sf wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 09:12:57 -0700, cibola de oro > wrote:
>
>> This is the same old libitarded "chickenhawk" venom
>
> You don't think Dick Cheney, a draft dodger, is the epitome of a
> chicken hawk?

I think the term in and of itself is patently absurd, overtly hateful,
and fully emblematic of the rank hypocrisy of the left.

Was Clinton a "chickenhawk" for ordering our troops into Kosovo?

How about Woodrow Wilson for WWW1?

Mealy-mouthed Dems who always get rel military men to do their remote
control bidding think they can denigrate anyone else who doesn't follow
the same proxy-war schema.

They're sick people, to the core!

The Constitutional precedent for our very Commander in Chief to NOT need
to have served is historically established and tested.

No more need be said on such foolishly partisan, semantic inanities.

> He was all for war for one reason only: money.

That's simply a belief, not at all a proven fact.