In the great "chickenhawk" debate, much has been made of the lack of military service by proponents of the war. Somebody at azcentral.com put together a bipartisan list of Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and (gasp!) pundits (both on and offline) and their respective service time. It's in no way complete, but it's modestly instructive. What I find interesting is how generational it is: the Lehrers and Safires served, the Russerts and Dobbs did not.
For the record, I'm what the VA calls a "Vietnam-era" vet; USN(R) 1972-1974.
Link from Kos.
Posted by Linkmeister at August 15, 2005 12:25 PM | TrackBackI am a veteran of a thousand psychic wars. Other than that, nada.
Posted by: Solonor at August 15, 2005 02:01 PMI think the argument that those who have not served in combat cannot claim legitimacy for their opinions is absurd.
I have not been a teacher.. does that mean I have no moral right to opine on teacher performance?
I have not served as a firefighter? Does this mean I have no dog to hunt in the oversight of first responders paid by my taxes?
The "chicken-hawk" attack is specious, and is akin to those who suggest that mothers who have lost a son in Iraq have a unique claim to moral superiority . . since it disregards those other mothers who support the war.
Posted by: Pixelshim at August 15, 2005 03:14 PMPix, the argument seems to be that those who haven't served shouldn't be quite so enthusiastic about sending other people's kids to war. Nobody I've read argues that these guys can't have an opinion; it's the degree with which that opinion is expressed that some find offensive.
Posted by: Linkmeister at August 15, 2005 03:30 PM