anyone seeing this as anything more than a political stunt? I wouldn't see her sending this letter if she wasn't running for president, or does that go without saying?

my take on what she's doing in these cases is that even if there's some political motivation, it's valuable to have a figure as high profile as hers -- particularly with her running for President -- putting pressure on the White House on various issues...

Indeed. Help me here, Hillary supporters. Why is it "presidential" for a candidate for president to say that we would never even consider a draft, but non-"presidential" to say that nukes will not be used to in an effort to disrupt a terrorist training camp?

Now I'm starting to understand. Clinton believes that the answer to most questions like this are hypothetical and situational. Just to pick an example, she might in one instance say that nukes are inappropriate when the issue is President Bush talking about and threatening to attack Iran. And she might in another instance say that any president should keep all options open as to how they would advance US interests.

It might be confusing to some to get one answer in one situation and another answer in another situation. So it is better to avoid answering hypothetical questions. Rather focus on asking those who actually have the power, what their policies are.

I am a child of the 60's and remember well the draft which my brother, cousins and friends had to deal with directly. It was a nightmare, to put it mildly!

I also happen to have 2 teenage sons right now, and instituting a draft is one of my worst fears. In my more rational moments, I am convinced it will never happen, but often my "rationality" has little or nothing to do with what plays out in reality, with this current white house and congress in particular.

So, with that background, I was outraged that Lute would surface just long enough to casually mention the draft, stirring all my fears once again. And, because of that I am grateful that SOMEONE is publicly challenging his statement and requesting clarification.

I hate it that this administration plays so much on people's fears, and I hate it the most that at least sometimes it is MY fears that get stirred up!!!

So, for once, Clinton's political motives take second seat for me, though normally I would be among the first to question everything she does in the light of political expediency.

Because you're comparing apples to oranges?
Steaming Pile Of Crap. - It's a steaming pile!

You are mistaken. We would need more than ever to combat the sh*tstorm of terror that would cause.

This quote from Sen. Clinton's letter jumped out at me: "The seeds of many of the problems that continue to plague our mission in Iraq were planted in the failure to adequately plan for the conflict and properly equip our men and women in uniform."

No, actually, the seeds were planted in the decision--supported by Sen. Clinton--to invade a country on the basis of lies and in the absence of any threat.

It's all well and good that she is demanding a clarification on the draft issue. But I still think the differences between her and Bush on foreign policy are ones of detail (and opportunism) and not principle.

The good: Takin' the fight to Bush instead of another Dem. Any embarrassing question he has to answer helps.

The bad: another letter? sheesh. Like she can't get on TV any time she wants? At least she didn't 'demand an apology', my most hated so-called tactic.

The other bad: Fake outrage over something that will never happen.

All in all, a pretty lame attempt. My big complaint about most Dems who get the most media attention is that they rarely hit the nail on the head. How about some immediate, pointed, reaction to the news about the Italy-Iraq arms deals?

"Deputy National Security Adviser, Lieutenant General Douglas Lute"

Lute is "War Czar", no? Or did I just dream that?

Huh?

I get it that you don't like Hillary Clinton. And I see that you are comfortable with spewing insults on Democratic candidates. Are you trying to communicate anything else?

Yes, a position much easier held when it would not be the life and limb of one's own children that would be the pawns in such a manuever.

Those in the military and national guard are the pawns now in Iraq, especially those who are being sent on tours above and beyond what they have signed up for. I am outraged at that. Compounding that with a draft may very well inspire outrage and marching in the streets. I agree.

However, 2 wrongs have never really meant a right. More "using" our young people is moving in the wrong direction. A society that eats its young is not going to thrive for long.

Fear and loathing of the draft is probably one of the few things standing in the way of a war with Iran. The neo-cons desperately need some kind of success in Iraq or a new war in the Middle East before September, and Iran is made for the part. For some reason, Cheney, Bush and company can't stomach the idea of being the administration that flushed America's prestige down the toilet in a failed occupation. Maybe they just can't stand the idea of the Iranians laughing at them. If I were as rich as they are, I don't think I'd care what people, or "history", thought about me, but these people do. Even without the draft, they'll be able to give Iran a good pounding. First we attack "Iranian forces" in Iraq. Then comes hot pursuit across the border, bombing training camps and staging areas. If the Iranian airforce comes out to fight, we destroy it in a couple of days. None of that needs Congressional approval. And, after they slap Iran around a little, maybe they'll let the troops come home.

Fear of having their own children conscripted to man (or woman) the battle stations really rattles the well-to-doers who under an all volunteer military find it much easier to send the not-so-well off progeny to thier untimely deaths and mutilation. This is the crux of the issue and one that Rangel has effectvely spot-lighted. So, who would get to go to Iraq say in 2012 when political reconciliation should be just about in hand? Bush's girls or Hillary's girl?

You seem to be painting with a broad brush and assuming that (1) all young people are the same, (2) all young non-drafted people are ignorant of the political issues of the day, and (3) the threat of a draft would change basic things about them.

Some able-bodied and seemingly draftable young people, whether poor or well-off or somewhere in between, are not suited to the military and would be miserable (and potentially dangerous to themselves and others) in the armed forces. There are lots of ways to "serve" one's country and being in the military is only ONE possible good way. It is also a way that, if forced upon those who are not suited to such things, can do an enormous amount of damage.

Those who were involved with the training of draftees have a lot to say about the difficulties of such a method of getting our military personnel. You don't hear these people clamoring for a return to the draft.

You seem to be painting with a broad brush and assuming that (1) all young people are the same,

I never implied that they were. As individuals they very agreat deal.

(2) all young non-drafted people are ignorant of the political issues of the day,

Not as individuals but as a group, yes. And not just young people. The Amercian people as a whole are much more interested in sports and who is poking whom with what in Hollywood than they are in the issues of the day.

(3) the threat of a draft would change basic things about them.

Not just them. Their parents would have their attention focused by having their children risked in the war they support.

Some able-bodied and seemingly draftable young people, whether poor or well-off or somewhere in between, are not suited to the military and would be miserable (and potentially dangerous to themselves and others) in the armed forces. There are lots of ways to "serve" one's country and being in the military is only ONE possible good way. It is also a way that, if forced upon those who are not suited to such things, can do an enormous amount of damage.

Can you point to this damage in one of the nations that have universal conscription, or is this opionion just the product of a thought experiment?

Those who were involved with the training of draftees have a lot to say about the difficulties of such a method of getting our military personnel. You don't hear these people clamoring for a return to the draft.

I was not advocating the draft as a way to get better soldiers or a better army. I was advocating it as a way to get a more engaged electorate, and a more sane foreign policy. Look at the nations that have universal conscription like the Swiss and the Dutch. Young people vote and their army is for defense only.

Interesting back and forth between cest moi and Larry: I think there is an analysis that synthesizes both of your points. One of the reasons why Vietnam may have happened notwithstanding a draft is that the draft law then in effect was riddled with exceptions favoring the well off and the well connected. Dick Cheney famously got five deferments and never served. W got into the National Guard, as did J Danforth Quayle. That war was never as immediate to the social class in the US with the most power and influence over Congresspeople and Presidents as it was to others less well off in our society. And I'm not even close to a Marxist, but the truth is the truth.

Bobby Kennedy campaigned in 68 on a platform that included ending the war, but also strengthening the draft by abolishing student deferments and other perqs disproportionately used by the wealthy, not ending it. He said his even at college campuses, and the attendees were so surprised to be confronted honestly by a politician that he became the favorite of college students on many campuses.

While right now, with the current President we've got, I'm with bien sur in opposing a draft, I also agree with Larry that had there been a strict draft already in place in 2002 with no exceptions for college or PhD students, you bet your sweet behind more Senators -- and more journalists -- would have scrutinized the intelligence. More Senators and Congresspeople certainly would have voted "no," including perhaps Hillary herself.

Maybe there would have been enough votes to have stopped the war -- we'll never know -- or maybe there would have been enough to have caused Bush to allow more time for the sanctions to work.

How in the tank can you be GQ? Are you a professional PR person? She is telling Lute that the administration's prior position was that the draft was "off the table" and was "unthinkable." She is then saying that she is troubled that Lute suggested that the draft is now a possibility. If she had your view of it, GQ, she would say, "I welcome the administration's apparently newfound flexibility -- as I believe a commander in chief should never take an important option off the table -- although I would like to see improvements in getting equipment to the troops we have before we start talking about a draft."

"It has to do with pointing out a trend many of us have noticed."

Many who? Many have noticed just the opposite. See the poll results.

Hating Hillary has not worked yet. Maybe you should try something else. Just say'n.

They'll be directing Mitt's campaign in the Toronto area.Tom

How many of your kids are you willing to serve up as cannon fodder for Bush's war of choice to make your point?Tom

Oh God. Give moron Bush control over everybody 18 to 26. You've got to be kidding me.Tom