Who Said It?
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in The War On Terrorism, War“I like guys who’ve never been there that criticize us who’ve been there. I like that. I like guys who got five deferments and never been there and send people to war, and then don’t like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done.”
–?
Just guess. It shouldn’t be too hard.
However, if you want to be a lowdown dirty cheater, here’s the link.
This entry was posted on Friday, November 18th, 2005 and is filed under The War On Terrorism, War. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
November 18th, 2005 at 12:37 pm
Gotta be Kerry.
November 18th, 2005 at 12:39 pm
Oops.
November 18th, 2005 at 1:00 pm
Rats! I was just about to quote him in another thread and blast his use of the chicken hawk attack meme.
Oh well……
November 18th, 2005 at 1:45 pm
Chickenhawk it may be, but coming from a guy with his record, you’ve got to admit it was a zinger. Low key, but still a knife between the ribs. At least he still has style.
November 18th, 2005 at 2:24 pm
I’d say that he has a point. I’d like to add that anyone who characterizes getting out of Iraq as “cowardly” or “running away” shouldn’t be able to do so unless they have served in the military or plan on joining really soon.
November 18th, 2005 at 3:01 pm
Interesting. I think I agree that people should call BS on name calling war-lings. And that goes for both sides.
November 18th, 2005 at 3:24 pm
Remember, only people who have had cancer make good oncologists.
November 18th, 2005 at 4:07 pm
Noodles,
Nice metaphor. I see now. It’s not that you’re wrong about withdrawing from Iraq being cowardly (or conversely, that you are a coward for not serving in the military). It’s just that our country is better served by you taking on the “oncologist” role and advising other citizens to continue bearing the burden. I didn’t know that we have a shortage of your type. Thanks for your service to the country.
November 18th, 2005 at 4:17 pm
Socks,
If you had cancer, Would you rather be treated by a harvard-trained oncologist with 30 years expertise and a nobel prize (who never had cancer), or would you seek treatment from some Bangladeshi guru who invented “Swami-Raja’s cancer-cure-all juice” and who’s main qualification is that he has a brain tumor?
November 18th, 2005 at 4:23 pm
Well, the answer is obvious: Mr. Harvard.
However, my problem is with your analogy is that I assume that you take the role of the Harvard Nobel Prize winner, and that you are coloring our servicemen and women as idiots prescribing cancer juice for everyone.
November 18th, 2005 at 4:33 pm
Analogies lead to confusing arguments, but I’d like to try one since I think that is better than the one that you offer up.
People without military service who claim that withdrawing from Iraq is cowardly are like black white-supremacists: the fact of their existence discredits the position that they advance.
November 18th, 2005 at 4:41 pm
Noodles-
Ridiculous example - A that is to say that any one is this Administration is running this war correctly. They are not. It’s a nonsense point and should be stricken from the record. No one in that administration has qualifications to be running this war, or it would have been done right in the first place.
November 18th, 2005 at 5:14 pm
You guys are missing my point. The expertise required to treat cancer comes from the knowledge of the biochemistry and phsiology of the disease. Whether or not the expert has cancer is irrelevent to his ability to understand and treat the disease (although it qualifies for more empathy to victims, a wholly different thing). Wolfowitz and Feith may not have strapped on uniforms during vietnam like murtha, but that has nothing to do with their understanding of mid-east geopolitics.
Perhaps I shouldn’t have mentioned the nobel prize in my example, that does imply that the strategists of this war are indisputibly correct. that was wrong of me, I apologize. We should debate the war on its own merits, not based on the background of the pundits debating it.
November 19th, 2005 at 12:26 pm
The primary difficulty with Murtha’s stated position (and the “chickenhawk” meme in general) is that we live in what is called a Liberal Democracy. Last time I checked, the military reported to civilian leadership - there’s a reason for that. Do we really want the military running the country? Running the overall war?
As has been said elsewhere (though to my chagrin I cannot remember who initially made this comparison), I like Heinlein’s work, but I wouldn’t want to live in his worlds. My right to participate in a democracy (and thus in the running of this country and this war) does not hinge upon my having served in any service, in any mode - and neither does yours (narrowing the focus here from Internet denizens to American citizens). And you should thank whatever-God-you-worship for that every moment of every day.
November 19th, 2005 at 4:46 pm
Yeah, what he said.
November 21st, 2005 at 12:45 am
The chickenhawk meme, on its face, is ridiculous.
However, we do have to give some credence to people who have faced the horrors of war and appreciate that it should be truly used as a last resort. Iraq wasn’t a last resort and that’s angered many both here and abroad. I think that’s more where Murtha’s head is at.