I've always been amused by the absolute lameness of the chickenhawk argument. Our military comprises what, between 1 to 2 percent of the population?
Why do certain people insist on imposing purity tests as a validation of opinion? If I were in a wheelchair would that invalidate my opinion on Iraq?

Nothing says "take us conservatives seriously" like a loud, Germanic-like symbol with a non-sequitor for a slogan. "We eat chickens for lunch." "We eat eggs for breakfast." "We have scones for tea." Oy.

I don't think being taken "seriously" is the point. Deflection is more like it.

The symbol looks more Slavic than Germanic - like the Polish eagle (apt in this case).

Non-sequitor [sic]? I'd say the sequitur isn't in the least bit non.

Yeah, Tim! And did you also notice, the wheels on the boys' bikes weren't spinning when they "biked" past the moon in E.T.? I did! This is fun.

Err...the whole "chickenhawk" slur is a "non sequitur" to any anti-war argument in which it is deployed, and if you don't believe so, in the immortal words of Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

The 101st, however, is a bit of fun.

"Dreck from Above"

Why not give the eagle two heads? Then when Iraq gets settled you could work on restoring the Romanovs.
Is the insignia available as a tattoo? Not a real tat, one of those rub on kind. Real ones hurt too much.

Kinda like real patriotism. Most of the tough-talking wanna-be's, chickenhawks and posers who comment on this blog have the rub-on kind.

AC, you're a tough-talking wanna-be AND a poser, so you should get a rub-on tattoo as well.

Yes, Angryclown is an authority regarding the rub-on.

Although I've no doubt that's true, Kermit, it's also my understanding that AC's even more of an authority on "rubbing one off."

Its good, but you're missing the double ring of lettering that goes around the outside, reading "Ignores military advice with a casualness and swagger" and "never had to execute missions or bury results”

Speaking of patriotism, I present to you
The 101st non-fighting trust-funders! http://www.startribune.com/1592/story/398396.html

So, Bill, I guess you joined the ANG & flew jet fighters? Cause then, you know, you wouldn't look like such an ass.

Terry, I'm not the one ignoring military advice, claiming God told me to go to war. If you ever catch me in a situation where I control the armed forces and I'm not listening to the generals - then go ahead and snipe at me.

"Its good, but you're missing the double ring of lettering that goes around the outside, reading "Ignores military advice with a casualness and swagger" and "never had to execute missions or bury results”"

So in other words, Bill, you've turned into one of those poo-flinging monkeys who chants "Chickenhawk", too?

A pity.

"Terry, I'm not the one ignoring military advice,"

Well, let's be perfectly clear, here; he didn't take the advice of *some* generals who are being very public about how they feel about the rejection. To say he ignored the consensus of the military is ludicrous and borders on willful disingenuity.

"claiming God told me to go to war."

And that's just lame, Bill. I suspect the vast majority of Christians knew exactly what the President meant by that, and I'd suspect the vast majority of infidels are getting the same ignorant yuk out of it that you are.

" If you ever catch me in a situation where I control the armed forces and I'm not listening to the generals - then go ahead and snipe at me."

Note to Secret Service: This blog does not approve of the above statement.

Bill, what annoyed me about your post was the incoherence it displayed. "Ignores military advice with a casualness and swagger"? Please. The person who was his most influential adviser prior to the outbreak of the Iraq war was donald Rumsfeld, a retired navy aviator (Captain) who had served as SecDef under Gerald Ford. Bush did not give as much of an ear to Colin Powell as some would have liked, but then Powell had engineered the mess we left behind in Iraq in '91. I wouldn't have listened to him either.
If the retired generals who are speaking out now (six out of several thousand) are sincere they clearly do not represent the ranks of retired generals -- and even if they did, the armed forces of this country do not run themselves. They get their political direction from the president and Congress. To hear a progressive voice claim that the military is receiving too much direction from the chief executive is jarring. See the Truman vs. MacArthur, Truman vs the joint chiefs re segregation in the military, LeMay vs MacNamara on the conduct of the Vietnam War, or more recently, Clinton vs the joint chiefs re gays in the military.
As for "never had to execute missions or bury results", by your lights if Hillary became president she'd never be able to assign the military to do anything unless they agreed to it. Ditto for Al Gore. I won't even mention here the draft-evader who held office from 1992-2000.

I support the war. I think Saddam should have been gotten rid of. But my loyalty is to America and the troops, not the keystone cops who have been responsible for the bungled occupation.

I'm not the one who rejected General Tommy Frank's projected troop level requirements based on his experience in the Balkins. You know, that guy who HASN'T come out against the adminstration?

I'm not the one who left weapon bunkers unguarded while truckloads of explosives were looted.

I'm not the one who stood idly by while Baghdad was looted and its infrastructure was seriously damaged.

I'm not the one who was so f***ing casual about uparmoring the troops and vehicles TWO F***ING YEARS after the war was declared.

I'm not one the one who put Pushtin tribesmen in charge of blocking the Taliban at Bora Bora, when anyone who knew the regional politics would have realized that was like putting the confederacy in charge of keeping the KKK from getting away. And I'm also not the one that kept most of the 10th Mountain division (just about our only troops with serious mountain fighting training) sitting on their hands out of theater when they were most needed in Afghanistan.

I'm not the one who made inexperienced college kids responsible for reconstruction efforts just because they applied for Heritage foundation internships.

And the "God told me" thing: if you don't believe me, how about the BBC?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/10_october/06/bush.shtml
Now, the white house has since denied that (nearly two years later), but the Washington Post had the meeting minutes (which were published in an Israeli paper shortly after the meeting) translated:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A37944-2003Jun26?language=printer

BBC and WP too left wing? Don't trust the meeting minutes? How about Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, reporting that Bush believed "God wanted him to be president"?
http://www.slate.com/id/2106590/

If you can't trust a southern baptist, who can you trust? How about George Bush himself, as reported by the Intelligencer Journal and the Lancaster New Era, July 16, 2004, in a speech to local Amish at the Lapp Electric service plant? "I trust God speaks through me" he is reported to have said. Look it up.

To take just one of your points, Bill -- The last one. '"I trust God speaks through me" he is reported to have said' except, if you go to the original article (I've posted it here: http://www.thanksantaween.com/wordpress/index.php ) it becomes clear that there was nothing said in front of reporters. The story says specifically '[N]o reporter attended this meeting'. The eyewitness account that follows comes from an old Amish farmer named Stoltzfus. Where does the quote come from? "At the end of the session, Bush reportedly told the group, “I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn’t do my job.'’"
That's it. A second hand report from an under-educated farmer written up by an unskilled writer for a small town newspaper.

You're BBC quote is equally poorly sourced. The BBC heard him say nothing about God; intead they report what Palestinian negotiators said that Bush told them in a private meeting. Those geniuses at the Beeb didn't even see fit to mention in the article you link to whether Bush's words were translated into Arabic or if the Palestinians heard him in English.

The Wapo got hold of handwritten minutes of the meeting between Bush and the Palestinians mentioned above. The notes were in Arabic. Bush supposedly said :"God inspired me to hit al Qaeda, and so I hit it. And I had the inspiration to hit Saddam, and so I hit him. Now I am determined to solve the Middle East problem if you help. Otherwise the elections will come and I will be wrapped up with them."

The WaPo follows this 'quote' with these words:

"Even then, there's uncertainty. After all, this is Abu Mazen's account in Arabic of what Bush said in English, written down by a note-taker in Arabic, then back into English."

Both these accounts have in common that they were not recorded electronically and were not spoken in the presence of a reporter. They are, in fact, word-of-mouth by unreliable sources.

Not that I expect this will change your mind, Bill. I learned long ago that for some people there is no scaffold so ramshackle that they will not use it to try and hang George Bush.

I can't speak for the bloggers you cite or other lefties, Mitch, but my problem surely isn't with people who back Bush and the war but have never served - it's with people who back Bush and the war and are capable of serving, but won't serve.

Is that their choice to make? Absolutely, and in the post-draft era, I would never presume to take that choice away from them. But whatever their reasons may be for choosing not to serve, that very choice does reveal at least a little bit about them - that they believe the cause to be important enough for someone to die for, just not necessarily them.

(And what's with your Post feature blocking all URLs with "al dot com" in them? Surely you couldn't possibly mean to block all commenters who want to cite livejourn**.com as their URL?!)