Because they are simply looking for data that fits the model and then declaring all cars to be green. As the note on Stevo’s blog said, “I am sure this one has been around, but I had never seen everything together in one place.” Of course, it is not remotely “everything.” It is only the data that fits the model.

That’s why Pete Stark is noted as “Air Force 1955-57″ But Bob Dornan who served in the Air Force from 1952-1958 and in the Cal Air Guard after that is noted as “enlisted after fighting was over in Korea.” It’s simple spin.

What they are proving, of course, is nothing more than “how liberals think,” which is to assemble data that fits their pre-conceived notions and then using that data to reinforce their opinions. They consistently confuse being critical with thinking critically.

All that being said, there is a certain amount of emotional appeal. We naturally want leaders who have done what they are asking others to do, and I can understand how liberals can find hypocrisy in those who have never served but who think others ought to go off to war. In certain specific cases, they may be absolutely correct in calling those people chickenhawks.

However, in the case of the military, I think they are dangerously misled. There is a reason that our military is supposed to be under civilian control, and that reason is that history shows it is far more dangerous to place control of civilians in the hands of generals than it is to place generals in the hands of civilians. Many military men glory in war (think Patton, Alexander, think Caesar) and it has long been a practice of military men to seek immortality through conquest.

Personally, I’d rather have the military in the hands of those who are less personally susceptible to that kind of temptation.

No, you just need to consider winning more important than intellectual honesty…