Here is one of many examples of Liberals explicitly calling Mitt a chickenhawk. For others, see the links in the original post. It seems to me that, if you’re not a liberal, you cannot really tell me what they believe a chickenhawk is. I don’t know that your definition of the term is any more or less valid than mine. At the very least you shouldn’t be reprimanding me for calling it like I see it.

I don’t think we are that ideologically separated, you and I. I support the war, especially this war because of what I truly believe will happen if we don’t fight it. If I could, I might be over there helping out. As it is, I am 4-F.

WMDs aside, George Bush knows this enemy. But he has had to wrestle with the effects of Bill Clinton’s disastrous military and security policies. GWB has had to rebuild our military/security infrastructure at the same time he is trying to use it to prosecute this war. That’s part of why it has not gone as well as it could have.

No, I don’t make the assumption that opposition to the war makes one an “anti-war liberal,” but you had better have very good, honest, reasonable thoughts behind your opposition. My very good friend is also opposed to the war for reasons I imagine are very similar to yours. I’m glad to extend a hand of fellowship to those with whom I share common ground, even if they are opposed to the war.

Like a lot of people you might call “liberals” (though I’m in favor of the death penalty and the second amendment), I oppose this war, not all wars. I would have loved to see a reaction to 9/11 that included a serious intervention into actual terrorist cells, a serious attempt to capture Osama, and a determined effort to permanently eradicate the Taliban (who are once more making noise). I’m against this war for a variety of reasons I’m sure you don’t recognize as valid, but I hope you don’t assume that opposition to one war allows someone to pigeon-hole the protester neatly into “anti-war liberal.”

“A chicken hawk is someone like Bush, or Cheney, who when young strains the limits of loopholes that allow students, fathers, the wealthy and the influential to get out of military service, then in later life begins unpopular wars based on false evidence that claim the lives of, mostly, poorer Americans. All while equating support for war with patriotism.”

How does that describe Mitt Romney? Or any of his sons? The label “Chicken Hawk” was not applied to them by me.

And your claim that the military are mostly “poorer Americans” is unfounded. More later.

Likewise, “liberals” are not hoping for any of the three outcomes you list; the fact that you do list these foolish, violent fantasies (products of your own imaginings) as if they were fact shows what contempt you have for the liberal straw man (an ideal that does not exist in the real world). Here’s the only, sole outcome a liberal who asks such question is hoping for: the subject realizes the vast hypocrisy in enthusiastically sending poor young American (our best and brightest, and brave and worthy men and women all), saying this is for the good of the country and essential to our safety, while not for a moment considering putting his own loved ones’ lives on the line. the question is valid; its validity does not rest on the questioners’ desire to see an expansion for he war, but a desire to illuminate hypocrisy.

And liberals “know they can’t win at the ballot box”? Be serious. Yes, they can, and they do. Gore, popular vote, 2000. Democratic senate, last elections. Etc etc. This is an offhand and utterly false stab worthy of the deranged Ann Coulter, not a thoughtful writer like yourself.

Romney’s choice of words precisely demonstrates that he is NOT comparing what his sons are doing to what our soldiers are doing.

The question is illegitimate for reasons already mentioned. The woman who asked the question isn’t interested in increasing the scope of the war. She is interested only in attempting to discredit Romney. The attempt will only backfire.

Additionally, there is an underlying assumption in your argument which says that because Republicans want to come off victorious in the War on Terror, they believe everyone should be fighting, and therefore it is legitimate to ask why someone who supports the War isn’t also fighting in it. This may sound nit-picky, but that is something of a straw-man. I doubt that most Republicans feel that every available person should be fighting.

“My sons are all adults and they’ve made decisions about their careers and they’ve chosen not to serve in the military and active duty and I respect their decision in that regard.”

He added: “One of the ways my sons are showing support for our nation is helping me get elected because they think I’d be a great president.”

First part, fine; should have left it at that. It’s tacking on the campaign work at the same time he’s discussing military service that unwittingly makes him look like he’s putting the two on the same level.

If the war is so important and “must be won” (irregardless of the fact that ‘victory’ may be unattainable) as Romney and the majority of the Republican Party believe, it is a legitimate question to ask why his sons are not fighting.

Where was Romney comparing the service his sons have rendered in his campaign to that of those in the military? I don’t think you can hold that position.