Conffederate
Confederate

March 28, 2007

Send a Chickenhawk to War

Time and again, we've heard liberals call conservative bloggers "chickenhawks," and tell them that if they care so much about the Iraq War, they should go join it (interestingly enough, I do know of a single liberal blogger that has volunteered to go serve in the Afghan theater, the war they ostensibly support. I've never claimed liberals were smart, nor consistent).

Now is the time that my liberal readers have a chance to put their money where their mouths are. If they care so much about conservatives going to Iraq, here's a chance to finance a trip.

The Pentagon has extended an invitation to send a pair of RedState bloggers to Iraq, and they are currently attempting to raise $7500 to make this trip happen.

Ante up, guys.

You might finally realize your dream of placing conservative bloggers in a position where they might come under gunfire, thereby giving Charles Karel Bouley and other Huffington Post bloggers a chance to say they deserved it. "What goes around comes around," etc.

Alternatively, you can contribute funds to support a liberal blogger who wants to go to Iraq to report what they see with their own eyes.

Good luck finding one.

Update: Oh Bartleby! Oh, the stupidity! Noted lefty war-reporting plagiarist Sean Paul Kelly decided to call the Redstate bloggers that are planning to embed "chickenhawks," without bothering with the little detail that one of the bloggers, Jeff Emanual, is a former USAF Spec Ops TAC.

Confronted with the fact that Emanuel has already served, Kelly offered up a lame, "well, since so many soldiers are doing two and three tours, why not enlist again?"

As I addressed to "Lex Steele" in the comments:

Increasingly, it appears to me that that the best liberals intend to do is provide lip service (and no commitment or support) to one campaign, while attempting to set the stage for a defeat in the other. As has been noted elsewhere and as you allude above, Iraq is seen by those of you on the left as a Republican War. Liberals, in their self-serving way, have decided that they don't need to fight, and in fact, shouldn't. Better patriotism through apathy, I suppose, when your side isn't actively trying to undermine the war and the military itself by attacking recruiting stations, harrassing campus recruiters, insulting them in classrooms, questioning their intelligence, and burning U.S. soldiers in effigy.

No, in your world, only "pro-war" (i.e., Republicans/conservatives) people should serve in this nation's military, and perhaps only then if they individually agree with the specific war they are called upon to fight.

Liberals have no obligation to serve their country in a Republican war. That is what you're trying to say, isn't it Lex?

Funny, how I don't recall our soldiers wearing a GOP flag on their shoulders, and distinctly recall that it was an American flag that was defecated on last week by anti-war liberals.

Update: Well, doesn't that beat all.

We do have a liberal blogger that has requested to go to Iraqi along with the two from Redstate. Can anyone at RedState contact the Pentagon to see if they have room for a third blogger?

I don't always agree with the politics of Gun-Toting Liberal, but I typically respect his opinion, even when I disagree with it. He's intelligent and thoughtful and I think it would be an excellent idea to include him on his embed. If they will arrange for him to make the journey, I hope you'll help finance his trip.

Upon his safe return, I will be very interested to see how visiting Iraq may affect his feeling about the war, for better, or for ill.

Correction: It was GTL co-blogger Alexander Paul Melonas that is interested in embedding.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at March 28, 2007 09:45 AM
Comments

In a nutshell, RedState has been invited by the Pentagon to go to Iraq. We want to send Jeff and AcademicElephant, who henceforth insists on being known by her real name, Victoria Coates. = chicken hawks

Alternatively, you can contribute funds to support a liberal blogger who wants to go to Iraq to report what they see with their own eyes.

Good luck finding one. = chickensh*ts

Posted by: Boss429 at March 28, 2007 10:54 AM

What obligation do liberals have to send conservative bloggers to Iraq, and why should we want to? Your assertion doesn't make sense.

We'd have adequate troops for Afghanistan if we hadn't diverted much of our military might into Iraq. It is the pro-Iraq war folks who ought to serve if they are able.

Posted by: Lex Steele at March 28, 2007 11:01 AM

Lex, I never said you had the obligation to send conservative bloggers to Iraq, but as liberals constantly carp and complain that conservative bloggers should be in Iraq, I thought you'd jump at the opportunity to send several there.

Granted, we both know that many liberals hope that conservative bloggers that chose to go to Iraq to report the war firsthand become victims of violence (If you need citations of this for proof, I can find oodles of references to Michelle Malkin's trip, and how liberal bloggers and their commenters hope she would go out without the military unit she was to embed with, with the clear implication that they'd prefer to have her die), but at least they chose to go.

I also stated you might want to financially support any liberal blogger who might want to see the war firsthand and write about it, but I don't think that I've seen a single attempt by a liberal to get embedded... have you? If run across one, I'll gladly promote their singular effort, and do what I can to make sure they know what equipment and protection they will need to both chronicle and survive their trip. I'm sure that the conservative bloggers who have embedded and who are embedded now would help as well, if asked.

You also assert that:

We'd have adequate troops for Afghanistan if we hadn't diverted much of our military might into Iraq. It is the pro-Iraq war folks who ought to serve if they are able.

You neglect to mention that if the liberals who claim to support the Afghan War were to join up and request duty in Afghanistan, we wouldn't have any problems meeting commitments anywhere. Certainly, with all the brainpower and patriotism in the liberal blogosphere, there must be someone calling for liberals to volunteer for duty in the "good war" in Afghanistan. Isn't there? Perhaps not.

Increasingly, it appears to me that that the best liberals intend to do is provide lip service (and no commitment or support) to one campaign, while attempting to set the stage for a defeat in the other. As has been noted elsewhere and as you allude above, Iraq is seen by those of you on the left as a Republican War. Liberals, in their self-serving way, have decided that they don't need to fight, and in fact, shouldn't. Better patriotism through apathy, I suppose, when your side isn't actively trying to undermine the war and the military itself by attacking recruiting stations, harrassing campus recruiters, insulting them in classrooms, questioning their intelligence, and burning U.S. soldiers in effigy.

No, in your world, only "pro-war" (i.e., Republicans/conservatives) people should serve in this nation's military, and perhaps only then if they individually agree with the specific war they are called upon to fight.

Liberals have no obligation to serve their country in a Republican war. That is what you're trying to say, isn't it Lex?

Funny, how I don't recall our soldiers wearing a GOP flag on their shoulders, and distinctly recall that it was an American flag that was defecated on last week by anti-war liberals.


Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 28, 2007 11:43 AM

It was not GTL who offered himself to the Pentagon, it was me, Alexander Paul Melonas; one of his co-contributors. However, thank you for the kind remarks about the Gun Toting Liberal, and indeed, I again state my desire to accompany those from Redstate on their journey.

Posted by: Alexander Paul Melonas at March 28, 2007 02:36 PM

CY-

Re: 'good war'

Call me naive, but if you enlist, do you have a choice in your theater?

-CZ

Posted by: ChenZhen at March 28, 2007 03:01 PM

ChenZhen: I think you're right. Pat Tillman volunteered to fight in Afghanistan, but ended up getting shot in what he called an illegal war in Iraq.

Posted by: Lex Steele at March 28, 2007 04:25 PM

Cpl. Tillman was shot on a mountianside in Afghanistan, not Iraq, and I have never read him saying that he thought it 'illegal'. (In fact as I recall, he refused all contact with the media his entire time in the Army, so I would love to hear how that story got started...)

That being said, the idea of 'orders' kinda mess up that whole volunteer for your 'preferred theater of conflict'. You goes where they tell you.

But hey, Lex, it makes a great line. Keep up the good work!

Posted by: MunDane at March 28, 2007 05:13 PM

Wow, Lex. I'm surprised you'd write that without at least googling it first. Is that the sort of thing people are saying? Where'd you get that information from?

Posted by: paully at March 28, 2007 06:03 PM

You guys don't understand. This is typical Lex. He makes statements and then refuses to back them up - and once he is shown to be wrong he changes the subject. Typical of the left.

Posted by: Specter at March 28, 2007 07:11 PM

I was wrong about Tillman's place of death, obviously. He did serve in Iraq, though.

As for his political views: "Mary Tillman said a friend of Patís even arranged a private meeting with Chomsky, the antiwar author, to take place after his return from Afghanistan ó a meeting prevented by his death. She said that although he supported the Afghan war, believing it justified by the Sept. 11 attacks, 'Pat was very critical of the whole Iraq war.'"

Posted by: Lex Steele at March 28, 2007 08:42 PM

CY: liberals constantly carp and complain that conservative bloggers should be in Iraq

They mean that war supporters should fighting in Iraq. I think I can speak for most liberals when I say we don't much care if you all do your blogging from Iraq or not. That is why I said it doesn't make sense for you to expect liberals to pay to send Red State bloggers to Iraq.

we both know that many liberals hope that conservative bloggers that chose to go to Iraq to report the war firsthand become victims of violence

I don't believe that at all. I don't know anyone who wants reporters or soldiers to die in Iraq, or who thinks it's okay to burn soldiers in effigy, or who wants to abolish Christmas. Each of these is a misguided or dishonest attempt to portray liberals negatively. There simply aren't many people who believe those things.

if the liberals who claim to support the Afghan War were to join up and request duty in Afghanistan, we wouldn't have any problems meeting commitments anywhere

How about the supporters of the Iraq war step up? That's where we need to people most. My side thinks Iraq is a disaster, and not just for a lack of manpower. You all think it's winnable, so go help win it.

liberals ... [are] attempting to set the stage for a defeat in [Iraq]

That's a cynical way to put it. Most people in this country have decided the war was a mistake, or at least that it was too poorly waged. We don't want defeat, rather we don't know what a win would look like, thus we wish to quit pouring our youth and treasure into it.

in your world, only "pro-war" (i.e., Republicans/conservatives) people should serve in this nation's military,

No.

and perhaps only then if they individually agree with the specific war they are called upon to fight.

Sure! It's unAmerican to compel citizens to fight in wars they find immoral or illegal.

Liberals have no obligation to serve their country in a Republican war. That is what you're trying to say, isn't it Lex?

No. I pity every young man and woman who is compelled to fight this useless, disastrous war.

Funny, how I don't recall our soldiers wearing a GOP flag on their shoulders, and distinctly recall that it was an American flag that was defecated on last week by anti-war liberals.

Again, those were Ward Churchills. I don't know anyone who would condone treating the flag that way.

You're saying that this is an American war, and thus all Americans are equally responsible for participating. No one should have been asked to fight the war in the first place. It is a disaster and this is reflected in its unpopularity among Americans.

Posted by: Lex Steele at March 28, 2007 09:28 PM

I responded to your comments over at The Gun Toting Liberal but stopped by here with them as well.

I respect you and your blog very much, but I have to say that in order for your position to be entirely fair, we would have to evaluate the results of the Pentagon having invited Red AND Blue bloggers to go to Iraq. Oh wait...they didn't do that. They invited ONE side of our very polarized blogosphere, didn't they? Now if BOTH sides were asked to go and (as you suspect) the liberal blogger swiftly declined - THEN your point would be valid and accurate.

"They" want one voice coming out of Iraq and I submit "they" should be set apart as the fearful ones for refusing to lay the groundwork for objectivity.

And also (just as a little FYI), GTL is an honorably discharged veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Thanks again for bringing attention to this and for discussing it with the GTL.

Posted by: Megan at March 29, 2007 01:24 AM

Lex,

I don't believe all liberals want conservative bloggers to meet their bitter end, I do see that very few moderate liberals (if any) condemn those on the far left spewing such hate (flag burners, soldier burners, defacation, hope you die stuff...) Speak out against it if you see it as wrong. I do against the far right.

Many do go help to win in Iraq/Afgan. It is all one war whether you choose to believe it or not. Right now we are trying to stabilize both countries and remove the radicals. We are trying to give them a chance at freedom like we were given during the Revolutionary War. Don't they deserve a chance? Both countries?

Most people in this country do NOT believe the war was a mistake, they believe it was headed in the wrong direction, we now have new direction and it appears to be working, while it seems to be working, the DEMS in congress want to cut the funding out from under the troops and put out an arbitrary withdraw date. One word for that, STUPID. That is NOT supporting our troops. Whether you believe in the war or not, don't punish the troops.

A miliary member does not choose where he/she goes. They cannot choose to fight in one area and refuse in another. They sign up to defend the United States no matter where/when called upon to do so and all that join are fully aware of that obligation. It is not dark ages mentality, it serves a very real purpose, stability. Bluntly, WE are there for YOU. Problems with the war, Congress should be your outlet, not the Military.

You said "No. I pity every young man and woman who is compelled to fight this useless, disastrous war."

Don't pity us, we all knew what we were getting into and most would do it again if needed, even if we don't believe in the "war", it's for the U.S., not ourselves.

Posted by: Retired Navy at March 29, 2007 06:05 AM

Actually, what I'm gathering is that the bloggers at Red State initiated the contact with the Pentagon four months ago, not htat the Pentagon contacted them. I wrote one of the bloggers at Red State making the trip, and will be able to follow up soon and verifiy that for sure, and pass along the contact information to get the embed process started to Alex as soon as I have it.

I don't know of you read Michael Yon, Michael Fumento, of the other bloggers who have embedded or attempted to embed in Iraq, but the Pentagon doesn't seem to much like any embeds, regardless of political stripe.

I'll have a post up on that subject later today.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 29, 2007 07:27 AM

Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 03/29/2007
A short recon of whatís out there that might draw your attention.

Posted by: David M at March 29, 2007 10:25 AM