July 01, 2005

The Nation of Chickenhawks The

The Nation of Chickenhawks

The latest issue of The Nation, everyone’s favorite unhinged left-wing rag, has recently appeared, and we, like the Bush=Hitler crowd, were extremely excited. As regular readers of this humble “website” may know, we enjoy perusing The Nation as much as most pigs enjoy bathing in excrement. (Actually, that’s a pretty apt analogy, if you ask us.)

Normally, dear reader, we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” glory in the argumentative genius that is the staff of The Nation. We mean, come on: If anyone can spin a “thought” piece as well as Patricia “Mad Law Professor” Williams, we would collectively love to meet him. Or, in the case of the humorously named Alexander Cockburn, her.

Imagine our surprise, then, when we turned our collective attention to “Generation Chickenhawk,” an article by one Max Blumenthal. If any piece does not deserve a place in the hallowed halls of great Nation journalism, it is certainly this feculent waste of darkened wood-pulp.

In said example of hackwork, Mr. Blumenthal reports his snide take on the College Republican National Convention, which he found—mirabile dictu—was a little bit to the Right of his political tastes. In addition to a couple of quick paragraphs dedicated to describing the right-wing mise-en-scene, Mr. Blumenthal uses his article as an opportunity to showcase the one purportedly clever question he asked many of the collegiate attendees.

Over and over again, dear reader, Mr. Blumenthal reports that he peppered the College Republicans with a variation on the same query: “If you support the war so much, why aren’t you over in Iraq fighting it?” By the end of the piece, the reader is given the unmistakable impression that these sordid college righties are nothing but a passel of pussies. They just don’t have the guts required of a correspondent for The Nation.

We hate to quibble with Mr. Blumenthal’s logic, but we have a feeling that matters are a mite more complex than he lets on. After all, if Mr. Blumenthal has ever supported any US or UN military action—say, in opposition to the genocide in Darfur—we could just as easily ask him the same question: Why, Mr. High-and-Mighty, are you boldly penning attack pieces in The Nation instead of going off to fight? Are you, Mr. Blumenthal, a prime example of the “Generation Chickenhawk” you so despise?

It’s not as if Mr. Blumenthal wouldn’t have fun peacekeeping in Africa for the sake of the UN. If the reports are true, Mr. Blumenthal could always rape underage girls in the Sudan. It seems as if such behavior is becoming de rigueur at the good ole’ UN.

Regardless of the degree to which Mr. Blumenthal is or is not a “chickenhawk,” we still believe that the implicit argument behind his query requires some more criticism.

It appears as if Mr. Blumenthal, by showcasing his Why-Aren’t-You-Fighting-Then-Smarty-Pants question, is making a rather strange point. He seems to believe that an American citizen cannot support any action on the part of his government, unless he himself helps provide the governmental service in question. One cannot, that is to say, support the war in Iraq if you don’t sign up to fight.

This seems to us, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” to be an argument that only a simpleton would offer. (And Mr. Blumethal, as far as we can discern, is a simpleton’s simpleton.) Does one need to be an employee at the Department of Motor Vehicles in order to support state examinations for automobile licenses?

If so, why is Mr. Blumenthal penning pathetic agitprop for The Nation instead of doing a 9-to-5 at the local DMV? Is he some kind of vehicular “chickenhawk”?

Posted at July 1, 2005 12:01 AM | TrackBack