I am still trying to figure out what chicken hawks are so as to determine the meaning of chickenhawkicity. vbg. Please favor me with a reply.
I think from the context I've seen it appear in that the concept suggests someone who is a warmongering hawk but who has no military service. I might be wrong.
If the above is a fair rendition of the concept's meaning, I reject it just as I reject criticism of Kerry's military service. It is irrelevant--you hear me--IRRELEVANT.
Whether anyone fought in a conflict or served in the military is IRRELEVANT to whether the individual in question has good foreign policy and defense judgment. I admire people who served and who put their lives on the line, don't get me wrong, they deserve a lot of admiration and respect, but suggesting that their judgment is superior on these matters is like believing as dogma that anyone who knows how to put on a Band-Aid is competent to be a surgeon.
Now, the Dems, not the GOP, is making a big to do about Kerry's experience in VN, and how brave he is, and the rest of that BS, etc., but the Dem focus is on character, so the question that comes to mind is this: Why does he need to defend it with a few war stories? This is what makes the deal suspect--people with character don't need to defend themselves, tell the world how great they are. They generally let the facts speak for themselves. |
