Back to Archived blog posts.
"Chicken hawk" and other logical fallacies
Rich Lowry has a couple real gems in his column about the Left's "chicken hawk" argument. Here is the first:
And the second:
Lowry has a good point. The "chicken hawk" argument, in addition to being an ad hominem logical fallacy, is a copout. It is a way for the Left to avoid a substantive discussion on the merits of this war.
But the Left's ad hominems are not limited to calling war supporters "chicken hawks". We've all heard the cries about how President Bush is only after Iraqi oil or that he "lied" about Iraq having Weapons of Mass Destruction.
As to the first claim, can't Leftists recognize that there is simply a disagreement about the war? Could it be that President Bush legitimately thought that Iraq was a threat and that we needed to deal with Saddam's regime? One of the things that poisons American politics (from the national level to the local level) is the idea some have that everyone who disagrees with them does so for nefarious reasons. Sometimes, people just have a different opinion
The claim that Bush "lied" about weapons of mass destruction falls along the same lines. First, some WMD have been found in Iraq, and we know Saddam used chemical weapons against Iraqi Kurds and against the Iranians in the 1980's. There was a great deal of agreement (even among Senate Democrats) before the war that there was at least a good chance that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling WMD. Could it be that the intelligence was just bad? Could it be that, with months of advance warning that we were coming to get him, that Hussein spirited his WMD out of the country?
Personal attacks by the Left on those who support the war in Iraq contribute to the downward spiral that is poisoning American politics. Unfortunately for them, the Left's cascade of negativity is also damaging their ability to get elected.