Michael McGough, apparently no fan of President Bush, provides some valuable perspective on newly—sainted Democrat icon Rep. John Murtha in the Pittsburgh Post—Gazette:

Three years ago, the Post—Gazette declined to endorse Rep. Murtha for re—election because he couldn't find time to appear in public forums with his primary and general—election opponents; according to an aide, "things were just too hectic in Washington." But the inaccessible and arrogant Washington insider of 2002 has been reincarnated as a voice speaking truth to power. [snip]

...the "chicken hawk" argument itself is the worst sort of ad hominem attack, whether it is wielded by Rep. Murtha, Sen. Kerry or anyone else. Of course, Rep. Murtha's personal history and his close ties to the Pentagon give him standing to describe how the war in Iraq has demoralized the U.S. military. But that expertise involves a lot more than his own past bravery on the battlefield.

In its pure form, the "chicken hawk" argument says that Dick Cheney and George W. Bush are unqualified to commit American troops in Iraq or anywhere else because they did not serve in the military (Mr. Bush's Texas National Guard service doesn't count in this view.) It follows that when it comes to deciding whether to withdraw the troops, they should defer to battle—hardened veterans like John Murtha.

Dennis Sevakis   11 21 05