Wikipedia: "a politician, bureaucrat, or commentator who strongly supports a war or other military action, but has never personally been in a war, especially if that person is perceived to have actively avoided military service when of draft age," "the implication is that "chickenhawks" lack the experience, judgment, or moral standing to make decisions about going to war," "there is a further connotation that "chickenhawks" falsely believe that their support for military action is a mark of personal courage analogous to actual combat, thereby demeaning those actually serving while elevating themselves."
Dkosopedia: "A person enthusiastic about war, provided someone else fights it; particularly when that enthusiasm is undimmed by personal experience with war; most emphatically when that lack of experience came in spite of ample opportunity in that person's youth."
2006-10-25 09:44:14 · 10 answers · asked by Republican Mom 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
GatitaN, Aviator, C=JD - it's not my definition. Goto Wikipedia and then answer the question. And I am not saying that the premise that you have to experience something in order to advocate for it is true either - strict on crime is a proven method to control crime.
Again - who fits this definition (Bush doesn't count either as he did serve his country - learn to read liberals)
2006-10-25 10:00:15 · update #1
Hillary Clinton
Bill Clinton (Somolia, Haiti, Kosovo)
among others.....
2006-10-25 09:47:33 · answer #1 · answered by Xeod 5 · 1⤊ 3⤋
The criteria seems straight forward except for the "falsely believe that their support for military action is a mark of personal courage analogous to actual combat" and "particularly when that enthusiasm is undimmed by personal experience with war."
This is sort of up for interpretation. Anyone who might fit the criteria might say they aren't getting personal courage or that they aren't really that enthusiastic.
2006-10-25 09:51:30 · answer #2 · answered by Take it from Toby 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
1. Serving(?) in the National Guard and then becoming a War President.
2. Keeping your loved ones out of the service while approving of an on-going war.
3. Enjoying freedom that is paid for with the blood of other families children.
Theres a quick three responses...I am sure you can deny any or all of them.
2006-10-25 11:52:38 · answer #3 · answered by Alex Freaking Trebek 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The assumption in the "Chicken Hawk" slur is that a person must experience something in order to comment intelligently on it.
We don't reason this way in other areas.
If you claim to want to reduce crime, does that mean you must become a police officer?
If you're against arson, do you have to become a fire fighter?
2006-10-25 09:51:44 · answer #4 · answered by C = JD 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Sounds like Sean Hannity,
2006-10-25 09:49:34 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Foghorn leghorn. Wait! he was the chicken.Damn! i forgot the little chicken hawks name.
2006-10-25 09:54:55 · answer #6 · answered by STIFLE IT LIBS 2 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
have u seen a pic of Bush, that is exactly what a chicken hawk looks like
2006-10-25 09:48:11 · answer #7 · answered by me 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The Bush administration is full of them! look at my question preceding yours its full of them!
2006-10-25 09:47:45 · answer #8 · answered by bulabate 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
'Foghorn Leghorn', I say, I say.
2006-10-25 09:50:59 · answer #9 · answered by SteveUK 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
it is a soayin to mean get lost you stupid person see....
2006-10-25 09:46:19 · answer #10 · answered by dominicdraven 1 · 0⤊ 3⤋