Hugh Hewitt Mega Ping!!! 
Posted on 10/02/2002 12:04:12 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
"...Feeley must have been carried away by the rhetoric he heard that day, as he used the debate to demand an apology from the president..
If the president didn't apologize to the Senate, Feeley said, "we'll play politics."
He continued, "I'll talk about every chickenhawk Republican running for office – who never served a day in uniform defending his nation – asking for your vote so they can go to Washington and send someone else's child to war."Reaction was immediate and negative.
Feeley may have counted on his three-year hitch in the Marine Corps as cover for such an inflammatory statement, but veterans and non-veterans alike weren't buying this tactic.
Not even Silver Star recipient Sen. John Kerry or Medal of Honor recipient Sen. Daniel Inouye try such fundamentally un-American rhetoric, and Feeley's three years as an electronics technician in California, Washington, D.C. and Okinawa, though honorable, hardly armors him to the point that he can use rhetoric that combat veterans eschew..." - Hugh Hewitt
(If you want OFF - or ON - my "Hugh Hewitt PING list" - please let me know)
The definitive analysis on this "chicken hawk" fallacy was written in a Washington COMPost article - which we are not allowed to post the FULL TEXT of here, but here is the HEART of that unassailable argument:"...The second variant of "chicken hawk" is that veterans per se are uniquely qualified to make judgments on matters of war and peace.How does that work, though? Does a former airborne ranger get twice as loud a voice as an ICBM crew chief? Does the stateside finance corps lieutenant count more than the civilian who came under fire running an aid mission in Mogadishu?
According to this view, to fill a senior policy position during a war one would of course prefer a West Point graduate who had led a regiment in combat, as opposed to a corporate lawyer turned politician with a few weeks' experience in a militia unit that did not fight.
The former profile fits Jefferson Davis and the latter Abraham Lincoln. Not only did Davis turn against the Constitution he had sworn to uphold, he was a poor commander in chief, while Lincoln was the greatest of our war presidents.Being a veteran is no guarantee of strategic wisdom..."
more
I wish that I could have heard that show. The posted article is mighty good . :-)
Many thanks for the excerpt and the link. That is absolutely brilliant !Hard to believe, but there it is:
washingtonpost.comSee also, from http://www.nationalreview.com/owens/owens.aspBy Eliot A. Cohen
Thursday, September 5, 2002; Page A31
The historical record illustrates that the judgment of soldiers is not always on the money. As chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 1990, Colin Powell preferred sanctions against Iraq to the use of force. Eliot Cohen, author of Supreme Command: Soldiers, Statesmen and Leadership in Wartime, pointed out in the Post the day after Webb's article appeared that George Marshall, the greatest soldier-statesman since Washington, opposed arms shipments to Great Britain in 1940. Most of the policymakers who involved the United States in Vietnam were veterans of World War II...
Outside of George Washington, none of our presidents, who were generals ( and yes, that includes Ike ), were spectacular presidents and most were dreadful.
Frankly, I am sick and tired of the " Nam Syndrome " ( you know, the USA can't win any conflict, so why should we bother ? ), which seems to inflict many ; except when Clinton " Wagged The Dog " and accomplished nothing.
But the pain will continue for Feeley this week as well, because just hours before appearing on my show he gave an interview to Rocky Mountain News columnist Mike Littwin.That would be THIS article, from www.rockymountainnews.com
Littwin: Does new enemy call for new reality?September 28, 2002
Stephanie Phibbs was breathless. She was breathless and excited and, like a lot of people, stunned.
She was one of the organizers of the anti-Iraqi-war protest, which she figured would attract maybe 100 participants. The organizers had just a few weeks to put this together, and the war protest movement hasn't exactly taken off. I mean, before Friday - actually, even after Friday - just who had heard of a group called Coloradans Against Bush's War on Iraq? And, while we're on the subject, can someone help them with a new name?
And yet, several thousand protesters showed up in honor of the president's fund-raising trip here. There were Nixon masks for you nostalgia freaks. But according to reports, nobody sang Give Peace a Chance, which tells you something about which generation was leading the protest.
"Oh, my God," is how Phibbs, who's 31, put it. "This was way beyond what we expected."
It was clearly unexpected. I'm just wondering if it's possibly meaningful.
When Bush went to the United Nations to press the case against Iraq, he gave a brilliant performance, another in a series of his "Which side are you on?" speeches. He grabbed the moral high ground and dared anyone to push him off.
And just like that, the nation's story line shifted from Enron to regime change, from Global Crossing to weapons of mass destruction, from Martha Stewart to Saddam Hussein. And it didn't seem to hurt the Republicans' chances in November.
Bush has demanded a new resolution from the United Nations. He demanded a resolution from Congress. And the Democrats - hoping to change the subject - were tripping over one another, much like you'd imagine Brian Griese at a kennel, to see who could embrace the president's position first.
But I wonder if the momentum has slowed just slightly. You've heard the speeches. Al Gore made his usual infelicitous remarks - but they seemed to embolden some in his party. Ted Kennedy spoke up Friday. Democrats are starting to ask why inspectors shouldn't be given a chance to work. Some wise old Republican heads had already questioned the Bush policy.
And when Bush and Cheney overreached, seeming to question the patriotism of the Democrats, Tom Daschle, who never gets angry, made a fiery speech, demanding an apology.
Mike Feeley did the same. He's running as a Democrat in the 7th District - the tossup race that brought Bush here to raise money for Bob Beauprez.
And Feeley, eating a corned-beef sandwich at a candidates' forum at the East Side Kosher Deli while the Republicans were doing their $1,000-a-plate thing, would love to run on economic issues.
But he's an ex-Marine, and he was angry enough to demand his own apology from those who managed not to fight in the Vietnam War.
"You use the word 'chickenhawk,' and you get a lot of attention," Feeley said. "It just sort of infuriates me. I was angry at the president because people hang on his every word. He has to choose his language very, very carefully. In a political moment, when he lets down his guard and steps over the line, you've got to call him on it."
Feeley said he was more angry with Cheney, who had said, in one speech, that those who want to win the war should vote for Republicans.
"I thought, you know, 'You SOB,' " Feeley said, with feeling. "You've got to be kidding me. At least Bush showed up at the Guard a couple of times . . . but Cheney didn't even do that. He had other things to do."
What you have to understand is that Feeley, like Daschle, basically backs the president on Iraq.
The protesters are different. Most believe Bush is pushing the war for political reasons. Certainly, many in the Bush administration have wanted this battle for years. But why now?
Why wouldn't deterrence work against Saddam? The last time he used weapons of mass destruction was the '80s. Why can't inspectors, at a minimum, put a stop to Iraq's weapons acquisition? How sure are we that a war wouldn't destabilize the region? Are we really prepared for the possibility that the fighting could devolve into an urban street fight? The questions go on.
And there's a greater issue. The president, who wasn't exactly elected by acclamation, has decided on his own that containment doesn't work anymore and that pre-emption is the new American doctrine.
We pick the fight when we want it against whom we choose.
Maybe, with a new kind of enemy, there needs to be a new reality.
But, of course, in a noisy old democracy, where some people still care enough to spend their lunch hour on the march, maybe we ought to take enough time to talk about it first.
Mike Littwin's column appears Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. Call him at (303) 892-5428, or e-mail him at littwinm@RockyMountain News.com.
Hey Thanks, RonDog.If you thought READING about us was fun, check out the VIDEO, at:Sure enjoy reading all about your exploits...
VIDEO: The eGray Hooker Rides again! (09/29 Hollywood Resistance Force Freep)Special note to CALIFORNIA FReepers;
David H Dennis Video Productions ^ | 10/02/2002 | David H Dennis
Posted on 10/01/2002 8:53 PM Pacific by daviddennis
Great Street Theater has to be seen to be believed! And in that spirit, we present a new Freeper video, produced on the hard streets of Hollywood, in front of the Kodak Theater. You can't miss this one, starring RonDog, Mercuria, their loyal allies and the baffled Hollywood masses. (Half of them have barely heard of Gray Davis!)
View the Video! (you will be able to select download speed).
more
The "eGray Hooker" FReeps are going UNDERGROUND!!!We do not want to tip off the RATs about the particulars of our future adventures, so you need to FReep-mail me for details.
Shhhhh.... :o)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.