Newt Gingrich: ‘Chickenhawk,’ or just Missed an Opportunity to Serve?
Jan 8th, 2012 | 27 responses
The only people I have more contempt for than those who would send our young men and women to get shot at, get maimed and get killed in unnecessary wars, are those who support sending our young men and women to get shot at, get maimed and get killed in unnecessary wars while they themselves refused to, declined to serve, had “other priorities,” or had all kinds of excuses for not serving in those very same wars they so gung-ho supported and continue to support.
They are called “chickenhawks” and other even less flattering names.
We all know who they are. They have names like Limbaugh, Rove, Cheney, DeLay, Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith and — some say — Gingrich.
On the other hand, there are those who see war only as the last resort to defend our country’s security and then only when declared by Congress, but who nevertheless will serve when called upon.
One of them is a man who is presently vying for the Republican presidential nomination — a man whose views and policies I generally do not support, but a man who served his country when he was called. His name is Ron Paul.
The two men — the one who has supported the Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq wars, but never served, and the man who served although he opposes war — “exchanged views” on this issue during last night’s GOP presidential debate.
Ron Paul has previously criticized Gingrich for not serving in the military, taking a deferment during the Vietnam War and has called the former Speaker a “chickenhawk.”
Ron Paul served as a flight surgeon during the Vietnam War after he was drafted.
When one of the debate moderators brought the issue up, Gingrich was the first to speak by saying, “Well, Dr. Paul makes a lot of comments. It’s part of his style.” Gingrich then continued to tell about how he had grown up in a military family — “an Army brat” — and about the defense related civilian positions he has held. He also talked about the plight of New Hampshire veterans “in the north country” in midwinter having to go all the way to Boston for treatment.
When Ron Paul was asked whether he would use the “chickenhawk” phrase again, Paul responded:
Yeah. I think people who don’t serve when they could and they get three or four or even five deferments aren’t — they — they have no right to send our kids off to war, and — and not be even against the wars that we have. I’m trying to stop the wars, but at least, you know, I went when they called me up.
But, you know, the — the veterans’ problem is a big one. We have hundreds of thousands coming back from these wars that were undeclared, they were unnecessary, they haven’t been won, they’re unwinnable, and we have hundreds of thousands looking for care. And we have an epidemic of suicide coming back. And so many have — I mean, if you add up all the contractors and all the wars going on, Afghanistan and in Iraq, we’ve lost 8,500 Americans, and severe injuries, over 40,000. And these are undeclared war.
Paul then directed his words invoking the Constitution and its rules to Rick Perry: “And I don’t like it when we send our kids off to fight these wars, and when those individuals didn’t go themselves, and then come up and when they’re asked, they say, oh, I don’t think I could — one person could have made a difference,” concluding: “I have a pet peeve that annoys me to a great deal, because when I see these young men coming back, my heart weeps for them.”
In his rebuttal, Gingrich said:
Well, Dr. Paul has a long history of saying things that are inaccurate and false. The fact is, I never asked for deferment. I was married with a child. It was never a question. My father was, in fact, serving in Vietnam in the Mekong Delta at the time he’s referring to.
I think I have a pretty good idea of what it’s like as a family to worry about your father getting killed. And I personally resent the kind of comments and aspersions he routinely makes without accurate information and then just slurs people with.
In a final follow-up, Paul said, “When I was drafted, I was married and had two kids, and I went,” for which he was applauded.
Trying to be heard over the applause, Gingrich said, “I wasn’t eligible for the draft. I wasn’t eligible for the draft.”
CODA:
In a CNN Republican debate fact-checking series, CNN fact-checks Gingrich’s statement, “The fact is, I never asked for deferment. I was married with a child. It was never a question” and gives the following “verdict”:
True, but incomplete. Gingrich is correct, that he was not eligible for the draft. But that does not mean he could not have been one of the 3 million Americans who ultimately served in the war.
That fact seems to be something he has considered. “Given everything I believe in, a large part of me thinks I should have gone over,” he told Vanity Fair in 1989.
Debate transcript courtesy The Washington Post
27 Responses to “Newt Gingrich: ‘Chickenhawk,’ or just Missed an Opportunity to Serve?”
Yep!
Dorian’s comments covered the issue so well that there’s nothing more that needs to be added… Unless of course you’re a “chickenhawk” that doesn’t like being called out.
Newt’s father did a good job. He scared the hell out of the boy. I would have told my son, had I had one, everything I could to keep him out of war. Newt should thank his father, but newt should stop trying to capitalize on his father’s sacrifice.
Nobody owns his father’s sacrifice but his father. Newt needs to Shut his mouth because we have a lot of young lads and lasses that may need a little kick in the butt to get started after this mess, but certainly not a stab in the heart through the back. Belittling their service by equating his to theirs is a sickening kind of disqualification for national leadership and it makes me seriously worry about the direction Newt would take veterans benefits.
We all know who they are. They have names like Limbaugh, Rove, Cheney, DeLay, Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith and — some say — Gingrich.
And Obama?
DaGoat-
President Obama is pulling OUT the troops.
Republicans, of which most are chicken-hawks, are trying put more troops IN.
Hell Santorum is a friggern modern Napoleon Bonaparte . He wants to invade and kill all the Muslims! What a fruitcake.
Obama never served in the military and escalated Afghanistan.
Thanks for your typical conservative response DaGoat… You make Dorian’s point almost as well as he does.
Since President Obama was of ‘draft age’ in a time when there was NO DRAFT (1979 and 1984) AND according to an “American Involvement in Wars” Time Line shows Vietnam ended in 1975 (Obama 14 yrs) and the 1990 Persian Gulf War (Obama 30 yrs) what ‘conflict’ did the President Obama ‘evade’… Grenada?
Steve and Allen:
Not much more to add to your answers to “And Obama?”
Thanks
After four college deferments I graduated in June of 68. By November of 68 I was in basic training. Believe me I spent four months trying to find a way out. Newt was successful I was not so I can’t really be critical.
Of course the difference is I opposed the Vietnam war and nearly every war since then.
For you Dorian-
Perry and Paul are the only candidates that ever served in the military.
Santorum is a super hawk. He wants to invade Iran right away and ride a white stallion leading his returning troops in New York ticker tape parade, but thats as close as he will ever get. Hail the conquering hero.
Paul is totally against war and I respect that, but with some caution.
Huntsman is a diplomat. I doubt he wants war, or, wants to make an historical name for himself with war, like the Bush family has tried to do.
Gingrich is a fake and a fraud.
Romney will do anything to make himself look good. Maybe even invade some God forsaken land if the media polls are in favor.
Perry was a pilot and I am very glad I never had to ride back seat with him. Because he is a dummy, but he is a veteran and that counts!
President Obama never wore a uniform, but he never pretended to be a hawk either.
President Obama’s honor is intact. He should ask Herman Cain to be vice if Joe Biden don’t want it this time around. Pizza can solve a lot of conflict.
Ron-
Fun two years Ron?
So to be a chicken hawk you have to be a draft dodger? DDW didn’t use that in his initial definition
Obama didn’t serve in the military and definitely sent US troops into harm’s way, including a poor 22 year old guy who was killed last month in Afghanistan and lived about 20 miles from me. You guys keep cheering on your bloody hero.
And let me add – the people on DDW’s list are indeed all chickenhawks.
A definition of “chickenhawk”: (Wikipedia)
“Chickenhawk (also chicken hawk and chicken-hawk) is a political epithet used in the United States to criticize a politician, bureaucrat, or commentator who strongly supports a war or other military action, yet who actively avoided military service when of age.
The term is meant to indicate that the person in question is cowardly or hypocritical for personally avoiding combat in the past while advocating that others go to war in the present. Generally, the implication is that “chickenhawks” lack the experience, judgment, or moral standing to make decisions about going to war. The term is not applied to those who avoided military service without subsequently adopting a hawkish political outlook.
The term was first applied to vocal supporters of military action who were perceived to have used family connections or college deferments to avoid serving in previous wars, particularly the Vietnam War. In current usage, the label is used almost exclusively to describe ardent supporters of the Iraq War who have themselves never been in combat; it is less often used to describe supporters of the more broadly supported war in Afghanistan as such. People who use the term have not necessarily been in the military themselves; people labeled “chickenhawks” have sometimes served in the military, but have not seen combat. Although it is possible to have a military career and never be at war, the term is often used in the context of someone who has been in the military in time of war but made efforts to steer clear of combat.”
Another illuminating Gingrich quote is from Jane Mayer’s 11 Feb 1985 Wall Street Journal interview, “Vietnam Service Isn’t on the Resumes of Some Vocal. Middle-Aged Hawks.”
Gingrich told Mayer quite clearly that he was not interested in serving in the military during Vietnam: “‘Part of the question I had to ask myself was what difference would I have made,’ he says. ‘No one felt this was the battle-line on which freedom would live or die.’”
“What difference would I have made” is a rather ironic remark for a guy who suffers from grandiosity.
Dan
Thanks, DBuck.
And this is the man who — probably — has emphasized dozens of times that one vote (for him) could make all the difference
Thanks for the Wiki definition DDW, but I was using the definition you used in your first paragraph:
“those who would send our young men and women to get shot at, get maimed and get killed in unnecessary wars, are those who support sending our young men and women to get shot at, get maimed and get killed in unnecessary wars while they themselves refused to, declined to serve, had “other priorities,”…
Actually, the full quote is:
“The only people I have more contempt for than those who would send our young men and women to get shot at, get maimed and get killed in unnecessary wars, are those who support sending our young men and women to get shot at, get maimed and get killed in unnecessary wars while they themselves refused to, declined to serve, had “other priorities,” or had all kinds of excuses for not serving in those very same wars they so gung-ho supported and continue to support.”
By no stretch of the imagination does Obama fit the Wikipedia definition of “chickenhawk,” and not even with a lot of misdirected, partisan imagination — and dislike for the man — does Obama fit the “DDW definition”
Thanks for your comments.
Sends young men and women to get killed in unnecessary wars: check.
Had other priorities besides military service: check.
Even more than that, Obama had the opportunity to bring home our troops from Afghanistan and decided instead to send over some more.
Obama did not really have the opportunity to bring home the troops in Afghanistan when he first took office. It was widely believed, by the intel community as well as popular belief, that Al Qaeda was lurking just across the Hindu Kush in Pakistan. This later proved to be true. Obama wanted to protect the country–especially to take out Bin Laden. He did so. Now he is proposing to reduce the number of troops in Afghanistan.
DaGoat, your attempts to paint him as a chickenhawk are simply not credible. I served in the military. I did not serve during a war (injured out in 1988, so just before the Iraq war), but I knew guys who did. My battalion commander had been a lieutenant in Vietnam. Most of my top officers (Lt. Col. and above) had served similarly. They told us (commissioned officers) that it is easier to get forgiveness than permission.
Debacles like having U.S. troops sit outside a city in Iraq and provide target practice for nut-jobs inside the city would never have happened in 1988. We would have bombed or stormed the Mosque of the Golden Dome. We would have captured or killed Muqtada Al Sadr. We would have ignored Pakistani sovereignty if we were chasing/fighting Taliban troops. We would not have asked for permission. Our troops’ safety came first.
These are the lessons of Vietnam. These are the lessons that the Neocons never learned–because they didn’t fight in Vietnam and didn’t serve in the military under those who did. They are the chickenhawks.
“These are the lessons of Vietnam. These are the lessons that the Neocons never learned–because they didn’t fight in Vietnam and didn’t serve in the military under those who did. They are the chickenhawks.”
Amen! And, BTW, “Of all the presidents since Vietnam, Mr. Obama may be the most fascinating, because — unlike Bill Clinton and George W. Bush — he was too young to have fought in Vietnam or to have gamed the system and avoided service in it (as both Mr. Clinton and Mr. Bush did).” Read more here: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/opinion/sunday/the-vietnam-war-still-haunting-obama.html?pagewanted=all
Rcoutme thanks for your calm response. Let me clarify I am not in any way defending neocons. As I said I think everyone on DDW’s list can accurately be called a chickenhawk. The Bush administration did a lousy job handling the Iraq War. I initially supported the decision to go into Iraq and turned out to be wrong.
I was also in the military and was active duty during Desert Storm although I did not see combat or even get shipped overseas. What I did was nothing compared to what the troops who actually went over there did.
But one thing I did experience, as you did, was the knowledge that any time the phone could ring and I could be in the Middle East, my family torn apart and myself in harm’s way. I also experienced my friends being sent into the same situation. This is something Obama never will experience.
As I am getting older I am increasingly tired of seeing our young people blown up unnecessarily. We’ll have to disagree on Afghanistan as I think our dead soldiers are not worth the benefit to Afghanistan, and that the chances for “success” in Afghanistan are very slim.
Maybe chickenhawk is the wrong term for Obama, maybe we need a different term. To me he is a child making an adult’s decisions when it comes to the military. I also feel he is willing to sacrifice American lives for his own political gains. What would be the term for that?
“These are the lessons of Vietnam. These are the lessons that the Neocons never learned–because they didn’t fight in Vietnam and didn’t serve in the military under those who did. They are the chickenhawks.”
Beautifully said, absolutely accurate.
With some trepidation — but not in a perfunctory way — I’d like to say thank you for your service to both DaGoat and Rcoutme.
Why “with trepidation,” you may ask.
Because a couple of previous thanks to our veterans on these threads have been dissected and met with suspicion and skepticism (bordering on scorn) in the past.
But what the heck, damn the torpedoes, I’ll say it again and very sincerely: “Thank you for your service.”
“To me he is a child making an adult’s decisions when it comes to the military.”
A perfectly appropriate desciption of our last president playing at commander in chief. Obama, while far from perfect, is his wiser and more responsible elder.
@Zephyr
I do not really know if he is being more responsible. Basically, the president needs to have a really good adviser (aka Sec. of Defense) when he has no combat or political experience concerning war. I hope that his decisions are based 1) on necessity and 2) on good advice. I know that Bush’s were not.
Rcoutme-
You discount civilian lives as if it were not worth consideration or thought. All of you here have.
I’ve counted them. I’ve piled them in heaps after military actions with, “no permission”. Helped the ICRC try to identify them and bury them in lime for sanitary reasons. Glory the soldier.
Ron Paul was right about one thing, war is made far to easily and far to often and THAT is what happens when you have a over bloated military that you have to justify it’s cost and existence.
I really get tired of this warmongering crap.