I don't know about "official", but I certainly don't see anyone refuting the facts it presents.

Those people did support the war and did not serve. (i.e. chickenhawks)

People can dislike the term all they want but that doesn't mean it isn't accurate.
The point isn't whether or not it's accurate... I never really bought into that whole thing that you have to have experienced something to have an opinion on it.

The point isn't whether or not it's accurate...

I disagree. nobody is saying they can't have an opinion, but the Iraq invasion shows that those with experience (powell for instance) have made more accurate predictions.

A great many who supported the war and did not serve do not deserve the 'chickenhawk' label.

All the more reason for the draft to be reinstated so that our military is truly a representative slice of American society.

All the more reason for the draft to be reinstated so that our military is truly a representative slice of American society.

If this is truly the "defining struggle of our time" then it should be worth starting a draft in order to win it.

Those who support the war but won't consider a draft just aren't serious about it.

Those people did support the war and did not serve. (i.e. chickenhawks) People can dislike the term all they want but that doesn't mean it isn't accurate.

The point isn't whether or not it's accurate... I never really bought into that whole thing that you have to have experienced something to have an opinion on it.

It is a WAAAAAY more than simply "having an opinion on it", DF.

The situation is having wealthy, priviledged politicians, strolling the comfortable and safe air-conditioned halls of Washington, who have never experienced (due in many cases to their having done everything in their power to avoid it) the death and destruction of war themselves sending OTHER people off to fight and possibly die in one of those wars.

Anyone here who cannot readily perceive the hypocrisy inherant in such a situation is being intellectually dishonest in the extreme.

It is a WAAAAAY more than simply "having an opinion on it", DF.

The situation is having wealthy, priviledged politicians, strolling the comfortable and safe air-conditioned halls of Washington, who have never experienced (due in many cases to their having done everything in their power to avoid it) the death and destruction of war themselves sending OTHER people off to fight and possibly die in one of those wars.

Anyone here who cannot readily perceive the hypocrisy inherant in such a situation is being intellectually dishonest in the extreme.

Of course it's hypocritical but if being a hypocrite is so horrible, then I should be executed right now.

Of course it's hypocritical but if being a hypocrite is so horrible, then I should be executed right now.

There is *hypocrisy*, and then there is *hypocrisy that gets other people KILLED*.

We are talking here about the sort of rank hypocrisy in that somone did everything in their power to avoid serving in the military or going to war, but then LATER stood up as an elected official, in front of the entire nation, and acted like some badass defender-of-Amuurican-freedom, and proclaimed the intention to send OTHER people into the sort of war that they had scrupulously avoided.

In general, if I was a conservative, the last thing I would want to talk about would be the chickenhawk database and it's fine members ... er ... like ... Rush who had a deferment due to a boil on his a$$. Talk about embarassing.

Rush who had a deferment due to a boil on his a$$. Talk about embarassing.

Embarrasing?

Not to that scum-sucking gasbag.

He is totally immune to embarrassment or shame.

The oxycontin incident (among numerous others) proved that.

Embarrasing?

Not to that scum-sucking gasbag.

He is totally immune to embarrassment or shame.

The oxycontin incident (among numerous others) proved that.

I should have said embarrassing to be a conservative. Your point taken.