The G.O.P. has lost both houses of Congress, and since lost three special elections in what should have been safe Republican seats, and now faces polling numbers indicating that a rabid socialist committed to defeat in the Middle East may, by repeatedl…

Frankly, I’m not really even sure the latest Obama gaffe is really a gaffe. Grammatically awkward, maybe. But it’s pretty clear that he’s referring back to “heroes,” not “fallen heroes.” His mistake seems to have been to use the word “them” instead of “heroes” in the second part of the quote.

Hardly. His real mistake was completely missing the point of Memorial Day, which is to remember the fallen heroes. We have a holiday for honoring the unfallen ones; it’s called Veteran’s Day.

The other gaffe the righty blogosphere’s jumping on is Obama’s statement that his uncle helped liberate Auschwitz. As it turns out, it was his great uncle, and it was Buchenwald. Again, this isn’t even cringe-worthy, much less dishonest.

For those of us who’d like a commander-in-chief to know the basics about modern history, placing his non-uncle on the eastern front of Hitler’s crumbling empire is pretty damned sad. Equally sad is confusing a relatively obscure (to Americans, anyway) slave labor camp where roughly 50 thousand died with a very well known mass extermination site where well over a million did. Mixing up one slave labor camp with another (e.g., Dachau) would have been an understandable error. Mixing up a slave labor camp where roughly 50,000 died with a mass extermination camp where well over 1 million did is not.

It is sorta’ cute, though, to watch the right-wingers and longtime defenders of President Bush attack Obama for—of all things—his inability to speak articulately.

Hardly. What’s “cute” is the eagerness of Bush’s detractors to ignore such gaffes after milking infinitely milder (and in some cases, fabricated) “Bushism” for the past eight years. What makes it doubly “cute” is that the guy they’re excusing now for being so inarticulate is a political neophyte who, until very recently, ran a campaign almost entirely on the fact that he supposedly was so articulate. Bush never campaigned on that, but AFAIK, he’s also never said anything nearly as dumb as the two Obama screwups you pooh-pooh (to say nothing about his seven imaginary states, at least two of which must be lodged between his home state and Kentucky).

This was clearly dishonest. How does one make a mistake that isn’t even historically possible. If the Americans had liberated Auschwitz, I might be able to agree it was a mistake, but come on. He used Auschwitz because everyone knows that name, not because he made a mistake. Even if it was a mistake, do you really what a president with that wonderful grasp of history?

Glad you cleared that up.

This is not to say that any support of military action needs to come from those who’ve been in the armed forces, just that the place that these guys are arguing from is disingenuous. Especially so when they react to troop shortages by implying that other military age people are cowards for not serving in the military. Or better still, when they accuse those who are opposed to military action of cowardice.

Frankly, I have a low opinion of those who demand that others should sacrifice in the service of their own lofty goals.

I’d also call BS on the point of this post Radley: When Bush ‘gaffes’ it’s because he speaks like an idiot (“So OBGYNs can make their love”, etc). When Gore/Clinton/Obama ‘gaffes’ it’s so they can lie and appear to be somehing they are not.

I don’t see how you can compare the two. Both are cringe-inducing but only one is outright lying just for the sake of making yourself look better.

My bad

or != and

I wonder if Freud’s in there anywhere.

The use of the term is to point out that those cheering on/supprting the Iraq war have never served or are not serving. If they are not cheering on/supporting the Iraq war, then chicken-hawk would not apply even if they did serve.

I am not one of those (USMC 84-92).

Can we use the same “chicken-hawk” logic to say if you never served in Law Enforcement you can not criticize them?

BTW, Max “I Left Three Limbs on the Battlefield” Cleland did not lose his limbs on the battlefield or combat but in a accident.

On April 8, 1968, then-Capt. Max Cleland picked-up a “hair-triggered” grenade that another soldier dropped on a helicopter tarmac in Vietnam after returning from a combat mission. The grenade exploded after Capt. Cleland picked it up. Capt. Cleland lost two legs and an arm in the explosion.

Actually I think the glee from the Bushisms only lasted a couple of years at most. Now it’s mostly embarassing.

Also, I think the term chicken-hawk is great. The entertainment value of the anger it elicits from said chicken-hawks is always worth the price of admission.