Quote: someone said: Chickenhawks are clearly not non-military public officials, but politicians who
are "hawks" because they regularly employ strong rhetoric about the use of military force but are "chickens" because as members of the "Baby-Boom" generation they could have fought in Korea/Vietnam, but deferred or avoided service in combat even thought they were on the political side that ardently advocated those wars as necessary despite criticism (again hawks).
Quote: the G-man said:
And that fails to describe Clinton how?
Quote: r3x29yz4a said: Clinton was never really overly pushing for wars.
Clinton was willing to send troops into Kosovo and Somolia, not to mention his occasional bombing runs against Iraq.
You might or might not agree with those decisions. But those were every bit as much military incursions as what Bush has done.
If Bush is a chickenhawk for serving in the National Guard instead of Vietnam and then using the military while President, Clinton is a chickenhawk for going to college on a student deferment and then using the military while President.
Personally, I think the argument cited in my original post demonstrates the fallacy of calling either man a chickenhawk.
