame anyone that disagrees with them in order to grab power and keep it, no matter what is good for the country or not.
FDR is the best example. Clinton did that, and we got 911.
Clinton did that, Clinton did this. Blah, blah, blah.

FDR and Clinton have absolutely NOTHING to do with the topic, you keep trying to make them an issue to avoid the subject.

FDR did a damn good job because he LISTENED TO HIS COMMANDERS, Bush did not.

9-11 was Clinton's fault? You gotta be kidding me. And you accuse me of unreasonable logic? :lol: :lol: :lol: Another weak attempt at diverting the topic.
Bush did not mislead us into war he acted on the same intelligence conclusions reached by the British, French, Germans and other govt.s.
Then why, out of the countries you just mentioned, only the UK supported the Iraq invasion? Oh, that's right, the French are cowards and the Germans hate America. Right.
I don't appreciate being called a wacko.
Another fabrication. At no point did I call you a "wacko". Show me where I said that. You made it up as an excuse to personally attack me with the following insults:while pretending to be a gun owning political moderate,you are just another US hating left winger, seeking to infect this board with your hatred.
I don't appreciate being called a wacko,if you want to sink to the level of arguing by personal insult(the favorite method of the left),I'll gladly accomodate you.
With a handle like Boogy it should be easy, Let me see..boOger, bugger,bugger, etc. You get thepicture.Boogy you're a scream.
And you accuse me of "infecting this board with (my) hatred"? Who's "level" am I NOT sinking to now?

This explains you perfectly, Deguello:
look at the Front Page Magazine Website,and click on AnneCoulter's hilarious esay on Democrat flaccidity on the war on terror. It's a hoot!
Ah yes, an Ann Coulter fan. Now how did I know that? <_<

[LAFOYJL]

The Army is now taking in folks who are as old as 43! Not too late for some of the names listed on the first post.