Video: O’Donnell screams about chickenhawk “cowards” on Scarborough

posted at 10:41 am on November 22, 2006 by Allahpundit

It’s been awhile since we had a good Lawrence O’Donnell meltdown. He kept them coming at a nice clip in late ’04 and early ’05 (note the neck vein), but since then he’s been using HuffPo as his primal-scream outlet and confining his TV appearances mainly to Olbermann’s show, where he gets to play “the sane one.” Nice to see him back in form. Here he is on Monday night’s Scarborough Country accusing GOP strategist Terry Holt of being just as much of a coward as he is while lacking the saving moral grace of defeatism. It’s not that not serving is bad; it’s not serving and not doing your part to lower the morale of those who do that’s the real sin here.

Rangel’s going to keep pushing it, though. He’s got an op-ed in today’s NY Daily News; picture Pelosi massaging her temples as she reads this:

That is why I intend to reintroduce legislation to reinstate the military draft, making men and women up to age 42 eligible for service, with no exemptions beyond health or reasons of conscience. I believe it is immoral for those who insist on continuing the conflict in Iraq, and placing war on the table in Iran and North Korea, to do so only at the risk of other people’s children.

Even the Times thinks it’s stupid. As do DoD officials, one of whom made this interesting point in retort:

“I think that it would make the military more average, and the military is considerably above average today,” Carr said. “Two-thirds of our recruits are from the top half aptitude (range), whereas an average or equitable share would be only half. Moreover, we draw disproportionately from the middle class and the upper class. The underrepresented (in the military) are the poor. A draft would only shift the burden toward the poor.

Mind you, neither Rangel nor O’Donnell nor any draft advocate that I’ve read in the past few days is supporting the draft as part of a push to win in Iraq or to give us more options vis-a-vis Iran or North Korea. Rather, they’re supporting it to give us fewer options — a point Rush Limbaugh emphasized on yesterday’s show:

I think he’s trying to set it up and create a continuing anti-war mentality in this country. It’s what they think got them elected, and he is convinced that if we have a draft, that fewer and fewer people will be “sent to war” because politicians won’t have the guts and presidents won’t have the guts to defend the country when necessary, because they won’t want to incur the wrath…

[Liberals] look at military people with double the contempt because they don’t like the military. They think it’s the focus of evil in the modern world, and they’ll do anything they can to denigrate it and impugn it because they want to neuter it. They want people to think it’s incompetent. They want people to think it can’t win so that it is not used. I’ve always thought that in their hearts and souls, liberals love it when we have bad military entanglements because it allows them to say, “See, this is not the way to solve problems in the world today.” This is no different than Kerry who talks about how stupid they are, and if they don’t get an education they’re going to end up “stuck in Iraq.”

Anyway, here’s the clip. Don’t give it up on it too early — the best part starts at around six minutes in.

Update: Meanwhile, Jim Treacher congratulates the winners.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Well then show us how brave YOU are, Rosie, join the Marines and go to Iraq! PLEEEEEEEEASE???

Tony737 on November 22, 2006 at 10:48 AM

picture Pelosi massaging her temples as she reads this

Heh.

How could Rangle be sooooo far off the reservation on this? Is it a wild political stunt, or has dimentia set in?

natesnake on November 22, 2006 at 10:49 AM

You’re a pussy. I’m a pussy. Everyone’s a pussy. Peace!

Editor on November 22, 2006 at 10:54 AM

You’re a pussy. I’m a pussy. Everyone’s a pussy. Peace!

I just hope there are no fake orgasms during the worldwide orgrasms for peace!

SouthernGent on November 22, 2006 at 10:58 AM

A Rangel Draft Senryu

Silly volunteers,
Draft the unwilling today!
Where’s my Cherry Pez?

natesnake on November 22, 2006 at 11:00 AM

What a P.O.S. larry is. I just noticed… there isn’t a single “O’Donnel” on TV that is honorable. They’re all CRACKPOTS.

Mazztek on November 22, 2006 at 11:03 AM

Actually, O’Donnell makes a GREAT point – just not the one he thinks he’s making.

The point is: in O’Donnell’s circles – among liberals – he’s right. THEY are completely disconnected from the military. Completely disconnected.

What O’Donnell doesn’t get (just like every other liberal) is that THE REST OF US are ALREADY connected to the military. Even those who didn’t serve.

This clip is actually a great explanation of the difference between liberals and conservatives. And it’s a pretty ugly picture of liberalism.

For the record: the draft is a stupid, stupid idea. Ask anyone who’s served in the post-Vietnam era. Our military is a professional voluntary service. It WORKS better. Ask our enemies.

The speechless moment at minute 6 is priceless. O’Donnell is impressively stupid, isn’t he?

Professor Blather on November 22, 2006 at 11:04 AM

Oooops, wrong liberal O’ … but the pleading still stands! :-)

That’s what I get for posting while at work! Phone are suppossed to be OFF anyway, HA!

Tony737 on November 22, 2006 at 11:11 AM

In the spirit of Congress’s newfound bipartisanship, I think Rangle’s bill to the floor for immediate debate and vote.

Let’s see if old Charlie, or anyone else for that matter, has the gumballs to place an “Aye” by their name on this one.

Sometimes you just have to call their bluff……

BacaDog on November 22, 2006 at 11:15 AM

Darnit! Should have been…

I think Rangle’s bill should be brought to the floor for immediate

AP, no turkey for you till we get our preview button!

BacaDog on November 22, 2006 at 11:18 AM

I QUESTION THE CHICKENHAWK REPUBLICAN WAR-MONGERS!

natesnake on November 22, 2006 at 11:19 AM

Well then show us how brave YOU are, Rosie, join the Marines and go to Iraq!

So some of you guys don’t even make a pretense of reading the posts before spouting off, huh?

Allahpundit on November 22, 2006 at 11:20 AM

How many conservatives meltdown like this? We have had Clinton lose it twice, once with Peter Jennings, once with Chris Wallace, we have seen Kerry meltdown, Kramer, O’Donnell more than once, Olbermann and on and on. What conservatives crack up like this?

CrimsonFisted on November 22, 2006 at 11:23 AM

Here’s my beef with the left’s usage of the chickenhawk label. They say its supposed to be about putting up or shutting up, but its really the standard left-wing elitist mindset where either you belive what I believe or you are stupid. Rangel thinks that if only more white people conservatives served in the military, we would all agree that wars are bad and we shouldn’t fight wars, m’kay.

BohicaTwentyTwo on November 22, 2006 at 11:25 AM

A wise person once said, you can tell who is losing an argument by noticing who is raising their voice.

Lawrence O’Donnell
Strong
Smart
Screching
Liberal
Jackass

natesnake on November 22, 2006 at 11:25 AM

The whole chickenhawk thing is an incredibly weak, thin argument…not that that will stop the left from continuing to trot it out.

It’s like arguing with someone that suffers from tourette’s:
“DIEBOLD…Uuhhhh…..HALLIBURTON! CHICKENHAWK!!”

Questions for Lawrence:

If you’re disabled and cannot serve, can you still be in favor of military action? Or must you shut up because you aren’t going to fight?

What about if you’re over the age of 50? 60?

Was FDR a chickenhawk?

In what other endeavors must those without experience or willingness to participate be silent?

I never again want to hear the left criticize the LAPD unless they themselves are going to join the force to fight crime.

IDIOTS!

Rosetta on November 22, 2006 at 11:26 AM

I heard Rangel yesterday saying:

You can’t support the war and oppose the draft. It’s hypocritical.

I’d like to know how you can support a draft and not support the war, and not be hypocritical. How can you want to force people into participating in an action you oppose?

Pablo on November 22, 2006 at 11:30 AM

Jeff Goldstein has done some indepth critical analysis of the “chickenhawk” argument. End result, it is meant to chill rational discussion. It is not a legitimate argument because you can easily flip it around and ask why the peacnik doesn’t go stand between the soldier and the enemy. It makes no sense and is about as constructive as a kindergarten shouting match.

natesnake on November 22, 2006 at 11:31 AM

Put that guy in the same room as Kramer – they’ll blow the roof off the joint!

venmax on November 22, 2006 at 11:37 AM

I just want to tell all of you that my son (USNA Grad and two years of Marine hand to hand combat training) and many, many more like him are traveling by air today. I have told my son to remain alert (contrary to his regular activity of falling asleep before the plane even pushes back). Please rest assured that our sons and daughters will be on alert this holiday weekend…
When I watched the movie United 93 I came away with one thought… “They don’t know who they are dealing with”… We are all willing to “go along to get along” but, don’t push it pal or you will end up on the deck!
Go Navy!!!

Babs on November 22, 2006 at 11:47 AM

Well then show us how brave YOU are, Rosie, join the Marines and go to Iraq!
So some of you guys don’t even make a pretense of reading the posts before spouting off, huh?

Allahpundit on November 22, 2006 at 11:20 AM

When I first saw his line, I thought he was being intentionally ironic–or something. I didn’t imediately know the post was about Lawrence O (what with all the Rosie crap over the last few days). But yeah, he made a minor boo-boo. OTOH, I have no intention of watching the clip myself. At this point, that is just masochism, and I am running out of my capacity to stomach leftist tripe. I confess, I just couldn’t bring myself to watch the clip.

To make one other point, given what that DoD official said about a draft making the military more average, that means that right now, the military is above average–in most respects, a fact with which I would certainly concur. If Rangel understands that (which he probably does), and in light of what Rush said about the left wanting the American people to be more anti-war, Rangel must be calculating ways to make the military less effective so more people will hate it, and fewer will respect it (because it gets more casualties than it currently does).

urbancenturion on November 22, 2006 at 11:47 AM

Oh, and P.S., I am absolutely willing to pay for an attorney if my son throttles someone on a plane… I trust my son and I love my country!

Babs on November 22, 2006 at 11:49 AM

test (did I spring a filter trap? I don’t know what I could have possibly said to do it.)

urbancenturion on November 22, 2006 at 11:50 AM

Bill Whittle has already torpedoed the tin-can “chickenhawk” screech:

The Chickenhawk argument goes something like this: anyone who favors military action should not be taken seriously unless they themselves are willing to go and do the actual fighting. This particular piece of work is an anti-war crowd attempt to silence the debate by ruling that the other side is out of bounds for the duration. Like all ad hominem attacks, (argumentum ad hominem means “argument against the person”) it is an act of intellectual surrender. The person who employs an ad hominem attack is admitting they cannot win the debate on merit, and hope to chuck the entire thing out the window by attacking the messenger. This is a logical fallacy of the first order, because the messenger is not the message.

The messenger is not the message
. That’s all you need to throw away the entire Chickenhawk response. But why stop there when this one is so much fun?

If you ever see this charge again, you may want to reflect that person’s own logical reasoning in the following fashion: You may not talk about education unless you are willing to become a teacher. You may not discuss poverty unless you yourself are willing to go and form a homeless shelter. How dare you criticize Congress unless you are willing to go out and get elected yourself? Your opinion on a National Health Care System is negated out of hand since you are unwilling to get a medical degree and open a clinic. And as far as your opinions regarding the Democratic Underground or The Huffington Post are concerned, well, you can just keep them to yourself, mister, unless you can produce an advanced degree in Abnormal Psychology and Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

Using the internal reasoning behind the Chickenhawk argument means you cannot comment on, speak about or even hold an opinion on any subject that is not part of your paying day job. It is simple-minded and profoundly anti-democratic, which is why it so deeply appeals to those who sling it around the most.

But wait! There’s more!

If you accept the Chickenhawk argument – that only those actually willing to go and fight have a legitimate opinion on the subject of war – then that means that any decision to go to war must rest exclusively in the hands of the military. Is that what this person really wants? To abandon civilian control of the military? That’s the box they have trapped themselves in with this argument. Now to be perfectly honest, I think Robert Heinlein made a very compelling case for just this line of reasoning in Starship Troopers (the book, not the clueless projected travesty). Heinlein said that the only people who should be allowed to vote are those that have served in the military, since only they are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of the state. I don’t agree with that. I think civilian control of the military has been one of the pillars of our nation’s success, and it has withstood the test of both World Wars and Civil ones. But that is the world you are stuck in when you toss that little Chickenhawk grenade.
Finally, if the only legitimate opinion on Iraq, say, is that held by the troops themselves, then they are overwhelmingly in favor of being there and finishing what they started. I recently received an e-mail from an Army major who is heading back for his fourth tour. The Chickenhawk argument, coming from an anti-war commentator, legitimizes only those voices that overwhelmingly contradict the anti-war argument.

I strongly recommend reading his stuff. His essays are long and will keep you scrolling with interest. You will, however, be richer for the time spent.

Random Numbers (Brian Epps) on November 22, 2006 at 11:58 AM

SouthernGent

I’ve never protested. ANYTHING! On the streets, that is. But this is one protest that, when I think about it, has some merit appeal. I think: “Hey, I can DO this! I’ve been doin’ this since I was a kid. I’m a natural.”

Where do I sign up?

james hooker on November 22, 2006 at 12:04 PM

Let’s see if old Charlie, or anyone else for that matter, has the gumballs to place an “Aye” by their name on this one.

Sometimes you just have to call their bluff……

BacaDog on November 22, 2006 at 11:15 AM

He pulled this same stunt last year and, IIRC, voted no himself when it came up.

Barntender on November 22, 2006 at 12:13 PM

O’Donnel is still a loudmouth ass, I see.

But given the fact that his bio shows that he has never served in the military, and using LIBERAL’S RULES on who has Absolute Moral Authority to comment on the war — he should STFU. He lacks the QUALIFICATION to discuss the military, including who is or who should serve.

georgej on November 22, 2006 at 12:14 PM

Well at least Rangel exempted himself and his entire constituent. “with no exemptions beyond health or reasons of conscience.” I suppose since this one statement exempts the entire left and since the militaries votes are lost or not counted, that his actual motive could be pursuit of power. What a second, what am I saying? His motives are mostly pursuit of power oriented.

Allah, “So some of you guys don’t even make a pretense of reading the posts before spouting off, huh? “
Be careful, someone out there will start questioning you’re conservatism.

Rustyw on November 22, 2006 at 12:16 PM

Come on guys, try to understand the motivation of Liar, Creepy Liar. After all, he knows from where he speaks. This guy was an advisor to the President of the United States.

Hold on.

Oh, I’m being told he wasn’t an advisor, he was a scriptwriter.

There’s more?

Crap, it wasn’t a real president either, it was Martin Sheen pretending to be president on the West Wing.

Lawrence’s ideas were manifested in a make believe world? Who’da thunk it. Everytime I see this pinhead I want someone to permanently affix duct-tape around that rectangle head of his.

On the other hand, I am enjoying the “Rebirth of Liberalism Show” so far. They’re making the mistake they avoided leading up to the elections …. opening their mouths.

So many nutcases, so few progamming hours.

fogw on November 22, 2006 at 12:20 PM

Mazztek wrote: “What a P.O.S. larry is. I just noticed… there isn’t a single “O’Donnel” on TV that is honorable. They’re all CRACKPOTS.”

Guffaw!

I have this image as Larry really being Rosie’s twin sister. Put him in one of here dresses and you might not be able to tell them apart.

georgej on November 22, 2006 at 12:20 PM

The Chickenhawk argument…..Well, I for one prefer having our military run by civilians. Of course, this used to be an intellectual corner stone on the left, until they figured out they could use the argument politically.

Rustyw on November 22, 2006 at 12:20 PM

Uh, AP.

What happend to my OTHER post in this thread? It disappeared.

georgej on November 22, 2006 at 12:21 PM

Up to age 42? Hell lets just draft everybody 65 and under while we’re at it. What universe is Rangel from? (BTW I turned 42 this year.)

vcferlita on November 22, 2006 at 12:25 PM

Random Numbers (Brian Epps), just a small response to the passage you quoted. In Heinlein’s world within Starship Troopers, the military was still under civilian control. In fact, the military couldn’t vote. One couldn’t vote until he became a citizen. The quickest and easiest (assuming you didn’t get killed) way to become a citizen was through honorable service resulting in an honorable discharge. In other words, most citizens were retired military. But it was possible to become a citizen. For instance, a Bill Gates type could buy a citizenship by giving the state so much money that there was a significant enefit that redounded to the entire society. But of course, that would be rare.

urbancenturion on November 22, 2006 at 12:26 PM

urbancenturion,

To make one other point, given what that DoD official said about a draft making the military more average, that means that right now, the military is above average–in most respects, a fact with which I would certainly concur.

But in Rangel’s estimation (But not John Kerry’s! He just botched a joke!) the military is below average, full of those who had no better options. No one in their right mind would choose to join, unless they had to. Charlie wants to get dem Richie Rich white boys up in there, so that the cannon fodder won’t be so

inferior

.

Pablo on November 22, 2006 at 12:27 PM

Bill Whittle is excellent in his analysis. Thanks Brian.

MarkB on November 22, 2006 at 12:28 PM

Pablo, probably meant to hit the emphasis button, right?

urbancenturion on November 22, 2006 at 12:29 PM

Pablo, probably meant to hit the emphasis button, right?

Yup. All I want for Christmas is preview.

Pablo on November 22, 2006 at 12:32 PM

I would actually like to defend one’s right to support the military with being required to serve, but the fact is that I have served in the armed forces. By their logic, I cannot support the chickenhawk stance as I am ineligible to be a chickenhawk. I would be a warhawk in chicken’s clothing.

BohicaTwentyTwo on November 22, 2006 at 12:55 PM

Allah, sorry ’bout that, normally I do but I was at work and posting from my phone which was suppossed to be off at the time (airline rules).

Tony737 on November 22, 2006 at 1:12 PM

I have a question: Is Hot Air a detachment of the 101st Fighting Keyboardists, “The Chickenhawks — we eat chickens for lunch!”

To sum up the reason why morons like O’Donnel love to use the word “chickenhawk,” I refer you to the above site.

A. Many liberals, in their diminished mental capacities, like to have a word or phrase to shout over and over in lieu of the mental preparedness needed for an actual debate of issues. Fighting tyranny is a complicated issue, and, rather than admit they’re on the side of tyranny, many liberals will try to avoid debate altogether in any way possible.

Remember, chickenhawks ARE PREDATORS who really do eat chickens for lunch!

And, as we all know, the “Peace” sign *IS* a chicken’s footprint.

georgej on November 22, 2006 at 1:23 PM

Bill Whittle is excellent in his analysis. Thanks Brian.

Ditto.

Happy Thanksgiving to all.

Rosetta on November 22, 2006 at 1:39 PM

Lawrence O’Donnell spewing about how “chickenhawks” should shut up about the war, have no business guiding the war, etc….*WHILE* admitting that he’s among the chickens.

O’Donnell is a useless waste of DNA.

O’Donnell throwing around words like “disgusting”, while standing as a walking/talking model for the word. He’s making a buck being *SO* eaten up with moral indignation…while leading me to question what he actually believes. His tirades are probably profitable — they get him gigs on Scarborough — but what he may or may not believe, aside from believing in his own personal worth to humanity — I can’t fathom.

His tirade here was, to use his word, disgusting.

What does a citizen of the United States need to discuss this or any war in which the nation is engaged? Their citizenship alone.

What does a citizen need to direct the forces of this country in war? A mandate, by election or appointment approved by elected officials, as one would need in setting agricultural, educational, fiscal or diplomatic policy.

This while “chickenhawk” thing is classic Leftist claptrap: they’re totalitarians and try at every turn to silence dissent to their rants. I O’Donnell counts himself among those “too scared to serve”, as he didn’t ever serve, *HE* should shut up.

Puritan1648 on November 22, 2006 at 1:47 PM

Up to age 42? Hell lets just draft everybody 65 and under while we’re at it. What universe is Rangel from? (BTW I turned 42 this year.)

vcferlita on November 22, 2006 at 12:25 PM

Goes back to the draft of 1917 in WWI. Able bodied men from the ages of 18 to 40 (42) were required to register for the draft.

serenity on November 22, 2006 at 2:03 PM

…man…Rangel and O’Donnell *HATE* this country. They like the country between their ears, the country of their theories and fitful dreams…but *THIS* country, spread out before their eyeys? They hate it.

Charlie hates all the productive, self-satisfied, moral white people. Larry hates all the squares.

Hatred, undiluted. Call a thing by its name.

Puritan1648 on November 22, 2006 at 2:12 PM

I’ve been taking a lot of heat over at Digg lately, and it makes them totally nuts when I tell them that I will support the Democrat Draft Bill as that is what America just voted for, and I always support Americans. Somehow I don’t think they are enjoying their win in the recent elections.
In case anyone else wants to join in on the fun, here is where you can add your support for Rangel’s Draft Bill.

Don’t be a chickenhawk. Show your support today. /sarc

DannoJyd on November 22, 2006 at 2:51 PM

But it was possible to become a citizen. For instance, a Bill Gates type could buy a citizenship by giving the state so much money that there was a significant enefit that redounded to the entire society. But of course, that would be rare.

Not so. One could not buy citizenship in Starship Troopers; and the MINORITY of citizens were military. The service could be, and usually was, civil service. You could be a postman and get the right to vote.

While I think our military is very good (especially considering the PC shackles placed on them today), I’ll reserve judgement on the “best ever” accolade until they face an equal enemy. We haven’t won a real war since WWII (which is just before we began social experiments in the military…)

I’d like to watch the clip, but all it does is say “Loading…”

Military recruitment is like taxation. The better you make it, the more and better recruits you’ll get. By “better”, I don’t mean “easier”. People who favor the military life do not want things easy. They want to fight. Show potential recruits success, honor and glory, and they’ll line up to get in. No matter how good the military is, nobody will want to join if it’s obvious that the gov’t will not let them win.

When are they gonna let us *fight*?

- Telly Savalis in “The Battle of the Bulge”

Hiraghm on November 22, 2006 at 3:07 PM

In case my taxation analogy was obscure, the “better” (ie, lower) you make taxes, the more revenue you get.

Hiraghm on November 22, 2006 at 3:08 PM

“Two-thirds of our recruits are from the top half aptitude (range), whereas an average or equitable share would be only half…”

from link

What a crock of the brown stuff.

THeDRiFTeR on November 22, 2006 at 3:45 PM

I’ll reserve judgement on the “best ever” accolade until they face an equal enemy.

Hiraghm on November 22, 2006 at 3:07 PM

And where are we going to find them one of those?

THeDRiFTeR on November 22, 2006 at 3:47 PM

Not sure if Clinton sending troops into the Balkans was a good thing?

Jackass.

Black Adam on November 22, 2006 at 7:30 PM

But there’s two small silver linings in this. Scary Larry said “Democrats are just as hypocritical as Republicans” and “Bill Clinton was a classic, afraid draft dodger.”

I’ll take ‘em.

JimC on November 22, 2006 at 9:08 PM

Lawrence O’Donnell was just on with Olby.

Suck-up and F– up together licking each others milk.

Lucky for me I only heard the last short minute of it.

Texyank on November 23, 2006 at 12:19 AM

Somebody, PLEASE, force-feed this imbecile some ex-lax. I fear he is too far gone. He is truly full of S***.

hillbillyjim on November 23, 2006 at 3:21 AM

What about the ChickenMartyrs? You know, the old geezers like Al Zwahiri that tell all Muslims it is their duty to martyr themselves, and quickly too.

After you Al Zwahiri. What are you waiting for?

shaken on November 23, 2006 at 2:46 PM