Who's Your Favorite 'Chickenhawk'? (Poll #2)

The poll is factually dumb. Lincoln was a captain in the Black Hawk War. FDR served in the Navy in WWI. The rest put their lives on the line for their country during the war, which is more than chickenhawks can say.

#1 tc on 2007-03-27 23:25 (Reply)

Actually, FDR never served in uniform. He was Assistant Secretary of the Navy.

#1.1 JAWolf on 2007-03-27 23:33 (Reply)

Oh, and though Lincoln was in a militia during the Black Hawk War he never saw combat and routinely joked about his lack of military experience.

#1.2 Jesme on 2007-03-28 00:06 (Reply)

If FDR being an Assistant Secretary of the Navy counts as service, then Rumsfeld's being SecDef in the Gulf War counts, too.

Similarly, if Lincoln's noncombat militia service during the Black Hawk War counts, so does Bush's noncombat militia service during Vietnam.

So, which way do you want to count it? I mean, assuming you don't want to be "factually dumb"?

#1.3 Warmongering Lunatic on 2007-03-28 01:04 (Reply)

Actually rummy was secdef in the Ford adm. Cheney was secdef during the Gulf war. But rummy was a navy flier, other than that I wholly agree with your accessment.

#1.3.1 quidnunc savant on 2007-03-28 10:36 (Reply)

Yeah. For whatever weird reason, I get the names Cheney and Rumsfeld mixed up when I talk about them. I was trying to talk about Vice-President Cheney, of course.

(And then, for whatever reason, my browser put my correction as comment #4 instead of as #1.3.1. C'est la vie.)

#1.3.1.1 Warmongering Lunatic on 2007-03-28 15:07 (Reply)

Hey, "factually dumb," talk about something you know something about, will ya please...

Get a clue...

#1.4 Tom Elia on 2007-03-28 02:03 (Reply)

I have to go with Jefferson, though he was in danger once when the British came to Monticello in 1781. Tom Paine was actually in the Continental Army for a while, serving as Greene's aide de camp. John Adams participated in the defense of the frigate Boston when crossing to France, fighting with the ship's marines. Madison observed the Battle of Bladensburg, having to flee when the milita broke and ran. FDR was Asst SecNav, Lincoln at least enlisted, Franklin risked capture in going to France.

#2 psw on 2007-03-28 00:25 (Reply)

Maybe you dealt with this in July, but --

Woodrow Wilson, for Pete's sake!

How about Bill Clinton? (Remember Mogadishu?)

Also, Truman was only in the National Guard which, as we know from George W. Bush, is a shameful branch of the armed forces in which to serve.

#3 Ron Coleman (Homepage) on 2007-03-28 00:39 (Reply)

No, Truman actually saw combat in World War I as an artillery officer. Looking at the list again, I think FDR, Lincoln, and Jefferson are all fine choices for those who make us fight good fights without fighting themselves. Jefferson in fact was sometimes--behind his back--accused of being a little "unmanly", especially after his running from the Brits in 1781. Didn't stop him from doing the right thing against the Barbary Pirates, though.

#3.1 psw on 2007-03-28 00:58 (Reply)

Upon further review, Ron Coleman is absolutely correct. Woodrow Wilson was obviously nothing but a pasty-faced academic too afraid too fight, but nevertheless felt some need to make the world "safe for Democracy". Regardless of how one may feel about his Progressive agenda, it's clear that this American Icon was a chicken-hawk, and clearly belongs on the list of "shame".
And Bill--oh Billy boy, my commander-in-chief while I did no-fly zone patrols, what can I say? While he clearly belongs on the list, I don't think he'll get many votes.

#3.2 psw on 2007-03-28 01:30 (Reply)

Er, Cheney's being SecDef, I mean.

Rumsfeld, of course, was SecDef twice.

#4 Warmongering Lunatic on 2007-03-28 01:08 (Reply)

My God, how did we forget Democrat "Manifest Destiny" warmongerer James K. Polk, who despite taking a powder during the War of 1812 (and having less milita time than either Colonel Tom Parker or Colonel Sanders), still had no pangs of conscience about ginning up the Mexican-American War? Clearly a chicken-hawk.
But I'm still voting for Jefferson.

#5 psw on 2007-03-28 01:45 (Reply)

Franklin organized and drilled the Philly militia.

#6 NCC on 2007-03-28 04:57 (Reply)

FDR was in a fracking wheelchair, idjits.

#7 Jesus Buttafuoco on 2007-03-28 06:00 (Reply)

Not during WWI, he wasn't. Jesus, you're dumb.

#7.1 SDN on 2007-03-28 06:08 (Reply)

FDR contracted polio as an adult in the 1921 epidemic that crippled a lot of people

#7.2 rich on 2007-03-28 07:58 (Reply)

I suppose someone should mention LBJ's dubious Silver Star.

#8 Jay Manifold (Homepage) on 2007-03-28 06:14 (Reply)

The founding fathers who did not fight in uniform were hardly chickenhawks as they were subject to arrest, prosecution, public humiliation, families impoverishment, and hanging, if caught.

Lincoln was in the militia to prepare for possible combat. Bush was clearly in the Guard to avoid service in Vietnam, but supported the war.

FDR was a bit old for service, but more importantly, he had already been Assistant Secretary of the Navy for several years when the U.S. entered WWI. Quitting such a position of responsibility would not be considered reasonable.

#9 Anonymous on 2007-03-28 07:03 (Reply)

I have no opinion one way or the other on whether or not FDR should have reported to the Western Front in WWI. I'm fine with him serving where he was--though that be definition would seem to make him a "chicken-hawk"--one who supports a war but does not fight in it.

But as far as whether or not quitting a position like, oh, let's say, Asst SecNav, to go off to war would be considered reasonable--well, seems it was in 1898 when FDR's cousin TR did exactly that to join the Rough Riders.

Founding Father comments are valid.

Oh, the gold oak leaves that occasionally hang around my collar (about once a month) wanted to chime in and say that the F-102A interceptor jet, as flown by a certain National Guard pilot, had a 29.6% loss rate. That is partially because a delta wing aircraft has poor landing characteristics (shallow lift curve slope, poorly defined stall region). Is it going downtown over Hanoi? Not by a mile. Should someone have been there? Probably. Is flying pointy nose aircraft inherently risky? Yes.

#9.1 psw on 2007-03-28 08:21 (Reply)

Anonymous: FDR was a bit old for service, but more importantly, he had already been Assistant Secretary of the Navy for several years when the U.S. entered WWI. Quitting such a position of responsibility would not be considered reasonable.

psw: "But as far as whether or not quitting a position like, oh, let's say, Asst SecNav, to go off to war would be considered reasonable--well, seems it was in 1898 when FDR's cousin TR did exactly that to join the Rough Riders."

I'm not sure that Teddy's decision to join the Rough Riders was based in "reason".

#9.1.1 Anonymousy on 2007-03-28 09:48 (Reply)

No--TR's was emotional, no doubt. He had a strong martial streak, perhaps influenced by the fact that his father, who he loved, had purchased a substitute during the Civil War. He also flat out said that there was no way he could have pushed for the war as hard as he did and not fight. Certainly some of his contemporaries thought he had lost his marbles, leaving a good political spot to go smother his career by sitting around training camps. Which could have happened--the Rough Riders were the only volunteer unit, if memory serves, to actually get to Cuba. Fate sometimes smiled on TR, sometimes not. In 1898 it smiled.

#9.1.1.1 psw on 2007-03-28 14:05 (Reply)

"The founding fathers who did not fight in uniform were hardly chickenhawks as they were subject to arrest, prosecution, public humiliation, families impoverishment, and hanging, if caught."

That applies to virtually anyone in any government at war caught by the enemy. So by your definition, there can be no chickenhawks.

"Bush was clearly in the Guard to avoid service in Vietnam, but supported the war."

Bush flew the F-102A, a very difficult and dangerous task even if he wasn't in combat (many pilots died flying them); he volunteered for Vietnam duty but was not selected. People who wanted to avoid danger joined the Naval Reserve (e.g. John Kerry, who according to people he served with complained bitterly when his Swift Boat unit, which had been a highly sought and very cushy assignment till then, was unexpectedly moved into combat).

#9.2 TallDave (Homepage) on 2007-03-28 08:30 (Reply)

Okay--pardon the caps, but DO NOT slur the United States Naval Reserve or the Swift Boats, or frankly any branch of any service, particularly if they were serving in what is designated a combat zone. I'm a military reserve officer, did a decade of active duty, combat ops. I did not vote for John Kerry, do not like John Kerry, thought his Vietnam service reeked of careerism, but the fact is that he did go into harm's way. Sorry--I'll turn the flame off now.

#9.2.1 Anonymous on 2007-03-28 08:47 (Reply)

"do not like John Kerry, thought his Vietnam service reeked of careerism, but the fact is that he did go into harm's way."

Not voluntarily. He took Naval Reserve because Vietnam had no navy to speak of. He took the brown-water duty because at the time it was non-combat and was considered particularly cushy as one could spend a lot of time at a nearby French resort town. Then he went home on a technicality after getting three dubious Purple Hearts.

I don't particularly blame him for any of that, and I think all the services, reserve or otherwise, are noble pursuits. But the notion John Kerry volunteered for combat is a cynically disingenuous political fiction.

#9.2.1.1 TallDave (Homepage) on 2007-03-28 10:17 (Reply)

River and coastal interdiction was not only dangerous but of crucial importance to the American military strategy.
http://swiftboats.net/extras/casualties.htm

#9.2.1.1.1 Anonymousy on 2007-03-28 10:38 (Reply)

Anonymous: The founding fathers who did not fight in uniform were hardly chickenhawks as they were subject to arrest, prosecution, public humiliation, families impoverishment, and hanging, if caught.

TallDave: "That applies to virtually anyone in any government at war caught by the enemy. So by your definition, there can be no chickenhawks."

That's simply untrue. There is virtually no risk for an American to advocate war against Iraq or other third world country. People have the right to express their opinion, but we shouldn't compare the risks that Jefferson took with the risks that an American columnist takes when advocating war. Jefferson could have lost everything, his home, his life.

#9.2.2 Anonymousy on 2007-03-28 09:41 (Reply)

"There is virtually no risk for an American to advocate war against Iraq or other third world country."

I guess you didn't hear about Saddam's plot to assassinate the first President Bush.

#9.2.2.1 TallDave (Homepage) on 2007-03-28 10:09 (Reply)

Lincoln's service in the Black Hawk War:

"Iles’ company (including Lincoln) spent an overnight at Apple River Fort... about a week before Black Hawk's attack against that strongpoint later in June."
http://www.geocities.com/old_lead/abe.htm

#10 Anonymous on 2007-03-28 07:14 (Reply)

Yeah, Franklin was in the militia, all right. He wasn't exactly a warrior, but he did serve, and was fairly close to some action. Don't recall offhand if he participated in said action.

So: Franklin needs to come off the list, unless by "chickenhawk" you mean someone who isn't serving now who's advocating action now.

#11 Slartibartfast on 2007-03-28 07:47 (Reply)

"We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."
-In the Continental Congress just before signing the Declaration of Independence, 1776, Benjamin Franklin.

Being a Revolutionary was cause to be considered in revolt against the Crown and liable to be hung upon capture. Joining up with the Revolution was not something taken in the widespread at the beginning and as war ravaged across the Colonies it forced people to take a stand, one side or the other. By the end of the conflict 10% of the Nation was dead and 15% fled to other Crown colonies. Even if you did not actively serve in the militia, if you served the Revolution you were liable for that punishment of death. In these effete times we forget that and that one's stance has consequences no matter how taken.

Born of struggle and war, the Nation found itself opposed again and again and again on this continent, in this hemisphere and around the world. Conscription and Draft were exceptions, only deployed during the harshest of National battles for large objectives that the traditional volunteer forces could not handle. Teddy Roosevelt helped to form up the 'Rough Riders' and then demurred to be put in immediate command because he realized his lack of experience at a job where the lives of others depended upon him. I do not see those calling for leaving a fight having any experience in what it takes to actually create a fighting force or what it takes to support the Nation.

For myself, physical ailments would have made me 4F in the days of the draft and unsuitable for service from the age of 18 onwards. I then worked on the civilian side of DoD to help get better information to the warfighters so that they could do their job better and lives could be *saved*, and the enemies of the Nation *addressed*. After 14 years a reaction to a medication finally took me out of any viable work, and a simple day out shopping takes two days to recover from. Am I invalidated from having a view on what it means to have a Nation?

Because one is infirm, does that mean to those lovely "liberals" that one must ONLY search for ways to retreat for one's Nation?

What is it with those that do not support the right of a Citizen to offer up their opinionn on how the Nation should be run and its wars fought? Should Mr. Campos offer no views on things like advertisements as he has never made an ad, as is the case in a previous column? Shall we leave decisions ONLY to those with some expertise, in which case those pushing to leave Iraq who have no military experience at all should likewise be quiet if they hold to their ideals that one should only back one's word by experience?

America has, indeed, had military conflicts run by Presidents without much, if any, experience in such. But that is after the founding of the Nation... a founding where if one supported the right of a Citizen to have say in government you could be hanged for treason. Are we now to forget that founding and leave such things up only to "experts"? If so we could certainly shut down large portions of the entertainment industry, a wide swath of magazines and other publications, and, in point of fact, allow only lawyers to offer any opinion upon the law and the rest of us keep quiet as we do not have the fine nicitie of a law degree. This would also clear the courts out of medical malprictice suits and a wide range of other problems, but would also limit citizen redress to ills that are outside their area of expertise.

Because one is not poor should they have no say in social programs for those that are down and out and destitute? And if you are not rich should you then have no say about taxation for the rich nor any view on how their money is spent? If you do not make your own clothes, how dare you complain about any lacks of fashion, design or materials in anything you see? If you do not know how to program a computer, does that mean you have no legitimate outlook on how good or bad the programming is? And if you cannot design a printed circuit board, why should you have any view on how good or poorly a device containing such is made? If you have not made a car from the ground up, why should you have an opinion on any particular of any vehicle you have ever seen? There are a whole raft of jobs that every individual has not done, and yet offers opinion on... from pig farmer to electrician to plumber to architect to street maintenance worker to waiter... if you do not do the job should you then have no opinion or outlook upon it?

I do not see where the 'chicken-hawk' argument is going, save towards thought control and a totalitarian State that decides what is and is not legitimate outlook by anyone under it. That does seem to fit those pushing this meme.

#12 ajacksonian (Homepage) on 2007-03-28 08:01 (Reply)

FDR was born in 1882. Not exactly prime fighting age (35) when the US went to war in WWI, was he?

#13 Blue Texan (Homepage) on 2007-03-28 08:39 (Reply)

TR in 1898--age 39 (volunteered)
Andrew Jackson in 1814--47 (volunteered 1812)
George Washington in 1775--43 (volunteered)
U.S. Grant in 1861--39 (was out of Army, volunteered)
Rutherford B Hayes in 1861--39 (volunteer)
Truman in 1917--33 (reupped in the National Guard)
Ike in 1941--51
US Navy Leading Ace in WWII, David McCampbell--35 (thought at the time to be too old for aerial combat)

Having said that, it was fine for FDR to stay where he was.

#13.1 Anonymous on 2007-03-28 09:09 (Reply)

Roosevelt entered Columbia Law School in 1905, and, never graduating, he dropped out after only two years in 1907, because he had passed the New York State Bar exam. In 1908 he took a job with the prestigious Wall Street firm of Carter Ledyard & Milburn, dealing mainly with corporate law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fdr#Criticisms

FDR could have chosen to enter military service and served in combat in WW I, but chose law instead, as one might expect from one of the privileged elite of the time. So yes, he can be considered a chickenhawk.

Then he put an oil blockade around Japan, a country with no oil, and supplied their enemies with arms, de facto acts of war against a country that had not attacked us. (Of course, the Japanese regime was heinous and had a history of invading its neighbors and so the decision was correct, but no one on the left seems to grant Bush those same mitigating circumstances in Iraq).

#14 TallDave (Homepage) on 2007-03-28 08:48 (Reply)

This entire discussion shows what a slippery slope you're on when you start applying the 'chickenhawk' label -- before long, you're arguing whether Lincoln's service during the Blackhawk War qualified him to preserve the Union, just to cite one example from this thread. Also recall that in Hitler's speech to the Reichstag declaring war on the United States, he launched into an extended rant about FDR and his priviledged background, contrasting it with his own years of service at the front. All of which goes to prove, I guess, that one should never judge a leader solely on the basis of his or her military credentials, or lack thereof.

#15 David on 2007-03-28 10:01 (Reply)

Someone finally brought Hitler in the debate. Franklin and Hilter, they go so well together...

#15.1 -joe on 2007-03-28 10:27 (Reply)

I agree with several on this thread that combat experience is not a pre-requsite to being an effective wartime leader.

But I am sure that getting shot at-and shooting back- in battle can help you be a better commander-in-chief. LBJ's record during WWII was reprehensible- he basically shirked his duty ((read Robert Caro's 'Means of Ascent' for an excellent detailed account. The contrast of LBJ getting vanity photos in Hollywood- in a well pressed officer's uniform- while simultaneously our soldiers were starving in Corregidor (and later to be death-marched up Bataan peninsula) makes me wretch.))

I think that LBJ's failure to learn the lessons of WWII is probably what caused him to fail miserably at prosecuting the Viet Nam war.

#15.2 rightguy on 2007-03-28 10:37 (Reply)

David, That's kind of the whole point of this post and this poll.

#16 buzz on 2007-03-28 11:03 (Reply)

James Polk is my man. Managed a successful war of expansion.

#17 Old Soldier on 2007-03-28 14:27 (Reply)

Re; FDR being Secty of the Navy and not pursuing a combat post in WWI; after being ousted as First Lord of the Admiralty in 1915 after the Gallipoli fiasco Winston Churchill sought and received a battalion command on the Western front. (6th battalion, Royal Scots Fusiliers)

Now THAT is not being a chickenhawk.

Of all the leaders in WWII only Churchill and Hitler had actually experienced combat first hand. (Even Eisenhower had never seen combat. He was in a training command in WWI and never left the US. He held staff positions throughout most of his career.

#18 Bill on 2007-03-28 16:12 (Reply)

Without a doubt, Woodrow Wilson is the king chickenhawk. WWI started in 1914. He ran for re-election in 1916 on the slogan "he kept us out of war". Within a couple months of starting his second term he got us in the war. Wilson lied and >100K Americans died. He used conscription, German-Americans were persecuted and civil liberties were grossly infringed. Victor Berger was twice elected to Congress as an anti-war candidate but nver made it there as he was jailed. Unfortunately liberals no know history and thus have no sense of perspective.

By the way, I'm a hawk hawk (pro GWOT veteran of Iraq).

#19 M Cooper on 2007-03-28 16:41 (Reply)

Abe Lincoln fought in the Blackhawk Wars, I would hardly call him a 'chickenhawk'.

Best President this country has ever had, and he's probably the best Commander in Chief the military has ever had.

#20 Jerry on 2007-03-28 20:04 (Reply)

I am a huge admirer of Abe Lincoln, but he did not see any action in the Blackhawk War.

He served a total of three 30-day stints in a militia during the Blackhawk War; the first time he was elected a captain by his fellow members of the militia; the second and third time he served as a private, I believe.

He didn't see any action, and in fact he himself mocked his own service, saying something like the only bloodshed he saw was that caused by mosquitoes.

None of that matters in my mind, because he was a great leader.

But by the definition used by many pushing the ‘chickenhawk’ meme, he would come under criticism.

#20.1 Tom Elia on 2007-03-28 21:03 (Reply)

Gotta go with Wilson, but FDR's a close second. Both 100% pure chickenhawk by any definition of the word.

1. No active duty service? check.
2. No reserve duty service? check.
3. No chance of being abducted, wounded, or killed? check.
4. Strong advocates of war to defend/promote freedom and/or democracy abroad? check.

Not only that, but Wilson started the first military draft in U.S. history. Roosevelt started the first peacetime draft in U.S. history (in 1940).

#21 kwo on 2007-03-28 20:07 (Reply)

I take that back about FDR never being in danger: he definitely incurred some risk when traveling to Casablanca, Tehran, and Yalta.

#21.1 kwo on 2007-03-28 20:11 (Reply)

FDR could have chosen to enter military service and served in combat in WW I, but chose law instead, as one might expect from one of the privileged elite of the time. So yes, he can be considered a chickenhawk.

I don't think you know what the term "chickenhawk" means. You seem to think it means, "one who has never served in the military."

It doesn't.

It refers to a man of prime service age who cheerleads enthusiastically for a war (especially a war of choice) while studiously avoiding actual combat themselves.

Therefore, Dick Cheney, who got 5 deferments in Vietnam, is a chickenhawk, because he avoided -- five times over -- fighting in a war he supported, then later pursued the most hawkish policies imaginable. As did George W. Bush, another chickenhawk based on his age and his support for the war, and his policies.

Now, you could easily call LBJ a chickenhawk, because of his general disinterest in military service and hawkishness in policy and speechmaking, but even he has more combat experience (1 mission) than the current Chickenhawk President, and he was in his late 30s during WWII.

FDR was not of draft age in 1917 and FDR didn't pursue wars of choice when he was elected in 1932. Unless you're calling WWII a war of choice.

#22 Anonymous on 2007-03-28 22:43 (Reply)

Quit trying to defend an idiotic meme.

#22.1 Tom Elia on 2007-03-28 22:49 (Reply)

LBJ went on one mission as an observer and quiickly got the hell of the combat zone. He never served as a combatant, which is astonishing, considering the spirit of the times. He actually resented WWII- it got in the way of his political ambitions. Everything was about him, of course. Ego as big as the Grand Canyon.

#22.2 rightguy on 2007-03-28 23:39 (Reply)

In that case, a real chickenhawk is like the Easter Bunny: something you kids believe in, but doesn't actually exist in real life. But then, liberals and reality are eternally destined to be strangers, so it pans out.

#22.3 Unimpressed on 2007-03-29 00:16 (Reply)

Wikipedia defines "chickenhawk" thusly:

"[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. "

Also from Wiki is the following:

"History does not support the idea the only those who have seen combat should lead the United States into war. Presidents Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt, capable wartime leaders, were arguably "chickenhawks" by the standards used to label contemporary conservatives."

But keep on trying to shift those goalposts. It's amusing and removes gravitas from your argument.

#22.4 Unimpressed on 2007-03-29 17:56 (Reply)

Lincoln was not a chickenhawk. He served in the Illinois militia during the Black Hawk wars.

#23 Antoinette on 2007-03-28 22:48 (Reply)

See my comment above regarding Abraham Lincoln's time in the militia.

#23.1 Tom Elia on 2007-03-28 22:51 (Reply)

Antoinette: Lincoln was not a chickenhawk. He served in the Illinois militia during the Black Hawk wars.

Tom Elia: Quit trying to defend an idiotic meme.

There are "hawks" and there are "chickens". But in order to qualify as a "chickenhawk", it requires not just the avoidance of danger, but a strong urge to initiate wars that others will fight.

Lincoln signed up and did his duty. Most soldiers never see action which depends on the decisions of commanders and the course of the war. Lincoln was not a "chicken". Nor was he a "hawk". Lincoln did not beat the drums of war, but rather, war was thrust upon him after many efforts to avoid conflict. Lincoln believed that slavery would eventually end in America through continued democratic union. Southern politicians agreed, hence rebellion.

The thread poll itself is using an improper application of the term "chickhawk".

#24 Anonymous on 2007-03-29 06:50 (Reply)

My gosh you're full of it.

#24.1 Tom Elia on 2007-03-29 09:40 (Reply)

Um, no. That's how you define it, but your definition is not the standard one that even most liberals use. Even Campos isn't using it by your definition.

Try again.

#24.2 Unimpressed on 2007-03-29 17:43 (Reply)

There are "hawks" and there are "chickens". But in order to qualify as a "chickenhawk", it requires not just the avoidance of danger, but a strong urge to initiate wars that others will fight.

Bingo.

Another FDR note: all four of his sons served overseas in WWII.

#25 Blue Texan (Homepage) on 2007-03-29 08:13 (Reply)

"Bingo."

Coming from a Texas Dem, that's high praise indeed.

You guys are defending a pathetic stance....

#25.1 Tom Elia on 2007-03-29 09:49 (Reply)

That grinding you hear would be the liberals attempting to shift the goalposts yet again.

But Christopher Hitchens already called B.S. a while back. (http://www.slate.com/id/2105509/) Thing is, if he'd noticed this trend, then the whole attempt to redefine the definition of "chickenhawk" isn't something that most liberals are even aware of. Hell, even Campos himself isn't defining it this way.

But thanks for playing. We have some lovely consolation prizes for you.

#25.2 Unimpressed on 2007-03-29 17:41 (Reply)

Why isn't draft-dodging Clinton on this list? He would be my first choice.

#26 509th Bob on 2007-03-29 22:05 (Reply)

Clinton, no one ever calls him one though he bombed more countries than Bush

#27 Jason Macolm, III on 2007-03-30 11:21 (Reply)

Amdocs is blackmailing America's "leaders." That's why they're making such insane decisions: http://dinoberry.googlepages.com/home

#28 Dean Berry (Homepage) on 2007-04-03 03:58 (Reply)

Syndicate This Blog

Major Newspapers,
Magazines,
and Web Sites

Political Web Sites,
Magazines, and
Other Journals

Research Tools

Blogs

Regional Newspapers

Features

Economics, Science, & Technology Related
Blogs and Web Sites

Archives

Categories

Business News

Libertarian Ad Network

Old Archives

Tuesday, March 27. 2007

Who's Your Favorite 'Chickenhawk'? (Poll #2)

Search

Supporter

Syndicate This Blog

Major Newspapers,Magazines,and Web Sites

Political Web Sites,Magazines, andOther Journals

Research Tools

Blogs

Regional Newspapers

Features

Economics, Science, & Technology RelatedBlogs and Web Sites

Archives

Categories

Business News

Libertarian Ad Network

Old Archives

Tuesday, March 27. 2007

Who's Your Favorite 'Chickenhawk'? (Poll #2)

Search

Supporter

Major Newspapers,
Magazines,
and Web Sites

Political Web Sites,
Magazines, and
Other Journals

Economics, Science, & Technology Related
Blogs and Web Sites