Ben Shapiro ably counteracts the "Chickenhawk" argument.

The "chickenhawk" argument is dishonest. It is dishonest because the principle of republicanism is based on freedom of choice about behavior (as long as that behavior is legal) as well as freedom of speech about political issues. We constantly vote on activities with which we may or may not be intimately involved. We vote on police policy, though few of us are policemen; we vote on welfare policy, though few of us either work in the welfare bureaucracy or have been on welfare; we vote on tax policy, even if some of us don't pay taxes. The list goes on and on. Representative democracy necessarily means that millions of us vote on issues with which we have had little practical experience. The "chickenhawk" argument -- which states that if you haven't served in the military, you can't have an opinion on foreign policy -- explicitly rejects basic principles of representative democracy.

The "chickenhawk" argument also explicitly rejects the Constitution itself. The Constitution provides that civilians control the military. The president of the United States is commander-in-chief, whether or not he has served in the military. Congress controls the purse strings and declares war, no matter whether any of its members have served in the military or not. For foreign policy doves to high-handedly declare that military service is a prerequisite to a hawkish foreign policy mindset is not only dangerous, but directly conflicts with the Constitution itself.

The "chickenhawk" argument proves only one point: The left is incapable of discussing foreign policy in a rational manner. They must resort to purely emotional, base personal attacks in order to forward their agenda. And so, unable or unwilling to counter the arguments of those like Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney and President Bush, they label them all "chickenhawks." By the leftist logic, here are some other "chickenhawks": John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Hancock, James Madison, Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson and Bill Clinton.

Add in Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Another argument that always irritates me is the complaint that Bush's daughters aren't serving in the military. The underlying premise is that a father should have some control over the career choices of his children. Children aren't possessions that you can command to go enlist because it would make Daddy look better. What a patronizing attitude.

But the other thing that gets me is the thought of what would happen if one or both of the girls did enlist and were sent over to Iraq. What a pain that would be for the military. They couldn't serve as others did, but since they would be such a big fat target for the terrorists, these young soldiers would have to be surrounded by extra security. Their mere presence would draw other soldiers from doing what they had to do in order to provide security for these targets. Being with them would endanger everyone around them constantly. How would that be for unit cohesion. I imagine it would be such a security nightmare that commanders would either not want them there in Iraq or would want them in some relatively protected position inside the perimeter of protection afforded other high profile Americans like the Ambassador. And then there would be such an outcry about their getting special privileges while they were there or not being sent over to Iraq because of who their father is. So, it is a fatuous argument that his daughters should be serving in the military.

Meanwhile, one daughter, Jenna, is working at a Washington D.C. charter school, and Barbara was working overseas in a South African children's hospital. These are two admirable career choices and certainly an indication that they have picked jobs in which they can serve others and not jobs that are going to be big money-makers.

But there will always be those who will not restrain themselves from using a politician's children as a club to beat up the politician. And that is just crass and contemptible.