Are these Senators Chickenhawk Liberals?

Question

Senator Richard Lugar of IN and Senator George Voinovich of OH, two of the most respected republicans in Washington say we should change the course in Iraq. Are they chickenhawk liberals also? What do the Bushies say in his defense now?

I notice the Bushies are noticeably absent from this discussion. Is Rush on this late these days? Or is it Bill O'Reilly hour?

Answer 1

It sounds to me like they're finally coming to some sense of reason and rationale. This unconstitutional, unjustifiable, illegal and immoral 'war' was started only for three 'lame' reasons:
1. The Bush family had a personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein ever since Desert Storm when George H.W. Bush was criticized, ridiculed and humiliated for 'not finishing the job' and ousting Hussein at that time;
2. Cheney and his Exxon-Mobil buddies want all that OIL swimming underneath Iraq's sand so they can get richer and richer and richer feeding America's addiction to cheap, easily-accessible foreign OIL;
3. Ever since World War II, the giant U.S. military-industrial complex realized how profitable 'war' could be; so all the politicians were bought up, pricey lobbyists were hired, and special interest groups were formed to encourage and promote more 'war'. Thus, the became involved in the Korean Conflict; the Cuban Missile Crisis; the Cold War; Vietnam and Desert Storm all so that government contractors like McDonnell-Douglass, Lockheed-Martin and Sikorsky could make billions in profits. A new 'war' was necessary to boost thsoe companies' sagging profits, and to let the two 'newcomer' contractors in on the government cash trough: the Carlyle Group and Halliburton have both become major government suppliers since 2000, and both companies have direct ties to the Bush-Cheney White House.
Voinovich and Lugar are probably simply playing smart politics; most Republicans know supporting this stupid war cannot be a wise strategy if they want to be re-elected. Watch closely: one of the next defectors will be another Indiana congressman, Mark Souder. He'll follow Lugar's lead and wimp out on his defiant support of the war, all because he doesn't want to give up his cushy job inside the beltway. When he first ran for office, he promised he would limit himself to two terms, but - as do most politicians once they get used to the privileged life of Congress - reneged on that promise. He'll do the same thing now as he reneges on his support of the Iraq 'war' just to save his political future. -RKO- 06/26/07

Answer 2

Chickenhawk (also chicken hawk and chicken-hawk) is a political epithet used in the United States to criticize 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 term is meant to indicate that the person in question is cowardly or hypocritical for personally avoiding combat in the past while advocating that others go to war in the present. Generally, the implication is that "chickenhawks" lack the experience, judgment, or moral standing to make decisions about going to war. Often, 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.[1]

The term was first applied to vocal supporters of military action who were perceived to have used family connections or college deferments to avoid serving in previous wars, particularly the Vietnam War. In current usage, the label is used almost exclusively to describe ardent supporters of the Iraq War who have themselves never been in combat; it is seldom if ever used with respect to supporters of the (more broadly supported) war in Afghanistan as such. Those who use the term are generally but not always on the political left; most factions or individuals labeled "chickenhawks" are members of the U.S. Republican Party. The label is not usually applied to women (who are barred by law from serving in combat). People who use the term have not necessarily been in the military themselves; people labeled "chickenhawks" have sometimes served in the military, but have not seen combat.

Opponents of the term argue that it is an ad hominem, that it is historically unsound, that it is inconsistently applied, and/or that it suggests ideas that are contrary to fundamental principles of the American republic.

Answer 3

There are a number of Republicans who have given Bush until fall for the war to work. Bush is just filling his and Cheney's pocket with the Halliburton contract for the armed forces in the meantime.

Answer 4

Remember the stick or stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me saying. Well its true and everytime I turn on talk radio name calling is dominating the foaming at the mouth that is going on. Look our government is probably in the worst shape ever and representation is forshadowed by special interests. When things start to get tough as we the American people put presser on these clowns, maybe just maybe they will start to pay attention!

Answer 5

"Chickenhawk" may only be applied to those who support this "war" and do not believe in fighting in it themselves.