A New Kind of "Chickenhawk" (UPDATED)

When I said yesterday that most of Beauchamp's defenders had sense enough to steer clear of the milbloggers, I had no idea that Columbia Journalism Review's Paul McLeary had run out into the open, bare-a** naked.

This childish game of name-calling, mostly led by the know-nothing Michelle Malkin's of the world--anyone remember the Jamil Hussein embarassment--has been going on for the better part of a week. Now the Weekly Standard's Michael Goldfarb dug up some particularly damning evidence against the young soldier:

We do know that Beauchamp worked on Howard Dean's presidential campaign, that he edited a liberal student magazine in college, and that he marched with pro-choice demonstrators in 2004. Further, we know that he enlisted in the military "just to write a book" about his experience--not the noblest of reasons, but neither does it discredit his work. Writing under a pseudonym, though, did prevent readers from understanding that his perspective was not merely that of a soldier on the ground, but of a political activist.

How dare a college grad and engaged citizen volunteer to join the Army to fight for his country! (Which is something that most of the brave souls who inhabit the milblog community prefers to leave to others.)

(Emphasis mine.)

Is McLeary saying that most of the milbloggers haven't been to college or that they haven't joined the military? :-)

Apparently McLeary's Ivy-honed intellect didn't help him to deduce that milbloggers=military bloggers. Nor did that "superior intellect" lead him to discover that all military officers have an undergraduate degree, at minimum, and that half of enlisted men/women have obtained the same.

He denigrates the military bloggers then has the nerve to quote Andrew Sullivan approvingly in the next sentence. :::shakes head:::

I hope that he came to my blog, saw that "101st Fighting Keyboarders" link on the top right and got fooled. What a clown.

UPDATE: Welcome LGF readers (et al.)!

UPDATE: CJR's McLeary Responds

Milblogs

View My Milblogging.com Profile

Comments

[Skul]

You Sir,are an idiot.

[lowandslow]

Nice catch baldilocks!

[Skul]

Statement was directed to Columbia J Review.
Sorry for the mis-step.

[baldilocks]

Skul: you almost got in trouble. :-)

[Skul]

Ya, I saw that. Sorry for the screw up bud.

[Kaitain]

Skul,

Baldilocks? Bud? You're in trouble again!

[baldilocks]

I'm okay with "bud." I realize that my handle doesn't exactly conjure "sugar and spice and everything nice." :-)

[baldilocks]

Maybe the new .gif (or rather the old one) will help.

[Bad Penny]

I love that somebody writing for the Colombia Journalism Review used an apostrophe (sp? who cares, I don't write for the CJR) for a plural "the know-nothing Michelle Malkin's of the world". Brilliant.

Dumb ass liberal piece if trash!

[Walter E. Wallis]

I am torn on the response to chickenhawk. Do I challenge the designation, or do I tell the user one need not be a proctologist to recognize an asshole?
Suggestions?

[CK MacLeod]

Actually, McLeary even managed to screw up the key sentence - messed up the subject verb agreement in the dangling subordinate clause "[w]hich is something that most of the brave souls who inhabit the milblog community prefers to leave to others." "Most" in "most of the brave souls" is plural. The verb should be "prefer," not "prefers."

I am believe I am qualified to publish my own Review of the Columbia Journalism Review. If I don't do something like that, someone will call me a chicken-editor.

[Dick]

Why you're just a g** damned genius!

[Jack Friedman]

McLeary doesn't seem to have a professional's grasp of grammar either. In the phrase quoted below:

This childish game of name-calling, mostly led by the know-nothing Michelle Malkin's of the world . . . .

McLeary has used an apostrophe (Malkin's) where there should not be one. I think the Columbia School of Journalism should ditch the Partisan Writing Skills 101 and Smug Superiority 302 classes and reinstate Grammar for Writers 101.

[GM Roper]

Dear Baldilocks: I'm torn. I've never been able to always tell when to use the apostrophe, how to spell some words correctly or even what a dependent clause is. I struggled in English but did pretty well in other areas. I am a conservative. So, my question is, with all of my qualifications excluding my political bent, should I apply to the Columbia School of Journalism for another post grad degree? It would seem that I would fit right in.

[baldilocks]

Eh, cut the boy some slack about the grammar. You might find some posts on this blog that have some grammatically incorrect passages as well.

Even my email response to McLeary's "little" faux pas had a subject-verb agreement error:

The milblog (as in military blog) community is composed entirely of current military members, veterans (retired and otherwise) and spouses [sic; some are parents] of current members. Therefore, your assertion that we would prefer that others volunteer to fight for our country make you look, shall we say euphemistically, willfully uninformed.

His inability to figure out what the implications of the name "milblogs" means is, however, inexcusable.

[Elliott]

Baldilocks,
Whats with the chickenhawk thing?
If you believe that conservatives have not/will not defend our country, then you've got a lot to learn and I would hate to walk the distance between what you THINK you know and what you ACTUALLY DO know.
As for Beauchamp, it appears he's misrepresented the truth...thats a nice way of saying he's a liar.
He's also violated opsec in at least ONE of his posts. Personally, I hope he gets time in jail and a dishonorable discharge.
or at least I hope some of his fellow soldiers beat the ever lovin crap out of him.

[baldilocks]

Elliott: note that the *epithet* "chickenhawk" has sneer quotes. Additionally, I would advise you to search this blog and see what I have previously said about that particular epithet. (A recent "chickenhawk" post is listed here.)

Also, I mentioned the OPSEC violation here.

[EL Rider]

You idiot a "chickenhawk" is a Democratic man who has sex with boys. Get it straight, they are your people.

[jeanie]

Just wondering if "left" blogging is beginning to worry that "right" blogging is beginning to make dents in what used to be their territory---due to efforts of Michelle and others. And, the fact that the "right" blogs are so much more interesting.

[Stormy70]

Stupid Milblogs! Don't they know only enlightened journalists know about military matters?

The left is beyond parody, almost. They still make me laugh.

Anytime someone brings out a chickenhawk meme in a debate, I just say "you lose!" If you are relying on a bogus talking point instead of facts, then I get to dismiss you as a simple-minded fool. It gets 'em all worked up, especially if you say it with a smile.

[caveman82952]

Nice site, baldilocks, well done. Found you at the Rott, my home. Seeing as how I tend to lack some of the grammatical erudition some possess, I tend to keep it simple. But why is it so many of these allegedly brave reporters scream bloody murder when one of their own gets killed in a war zone? Because some grunt had better things to do than get blown away saving his sorry ass? As a 'Nam era vet I'm surprised more of them didn't die from bullet wounds in their backs. Not that it would disturb me greatly, mind you. They often tend to refer to themselves as the fourth estate, I think fifth column might be more appropriate.

[dpkesling]

This is the second time in just as many days when I've heard the term "chickenhawk" used to describe someone. Not sure I agree with its use in this forum, but I would invite all of you to google on Rep Mike Turner (R-OH03) and his exchange with Lawrence Korb which took place during congressional hearings on Friday. Rep Turner is both a chickenhawk AND an idiot.

I'm a moderate, a true moderate. I find the comments by jeanie and Stormy70 disturbing in their smugness. The right engages in the same self-referential delusions as the left, perhaps more so. I don't honestly believe I'll change anyone's mind here... but I would as you to just momentarily consider the echo chamber in which you currently exist in which precious little independent thinking takes place. Rather, an occasional new rant is injected; it reverberates and is amplified by endless variations of uninformed opinion. Reminds you of the baroque music of JS Bach in which the permutations of a theme are explored in detail. The difference is that neither the left blogs nor the right blogs possess the originality of artistry of Bach in their scribblings.

[baldilocks]

This is the second time in just as many days when I've heard the term "chickenhawk" used to describe someone. Not sure I agree with its use in this forum

What aspect of my usage of the epithet do you not agree with?

Reminds you of the baroque music of JS Bach in which the permutations of a theme are explored in detail. The difference is that neither the left blogs nor the right blogs possess the originality of artistry of Bach in their scribblings.

I'm not an opera fan (I'm more of a seventies funk band sort). Could you use an analogy requiring less specialized knowledge? Much obliged.

[baldilocks]

caveman82952

Welcome. Glad to have Misha's regulars here, though I try to keep a less rambunctious place. :-)

[Alan Furman]

Are you trying to say that mother-in-law bloggers are somehow connected to the military?

[Alan Furman]

Appeaseniks find disagreement unbearable. So they demand that each and every one of their opponents in the issue go to Iraq and so be excluded from the conversation by distance and by restrictions on active duty personnel. That way, the appeaseniks win the public discussion by default.

Bottom line: Those who wield the Great Chickenhawk Meme are making nothing more or less than a dishonest attempt to shut people up.

[Fen]

So they demand that each and every one of their opponents in the issue go to Iraq and so be excluded from the conversation by distance and by restrictions on active duty personnel. That way, the appeaseniks win the public discussion by default.

Agree. They also claim that war supporters are hypocrites for not risking their own lives at the FEBA. But ask an antiwar commenter: "if the war is SO bad, why aren't you staging hunger strikes on the steps of Congress to stop it?"

They demand we risk our lives in support of the war, but they are unwilling to risk their own in opposition. Hypocrites.

BTW, as a former Marine, I appreciate all the time and energy invested back in the US to support us. I wish more Americans were paying attention to whats really going on in Iraq, and that they would confront liberal propaganda more directly.

Semper Fi

[Dr. Weevil]

Actually, the equivalent of war supporters joining the service would not be war opponents staging hunger strikes in D.C., it would be war opponents flying to Iraq and opposing the war there, lying down in front of tanks, encouraging Iraqi soldiers and policemen and American soldiers and marines to desert or 'frag' their officers, demonstrating for peace in Sadr City, acting as human shields in crowded marketplaces, and so on. Of course, some of them would get killed, but they don't seem to mind telling us to do things that would get some of us killed.

The beauty of this argument is that many of us who support the war either are serving, or have served, or are (like me) ineligible to serve on grounds of age (I'm 54), health, or sexual preference. There's no age limit for 'human shields', but I have yet to hear of one single war opponent showing that he is not a 'chickendove' by actually going to Iraq (or Afghanistan, or Darfur, or Chechnya, or Kashmir, or Sri Lanka) and putting his life on the line for what he supposedly believes in. Some demonstrate in Israel, but that's hardly dangerous as long as you don't go and stand behind a moving bulldozer.

[Mark]

Well, if by your standards, anyone who has served in the military has unlimited free speech and unquestioned judgment and are generally infallible, then I shall speak.
Many of the people who brought up errors in Beauchamp's original articles were military members.
You seem to have a problem resolving a double infallibility paradox.
And since, as a veteran, my opinion is also infallible, I will say you sir, either do not understand what a milblogger is or are deliberately misleading your readers on milbloggers.
Michelle Malkin is not a milblogger. Current active duty members have limits on what they can say, so many milbloggers are veterans, military reservists, or military family members.
I would add, Bryan Preston, one of Michell Malkin's colleagues, is a veteran.