The Blog @ Spolitics

Deconstructing the “Chicken Hawk” Argument

by Heywood U. Reedmore -- June 22, 2006 at 3:42 am | In No, Seriously | No Comments

I have to admit, I am thoroughly confused by this whole “chicken hawk” argument. As I understand it, according to Dems like John Kerry, John Murtha and Howard Dean, because President Bush, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove have never seen combat, they have no business advocating that we stay the course in Iraq. To do so makes them “chicken hawks.” Perhaps if they had seen combat, like Murtha, they would have known from the onset that we could have fought the war in Iraq out of Okinawa (as long as it wasn’t too hot, of course).

But they’ve never been shot at so they, along with all the other chicken hawks, have no right to criticize those who have dodged bullets and are now calling for a troop withdrawal. Only combat veterans can voice their support for — or against — a war.

By this rationale, we also never should have fought in World War I or World War II since both Wilson and FDR were — by the Dems’ definition — chicken hawks.

Confounding the chicken hawk argument even more is the fact that LBJ won a silver star in the South Pacific during WWII. So, we should have stayed the course in Vietnam because LBJ saw combat. But Kerry opposed that war and Murtha points to it as an example not to follow.

George H.W. Bush saw combat, so the Gulf War met the chicken hawk test, but Kerry voted against it. And then, over a decade later, Kerry goes and votes for Operation Iraqi Freedom even though George W. Bush is a chicken hawk. Now Kerry says we shouldn’t finish the war because… well, because Bush is a chicken hawk? (Wait, what am I complaining about. Criticizing Kerry for a flip-flop is like criticizing a chameleon for changing colors.)

And then, of course, there’s the biggest chicken hawk of them all: Thomas Jefferson. Apparently he had no business writing that Declaration that sent so many troops to their death. So, according to the chicken hawk argument, there should be no Democrats to indignantly lecture us about chicken hawks in the first place.

I just don’t get it. It seems this whole chicken hawk argument isn’t worth a damn. Perhaps there’s just some confusion about what a chicken hawk actually is. Let’s consult Webster’s… 

Oh, okay. I get it. A chicken hawk is a hawk that preys on chickens. Well, I guess Bush, Cheney and Rove are chicken hawks after all. Chickens beware!