PeterDavid.net

This is, obviously, a question that is not simply black or white.

While I deplore the idea of the draft returning in this day and age, especially when you look at the wars we're fighting, where we're fighting them, why we're fighting them, and who we're fighting them for...

... I can see why the draft was needed in the past. Atleast for some wars; not all of them though (Vietnam springs to mind).

Constitutional? I don't know.

Some nations in Europe have mandatory service of 2 years or so, but none of them are looking to pick a fight with anybody.

Sure it's constitutional. In the same way the federal income tax is constitutional and legal, despite it being, you know, unconstitutional and illegal.

I think the draft is one of those things that the legal system would prefer we not look at too closely. By a strict reading of 13th and 5th amendments, of course it's unconstitutional.

However, with the Supreme Court we've got, there is no way in hell it will be declared unconstitutional. I rather liken it to the right to bear arms. Any reasonable person reading the second amendment will come away with the impression that the founders were talking about being in a state or local militia, not the bad kind, and, as part of that, having the right to bear arms. But that somehow got construed as, "Sure, it's okay to own shoulder-mounted rockets for home defense."

And, yes, that last sentence was hyperbole. Relax.

Didn't they used to call getting drafted "Getting Shanghaied" in the old days?

In the bar, relaxing, you take a drink of your beverage of choice, pass out, wake up and you're in the military.

The draft is even worse. Glad I'm past the age to be eligible.

I have no problem defending America, but Iraq has nothing to do with protecting America, neither does the continued presence in Afghanistan. By that logic we need to be in Suadi Arabia and N. Korea as well.

The Draft is nothing more that state-sanctioned kidnapping and forcing citizens to go out and kill/be killed against their will.

"But that somehow got construed as, "Sure, it's okay to own shoulder-mounted rockets for home defense."

And, yes, that last sentence was hyperbole. Relax."

You mean my shoulder-mounted rocket launcher isn't legal??

Uh-oh...

As for the draft, I think Heinlein had a valid point - if your society has decayed to the point that you can't get enough volunteers to defend it, perhaps it's outlived its usefulness.

And yes, I did volunteer, and served an entire 3 1/2 years in the Air Force (at that time, a lot of guys were getting RIFfed, so the Pentagon could afford their fancy new weapons systems. It wasn't until later that someone figured out they needed people to run those weapons systems...).

Um, the Federal Income Tax is Constitutional. They amended the Constitution to allow it. Specious arguments about techincalities in the ratifications aside, of course. Because they're specious.

The draft, on the other hand, has never had a specific Amendment saying that it's okay. And thus it is up for interpretation. Does the draft violate due process, or is the way it is implemented qualify as a form of due process (after all, the procedure is pretty clearly laid out, you get paid (if not much), etc)? Is it involuntary servitude as described in the 13th Amendment, or is it closer to the sort of civic duty that includes serving on juries?

Remember, rights are not license to do what you will, they include responsibilities as well. I would say that serving in the military is not an inherently unreasonable responsibility in exchange for one's rights. It's just that the draft tends to be implemented in ways that are themselves unjust. Unfortunately, the draft tends to be used only in times when emergencies let the executive branch steamroller the Constitution in the name of preserving the Republic (even Lincoln's administration ran roughshod over the Constitution when it came to dissidents).

Obviously, for people like me or Peter, the draft is not a personal danger. If things are bad enough they're drafting overweight, bespectacled guys over 30, we're pretty damn toast anyway. But you'd have to be a fool to say one should never argue against an injustice that only falls on the heads of others.

But that somehow got construed as, "Sure, it's okay to own shoulder-mounted rockets for home defense."

And yet, this isn't that far off the mark.

IIRC, it was Cheney who recently spoke at an NRA convention. The NRA, of course, hopes that the assault weapon ban laws that are set to expire are not renewed.

A parent of one of the Columbine victims reportedly tried to get into the convention, but was turned away by security and was heckled by others. What a nice group, eh?

Why anybody needs an assault weapon is beyond me, but then, I don't need the NRA to begin with.

I'm not anywhere near well-versed enough in the Constitution to make any definitive statements about this. I'll just note that "due process of law" doesn't necessarily mean a criminal trial. Just off the top of my head, the governmental power of Imminent (sp?) Domain which allows the govt to come in and buy your private property at what they consider to be a fair price and you have to sell. I don't remember what administrative hoops that the govt has to jump through for this, but I know that there's no trial involved. I never knew what, if any, "due process" the govt has to go through to start drafting people, though it would be interesting to research, I'm sure.

I'll throw out another thought, however. If it's unconstitutional to draft people into the military, is it unconstitutional to issue summons for Jury Duty? It seems to me that it's the same in principle and only different in the details (timeframe, relative risk). I know very few people who actually want to serve on a jury. Most people do it because the govt says they have to. You could call that Forced Servitude as well. Of course I believe the Constitution also guarantees the right to a trial by a jury of your peers and charges the govt to maintain a military and provide for the common defense.

I have to come back later a read this thread. It could make for some very interesting reading.

The constitutionality of the draft has already been addressed by the Supreme Court in 1981 in ROSTKER v. GOLDBERG, 453 U.S. 57 (1981) The Supreme Court Opinion states: "Congress is given the power under the Constitution "To raise and support Armies," "To provide and maintain a Navy," and "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces." Art. I, 8, cls. 12-14. Pursuant to this grant of authority Congress has enacted the Military Selective Service Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 451 et seq. (1976 ed. and Supp. III) (the MSSA or the Act). Section 3 of the Act, 62 Stat. 605, as amended, 50 U.S.C. App. 453, empowers the President, by proclamation, to require the registration of "every male citizen" and male resident aliens between the ages of 18 and 26. The purpose of this registration is to facilitate any eventual conscription: pursuant to 4 (a) of the Act, 62 Stat. 605, as amended, 50 U.S.C. App. 454 (a), those persons required to register under 3 are liable for [453 U.S. 57, 60] training and service in the Armed Forces. The MSSA registration provision serves no other purpose beyond providing a pool for subsequent induction."

"Involuntary servitude" refers to slavery in which one person owns another as property and there is no remuneration or time limitation on that "servitude". It does not apply to military conscription, high school or motherhood.

The due process clause also does not apply here as the draft would be restarted through the very due process which the amendment affords us.

I'm against the war, too. I'm against the draft, too. Not because it's unconstitutional but because it is wrong.

Formerly Known As

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Was the draft wrong in WWII, I wonder?

The topic of a draft comes up whenever the opponents of a war or an administration want to lower American morale. Until it's more than one appeasing, "moderate" Republican senator suggesting "we think about" the draft (and then stopping short of actually calling for it), it's all just speculation.

However, I can think of no better time to institute a draft than when the very lives of ordinary American civilians stateside are threatened a la 9/11. Whether one thinks that is the case today is another matter.

DW

David beat me to it. The "due process of law" is Congress passing the law allowing the Executive Branch to do it.

So, it's constitutional, but not necessarily desirable - even the military doesn't want it.

"Was the draft wrong in WWII, I wonder?"

Yes. Yes, it was.

Next question?

One thing that I have a question about? If they ever do take up the draft again will it include women? Equality of ALL people and all. I'd be mad if it was reinstated but I would be evn madder if it didn't. How hypocrytical a message would that be. Oooops forgot we were talking about the government.

It's actually a kind of a multi-layered question...

No, the draft itself is not unconstitutional per se.. The constitution requires due process, and there is a well 'due process.'

Where the issue can get interesting is the constitutionality of the elements of the process (as in the example of Women being drafted, mentioned above). If someone REALLY wanted there could be some interesting challenges to portions of the relevant laws. Now, if those portions would be held to be unconstitutional, a stay would have to be issued upon the process as a whole, thus in effect making the draft unconstitutional until such issues are corrected in the underlying law.

Fun, huh...

I just wonder if the claim could be made that my right to life and liberty extends to me taking an extended vacation in Canada?

SEAN

"Was the draft wrong in WWII, I wonder?"

Yes. Yes, it was.

Next question?"

Pleassseeee! How could the draft been wrong in WW2 when we were being attacked by Japan? That's just outrageous.

Mark L. wrote: "David beat me to it. The 'due process of law' is Congress passing the law allowing the Executive Branch to do it. So, it's constitutional, but not necessarily desirable - even the military doesn't want it."

Exactly. The military has been made up of volunteers for three decades. Why would we ever want to go back to a system where the majority of people don't want to be there, and can't wait to leave?

The draft served its purpose as long as the majority of Americans felt it was their duty to serve in the military, but that sense of obligation waned by the closing days of Vietnam. Changing with the times, the military then went to the all-volunteer force, and hasn't looked back.

Someone mentioned jury duty as involuntary servitude, and that made me laugh. It's a bit sad how American attitudes have changed in the past 40 years. John F. Kennedy's call "To ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" almost sounds naively quaint today. And that's a darn shame.

Russ Maheras

I seem to rememer reading once that, every time a case on the Constitutionality of the draft has reached the courts, the military found a way to quietly discharge the person suing, thus removing their standing to sue, and avoiding the chance the draft might be overturned.

I may well be wrong -- I can't remember the source, so I can't vouch for credibility.

The draft is an issue I'm kind of torn on. On a visceral level, I'm against it; it seems so counter-intuitive to make people who don't want to be there put in the armed forces. On an intellectual level, however, I can see some of its points. The military is made up disproportionately of minorities/lower- or lower-middle class personnel, because for whatever reasons (there are many theories) they are predominantly the ones to volunteer. And the draft helps balance that out by bringing in a broader range of people (unless, of course, you're lucky (or well-to-do) enough to get a high lottery number...).

The draft was wrong during WWII for the same reason it's always wrong - it is a bad thing to force conscript troops to fight for one. WHo attacked whom is totally irrelevant to the moral question of whether it can be "right" to force people into armed service against their will.

On the other hand, I don't recall there having been any shortage of volunteers during WWII...

"The draft was wrong during WWII for the same reason it's always wrong - it is a bad thing to force conscript troops to fight for one. WHo attacked whom is totally irrelevant to the moral question of whether it can be "right" to force people into armed service against their will. "

In the case of WW2, 'who attacked who is incredibly relevant.' But aside fromm WW2, if one country attacks another, then the latter better defend themselves at the risk of being eliminated/killed/destroyed. Expecting my countrymen to fight to defend our survival isn't a moral dilema-it's just common sense. If a tribe in Africa, is going to be massacred by another tribe, then that tribe better make sure every able man is going to fight to protect their community, friends, family, etc. Once can't think of the draft in absolutes.

John F. Kennedy's call "To ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" almost sounds naively quaint today.

It is quaint, and it's also ass backwards.

Everybody should ask themselves what their government is doing for them, because that's the purpose of our gov't.
Not for us to serve it, but for it to serve us.

"A parent of one of the Columbine victims reportedly tried to get into the convention, but was turned away by security and was heckled by others. What a nice group, eh?"

Kind of OT but there's a fascinating article about the psychology of the killers at:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2099203/fr/ifr/

Amazing stuff. Scary as hell.

Me: "Was the draft wrong in WWII, I wonder?"

Johnatham (the other one) "Yes. Yes, it was. Next question?"

Tell THAT to the Holocaust survivors whose liberation depended upon the additional troops the US had as a result of the draft. In the case of WWII, I think the ends justified the means.

In Vietnam? Hell no. In WWII? Hell yes.

"The draft was wrong during WWII for the same reason it's always wrong - it is a bad thing to force conscript troops to fight for one. WHo attacked whom is totally irrelevant to the moral question of whether it can be "right" to force people into armed service against their will."

I have to disagree. While I sympathize with libertarians, we do not live entirely as individuals. We are all (or at least those of us who live in the United States) part of a community, and as community members we have responsibilities toward one another. Military service is a "free rider" problem. Having a strong military benefits everyone within the country, as it makes us all less susceptible to conventional attack. This is true for everyone whether we pay taxes or not, or whether we've served in the past or not. This is fine in most circumstances-- the military has chosen a professional volunteer force as its primary strategy. If you want to volunteer and do your part, fine, but for the last several decades we haven't needed you. (The apparent superiority to a volunteer system is the reason that I oppose the draft.) That, however, has nothing to do with whether there is any moral dilemma to requiring a conscript to do his part for the community, when for so long the community has protected him, and always will continue to do so.

In a sense, this remains a voluntary system. We all enjoy the privileges of citizenship in the Republic-- civil liberties protected by a consistently fair court system, law enforcement, a free economy. If you wish to forego the burdens of protecting that system, then surrender its benefits as well. Move. Go to Siberia or Marrakesh or some other place than here. But don't assume that having a portion of your income withheld by the IRS discharges you from any further duties.

With regard to PAD's original question, "Formerly Known As" essentially provided the answer. It's constitutional because the Supreme Court has said it is constitutional. Robert Jackson, my favorite Justice, partly because he was one of the last to have been a prosecutor, once wrote, "We are not final because we are infallible. We are infallible because we are final." So "what the Constitution says" and "what the Supreme Court says the Constitution says" are for all practical purposes the same thing.

The reason the Court is right, however, is the Necessary and Proper Clause. There is an enabling clause in the Constitution that authorizes the Government to undertake measures "necessary and proper" to carrying out its enumerated duties. In times of need it is "necessary and proper" to the Congress's right to raise an army that the Army be allowed to conscript soldiers. Its constitutionality would be secure even if Jonathan (the Other One) were right about it being immoral (which he isn't).

I thought I had made myself plain, but apparently that is not the case (either that, or some folks just take some sort of perverse pleasure in willfully misunderstanding my words).

Any nation, when attacked, has the absolute right to defend itself. However, said nation should be able to defend itself ably with volunteer troops, as the United States is doing today. If it is necessary to use conscripts, if the nation cannot generate sufficient patriotism amongst its members to raise a defensive force of willing participants, perhaps that nation deserves to fall.

Does anyone believe that the draft was necessary in order to raise the US Armed Forces for WWII? I don't recall many tales of young men cowering in fear, dreading that letter from the Draft Board, not wanting to go fight the Nazis. During Korea and Vietnam, sure - and of course during the peacetime drafts - but WWII?

Mr Jones:

1) The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxvi.html

2) I hate to sound like Clinton (boy, do I hate to sound like Clinton, but it comes from being a lawyer) but the Second Amendment depends a lot on your definition of a "militia." If you think that a "militia" looks like the National Guard, then individual gun ownership seems at first blush to be shaky. Of course, this makes the Framers seem a little weird, if they went to the trouble of writing a constitutional amendment to allow a department of the Army to arm itself. Plus you run into the problem that the communal right, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms," is worded exactly like the First Amendment "right of the people to peaceably assemble," which implies that Freedom of Assembly means the Constitution allows governmental pep rallies. Howver, in the 18th Century when the Amendment was written, a "militia" was an armed citizenry. In any event, the reference to the militia is in a subordinate clause explaining the rationale of the law, not the law itself; the actual command of the Amendment extends to "the right of the people." As I mentioned before, if you take that to be a communal right rather than an individual one, then you have problems with the First Amendment's freedom of assembly, and the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures.

3) The Fifth Amendment presents no problem. It requires "due process of law" to deprive someone of liberty, and the draft is instituted by Act of Congress, i.e. due process. The Thirteenth Amendment's ban on "involuntary servitude" is only a problem if you don't read it in context next to the ban on slavery as a similar ban on serfdom. The Thirteenth Amendment was passed in 1865 by a Congress that had enabled massive conscription in order to reconstruct a large mass of slaveholding territory, not to apologize for the manner in which that territory's insurrection was quelled.

"if the nation cannot generate sufficient patriotism amongst its members to raise a defensive force of willing participants, perhaps that nation deserves to fall."

Tell that to the old, weak, and young who will die at the hands of attackers because someone decides that a draft is immoral. I suspect they'd have a different feeling about that.

"Any nation, when attacked, has the absolute right to defend itself. However, said nation should be able to defend itself ably with volunteer troops, as the United States is doing today. If it is necessary to use conscripts, if the nation cannot generate sufficient patriotism amongst its members to raise a defensive force of willing participants, perhaps that nation deserves to fall."

Gee, Belgium didn't seem to be able to defend itself from Germany with its standing army. I guess they deserved to be overrun by the blitzkrieg. Yay Germans! They deserved to win! (Yes I'm making fun of you and twisting your words.. but it's SO EASY. Maybe you should think them through better before posting them.)

"Does anyone believe that the draft was necessary in order to raise the US Armed Forces for WWII? I don't recall many tales of young men cowering in fear, dreading that letter from the Draft Board, not wanting to go fight the Nazis. During Korea and Vietnam, sure - and of course during the peacetime drafts - but WWII?"

Weird that you seem to imply that the morality of a given draft is inversely proportional to the morality of the war it's imposed for, but that isn't even the biggest logical problem with your argument. The United States mobilized 16,123,455 troops during the Second World War. You really think they'd have all volunteered? Or do you just think we sent too damn many troops into Normandy and we could have made do with fewer Rangers on Pointe du Hoc? Higher casualties, and maybe a couple hundred thousand more Jews would have died before we made it to the Rhine, but a small price to pay to not "force people into armed service against their will."

There is absolutely nothing immoral about using every available means to defend your country. Lincoln used the draft to fill out the Federal Army, suspended the writ of habeas corpus, coerced the Maryland legislature to prevent secession, and incidentally saved the union and abolished slavery. I find it difficult to question his tactics.

Random questions from a man too old for a draft, and who would probably be 4-F anyway:

Isn't a draftee a POW on his own side?

Granted, we must respect someone willing to go into danger for a good cause -- but who would defer to politicians on what a good cause is?

Why were people who opposed Nazis before Pearl Harbor later under suspicion for being 'premature anti-fascists?'

Convicts and soldiers are two classes of people for whom the government has taken almost complete responsibility -- how are each treated?

'Everybody should ask themselves what their government is doing for them, because that's the purpose of our gov't.
Not for us to serve it, but for it to serve us."

Okay, am I the only one here reading about how the government is supposed to serve us and flashing back to an certain "Twilight Zone" episode?

As for the Supreme Court having said the draft was Constitutional twenty years ago...that's nice. Forty years ago, they said a woman's right to choose was Consitutional, and the President we have in office is *ever* so eager to honor that decision.

If so much time, energy and political capital can be spent on trying to make one Constitutional thing unConstitutional, why should the debate supposedly be settled by ruling on a different Constitutional thing. "We must get the Supreme Court to go back on their decision and make abortion unconstitutional...so women can be forced to have children so they can grow up, be drafted, and sent to die at a later date thanks to another Supreme Court decision which should not, by any means, be challenged."

Nah, I'm not tracking with that.

PAD

With capital punishment and abortion why shouldn't drafting people and sending them off to die be constitutional as well?

"Okay, am I the only one here reading about how the government is supposed to serve us and flashing back to an certain "Twilight Zone" episode?"

I, for one, am flashing back to JFK's inaugural address. Which is a bit odd, since I wasn't alive then.

There is absolutely nothing immoral about using every available means to defend your country.

You'll have half the country draft dodging. Oh yeah, I can see it all now.

Two people quoted above.

Notice the difference between the two, and then put the two together.

In the Civil War, WWI (to a lesser degree) and WWII, the draft was used in DEFENSE of the country. We had been attacked.

Were we under attack by Iraq? No.

Therein lies the problem - some are now calling for a draft to send people to fight a war that many not only do not believe we should be fighting, but is not being fought in defense of our nation.

Nor will the War on Terror, imo, be won by sheer numbers in trying to overpowering and bombing the hell out of a group of mongrels hiding out in mountains somewhere.

Nobody is invading our country enmasse, forcing us to defend our homes.

But anybody that doubts that people would do such a thing, defend their homes to the last, if push came to shove are sadly mistaken.

Given the choice between a political draft and the economic draft we have today (affluent youth generally don't join the armed forces -- because they have no need to do so), I'll take the political draft, which at least is supposed to include everyone equally. If you object to a war you can be a conscientious objector, right?

PAD: "We must get the Supreme Court to go back on their decision and make abortion unconstitutional...so women can be forced to have children so they can grow up, be drafted, and sent to die at a later date thanks to another Supreme Court decision which should not, by any means, be challenged."

Since we're all being reminded of things, allow me to trot out a favorite George Carlin bit I love:

"If you're pre-born, you're fine. If you're pre-school, you're fucked. Conservatives don't give a shit about you until you reach military age. Then you are just perfect. Just what they've been looking for. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers."

SEAN

My views of the draft have changed as I've gotten older and have sons that are drafting age. I just missed the Vietnam War and remember thinking, "It could happen to me". Maybe it was the youth but that did not worry me near as much as thinking that one of my sons could go to war.

I know that we (the whole nation)pay a price for freedom. All of our wars are said to in someway be trying to protect that freedom. I don't know if that has always been true. However, I can imagine a situation where our freedom could be in trouble and without a draft we may not have a constitution to worry about breaking.

Well, I don't live in America, so I guess I'm not entitled to an opinion about the American Constitution, but after reading all these discussions I really have to say one thing: Boy am I happy to live in a country (Luxemburg) so small it doesn't really have an army to be drafted into. Especially since I' exactly the right age right now. On the downside though, we got invaded about 20 times in the last 400 years, so my honest thanks to you guys for helping us out there 50 years ago.

OK, I guess I'm kind of 'of the topic' here, but it is just very difficult for me to imagin living my live and having to worry about being send into a war that I don't agree with against my will knowing that more than a few of my sort have already died over there. Like I said, I cannot say if it is constitutional or not, but it seems very very wrong on some level.

True, in some European countries you have mandatory service of 2 years, but at least, if you are opposed to the idea of killing you can chose to do civil service instead of military service (not that wiping some gran'ma'a bum seems very attractive to me, but hey... it beats being shot at...)

Jason wrote: "Given the choice between a political draft and the economic draft we have today (affluent youth generally don't join the armed forces -- because they have no need to do so)"

The "economic draft" we have today? Isn't that a bit cynical? Actually, if you were affluent in the 1960s, you probably could find some way to keep from getting drafted in what you called "a political draft." Although of prime draft ages at the time, neither George W. Bush nor Bill Clinton were drafted, and only Bush ever wore a uniform. College deferments in the 1960s favored the wealthier Americans, didn't they? And during the Civil War, it's my understanding that draftees could pay someone to take their place in the Union Army if they had the money to do so.

Still, I don't agree with your assumption that today's all-volunteer force is an "economic draft." I quit a mundane union job and took a 66 percent pay cut to join the military in 1978. Many people I met and worked with during my 20-year career joined for reasons other than economics. Some people joined for patriotic reasons; some for educational opportunities (technical training, professional development, and college); some joined because they had no direction and liked the structured atmosphere the services provided; some liked to travel; some liked the rush of a conflict, or the rush of working in a classified program; some liked the humanitarian side of the equation (most people have no idea just how much humanitarian aid the U.S. military dispenses); some just had to get out of their humdrum small town or claustrophobic urban neighborhood and widen their perspectives; some joined for the camaraderie; and some liked the military for a combination of the above reasons.

As far as a draft goes, in this day and age, I'd much rather have people working with me who made a conscious decision to be on the same team. Wouldn't you?

Russ Maheras

One thing that I have a question about? If they ever do take up the draft again will it include women? Equality of ALL people and all. I'd be mad if it was reinstated but I would be evn madder if it didn't. How hypocrytical a message would that be. Oooops forgot we were talking about the government.

Hmm, I heard this was the thing that killed the ERA amendment. If it was passed, they'd have to draft women. Right now, they don't have to.

On the issue of the Draft. As far as the Constitional points about Due Process, I think previous posters have said it well. But here's my additional thought. In a true war for survival like WW2, you are drafted either legally or practically, or you will lose all Constitional freedoms. If there was no legal draft and we start seeing war on our own streets, you're going be drafted by circumstances, dead or a "slave" of another nation. In the past, where we were so far away from every other nation, this was less of a concern. Today, if a country such as China chose to go to war with us (and this is still a possibility. War on Terror has distracted us from the fact that China is a growing super-power that doesn't care much for us), we will have no choice but to institute a draft. And if you're not drafted, you'll probably still be fighting.

I started reading this thread to late... but my first reaction was anger that anyone can claim civil liberties and jump up and down about being an american and having the right to question the govt... and then turn around and say I'm not going to do what the gov't tells me to do, because I believe it's this or that. You don't get to choose. I did 10 years in the Air Force. I wasn't drafted, I joined because I thought in some small way I'd be doing my part to help my country. I didn't join to go off and kill people. I ended up in the first Gulf War (I commonly refer to it as the Big I [Roman Numberal One]). I don't think of myself as a hero, and don't want to be thought of or talked of that way. I did my job, as I'm sure Russ M did. I did join with the intention that if this country was ever attacked or in need, I'd be there to help. Much to my dismay, I was already discharged when 9/11 happened. I couldn't get back in for medical reasons.

I have always thought that if you want to be an American, you need to take all of the responsibility that comes with it if you want to be able to enjoy the fruits of it. If it means being able to own a big house and drive a fancy car and be able to do all of the things that being an American enables you to do, then you may very well have to get your hands dirty and submit to the gov't demands once in awhile. You have to take the good with the bad.

I'm not saying you can't question the constitutionality of anything, because obviously you can, this being a free country and all. But if a draft does happen, which I suspect it won't, then you'd better stand tall before the man and take whatever comes your way. If you are thinking of dodging it for whatever reason, then get out of the country and go find some place else to live. And don't bother coming back when you think it's all quieted down.

Dave Bjorlin, right on. Russ, maybe we served together, and if we didn't, it was my loss.

Steve

"John F. Kennedy's call "To ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" almost sounds naively quaint today.

It is quaint, and it's also ass backwards.

Everybody should ask themselves what their government is doing for them, because that's the purpose of our gov't.
Not for us to serve it, but for it to serve us.

"

It's not ass backwards. JFK said COUNTRY, not Government. We should do for our country (i.e. neighbors, communities, etc).

If you are thinking of dodging it for whatever reason, then get out of the country and go find some place else to live. And don't bother coming back when you think it's all quieted down.

If I have to leave this country as a draft dodger, obviously I don't believe this country is worth fighting for.

Unfortunately, I'm thinking it isn't worth the fight with the current leadership we have.
And nobody seems to give a damn about that.

It's all "Die for your country or leave", which is crap. Nobody gives a rat's ass whether the stuff we send our troops off to die for is even worth it.

I've read some really lame comments lately about how liberals are war mongers, blah blah blah, yet I don't see the children of conservatives lining up to be shipped off to Iraq.

*I* won't be lining up to be shipped off to Iraq because it's just wasted lives over there. Because it's our war mongering gov't that has gotten us into a mess over there, and it's doing nothing but sending body bags home.

We should do for our country (i.e. neighbors, communities, etc).

i.e., government

One other thing. Has anybody stopped to look at why they want a draft now?

Because we're stretched too thin and now we're going to be camping out in Iraq for god knows how long.

AND we have this other little war to fight, the unimportant one next to Iraq called the War on Terror.

Bush created this mess by stretching our forces unnecessarily thin. Yet, he's not going to bear responsibility for this. He's just going to nod his head with Cheney's hand up his ass going along with the usual ventrilaquist act.

All this talk about how each of us should put our lives on the line, and how many in the Bush Administration have walked the plank themselves?
How many of them actually saw combat?

I begin to grow annoyed.

I have NEVER said that this country is not worth fighting for. In fact, as I recall, I believe I mentioned in there somewhere that I did volunteer to give several years of my life in its defense. I left some of my peace of mind in a room four floors under the surface of Nebraska, and very nearly left some of my sanity lying next to it. I have never questioned my decision to join, nor the services I rendered during that time.

What I HAVE said is that FORCING OTHER PEOPLE to do that, whether they feel any obligation or not, is a moral and ethical wrong. It's also a strategic error. The comparison between Iraq and Vietnam, flawed though it is, may be apt in this sole instance: In the 'Nam, a significant portion of the soldiers serving there were drafted into service, forced against their will to take up arms. In Iraq, our men and women all volunteered to go where they were told and do what they were told - yes, even the National Guardsmen, who thought they'd be at home, guarding the nation. Compare the progress made in Iraq with the progress made in Vietnam in a similar period of time (not the same period, as Vietnam is, IIRC, somewhat larger in area than Iraq). You may find that the volunteers have been more effective, both as a fighting force and as providers of aid, than the draftees.

Remember how well a conscript army worked for the Soviet Union, after all...

I would take a sledgehammer to my own kneecaps before I allowed myself to be drafted.

You know, even though every patriotic bone in my body screams that the draft should be considered Constitutional, the libertarian in me wins out and says that it should not be. People should have a choice. (Same as they should for taking drugs and prostitution). The President - with the power of the bully pulpit - should have the ability to explain in detail the necessity of and reasons going to war, and if that isn't enough to rally enough Americans, if we've really become that indifferent and soft, we're in trouble.
It seems unlikely, however, that it will come to this. Rumsfeld has said repeatedly that he is not in favor of a draft because obviously it is better to train people who want to be there and dedicated to the cause versus those who don't want to be there and are marking time.
Thankfully, we do still have enough people who care enough about our country's security that we should be able to do what we need to do.
And Craig, a lot of them are "children of conservatives". For one thing, "conservative" does not exclusively refer to "disgustingly rich white guys". I have had to move back to my hometown for a bit to take care of some family issues, and it really is unreal. It's a town of about 10,000, descendants of coal miners and similar professions. It's the kind of town John Mellencamp sings about. They have mainly "conservative" values. Our county has a large number of soldiers in Iraq. They all, of course, are volunteers. They chose to do this because they come from a place where families stay together, neighbors help each other, and people have a strong love for the family and community they are a part of, and the country that has afforded them the freedoms their ancestors came here to enjoy and a lifestyle for many who have worked their way up the ladder that would leave those same ancestors in shock - and a with a sense of enormous pride.
See, when a lot of people decide to "do for their country" it doesn't mean some knee-jerk nationalism.
It means standing in line in Philadelphia to give blood after the Twin Towers collapsed - and putting up with punks mockingly shouting 'Not My Fight!' - because even though we all have our own individual lives and rights, we realize that "we're all in this together". Mock the sentiment if you wish.
Steve,
Your service is appreciated.

One other thing, since a lot of the posts on this thread seem to imply "the rich" don't go to war yet reap the benefits.
There was once a very wealthy young man who came from a very wealthy family He could have used his wealth to try to avoid military service when he was 18, yet he felt World War II was so important he lied about his age and actually enlisted at the age of 17, and he served his country admirably in the fight against Germany and Japan.
The wealthy young man's name?
George Herbert Walker Bush, our 41st President.

No, a draft is not unconstitutional, in that it's a rare case of the public defense outweighing private concerns.

An army is necessary to the security of America. Or any nation for that matter. We could sit and debate the merits of specific military operations (say, the Iraq situation), but a military in principle is necessary.

There are times when the government must compel its citizens to serve in an army to *have* an army necessary to fight for the entire nation. I'm not saying we're living in one now, I'm just speaking to a general principle.

If the security of the nation were at stake, and nobody was willing to serve in an army for the possibility of getting killed, that would put the whole of America in jeopardy. A draft is therefore justified, because we first and foremost must insure that we *have* a nation in which to enjoy our liberties.

Thor

Or to put it another way... if it's a choice between having a draft and having an anemic military to meet various threats to America's security, then a draft is preferable.

Nobody *LIKES* a draft, you understand. Nor should they. But it's better than having a military ill-prepared for the challenges it must face.

Sorry to hog the space here, but reading this thread in more detail, I cannot believe that we're questioning the moral right of the draft in World War II --- just about the most justifiable conflict we've had in the 20th century.

When your nation is outright attacked, and there's nations busy conquering other nations with no end in sight, it's incumbent on every American man, woman and child to do their part, whatever that entails. I am stunned speechless that *anyone* could argue against a draft under such conditions as World War II.

The argument that "we had no shortage of troops back then" doesn't hold water either. Training soldiers takes a *LOT* of preparation, so when you're at war, you get started right away. You don't play things conservatively, then say, "Whoops... we've got a troop shortage," then enlist a bunch of men anyway and send them off, ill-trained, to staunch an increasingly bad situation. That leads to a lot more men getting killed. Preventative medicine in a conflict such as WW II is far preferable.

And frankly, I've yet to hear the World War II vets bitch about the draft. Certainly not in large numbers. They probably didn't *like* it, but they understood the need for it. Much more than the Vietnam conflict.

And...

>

And... that would be because a number of those "volunteers" KNEW they were going to get drafted anyway and signed up to receive better benefits. I am personally acquainted with individuals who signed up mere days before their draft papers came through for just that reason.

When I say the World War II vets understand the need for the draft, I'm not implying that some of them wouldn't have taken an alternative if it was offered. Not that volunteerism during World War II wasn't higher than the Vietnam conflict, obviously.

If so much time, energy and political capital can be spent on trying to make one Constitutional thing unConstitutional, why should the debate supposedly be settled by ruling on a different Constitutional thing. "We must get the Supreme Court to go back on their decision and make abortion unconstitutional...so women can be forced to have children so they can grow up, be drafted, and sent to die at a later date thanks to another Supreme Court decision which should not, by any means, be challenged."

No offense meant PAD, but YOU, staunch defender of Free speech, yourself have often argued with a certain "gun-nut" named Dan, about doing away with protections granted under the Second Amendment because YOU think they're no longer needed or relevant. One of the few things I've heard you and John Byrne agree on, BTW.

That's the problem with characterizing the Constitution as a "living, breathing document" subject to change of the times. It actually changes over time.

But if your argument re: abortion is that once the Supreme Court has ruled it should be settled, since the Supreme Court has already decided that the draft is constitutional, why bring it up again?

Personally, I don't have a problem with the Supreme Court revisiting some constituionality issues. After all, a lot of the rulings are based more on interpretation of the law than actual fact. As those facts change, perhaps the rulings should as well.

Craig: "It's all "Die for your country or leave", which is crap. Nobody gives a rat's ass whether the stuff we send our troops off to die for is even worth it."

If it was a tide of death coming and there was no feasable way to stop it, and the people in charge said, "Throw your body at it", I'd agree with you. But that isn't the case. I'm not saying die for your country. Just because you get drafted, or enter willingly into an Armed Force, doesn't mean you do it to die, or are goign to die. It's a job that says you MAY die for your country. Not everyone that joins is a combat troop. I forget the actual number, but for every one combat troop, there are 20 support personnel that keep that person ready and able to fight. You have to have admin people, cooks, transportation people to move supplies, medical teams, suppy people for the medical teams, and just about every other thing you can think of. Only a small percentage of troops, no matter the branch of service, actually go into combat.

And just so you know, I give a rat's ass. Every time one of my brothers or sisters goes into a combat situation, I give a rat's ass. In fact, I give way more than a rat's ass. I'd give my own ass to be there and help them. I may not like what the fight is for, but the point is that I care, as do a lot of other people.

I'm not liberal or conservative. I'm American. Take that however you want.

Steve

And Craig, a lot of them are "children of conservatives".

I should probably have made my statement to be teh children of our conservative leadership, which would be more accurate.
Or hell, of our leadership period.

I read something yesterday that said the whole of 5 children of members of Congress are serving in the military right now.

Leaves one to wonder a bit.

But I've read alot of knee-jerking from people about how liberals are just a bunch of whiners who don't deserve this country because they aren't willing to die to defend it.
I just wonder how many of them would be willing to send their children off to Iraq.

The wealthy young man's name?
George Herbert Walker Bush, our 41st President.

Well, that just goes to show that the son is not the father, doesn't it?

But then, I've never said that WWII was not worth fighting, or that the draft wasn't necessary *at that time*.

I forget the actual number, but for every one combat troop, there are 20 support personnel that keep that person ready and able to fight.

And now we're seeing that more and more non-combat personnel are being targeted in Iraq. It's an ugly situation all around.

And yes, I have family and friends in the military as well, so I'm not speaking from a position of ignorance.

I'm speaking from a position of necessity - and my position is that a draft isn't necessary because this damn war in Iraq wasn't necessary. And that the leadership of this country doesn't seem to give a rats ass.

Draft versus Mandatory Service:

Someone was reading over my shoulder just now and brought up the way Israel handles such matters..

Although I'm a little vague on the specifics, basically, unless completely mentally or physically incompetent (i.e. paralyzed, mentally challenged, etc) ALL Israeli young adults (male and female) of a certain age MUST perform x years of military service. Don't matter if you are rich, poor, whatever (although I'm sure money can insure you are assigned perhaps to guard the southern border, not that pesky one near Lebanon).

A few side effects of this are:

1> Israeli's (in general) are more physically fit than counterparts in most other countries (at any age)

2> Armed robbery is relatively non-existant and most is committed by people who did not serve. (Would YOU attack someone you know to be trained in the art of self defense and who might have been in an anti-terrorist unit?)

Would it work in America (put aside for the moment the fact that our government would never pass anything remotely fair - the number of expemptions would be staggering)?

It might, if we did something like the following:

1> Upon completion of, OR DEPARTURE FROM High School, a citizen of the US (of age 18 or over) would be required to report for Basic Training within 3 months, for a service time of 1 year, which may be extended to 2 years if the nation is in a state of war declared by an official act of congress. The only exception to this requirement shall be if the citizen is physically or mentally incapable of performing a useful task within the military.

2> Upon completion of initial term of service, a soldier shall receive an honorable discharge, if so warranted, a credit of $3000 towards the educational institution of his or her choice, and the right to participate in a federally subsidized low interest student loan program. Soldiers who complete ONLY the minimum service term would not be eligible for the more generous benefits of the GI Bill or Veterans Medical services (unless an injury occured while on duty). Soldier of course would have the option of extending their tours of duty in 2 year increments.

There's a bunch of other stuff that could go along with this, and right off the bat I could see it cutting the number of high school dropouts. Plus every serving american would have a college fund. And I suspect that quite soldiers would extend their tours...

"I read something yesterday that said the whole of 5 children of members of Congress are serving in the military right now."

That's quite possibly true. The other thing that you should look at is how many members of Congress have children of the correct age to be serving in the military.

It's not generally a club for younger people.

Sacre-mongering??

No one in the civilian or military leadership wants to reinstitute the draft. A volunteer force is infinetly better in terms of morale and dedication, and the sophistication of modern military equipment make short-term enlistment through a draft problematic at best, and most likely detrimental due to the numbers of 'real' soldiers it would take to constantly train (largely unwilling) civillians in short rotation. The only person calling for a draft is Rep (D) CHarlie Rangel, who is using it as a political attack against President Bush, employing the typical liberal tactic of trying to scare the hell out of everybody by lying. "There's a draft acomin so watch out" is right up there "The majority of people in the military are poor black kids" (less then 15% of the military is African American, statistically less then the overall popoulation)

Although I'm a little vague on the specifics, basically, unless completely mentally or physically incompetent (i.e. paralyzed, mentally challenged, etc) ALL Israeli young adults (male and female) of a certain age MUST perform x years of military service.

Not sure about the male/female stuff, but a fellow on the MUD I play is from Israel, and yes, he was serving in the military.
He's no patriot, just that he lives there so he has to serve.

It's not generally a club for younger people.

No, which is why I'd be interested in seeing more numbers regarding the situation (perhaps how many children of the current serving Congressman have served period). But then, Bush's daughters are the right age to serve in the military. :)

The only person calling for a draft is Rep (D) CHarlie Rangel

Hmm. He called it, according to articles I've read, back in December of 2002.

This newest call is from a Senator Chuck Hagel, Republican from Nebraska.

Maybe you missed the article?
Here's a link to one: Click here

The only person calling for a draft is Rep (D) CHarlie Rangel, who is using it as a political attack against President Bush, employing the typical liberal tactic of trying to scare the hell out of everybody by lying. "There's a draft acomin so watch out" is right up there "The majority of people in the military are poor black kids" (less then 15% of the military is African American, statistically less then the overall popoulation)

Actually, African Americans are 13.8 percent of the overall population according to the latest census info as of July 31, 2002.
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/bhmcensus1.html

But you're right. Mr. Rangel has made this claim before.

Omigod...Rangel AND Hagel??? The groundswell seems well nigh unstoppable!

The military doesn't want it. The public is against it. The number of lawmakers who have expressed support for it can be counted on one's hands and still have enough fingers left to play piano....in all honesty, I'm more worried about the possibility of giant radioactive dinosaurs at this point.

Now as an indirect way to attack the war or the president or whatever it makes sense--it gets young folks all scared and brings back memories of the Vietnam era...but unless the North koreans attack or we have a massive WMD disaster I don't see the need likely arising.

in all honesty, I'm more worried about the possibility of giant radioactive dinosaurs at this point.

So, how do you feel about a draft to protect us from a sudden attack by Gojiru? :)

Craig wrote: "All this talk about how each of us should put our lives on the line, and how many in the Bush Administration have walked the plank themselves? How many of them actually saw combat?"

You can say the same about the Clinton administration, yet President Clinton routinely sent troops to places like Bosnia, Somalia, Haiti, Rwanda and many other lesser-known places around the globe. For example, in 1993, after floods in Nepal destroyed some key bridges there, huge C-5s from Dover (where I was stationed) flew new bridges and tons of supplies to Katmandu in a relief operation. I can cite plenty of other examples as well. And if you think these lesser-known missions aren't as hazardous as an Iraq War mission, tell that to the next-of-kin of the nine C-141 Air Force crewmembers who never came from a mission to Namibia in 1997; or the next-of-kin of the 24 Air Force crewmembers who died in 1995 when their AWACS aircraft crashed during a flight over Alaska. It's a tough business regardless of what the mission is, but when the president or other senior leaders say, "Go," the military is duty bound to go. Politics are never part of the equation.

The fact of the matter is, even in the civilian world, every day we put our trust in people who hold life-or-death sway over our lives. When you fly, you trust that the pilot and the air traffic controllers won't make a "big" mistake. The same thing applies when you go to the doctor, or to the auto mechanic, or when you have a maintenance person come out and fix your furnace or re-wire your house. That elevator you may have stepped in the other day -- was it properly inspected? Did the last maintenance person who worked on it know what he/she was doing? When you're driving, you trust that the people in the oncoming lane won't get distracted by a screaming kid or ringing cell phone and swerve over the yellow line to hit you head-on. And the list goes on, ad infinitum.

In the same way, people in the military have to trust our country's civilian leadership to make the best decisions they can, with the information they have available, whenever they send troops into harm's way. It would be nice if the people making these military decisions had a military background, but these days, that rarely is the case -- regardless of which party is in power. For example, even if Kerry gets elected, you can bet your last dollar that the body of military knowledge for most of the people in his administration will come from Hollywood. Yeah, that's a scary thought, but it's also reality.

Russ Maheras

//As for the Supreme Court having said the draft was Constitutional twenty years ago...that's nice. //

At the risk of being snarky, I have to wonder why you bothered framing the discussing in terms of the constitutionality of a draft if that's your response to someone providing the rationale of a Supreme Court decision on that very issue. Why don't you address the specific points raised instead of dismissing the Court's decision as irrelevant?

Steve wrote: "Dave Bjorlin, right on. Russ, maybe we served together, and if we didn't, it was my loss."

Ditto here -- it was my loss, too. You know, even when I was grumbling about some crisis or goofy SNAFU, I loved being in the Air Force -- especially my nine years in SAC (eight of which I spent working on SR-71s). The Blackbird was the coolest plane ever built.

Russ Maheras

Omigod...Rangel AND Hagel??? The groundswell seems well nigh unstoppable!

The point is that when Rangel brought it up, he was laughed at.

When Hagel brings it up, people start going "You know..." as if he were suddenly Einstein.

And there is continual talk of sending even more troops into Iraq. Not to mention we can't even get the existing ones in there rotated out.

Those "new" troops have to come from somewhere.

You can say the same about the Clinton administration, yet President Clinton routinely sent troops to places like Bosnia, Somalia, Haiti, Rwanda and many other lesser-known places around the globe.

And the only "mess" Clinton got into was Somalia. Granted, we pulled out after one bloody battle, but it was a UN effort to begin with. That's more than can be said of Iraq.

As I said, some progressive scare-mongering.

The Bush administration says it's opposed to a draft.
-- The military is opposed to the draft.
-- Support for a draft in Congress -- on either side of the aisle -- is almost negligible.
-- Pushing through a draft would be political suicide.
-- The military is currently meeting its recruiting goals.
-- There has yet to be any sort of mass exodus from the military or National Guard despite the war on terrorism.
-- They are not THAT short on troops. 160k+ in Europe and South Korea right now for example.
-- Armies filled with military conscripts have proven to be far less effective than armies composed of volunteers.

in all honesty, I'm more worried about the possibility of giant radioactive dinosaurs at this point.

So, how do you feel about a draft to protect us from a sudden attack by Gojiru? :)

Wow, to tell the truth, I'm not entirely sure which side I'd be fighting for. I mean, I love Amaerica and all, but Godzilla is very very cool. I know I sure as hell wouldn't be one of those guys in the little tanks firing away to no effect, witing until I get stepped on. Boy, the Japanese always brag about their public education system but they go and do that tank thing each and every time and it never ever works.

i read this over @ comic book resources. i put this here because i know tons of you will be looking here. this is about how to prevent books we love like CM from going the way of the dinosaur. this article was written by steven grant.

"Recently the comics world was "rocked" by the sudden cancellation of Wildstorm's WILDCATS 3.0 and STORMWATCH:ACHILLES, despite a recent high-profile crossover that involved both books with on-off hit THE AUTHORITY and another tenuous but highly-regarded title, SLEEPER, and brought a sales bounce to them. Both brought new ideas and new takes to the well-trod superhero genre. WILDCATS 3.0 was a unique attempt to upgrade superbeings to a corporate environment. STORMWATCH:ACHILLES was a highly politicized series about paramilitary human response to super-action. Both were well done. Both had audiences. And only an idiot would be surprised by the cancellations.

Because, good as they were, they weren't selling.

The fact is: cancellations are a fact of life in the comics business, and all cancellations upset someone. (Besides the talent involved, I mean.) It's easy to rave about how good a book was and how it didn't deserve cancellation, and y'know what? It probably didn't. Hell, I've been there. When I was doing X-MAN at Marvel, it got big raves and I still get e-mails from people telling me how much they liked the book. I appreciate it, but the time to bring it up was when the book was being published, and I'm not the one who should've been told. Neither are Joe Casey or Micah Wright, the respective writers of WILDCATS 3.0 and STORMWATCH:ACHILLES. Or the talent behind any book. Not that we don't like to hear it.

But the people you should be telling are publishers, editors, retailers and other readers.

There are a few factors at play here.

By now you may have recognized that comics companies do a crappy job of promoting, particularly with new "untested" concepts. Comics companies, like most other American entertainment media these days, are geared toward The Franchise, that "iconic" product that can generate sales on name alone and will, theoretically, continue to do so for the indefinite future, from a variety of sources. (With a big enough franchise, like Superman, the actual comics sales become irrelevant to the secondary market money.) New properties have a major liability: they aren't franchises and most aren't likely to be, and no one has yet figured out the formula for deciding what the next big franchise will be, try as they might to pretend they do. (I did an interview last week on the basis of the PUNISHER movie – no, I haven't seen it yet – and was asked about Marvel's "enthusiasm" for the character when Mike Zeck and I were doing the PUNISHER MINI-SERIES aka "Circle Of Blood," which really got the whole thing rolling. Despite the character's guest appearances in AMAZING SPIDER-MAN and particularly Frank Miller's first DAREDEVIL run, a week or so before the mini-series came out, a high ranking member of Marvel's marketing department scolded me "Marvel's readers are not interested in the adventures of a homicidal maniac." A week later, they were setting up an overship program for the third issue.) Most companies continue to try to "instant franchise" various properties by binding them together into "lines," "imprints" or "universes," despite this pretty much never having worked. (There are some rare exceptions, like Vertigo, but Vertigo has pretty much always been run as a standard comics company within a company, with a much greater breadth and variety than the usual "line.") Generally, promotion consists of a blurb (sometimes an ad) in PREVIEWS, some house ads in the other comics they publish, if you're lucky a puff piece or two designed to make the book sound like the answer to the unified field theory on news sites that understandably give equal weight to everything from the death of a giant in the field to a minor character guest-starring in some other character's minor book. (Have news sites ever considered redesigning to have a newspaper look for their front pages, with a new major headline every day, and minor stories in other "columns," etc.?)

Which means, like it or not, if you like a book, or think you're going to, and you want it to survive, promotion largely falls on you.

Freelancers do the best they can, in general, but most freelancers don't have the time or resources to do whole hog promotion on their books. Neither do you, but you don't have to. All you need to do is hit your little corner of the world. I'm not talking about "comics activism," putting up posters all over your town or handing out copies of select comics to strangers on the street. All you need to do is a) try to get your retailer personally interested in the book, or even a clerk at your store – it's amazing how much more effort retailers will put into talking up a book they personally like, and a retailer's recommendation can sway a lot of on-the-fence buyers, and b) get one other stinking person interested enough in the book to buy it. Micah Wright says approximately 11,000 people bought STORMWATCH:ACHILLES every month. If 22,000 people were buying it, it would most likely still be around. And if each of the 11,000 people brought in "recruited" another 11,000... Sure, that's sort of pie-in-the-sky, but 40,000 people buying a specific book isn't anywhere near out of the question. As I've said before, the best advertising in comics is still word of mouth, but it's a grass roots thing. It's got to come from you.

I understand why that might be more effort or commitment than many readers are willing to put in. That's cool. Just don't be surprised when books get cancelled. The majority of comics get cancelled. It's the rare few that stick around.

Predictably, the cancellations prompted calls for letter writing campaigns to barrage the publisher, DC Comics, a ploy that at one time was fairly successful, until companies brought back comics on the basis of frantic letter writing campaigns but the books still failed. We're sort of spoiled in comics. Series do come back, but the fans of those series are virtually always disappointed, because the concept has by that point been tinkered with, or different talent is handling it, with a different slant. Look how much grief DC has taken from fans on their new FIRESTORM book, and it isn't even out yet, while Firestorm was never a major character at the best of times. The thing is this: when bringing back a series, a company (or even a creator with a creator-owned series) will usually examine it and try to determine what elements made it fail in the first place, then try to alter, replace or eliminate those elements. Thing is: those elements were usually what generated whatever passed for the hardcore audience of each book. Once a book goes away, it's almost never the same book when it comes back.

So the time to write letters is before a book gets cancelled. Long before.

Letter writing is something of a lost art in comics, not the least because letters pages are largely a thing of the past. The reasoning at comics companies is that the Internet is where people say things about comics now, and the reason they got that idea is that it's mostly true. Readers don't write letters to comics anymore, and companies don't encourage it. Considering letter pages were the glue of the camaraderie that created comics fandom in the first place, and comics fandom was linked to the companies by their letters, that's sad.

Letters ultimately don't mean a lot in the face of sales, but they mean something. A new book getting, and maintaining, piles of fan letters is something a company will take into consideration, at least for awhile, simply because it's so rare these days.

But a letter writing campaign after cancellation? Uh-uh. I'll say it again: the time to write letters is before cancellation, and letters alone won't save a book. At best they'll buy time. How you use the time is up to you.

But cancellations, like everything else, are part of the evolutionary process. It's overstating Darwin to suggest evolution is hard and cruel, but it's certainly unsentimental. We're at a cataclysmic time, with lots of interesting little mutations springing up, but mutations by their nature have brief, often tragically short, lifespans. Occasionally, a little furry mammal finds a niche to thrive in, but it's not common and never was.

Publishing is risk. Being a fan is, to some extent, risk. There's always the potential for disappointment and tragedy. But that's true of anything. Even if you're a total activist for a book, that's no guarantee your efforts will be successful, or that the book you're touting will survive. The question is whether you'll answer with cynicism and annoyance, or whether, like the people creating the books you like, you'll move on to something new and give that all your support. If you're upset with the cancellations of WILDCATS 3.0 or STORMWATCH:ACHILLES, keep your eyes open for the next work Joe Casey or Micah Wright do, and give that your support. Keep track. Spread the word. Get your localized promo efforts in gear. There are new little furry mammals, new mutations, springing up all the time. At least some of them (THE AUTHORITY's a case in point) are going to click.

If you don't support them, who's will?

Cancellations happen.

Welcome to our world."

hope this helps save some books from getting the ax.

joe

I'll support the draft if I could assured that it would be totally balanced by both social and (sp?) and racial(sp?) status, which of course will NEVER happen.

Judas Priest, Joe, next time just link the damn thing. That way, you'll avoid both pissing off people reading the topic *and* copyright violation.

Uhm..Joe? off topic much?
Oh, wait, I'll bring it back...Frank Castle likely wasn't drafted to fight in Vietnam.

Craig wrote: "And the only 'mess' Clinton got into was Somalia. Granted, we pulled out after one bloody battle, but it was a UN effort to begin with. That's more than can be said of Iraq."

Perhaps, but one could also argue that if Clinton had NOT played it safe politically and become involved in one or two more messy conflicts -- say, against the Taliban and and their terrorist pals in Afghanistan -- New York might still have a World Trade Center, and 3,000 more Americans might still be around to give us their opinions about the matter.

Russ Maheras

For example, even if Kerry gets elected, you can bet your last dollar that the body of military knowledge for most of the people in his administration will come from Hollywood. Yeah, that's a scary thought, but it's also reality.

As opposed to the vast military experience Bush and Dick brought to the table?

Joe, off-topic: Bad

Copyright violation: so what

I'm opposed to the concept of the volunteer army. Universal service is the only concievably democratic policy. It is of course necessary to make sure that it really does apply to everyone equally so that one can't get out of it by being part of an economic/political elite.

Den wrote: "As opposed to the vast military experience Bush and Dick brought to the table?"

Did you read my entire post, or is this a selective discussion? I specifically stated, "Regardless of which political party is in power..."

Besides, do you realize what you just said? Dick Cheney was a former secretary of defense, and oversaw operations for Gulf War I, for Pete's sake. I'd say that even though he never wore a uniform, with SecDef experience and White House chief of staff experience, he's certainly no rookie when it comes to the military.

Russ Maheras

Perhaps, but one could also argue that if Clinton had NOT played it safe politically and become involved in one or two more messy conflicts -- say, against the Taliban and and their terrorist pals in Afghanistan -- New York might still have a World Trade Center, and 3,000 more Americans might still be around to give us their opinions about the matter.

And thousands more lives would have been saved, US and Iraqi alike, if Bush Sr had taken out Saddam the first time around.
But he didn't, so what's your point?

I previously viewed draft-dodgers as weak an un-American.

However, if by some horrific fluke the draft is brought back, I'm going to Canada. I will not go to a war in a country I do not have any personal stake in. I don't care enough about Iraq to die there. Hell, I don't care enough to stub my toe for the damned country, let alone give up my life.

Further, I will not die because some rich, pompus assholes in Washington decided that "all Americans should pay their fair share". . . a very amusing concept, given that we have a lazy oaf for our President right now.

If the general populace gets wind of this (and I garuntee that Bush and Co will downplay it so they DON'T) every male 18-25 will say "F*** NO" quite loudly, by voting for John Kerry.

Regardless of whether or not you agree with the current war or with the draft there is one indisputable fact. Right now, no one is fighting to stop our country from being attacked. We are fighting to "rescue" the Iraqi people among others.

WWII started out as a response to us being attacked. We then realized that this Hitler guy wasnt going to stop with just Europe. He was a threat to our way of life in OUR country. The first time we are attacked in 50 years and we lost. Sure afterwards we killed a lot of people, most of whom probably had nothing to do with 9/11, and lost even more or our people. But Bin Laden is still alive. And we seem to have given up on changing that. At least for right now. Saddam didn't have WMD's. He may have at one time but thats irrelavent. He doesnt have any now and therefore he wasnt a threat to us personally. And now he has been captured so he isnt a threat to anyone. Yet our people are still dying. This seems wrong to me.

I think one of the most American things you can do is oppose the draft and refuse to serve in the military. Everyone talks about fighting for our freedoms. Well I believe one of my freedoms is that i shouldnt have to fight for a cause i dont believe in. And I believe that thats why most of our military personnel joined up. To not only fight for my right to believe that, but to give others the chance to believe the same. I would not join to fight in any wars we are in right now. I cant say whether I would fight an enemy attacking us but i would like to believe i would. I don't think Catholicism is the correct religion and I will fight anyone who tries to make me convert. But I refuse to go and kill the Pope just because I dont agree with the way he runs things.

I have great respect for all our servicemen and women. And I will support them. I can do that without thinking that what they do is a good idea. My sister is currently enrolled in the Naval Academy. I disagreed with her decision to enroll but I fully support her now that she is there.

Not supporting the war in Iraq does not mean I dont support America. I do. Even when we fuck things up. I dont believe that refusing to blindly follow my country's leaders means i dont support my country. I love America. I am proud to be an American.

Only fighting for that which I believe in does not make me an American. It makes me Human.

Jonathan (The Other One) wrote:
"I begin to grow annoyed.

"I have NEVER said that this country is not worth fighting for. In fact, as I recall, I believe I mentioned in there somewhere that I did volunteer to give several years of my life in its defense. I left some of my peace of mind in a room four floors under the surface of Nebraska, and very nearly left some of my sanity lying next to it. I have never questioned my decision to join, nor the services I rendered during that time."

Nobody, as far as I have read, has questioned your service. Nor has anyone claimed that you denied the country was worth fighting for. What we have questioned whas your actual statement, "Any nation, when attacked, has the absolute right to defend itself. However, said nation should be able to defend itself ably with volunteer troops, as the United States is doing today. If it is necessary to use conscripts, if the nation cannot generate sufficient patriotism amongst its members to raise a defensive force of willing participants, perhaps that nation deserves to fall." The implication of your two statements, read together, is that if the United States were ever invaded by a larger force, it would be eminently worth fighting and dying for... by volunteers, until we were defeated, in which case history's verdict would be that we deserved to fall. The "larger force" I hypothesized is a chimera as things stand; no country or plausible coalition of countries could overrun the United States if they tried, but your statement is a normative one that has nothing to do with the realities of being a hyperpower, which is why in my earlier post I brought up Belgium circa 1940. Every service-age man and woman in Belgium could have enlisted and still managed to be no more than a road bump to the Wehrmacht. It wasn't because they were insufficiently motivated, it was because they were outgunned. We're quite a bit more powerful than Belgium, but if faced with a legitimate threat I cannot imagine why a country would let itself be outgunned by disavowing conscription. Britain in 1940 was a great power, with an abundance of popular patriotism for opposing the Nazis, but given that it was such a near miss to survive until the United States entered the war, isn't it fair to say that full mobilization-- in a word, conscription-- made a difference? If the UK couldn't have survived the Battle of Britain with volunteers, do you really mean that they really deserved to lose, and only won because they cheated?

I agree with you on whether we should have a draft now. We don't really need it, therefore we shouldn't have it. But your broader statement, that we should NEVER have it, strikes me as being horribly wrong.

The War in Iraq is the worst idea since Greedo shot first.

The next ones to be drafted are probably not likely to be young 18 year olds but instead those at least in thier twenties and up to 44. The Selective Service is looking at a "special skills draft" that would allow those with language skills, computer skills, etc to be drafted. They already have in place the same type of draft available for medical personal.

It is a good deal for the military as they would not have to train new recruits in the skills that they need. They can just take those from the private sector. It may be a remote possibility but it is out there and being studied.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/164693_draft13.html

Greenbaum wrote:
The first time we are attacked in 50 years and we lost. Sure afterwards we killed a lot of people, most of whom probably had nothing to do with 9/11, and lost even more or our people. But Bin Laden is still alive. And we seem to have given up on changing that.At least for right now. Saddam didn't have WMD's. He may have at one time but thats irrelavent. He doesnt have any now and therefore he wasnt a threat to us personally. And now he has been captured so he isnt a threat to anyone. Yet our people are still dying. This seems wrong to me.

With all due respect, let me point out a few errors in your statement.

a. We haven't lost, nor has anyone given up on finding Bin Laden, the problem is that he can move from one country to another with relative ease, we can't. That's why terrorists fight the way they do. When there's no central location to attack or defend, finding them's hard enough. Wiping them out is damn near impossible.

b.Saddam had WMDs. It's not irrelevant. Does he have them now, it doesn't look like it, but honestly that brings up two other questions that no one is answering. What happened to the ones that he DID have? And if he had destroyed them, why was he stonewalling the UN? I still think he had them, but I also think we moved too late. Until you can answer at least the first question, It's way too early to say with any certainty that he wasn't a threat.

c. As for whether Saddam is a threat. Well, gee, if he's not a threat, maybe we should let him go, if he promises not to do it again?

Andrew wrote: "However, if by some horrific fluke the draft is brought back, I'm going to Canada. I will not go to a war in a country I do not have any personal stake in."

So, using your rationale, then I should not have to pay taxes that support causes/programs I don't agree with?

"The next ones to be drafted are probably not likely to be young 18 year olds but instead those at least in thier twenties and up to 44. The Selective Service is looking at a "special skills draft" that would allow those with language skills, computer skills, etc to be drafted."

I wonder if a 43 year old teacher with some experience as a microbiologist would qualify...'cause while I'm not jumping at the chance, I'd sure go if they thought I could do some good (this might be the "it's almost summer and the kids are going insane" stress talking here).

Andrew,
First, what you and a lot of people fail to understand is that Iraq IS a part of the War on Terrorism. If you don't think so, then just look at recent reports of Iran and Syria not only helping the dissidents but actually coming over to help, because they realize that a free Iraq - and the example it would set to their own populaces who largely desire freedom but as yet have no proof that such a state of affairs is possible - is dangerous to their extremist repressive ways.
Choices are not always obvious. It seems you and others seem to think thge only time it is right to fight is if they try to invade us directly on our land, something few if any countries have the capability to do.
They do have the capability of unleashing bioterror agents that would kill thousands and thousands of people in major cities, or dirty bombs, or destroying a football stadium with 60,000 people or destroying the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco or the Sears Tower. Any of these or similar acts would kill many more people, including women and children, than we have lost in Iraq.
That is what we are trying to prevent.

Russ:

>>Andrew wrote: "However, if by some horrific fluke the draft is brought back, I'm going to Canada. I will not go to a war in a country I do not have any personal stake in."

>So, using your rationale, then I should not have to pay taxes that support causes/programs I don't agree with?

There is a big difference between supporting programming one doesn't agree with, with your taxes and going off to kill and/or be killed for a program one doesn't agree with. Big difference.

Greenbaum,
The first time we are attacked in 50 years and we lost? What are you talking about?
Also, if you would read a newspaper once in a while, you would see that far from giving up on Bin Laden, we are making progress, and have come very close on a number of occasions to getting not only him but his lieuteanants as well. In any event, they are on the run, probably something they never expected.

First, what you and a lot of people fail to understand is that Iraq IS a part of the War on Terrorism.

No, it's a personal vendetta by the Bush Administration against Saddam.

The terrorists weren't there until we removed Saddam from power.

If you don't think so, then just look at recent reports of Iran and Syria not only helping the dissidents but actually coming over to help

This is no more terrorism than the notion that Jesus was killed by the Jews.

They feel threatened by us. And can you blame them? They don't need to provoke us for the Bush Administration to decide that they're next.

Crap, need to quit posting so soon, since not everything I want to say pops into my head at once. :)

The above isn't to say I approve of the actions of Iran or Syria if they are "sending" people against us, but it's not like they needed to.
There are plenty of these types that want to be in the country to fight our troops anyways.

Andrew,
Also, regarding "every male 18-25 will say F--K NO" quite loudly by voting for John Kerry.
First, Kerry has not suggested any meaningful alternative to our strategy right now, so why do you automatically things would be different?
More importantly, you seem to feel all males 18-25 seem to feel the way you do, which is incorrect.
Many men of draft age would be willing to do their duty to protect their fellow citizens. They believe in this country and what it stands for and can see why supporting the President and our fellow troops is important.
Heck,if you look at old New York Times archives or read Paul Johnson's eye-opening book "Modern Times", you will find that despite the left's relentless eforts to dishearten the nation, vast majorities of Americans consistently supported the Vietnam War. This accepted notion that an anti-war movement swept the nation is a preposterous myth (though it did give us some decent music).
Right up until our imminent withdrawal from Vietnam, no more than 20 percent of Americans ever opposed the war in Vietnam. Contrary to the image of everyone wearing tie-dye shirts, smoking weed, and "not trusting anyone over 30", the under-thirty-five crowd SUPPORTED the Vietnam War MORE than those under thirty-five! Support for the war was STRONGEST among young white males.
Granted, we seem to have grown softer, more suburban and complacent since, but you will find that a vast majority of those called would serve. they don't all think like you.

"The War in Iraq is the worst idea since Greedo shot first."

I don't agree with you but I have to admit that was the best one-liner I've seen on this blog in months.

Fred,
"There is a big difference between supporting programming one doesn't agree with with your taxes and going off to kill and/or be killed for a program one doesn't agree with. Big difference."

Uh, no.
In either case, someone is giving up a "right". In one case, it may be the individual "right" to keep all the money - or more money - that you earn from working two jobs so you can provide more for yourself or your family. the justification is that the tax money is for the "greater good".
In the latter - it is giving up a individual "right" not to be put in a situation you don't want to be in. The justification is that the military action is for the "greater good".
So there is really not a "big difference' on the face of it. If you would care to illustrate your point, I'll be happy to listen.

Fred,
"There is a big difference between supporting programming one doesn't agree with with your taxes and going off to kill and/or be killed for a program one doesn't agree with. Big difference."

Jerome:
Uh, no.
In either case, someone is giving up a "right". In one case, it may be the individual "right" to keep all the money - or more money - that you earn from working two jobs so you can provide more for yourself or your family. the justification is that the tax money is for the "greater good".
In the latter - it is giving up a individual "right" not to be put in a situation you don't want to be in. The justification is that the military action is for the "greater good".
So there is really not a "big difference' on the face of it. If you would care to illustrate your point, I'll be happy to listen.

Uh yeah. If you see no big difference between providing money and killing, than any point being made on this would be lost on you.

I've stopped replying to both your posts and replies due to your rantings, insults, condescension, illogical thinking and conclusion-jumping. You are not looking for conversation. You are looking to prove that you are right. Big difference. The first being listening and reflecting on a post before replying. Again, big difference that, after reding your posts over the past week, I no longer expect you to get.

"No offense meant PAD, but YOU, staunch defender of Free speech, yourself have often argued with a certain "gun-nut" named Dan, about doing away with protections granted under the Second Amendment because YOU think they're no longer needed or relevant. One of the few things I've heard you and John Byrne agree on, BTW."

That's a very simplistic, and fairly inaccurate, summation of my position on the matter. I've pointed out that the Second Amendment clearly links the necessity of maintaining a militia as being *the* rationale for the right to bear arms, and therefore have contended that anyone who owns guns should possess them for that specific purpose. And that anyone purchasing guns must be part of a militia and ready to go to war on their country's behalf.

If one is going to use the 2nd Amendment to say that one has the right to purchase a gun, one should use the whole Amendment, not just the half that carries no responsibility to use it to fight for America.

PAD

"At the risk of being snarky, I have to wonder why you bothered framing the discussing in terms of the constitutionality of a draft if that's your response to someone providing the rationale of a Supreme Court decision on that very issue. Why don't you address the specific points raised instead of dismissing the Court's decision as irrelevant?"

I didn't say it was irrelevant. I said that saying it's constitutional just because the court said it was twenty years ago doesn't really address the question. Ninety years ago, the Court espoused a doctrine of "clear and present danger" and used it to support dozens of people being tossed into jail simply for expressing disagreement with the government. I think that was blatantly unconstitutional even though the court thought it was.

This country has a history of people's constitutional rights being trampled on, and supported by the Court, in the interest of expediency. So the question is, is a draft one of those things?

PAD

Andrew wrote: "However, if by some horrific fluke the draft is brought back, I'm going to Canada. I will not go to a war in a country I do not have any personal stake in."

"So, using your rationale, then I should not have to pay taxes that support causes/programs I don't agree with?"

It's not a matter of not "having" to so much as refusing to.

Using his rationale, if you feel that strongly about it, yes, absolutely, you should refuse to pay taxes.

But there will be consequences. Andrew is basically saying that he's willing to accept the consequence of acting upon his belief: Being an exile from his country. The consequence that would fall upon you, for your protest, would be potential prosecution which you would most likely lose, and the penalties that stem from that. If you're willing to live with those penalties, as Andrew is, then go for it.

PAD

If Peter graduated High School in 1975 - he reported to his Draft Board as required by law. Classes of '76 and '77 were exempted. I was told not to report. I also remember fighting the Draft during the Carter and Reagan administrations. The Draft as stands is a bad idea. Two years of Government Service post-high school doing something positive and earning credits for the school of your choice would be better.

The AOL "Gun Nut" was not as tough a debater as his sole supporter was but I'd rather not invoke either of them. My friends who served in Vietnam mostly clerked; only one saw "action" as it were.

As to rights - people will stand up for them. People are merely being bamboozled at the moment. It won't last.

Wait for an angry minoriry to pose as a majority soon,
Alan

"As for whether Saddam is a threat. Well, gee, if he's not a threat, maybe we should let him go, if he promises not to do it again?"

Promises not to do what again? Run his country the way he sees fit? Invades another country for his own selfish needs? Has weapons of mass destruction? If we can do it why cant he?

hey.. this has nothing to do with the subject, but i just finished reading the second apropos book and i absolutley love it. it was everything i was looking for in a book and you couldnt have added more. i havent got to reading the third one but i cant wait. thanks for making the books so great =) keep it up

-teeny

David: I dont really believe it either but I felt people on this board could appreciate the humor of it. Also, sadly can't take credit for it. Partially stole it from Kevin Smith.

Craig wrote: "And thousands more lives would have been saved, US and Iraqi alike, if Bush Sr had taken out Saddam the first time around.
But he didn't, so what's your point?"

As I recall, For Gulf War I, Bush Senior went as far as the UN resolution (and Congress) gave him the green light to go. If he'd have gone all the way to Baghdad to grab Saddam, the U.S. would be in the exact same messy situation you are criticizing the U.S. for being in right now after Gulf War II. If you are going to take a stand, at least be consistent.

The reality of the situation is that there is no easy way to take out terrorists and dictators, and if you take a politically safe approach, you greatly increase your odds of not getting the bad guys at all. Actually, in 1991 I thought Bush Senior SHOULD have ignored all of his carping critics and gone all the way to Baghdad. But, like Clinton did with al Qaida, Bush Senior opted to play it safe, politically. Thus, problems that could have been eliminated a long time ago have come back to haunt us.

Russ Maheras

Fred wrote: "There is a big difference between supporting programming one doesn't agree with, with your taxes and going off to kill and/or be killed for a program one doesn't agree with. Big difference."

In either hypothetical case, you are being forced by law to do something that you do not want to do. And don't trivialize the tax issue, because it could also involve life and death situations.

For example, let's say John Doe is a conscientious objector because he can't stand the thought of being responsible for the death of another person. If there is a draft, and he gets drafted, is it OK for him to run off to Canada to avoid induction? What if John Doe is also against abortion and the death penalty for the same reason he's against the draft? His tax money pays for government-funded abortions and executions, so is it also OK for him to stop paying taxes as well?

It's not as big a difference as you may think.

Russ Maheras

Russ, and anyone else who addressed me:

1. I should state that originally, I supported the war in Iraq. Even after the end, when we found no WMDs, I wasn't opposed to our presence there. NOW, however, when Bush doesn't give a damn about the servicemen and women dying EVERY DAY for a half-assed excuse for a War on Terror, I oppose it. Three people from my home state have died recently - none of whom I knew, thank God - and more are sure to follow. We liberated the people there. Now they're KILLING OUR PEOPLE.

No one wants us there. I do not wish to take part in something that is insignificant on a world scale. The far right can spout the "War on Terror!" crap all they want: Not finding WMD's within a YEAR shows that Saddam, while an evil bastard, was not ready to send his best men over here with suitcase nukes and the superflu.

2. As Peter said, if the draft is reinstated and I am threatened by it, I WILL move. It is not cowardice, because this fight is not for America, as much as the delusional would like to think it is. This is about GWB trying to prove he has the largest penis on the planet by sending men and women to die. I _would_ give up my life to defend my country and the ideals which I believe in. I will _not_ die for an unjustified war in which there is no end in sight and no actual "bad guy" aside from the vague concept of terrorism.

You want me to cut through all the polite wording? George W. Bush, his cabinet, and any bigoted, narrow-minded jackasses who want to send me off to die in some miserable desert can blow me.

"But that somehow got construed as, "Sure, it's okay to own shoulder-mounted rockets for home defense."

This is not so far out there as the original writer may think.
Consider the Conservatives' beloved concept of "Founding Fathers' Original Intent" that is trotted out whenever there is a Supreme Court vacancy:
The true purpose of the 2nd Ammendment was to make sure the 'The People' (who phillosophically ARE the government) could be armed in order to keep the Government in check. A government can't oppress a people who are equally armed.
Extending that concept to 2004, one can argue that We The People have a right to own our own personal nuclear arsenal, equal to or greater than that controlled by the government.
(Of course, one would lose, but one can argue.)
As to the draft, under the same concept, in order to keep the government in check, rather than the military drafting me, I have a right to draft the existing military into my personal army as long as it IS to keep the government in check!
I'm sure the Republicans/Conservatives/Ruling Class would agree with this because after all, intellectal inconsistancy is the thing for which they condemn their ideological opposites.

Fred wrote: "There is a big difference between supporting programming one doesn't agree with, with your taxes and going off to kill and/or be killed for a program one doesn't agree with. Big difference."

Russ:

>>In either hypothetical case, you are being forced by law to do something that you do not want to do. And don't trivialize the tax issue, because it could also involve life and death situations.

I never inteded to trivialize the point, Russ. You understand your point and actually thought of that very example as I was typing. This example is one of extremes. One could also state that I support the death penelty or the Iraq War because I pay taxes. My taxes are broken down and distributed based on votes by "representatives" who give a small percentage to these areas. The big difference I pointed out comes in that I speak out against the war and will/would not pull a trigger over there in this scenerio. That would be a huge jump.

>>For example, let's say John Doe is a conscientious objector because he can't stand the thought of being responsible for the death of another person. If there is a draft, and he gets drafted, is it OK for him to run off to Canada to avoid induction? What if John Doe is also against abortion and the death penalty for the same reason he's against the draft? His tax money pays for government-funded abortions and executions, so is it also OK for him to stop paying taxes as well?

If he is willing to face the consequences, sure.

>>It's not as big a difference as you may think.

Again, I understand your point and respectfully disagree. The 2 similarities that I see are free choice and immediate, 1st person responsibility for intentially putting a bullet, mortar, etc into a living human being for a "crusade" that is dubious and ever-changing in its purpose. Is it possible that you may be minimizing the difference, while I am understating? :)

Fred wrote: "There is a big difference between supporting programming one doesn't agree with, with your taxes and going off to kill and/or be killed for a program one doesn't agree with. Big difference."

Russ:

>>In either hypothetical case, you are being forced by law to do something that you do not want to do. And don't trivialize the tax issue, because it could also involve life and death situations.

I never inteded to trivialize the point, Russ. You understand your point and actually thought of that very example as I was typing. This example is one of extremes. One could also state that I support the death penelty or the Iraq War because I pay taxes. My taxes are broken down and distributed based on votes by "representatives" who give a small percentage to these areas. The big difference I pointed out comes in that I speak out against the war and will/would not pull a trigger over there in this scenerio. That would be a huge jump.

>>For example, let's say John Doe is a conscientious objector because he can't stand the thought of being responsible for the death of another person. If there is a draft, and he gets drafted, is it OK for him to run off to Canada to avoid induction? What if John Doe is also against abortion and the death penalty for the same reason he's against the draft? His tax money pays for government-funded abortions and executions, so is it also OK for him to stop paying taxes as well?

If he is willing to face the consequences, sure.

>>It's not as big a difference as you may think.

Again, I understand your point and respectfully disagree. The 2 similarities that I see are free choice and immediate, 1st person responsibility for intentially putting a bullet, mortar, etc into a living human being for a "crusade" that is dubious and ever-changing in its purpose. Is it possible that you may be minimizing the difference, while I am overstating it? :)

If you are going to take a stand, at least be consistent.

I AM being consistent. I HAVE said that Bush only went as far as the UN Resolution allowed him to.
I guess you missed those parts.

You're sitting here blaming Clinton for 9/11, so I gave a counterexample, where not playing it safe might have saved lives in the long run. Apparently you don't like that.

Fred wrote: "Again, I understand your point and respectfully disagree. The 2 similarities that I see are free choice and immediate, 1st person responsibility for intentially putting a bullet, mortar, etc into a living human being for a "crusade" that is dubious and ever-changing in its purpose. Is it possible that you may be minimizing the difference, while I am understating? :)"

I really don't think so. Where does responsibility start and stop in either hypothetical situation?

Food for thought.

Russ Maheras

"No, it's a personal vendetta by the Bush Administration against Saddam."

Not even Bob "Bernstein-and-I-took-down-Nixon" Woodward and his book were able to establish that. But, if fantasy works for you then, by all means, indulge.

Not even Bob "Bernstein-and-I-took-down-Nixon" Woodward and his book were able to establish that.

And Bush never outright stated that Saddam was being 9/11, but that doesn't mean there isn't enough left unsaid and between the lines to think the implication isn't there.

Bush wanted Saddam out from day 1.

Besides, do you realize what you just said? Dick Cheney was a former secretary of defense, and oversaw operations for Gulf War I, for Pete's sake. I'd say that even though he never wore a uniform, with SecDef experience and White House chief of staff experience, he's certainly no rookie when it comes to the military.

SecDef is primarily an administrative job, he comes up with some "big picture" ideas and reviews the budget. It's the joint chiefs who actually implement military strategy.

I was just mocking your original statement that Kerry's military advisers would all come from Hollywood. Unlike Bush or Dick, he's actually seen real combat, so I sincerely doubt he'll take, say Oliver Stone's opinions on military strategy all that serious.

"Bush wanted Saddam out from day 1."

Of course he did. Saddam was a serious problem. Many forget that Iraq was firing on our jets throughout early-to-mid 2001, just to name one of the many things about Saddam that deserved action. But that does not change the consistently supported fact that Saddam was an active funder and cultivator of terrorism... thus making him a part of the War on Terror.

"Unlike Bush or Dick, he's actually seen real combat, so I sincerely doubt he'll take, say Oliver Stone's opinions on military strategy all that serious."

Yeah, for all of four months. A magical four months, apparently, in which he "earned" three purple hearts and a Silver Star.

"Yeah, for all of four months. A magical four months, apparently, in which he "earned" three purple hearts and a Silver Star."

But how much time did he also spend in training? And how much more time is that compared to members of the current administration?

I'm not trying to support either side here, just trying support thinking of as many relevant aspects of an issue as possible instead of relying on partial facts and buzz words/phrases that both sides tend to engage in.

Monkeys.

"But how much time did he also spend in training?"

Who cares? Training isn't combat. The comparison was made between Bush/Cheney's combat experience and Kerry's and that is what I was commenting on. As far as the most relevent aspects to consider, I think Kerry's voting record is his most significant. Bush's is his presidential record.

"Unlike Bush or Dick, he's actually seen real combat, so I sincerely doubt he'll take, say Oliver Stone's opinions on military strategy all that serious."

Yeah, for all of four months.

One day in combat can make you dead.

You can make a smarter comment than that,

By the way...getting shrapnel in the thighs and buttocks certainly qualifies you for a Bronze Star in my books.

Sure, Darin, and that's why I'm NOT voting for Bush this year. Didn't last time either.

I already know that I don't like how Bush did the job this time out.

Ack. I meant Purple Heart....

Yeah, for all of four months. A magical four months, apparently, in which he "earned" three purple hearts and a Silver Star.

The merits of his medals (the GOP personal attack of the day) aside, that's still four more months of combat experience than either Dick or Bush has seen.

Rather than argue whether or not he deserved the medals, I'll just note that you still haven't said anything that supports your contention that Kerry's military advisers would all come from Hollywood.

Bush's is his presidential record.

I can't think of a better reason to vote against Bush.

Rather than argue whether or not he deserved the medals...

Got a question: why are we still arguing this?

The medical records have been released. In two of the three incidents, there's extremely hard physical evidence and eyewitness testimony about the injuries and actions taken. Why are we still getting snide comments when the documentation is as solid as you can get?

We're arguing this because the GOP knows that if the want Bush to win in November, they have to utterly destroy Kerry in the public's mind.

First:

Toby: I'd like to respectfully ask that you find another sign off other than "MONKEYS". I know you've explained it before, but frankly, every time I see it I just can't get past the idea that you're calling us names, and sitting there laughing at the fact that we haven't caught on yet. I am making a REQUEST, not a DEMAND.

If you say no, which, of course, you have every right to do, fine, but it will likely mean that I'm going to start skipping over your posts from now on because that sign off REALLY irritates me.

Alan Sinder:

I'm hardly "the gun nut's" sole supporter, although I might be in this forum. I'd also like to point out that he and I also differed on our interpretations of the Constitution.

PAD:

That's a very simplistic, and fairly inaccurate, summation of my position on the matter.

You have the advantage of me, sir, being the author of your position. I was going solely from memory and interpretation. Neither of which is flawless.

I've pointed out that the Second Amendment clearly links the necessity of maintaining a militia as being *the* rationale for the right to bear arms, and therefore have contended that anyone who owns guns should possess them for that specific purpose. And that anyone purchasing guns must be part of a militia and ready to go to war on their country's behalf.

Once again, that's YOUR interpretation. The 2nd Amendment makes no such stipulation that the ONLY reason for owning a gun is for it's use in a militia. It IS the reason stated that your right to OWN them won't be infringed upon.

If one is going to use the 2nd Amendment to say that one has the right to purchase a gun, one should use the whole Amendment, not just the half that carries no responsibility to use it to fight for America.

See? that's the point I'm not reconciling with your argument as that was the point the "gun nut" was MAKING. You're the one attempting to make the Amendment applicable ONLY for use in raising a militia.

"By the way...getting shrapnel in the thighs and buttocks certainly qualifies you for a Bronze Star in my books."

Two eyewitnesses from Kerry's unit have gone on record saying that his wounds were band-aid serious. He used the three purple hearts he "earned" to qualify for his star. He put himself in for all of his medals. No superior officer ever looked at his record and said, "this kid deserves a medal." He gave himself his medals. This isn't uncommon, by the way. He played up three minor scrapes in order to qualify for the "three purple heart rule" of the time that allowed someone with three such awards to leave Vietnam and not serve there again. It was all part of his plan.

A purple heart is not necessarily worth as much as one might automatically think. They are awarded for injuries sustained in a warzone or behind enemy lines. They can be awarded for serious injuries or, as in the case of someone I served with, as minor as a broken toe.

Kerry's "war record" is a sham. It's the flim-flam of a career-minded opportunist. He is, quite simply, not "all that."

Toby: I'd like to respectfully ask that you find another sign off other than "MONKEYS". I know you've explained it before, but frankly, every time I see it I just can't get past the idea that you're calling us names, and sitting there laughing at the fact that we haven't caught on yet. I am making a REQUEST, not a DEMAND.

Giant radioactive dinosaurs.

Okay, how about rat snakes?

"By the way...getting shrapnel in the thighs and buttocks certainly qualifies you for a Bronze Star in my books."

Two eyewitnesses from Kerry's unit have gone on record saying that his wounds were band-aid serious. He used the three purple hearts he "earned" to qualify for his star. He put himself in for all of his medals. No superior officer ever looked at his record and said, "this kid deserves a medal." He gave himself his medals. This isn't uncommon, by the way. He played up three minor scrapes in order to qualify for the "three purple heart rule" of the time that allowed someone with three such awards to leave Vietnam and not serve there again. It was all part of his plan.

A purple heart is not necessarily worth as much as one might automatically think. They are awarded for injuries sustained in a warzone or behind enemy lines. They can be awarded for serious injuries or, as in the case of someone I served with, as minor as a broken toe.

Kerry's "war record" is a sham. It's the flim-flam of a career-minded opportunist. He is, quite simply, not "all that."

Bullshit. You hear what you want to hear.

Jim Rassmann sure as hell doesn't think that way. >HE

Hell....my comments are getting chopped up...

Jim Rassmann was the one who recomended Kerry for a Silver Star. He was the one who was rescued by Kerry in the incident where Kerry received his third Purple Heart.

I suggest you talk to HIM about whether Kerry's record is a sham.

As Darin continues to duck my comment with the medals distraction, I'll put it out again:

Unlike Dick and Bush, Kerry has first hand experience in combat. He has seen what the troops on the ground actually go through, so what is the basis for your statement that his military advisers will all be from Hollywood?

Jim Rassmann was the one who recomended Kerry for a Silver Star. He was the one who was rescued by Kerry in the incident where Kerry received his third Purple Heart.

I suggest you talk to HIM about whether Kerry's record is a sham.

Oh, yes, of course that was a sham. Those fellows in the black pajamas just wanted to invite Rassman to a sleepover! Then that mean ol' Lt. Kerry came in and made Rassman go home, and wouldn't play nice with the pajama guys... :(

Meanwhile, brave warrior Lt. Bush was bravely defending the skies of Texas from the Commie threat - and then he went and singlehandedly (and bravely) drove Ho's followers away from the Arkansas Campaign Trail!

Remember - Kerry showoff; Bush hero!

[/sarcasm]

How about a new thead regarding the draft.

Robert Heinlein's Starship Troopers.

In his utopian society anyone could serve in the
military, but only veterans had the right to vote.

Not as a reward for serving, but because having
gone through military training and missions they
had beaten into their heads the lesson of putting
the needs of their groups ahead of their own
personal needs.

"Two eyewitnesses from Kerry's unit have gone on record saying that his wounds were band-aid serious."

Yeah, negative comments can ensue when lots of people remember you from your military service. So Kerry's opponent this November has an advantage in that respect.

PAD

"Once again, that's YOUR interpretation."

It's not an interpretation. It's what's there: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." It's a dependent clause. Because of this, then that.

"The 2nd Amendment makes no such stipulation that the ONLY reason for owning a gun is for it's use in a militia. It IS the reason stated that your right to OWN them won't be infringed upon."

Right. For this specific reason, the right to own them won't be infringed. But when you wander away from that specific reason, it's a new ballgame. If the Founders wanted everyone to be able to own guns for any reason whatsoever, then they wouldn't have bothered with the first clause. The fact that they went out of their way to provide context points to the ineluctable conclusion that they wanted citizen soldiers to be able to fight in organized fashion for their state at the drop of a hat. If someone is unable or unwilling to comply with that, then they shouldn't have the right to bear arms. That simple.

PAD

Darin wrote: "Two eyewitnesses from Kerry's unit have gone on record saying that his wounds were band-aid serious. He used the three purple hearts he "earned" to qualify for his star. He put himself in for all of his medals. No superior officer ever looked at his record and said, "this kid deserves a medal." He gave himself his medals. This isn't uncommon, by the way. He played up three minor scrapes in order to qualify for the "three purple heart rule" of the time that allowed someone with three such awards to leave Vietnam and not serve there again. It was all part of his plan.”

Interesting. I hadn't heard that. If true, that’s a serious integrity issue, in my opinion -- at least from the perspective of this veteran.

You said “it is not uncommon” for servicemembers to put themselves in for medals. I disagree -- at least as far as the Air Force is concerned. Since as far back as 1978, an Airman's supervisor has had to put him/her in for a medal. The regulations spell out exactly who is eligible, and gives guidelines regarding when one is warranted. I’m not sure how the process went during Vietnam, however.

Russ Maheras

Everyone seems to be of the opinion that Kerry's status as a veteran- in fact, a war hero- makes him the better choice in a presidential election. Senator Bob Dole lost the use of his arm fighting WWII. George H. W. Bush was a decorated war hero as well. Then-Governor Clinton was a draft dodger who broke the law and spent part of the war in the soviet union. Did any of you vote for Clinton? How many of you would even be pretending you care about war record if Howard Dean were still in the running (remember, Dean got a deferment because of his crippling back injury, immediately thereafter taking a skiing vacation.) Come on, everyone. At least a little intelluctual honesty. I'm sure you're say you dislike PRESIDENT Bush enough that it wouldn't matter who he's running against. I, on the other hand, am planning to vote FOR somebody this November. I would love to explain to anyone who does not understand the reasons we went to war with Iraq. There are many. You might not agree with all of them, but they I'll go over them with anybody who is still confused.
Mr. David, let me also point out that even though we apparently differ politically, I am and will always be an enormous fan of your work. I first read Strike Zone when it was published, and I followed your career through The Hulk (esp. the Wolverine issue and the Dystopia special), the reborn X-Factor, the Trek comics and novels- I'm still waiting for the next Sachs and Violens! But even if we disagree on political matters, I and everyone here have one thing in common: David Peters is the best Photon writer of all time.
Seriously, it's an honor.

Fred wrote: "Again, I understand your point and respectfully disagree. The 2 similarities that I see are free choice and immediate, 1st person responsibility for intentially putting a bullet, mortar, etc into a living human being for a "crusade" that is dubious and ever-changing in its purpose. Is it possible that you may be minimizing the difference, while I am understating? :)"

Russ:
>>I really don't think so. Where does responsibility start and stop in either hypothetical situation?

>>Food for thought.

*Rereading my post, I realize that I really must begin waiting for my morning cffee to take effect befor posting*

I honestly have spent much time chewing on this food for thought in my mind over the past several years.

My responsibility as a taxpayer who opposes a given service, governmental policy or agency's practice is to speak out vhemently, vote for those who will most closely reflect my beliefs, and t write letters to the appropriate persons.

My responsility as a "conscientious objector" (*** Knows that I hate that cliched term), is to make the choice to not take up arms should the time come that I'm told to do so.

The former is proactive and twice, thrice or even more removed from the situation, the latter is direct involvement and pulling the trigger so to speak.

I hope that this response is a bit more articulate and clarifies my stance a bit more clearly than my other posts.

PAD : "Yeah, negative comments can ensue when lots of people remember you from your military service. So Kerry's opponent this November has an advantage in that respect."

It also doesn't help when you post someone else's military record on your official website and try to pass it off as your own. There's integrity for you.

"In his utopian society anyone could serve in the
military, but only veterans had the right to vote."

Not exactly. Heinlein's Starship Troopers world was set up so that one had to volunteer for federal service, but not necessarily in the military, in order to vote.

"As Darin continues to duck my comment with the medals distraction"

I'm not ducking your question. I'm commenting on the premise of your segwey into your question. But since you seem to want me to answer the question, I'll say I doubt very highly that a President Kerry would take military advise from Oliver Stone as well.

"Jim Rassmann was the one who recomended Kerry for a Silver Star."

Sure, he may have recommended him, but Kerry essentially promoted himself. He ASKED for the Silver Star, in civilian lingo. It wouldn't matter how many recommendations he had by whomever, the commanding officer of Kerry's unit had to put him in for the Silver Star. The commanding officer of Kerry's unit was Kerry. Kerry "earned" it because he shot and killed a VC who had already been wounded by his boat's 50 calibur deck gun. Ever see what a 50cal does to the human body? That VC couldn't have been very alive when Kerry, in an act of utter stupidity, grounded his boat and leaped out to finish this VC off. His crewmates told him he was dead, but Kerry put a round in the VC's body anyway just so he could say that "he" killed the dangerous, uber-threatening VC who apparently threatened Rassmun so much. Grounding one's PBR is a court-martialable offense, btw.

"You said “it is not uncommon” for servicemembers to put themselves in for medals. I disagree -- at least as far as the Air Force is concerned. Since as far back as 1978, an Airman's supervisor has had to put him/her in for a medal."

I didn't specify servicemembers. I'm sorry for that bit of confusion. No, I meant Naval officers like Kerry. As I've stated in my last post, Kerry was in a position to abuse the system by which medals are awarded. I've seen unit commanders award themselves medals frequently, especially during peacetime when there weren't as many opportunities to get them. Dick Marcinko's books mention this practice.

Kerry officially went to Vietnam twice. The first time, he was serving onboard a capital ship that got no closer to Vietnam than 13 nautical miles (a relatively safe distance). The second time he went, it was for only four months. The very idea that he could have earned three purple hearts and a silver star when most other servicemen serving in the jungles and on the front lines for far longer earned nowhere near that should tell you something. He looks too good and healthy to have earned three purple hearts, too. Look what one purple heart did to Dole.

continued from last post...

The simple fact that Kerry had three purple hearts, supposedly from three seperate injuries, all within four months and none of which seem to have given him any longterm problems throws some dubiousness or question into the validity, or perhaps just the severity, of his injuries.

Fred wrote: "The former is proactive and twice, thrice or even more removed from the situation, the latter is direct involvement and pulling the trigger so to speak."

Only a small percentage of people in the military ever have to directly shoot at, or bomb anyone, thus, in my opinion, your stated rationale of "direct involvement" does not really justify becoming a conscientious objector. Military chaplains don't shoot at people, and neither do medical personnel. In the Air Force, you could be a cargo aircraft or tanker pilot, an aircraft navigator, or a loadmaster, and unless you were in special operations, you could spend 20 years in your specialty and never shoot at anyone. In the Navy, if you are a ship's nuclear propulsion technician, intel specialist, or aircraft catapult mechanic, you'll never shoot at anyone, either. Ever!

As a matter of fact, there are hundreds of military specialties where the only time you may ever see or fire a weapon is on the target range for qualification training. Things are, of course, different in the Army and Marine Corps, but even in those branches of service, there are lots of people who never fire a shot in anger.

So you could easily serve with a clear conscience -- provided you don't back off from your "direct involvement" rationale.

Russ Maheras

As long as it came up:

I went off Googling for Second Amendment references and found what seems (to me) to be a well-balanced article on the subject written by someone who claims to be in favor of gun control. You can find it here:

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/embar.html

Sure, he may have recommended him, but Kerry essentially promoted himself. He ASKED for the Silver Star, in civilian lingo. It wouldn't matter how many recommendations he had by whomever, the commanding officer of Kerry's unit had to put him in for the Silver Star. The commanding officer of Kerry's unit was Kerry. Kerry "earned" it because he shot and killed a VC who had already been wounded by his boat's 50 calibur deck gun. Ever see what a 50cal does to the human body? That VC couldn't have been very alive when Kerry, in an act of utter stupidity, grounded his boat and leaped out to finish this VC off. His crewmates told him he was dead, but Kerry put a round in the VC's body anyway just so he could say that "he" killed the dangerous, uber-threatening VC who apparently threatened Rassmun so much. Grounding one's PBR is a court-martialable offense, btw.

Sorry, but you're not making a whole lot of sense here, nor does it match up with a whole lot of what's been published. Published reports I've seen quotes an eyewitness who saw Kerry chase down a lightly wounded enemy who was ducking behind a hut.
Now, it could possibly be that he shot a combatant who was essentially taken care of by his boat's weapon, but that seems to be in ADDITIOn to this other kill.

The very idea that he could have earned three purple hearts and a silver star when most other servicemen serving in the jungles and on the front lines for far longer earned tells you something

It tells you that he volunteered for an operation (Operation Sealords) that had 75% casualties (according to Adm Elmo Zumwalt). I would NOT consider getting three Purple hearts for that unit that surprising.

And Kerry's division commander, George Elliott had no problem with his actions, "This was an exemplary action. There's no question about it."

Well, Russ, in some specialties, it depends on how strictly you define "direct involvement".

When I enlisted in the AF, I was a coputer programmer, sent directly to HQ SAC in Nebraska. Sounds pretty peaceful, right? Especially during the '80s?

My job was writing software to help plan the Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP) - to make sure that if the balloon went up, our weapons wouldn't destroy each other on the way in. (You'd be amazed at what can set off an armed fusion warhead - everything from explosively-propelled debris, to neutron flux from another warhead going off.)

Trust me - if you have a vivid imagination, the last job you want is one where the devices employed are measured for effectiveness in terms like "megadeaths". My service was "peacetime" - but I still dealt with bizarre nightmares for most of the ensuing decade. (My least favorite was the one where something went wrong in one of my programs, and that sparked WWIII...)

Everyone seems to be of the opinion that Kerry's status as a veteran- in fact, a war hero- makes him the better choice in a presidential election

Not I -- or at least, not in the sense of "being a war hero automatically makes him the best choice." In the primaries, I voted for and contributed to Dean over Kerry, and still maintain he'd have been a better choice.

In the scheme of veteranhood, being a decorated vet beats the hell out of being AWOL, yes, but I'm voting based more on policy, on the sorts of court appointments he will or won't make, and on the fact that he generally seems to be intelligent enough to surround himself with competent people who come closer to my views than Bush does.

The vet thing, at least for this voter, is just icing on the cake that I think will help in the campaign -- it's by no means the only, the first, or even in the top ten list of reasons I have for voting for him.

Frankly, I think there are far better issues for the election to turn on than either candidate's past in Vietnam -- but y'know, if Karl Rove et al. really think trying to hammer Kerry on whether the wounds he got in Vietnam were serious enough to justify a Purple Heart, while Bush in that same period was busy snorting coke off a hooker's ass and avoiding flight physicals ... well, I'm just politely perplexed is all.

TWL

If the issue of a thorough debate on Second Amendment would advance here, perhaps this site -- http://www.saf.org/AllLawReviews.html -- also found via google, might offer more breadth and scope to this hotly debated Amendment.

Russ:

>>So you could easily serve with a clear conscience -- provided you don't back off from your "direct involvement" rationale.

Being an active part in this conflict, whether pulling a trigger, smacking a protestor or loading a supply ship all smacks of direct involvement to me, but we have both made our points. Thanks for the conversation. :)

Jonathan (the other one) wrote: "Well, Russ, in some specialties, it depends on how strictly you define "direct involvement. When I enlisted in the AF, I was a computer programmer, sent directly to HQ SAC in Nebraska. Sounds pretty peaceful, right? Especially during the '80s? My job was writing software to help plan the Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP) - to make sure that if the balloon went up, our weapons wouldn't destroy each other on the way in."

Oh, I agree with your point about the vagaries of "indirect involvement." That was actually the crux of my discussion with Fred. When I argued that a conscientious objector could use the exact same rationale he suggests for draft avoidance to also avoid paying taxes that subsidize abortion and criminal executions, Fred said the two were not the same. Fred said he believes being drafted into the military is one of direct confrontation, i.e., pulling the trigger; and the "murder taxation" issue is more benign and indirect. To counter his argument, I explained how very few military people actually "pull the trigger," and hence, are as indirectly involved as the conscientious objector taxpayer that subsidizes government-funded abortions and criminal executions.

The whole reason I raised this line of reasoning is because of a discussion I had with a co-worker several years ago. When the person found out I was former military, she went off about how war and killing was wrong, and how if we all sat down together and embraced, there would be no wars, etc., etc. Well, with all the irrational hate floating around out there, I happen to think that that is a simplistic and unrealistic view of today's world. And, playing Devil's advocate, I asked her what her views were regarding abortion and the death penalty. When she said she was for the former and against the latter, I looked at her and said something like, "How can you be pro-abortion but anti-war? That makes no logical sense. Killing is killing." If she had said she was anti-abortion and pro-death penalty, I could have made the same argument. Personally, I think she was entitled to whatever view she wanted -- all I did was point out what I thought were the inconsistencies of her position.

So anyway, I've been down most of this road before, albeit for different reasons.

Russ Maheras

Tim,
Respect your opinion as always. However, seeing as one of the primary responsibilities of our president is to be the nation's commander-in-chief, I am slightly perplexed as to how service in the military - and therefore firsthand experience with the military and the benefits and - more importantly - the cost of war cannot be considered important.
Also, if you think about it, high-profile veterans like John McCain and Colin Powell tend to be less "hawkish" and more pragmatic when it comes to military action, because they know all too well the costs.
I truly feel Clark had a chance to beat Bush for this reason. When he talks about alternative military plans, he has automatic credibility.
As for Dean, I actually feel he would have been at least more interesting than Kerry. He seemed to speak to a lot of people who feel the Democratic party is becoming Republican-lite. But he rose so fast he became a target early, and the other Democrats just beat him up. Kerry actually got off pretty scot free. Even Edwards and Clark spent more time bashing Bush than explaining why they were BETTER than Kerry.
That's where the front-loaded primary season, I feel, will turn out to be a mistake. Kerry was able to win by watching Dean and Gephardt knock each other out, and then watch Clark and Edwards undermine each other in trying to be The Kerry Alternative.
He was never really tested, unlike Clinton with Tsongas and Brown, and i think that's really going to cost him.

Dee,
I think you might be pleasantly surprised. Sure, a lot of people would protest, and there would be draft-dodgers, like always.
But I think a lot of our young people would answer the call.

"Everyone seems to be of the opinion that Kerry's status as a veteran- in fact, a war hero- makes him the better choice in a presidential election"

See, whereas I think what makes him a better choice is that he seems articulate, intelligent, well-informed, and not interested in--as Aaron Sorkin put it--raising being disengaged to a sort of Zen state.

PAD

"He was never really tested, unlike Clinton with Tsongas and Brown, and i think that's really going to cost him."

No, what's really going to cost him is that he has no more clue how to get out of Iraq than Bush. If all he's going to do is continue the quagmire of what Bush has gotten us into, then people will figure they might as well stick with Bush. Because they figure that, however staggeringly stupid, sleazy, and inept Bush was in the endeavor, at least he was *sincerely* staggeringly stupid, sleazy and inept.

Or, in the words of Obi-Wan, who is more foolish? The fool or the fool who follows him? The fool got us into this, but how much more foolish is the guy who then continues on the fool's path? At least, that will be the perception.

If Kerry is really going to be a leader, he might have wanted to consider taking a position that was markedly different. One that might not have been instantly popular, but he could have gotten some good discussion going on it, maybe even swayed people with passion and vision of his own. For instance, he might have said, "We need to pull out. Get the troops out of there. We need to say to Iraq, 'We wanted to help you. You keep killing our people. You know what? Fine. We said we wanted to free you from Saddam. We've done that. We're out of here. Everybody: Soldiers, contractors, aid workers, the whole shebang, gone. We will be happy to send people back in to help you rebuild, but you have to ask us to return, and you have to promise not to keep killing the people who are trying to help you, because what's happening right now, it's bullsh*t."

I'm not saying he should have necessarily said that, but saying *something* outside of the box would, I think, have served him better than just saying, "We can't pull out now."

PAD

"See, whereas I think what makes him a better choice is that he seems articulate, intelligent, well-informed, and not interested in--as Aaron Sorkin put it--raising being disengaged to a sort of Zen state."

See, whereas I think what makes him a worse choice is that he is just a career politician who knows how to talk the talk, spins every question thrown at him(No, no, my family owns an SUV..not me!), and is so well informed that throughout the 90's he proposed intelligence cuts and labeld them as a "common sense direction". He offers nothing new to the table other than he isn't Bush. Like you said, PAD, he has no idea what he is going to do with Iraq. Beyoned that his economic plan is a joke and his job creation plan is funnier still. Most of all John Kerry is too far left for this country and most fence sitters aren't ready to swing that far left.

Eclark,
I respect your disapproval of my "monkeys" thing and appreciate your politness about it all. However, I tell you with all honesty that it isn't some personal in-joke insult that I'm sitting back and laughing about. Something anyone of my friends and family members, hell, anyone who has had a passing acquaintence with me in the last eight or so years could tell you about me is that I like monkeys. I don't know why (although my mother recently remembered that she was overdue with me, went to a local circus and suddenly went into labor), I just think monkeys are neat and funny.

So, if you choose to not take me seriously, I guess I'll live with that. You wouldn't be the first person to do so. Perhaps if I have a comment specifically for you, I'll avoid my usual sign off if it offends you so much. Otherwise,

Monkeys

PAD,
I agree with most of what you just said. Kerry has not really drawn a distinction between what his plans for Iraq are and how they differ from Bush's.
So, if you support what Bush is doing in Iraq, why wouldn't you stick with Bush? And if you don't, why would you vote for Kerry?
These are questions Kerry has yet to sufficiently address.
Unless he does, I think we may see a Reaganesque landslide this year, which only last month I never thought would happen.

"So, if you support what Bush is doing in Iraq, why wouldn't you stick with Bush? And if you don't, why would you vote for Kerry?"

Because Bush is an inept clod (whom the majority of the country didn't want in the first place) who cynically and ruthlessly capitalized on Post Traumatic Stress of this country after 9/11 to pursue a vendetta against Saddam whom he and his advisors had targeted before setting foot in office.

He did so while repeatedly misleading the country to such a degree that 72% percent of the credulous voters came to believe Saddam was responsible for 9/11 when it was, in fact, Saudis, but the Bush family protects the Saudis due to their history of business dealings. He had spent the last 3 and a half years fulfilling every worst case scenario that our detractors have spent years laying out and has created a new generation of terrorists with concommitant future damage that we can't even begin to measure yet.

The simple truth is that if 9/11 hadn't happened, he would have nothing to run on, so miserable is his track record. He owes the prospect of a continued presidency entirely to Osama bin Laden.

I'd vote for Kerry because the *only* shot we have is for Kerry to go before the world and say, "The American people realized Bush was a suck-ass president and they threw him out. Let's work together to undo the damage he did." Definitely worth a try.

PAD

Toby,

So are you the guy who came up with this little ditty that people keep sending to me and I laugh at it each and every time?

I like monkeys.
The pet store was selling them for five cents a piece. I thought that was odd since they were normally a couple thousand. I decided not to look a gift horse in the mouth. I bought 200. I like monkeys.
I took my 200 monkeys home. I have a big car. I let one drive. His name was Sigmund. He was retarded. In fact, none of them were really bright. They kept punching themselves in their genitals. I laughed. Then they punched my genitals. I stopped laughing.

I herded them into my room. They didn't adapt very well to their new environment. They would screech, hurl themselves off of the couch at high speeds, and slam into the wall. Although humorous at first, the spectacle lost its novelty halfway into its third hour.

Two hours later I found out why all the monkeys were so inexpensive: they all died. No apparent reason. They all just sorta' dropped dead. Kinda' like when you buy a goldfish and it dies five hours later. Damn cheap monkeys.

I didn't know what to do. There were 200 dead monkeys lying all over my room, on the bed, in the dresser, hanging from my bookcase. It looked like I had 200 throw rugs.

I tried to flush one down the toilet. It didn't work. It got stuck. Then I had one dead, wet monkey and 199 dead, dry monkeys.

I tried pretending that they were just stuffed animals. That worked for a while, that is until they began to decompose. It started to smell real bad.

I had to pee but there was a dead monkey in the toilet and I didn't want to call the plumber. I was embarrassed.

I tried to slow down the decomposition by freezing them. Unfortunately, there was only enough room for two monkeys at a time so I had to change them every 30 seconds. I also had to eat all the food in the freezer so it didn't all go bad.

I tried burning them. Little did I know my bed was flammable. I had to extinguish the fire.

Then I had one dead, wet monkey in my toilet, two dead, frozen monkeys in my freezer, and 197 dead, charred monkeys in a pile on my bed. The odor wasn't improving.

I became agitated at my inability to dispose of my monkeys and to use the bathroom. I severely beat one of my monkeys. I felt better.

I tried throwing them away but the garbage man said that the city was not allowed to dispose of charred primates. I told him that I had a wet one. He couldn't take that one either. I didn't bother asking about the frozen ones.

I finally arrived at a solution. I gave them out as Christmas gifts. My friends didn't know quite what to say. They pretended that they liked them, but I could tell they were lying. Ingrates. So I punched them in the genitals.

I like monkeys.

Toby,

So are you the guy who came up with this little ditty that people keep sending to me and I laugh at it each and every time?

I like monkeys.
The pet store was selling them for five cents a piece. I thought that was odd since they were normally a couple thousand. I decided not to look a gift horse in the mouth. I bought 200. I like monkeys.
I took my 200 monkeys home. I have a big car. I let one drive. His name was Sigmund. He was retarded. In fact, none of them were really bright. They kept punching themselves in their genitals. I laughed. Then they punched my genitals. I stopped laughing.

I herded them into my room. They didn't adapt very well to their new environment. They would screech, hurl themselves off of the couch at high speeds, and slam into the wall. Although humorous at first, the spectacle lost its novelty halfway into its third hour.

Two hours later I found out why all the monkeys were so inexpensive: they all died. No apparent reason. They all just sorta' dropped dead. Kinda' like when you buy a goldfish and it dies five hours later. Damn cheap monkeys.

I didn't know what to do. There were 200 dead monkeys lying all over my room, on the bed, in the dresser, hanging from my bookcase. It looked like I had 200 throw rugs.

I tried to flush one down the toilet. It didn't work. It got stuck. Then I had one dead, wet monkey and 199 dead, dry monkeys.

I tried pretending that they were just stuffed animals. That worked for a while, that is until they began to decompose. It started to smell real bad.

I had to pee but there was a dead monkey in the toilet and I didn't want to call the plumber. I was embarrassed.

I tried to slow down the decomposition by freezing them. Unfortunately, there was only enough room for two monkeys at a time so I had to change them every 30 seconds. I also had to eat all the food in the freezer so it didn't all go bad.

I tried burning them. Little did I know my bed was flammable. I had to extinguish the fire.

Then I had one dead, wet monkey in my toilet, two dead, frozen monkeys in my freezer, and 197 dead, charred monkeys in a pile on my bed. The odor wasn't improving.

I became agitated at my inability to dispose of my monkeys and to use the bathroom. I severely beat one of my monkeys. I felt better.

I tried throwing them away but the garbage man said that the city was not allowed to dispose of charred primates. I told him that I had a wet one. He couldn't take that one either. I didn't bother asking about the frozen ones.

I finally arrived at a solution. I gave them out as Christmas gifts. My friends didn't know quite what to say. They pretended that they liked them, but I could tell they were lying. Ingrates. So I punched them in the genitals.

I like monkeys.

Oh well, jeeze, I didn't mean to post it twice. It ain't THAT funny.

Everyone seems to be of the opinion that Kerry's status as a veteran- in fact, a war hero- makes him the better choice in a presidential election.

Actually, if you look at the context of my comments, the question, who understands military strategy more, Kerry or Bush. When the question is put that way, I'll always go with the guy who has actually seen combat, even if it was "just four months."

Kerry isn't my first choice to be president, but after seeing what as disaster Bush has been for our economy, the federal budgement, the environment, and our international relations, I see Kerry as the lesser of two evils.

"Because Bush is an inept clod (whom the majority of the country didn't want in the first place)"

Actually, no candidate for president has gotten a "majority" of American voters since the elder Bush in 1988. And Bill Clinton only received 43% in 1992 (38% went to Bush's father, and 19% went for Perot, so 57$ of voters did NOT vote for the winner.) But I don't think that stopped him from accomplishing some things.

"who cynically and ruthlessly capitalized on Post Traumatic Stress of this country after 9/11 to pursue a vendetta"
This is pretty cynical. You make the man sound more evil than Satan himself.

"The simple truth is that if 9/11 hadn't happened, he would have nothing to run on, so miserable is his track record. He owes the prospect of a continued presidency entirely to Osama Bin Laden".
This is not simple truth. It is opinion. If 9/11 hadn't happened, he would run on the improving economy,his tax cuts, the medicare prescription drug benefit that was supported by the AARP, the No Child Left Behind legislation that he worked with Ted Kennedy to enact, Medicare reform, daring to try and fix Social Security and the usual "hot button" issues like abortion and capital punishment.
You may disagree with all of these things or of their success.
But it's hardly "nothing to run on".

You know, at this point I'm convinced if Bush cured cancer people would blame him for throwing people out of work.

Toby,
I like monkeys too! My brother andI always thought they were extremely humorous!
Kepp your sign-off!

Bill Mulligan,
Your monkeys piece was pretty demented - and pretty funny!
Thanks.
Jerome

As a mater of history, a conscripted army never seems to work as well as a paid volunter force. Since the post Vietnam era, our military leaders have agreed that our modern volunteer force is smarter, more motivated, and easier to train. Hell even the Romans knew this and they took over most of the known world.
After 9-11 if Bush had asked, like Roosevelt did after Peral Harbor,in mass for volunteers, he would have gotten them, but instead he asked us to shop. Now he needs them and lots of people have questions about this war he got us into in Iraq.
Let's face it, it's easier to get troops when we've been attacked than when the President lies to the world about a war. Josh

If 9/11 hadn't happened, he would

... still have found an excuse to invade Iraq.

He did so while repeatedly misleading the country

Oh, and PAD, don't forget about that dirty, rotten Sen. Clinton who stood up and said that her husband's administration believed Iraq had WMDs...of course you won't find her saying those things today. 'Course guys like Dick Morris aren't letting her forget it.

"Oh, and PAD, don't forget about that dirty, rotten Sen. Clinton who stood up and said that her husband's administration believed Iraq had WMDs..."

Yeah, a pity that Clinton sank us into a quagmire of a war in order to go in and get those WMDs...

Oh. Wait.

PAD

Yeah, but he didn't have a 9/11 to deal with. I know he usually thought with his "other" head, but if he was the president during 9/11 I'm pretty sure Clinton would have gone into Iraq believing they had WMDs.

How do you declare a war on terrorism and then let a country that, according to not only your administration but also the previous, has WMDs, is sitting in the middle of the terrorist hotbed, and is being run by a man who hates the United States?

You don't.

Oh, sure, you play along with the UN and keep letting the inspectors get kicked out of Iraq, but then what? How long do you wait? More time you give him the more time he has to move his WMDs around. Then the UN security council won't back the resolutin they signed(thanks to the oil for food scandal).

Then thats it?

"Well, all our intelligence from over the past ten years tells us that Iraq has WMDs but the U.N. has squashed any real ways to deal with the problem. So thats it."

Yeah right.

Any president would have done the same thing. Most Dems supported Bush after being shown new intelligence and previous intelligence that president Clinton saw. Of course once the WMDs were not there all liberal supporters(minus Lieberman) jumped ship. Snakes.

Mister Clark? You reason well, and even when we disagree I'll examine your arguments. I didn't bring up “the gun nut” to talk about his virtues — the point I was making was he wasn't a threat in a debate.
----
As to Iraq, I had a political solution ages ago.
http://groups.msn.com/Odderbits/shoebox.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=57

It could have been a temporary setup until the new governement gets settled. It gives Iraq's neighbors a stake in the behavior of the Iraqi people, and the ''Allies'' get to go home.

We've work in Afghanistan still.

How do you declare a war on terrorism and then let a country that, according to not only your administration but also the previous, has WMDs, is sitting in the middle of the terrorist hotbed, and is being run by a man who hates the United States?

I don't know. How DO we let Pakistan just sit there?

Oh wait, I'm sorry. That's not who you meant.

North Korea?

Um ...

TWL

Tim,
You know, most of your arguments are well thought out and reasoned, but this argument made by you and many others is especially weak.
Are you saying you WOULD support us invading North Korea? Or Saudi Arabia? Or Pakistan? Or Iran?
If not, then what is the point, exactly?
If we blitz through a country, we picked on someone who couldn't fight back.
If we get slowed down, for even three days against those "fighting back", we're automatically in a Vietnam-like "quagmire" (liberals LOOOVE using that word. It reminds them of Vietnam, which they love because we lost).
If we attack a "defenseless" country, we're bullies.
If we attack a country that has nukes/can do us harm like North Korea, we're being reckless.
When Bush the Father actually got a coalition together, he was still excorciated, especialy for "not finishing the job".
When Bush the Son "finishes the job" in an incredibly short period of time, deposes a dictator, and does it with extremely low casualties (yes, every loss is a tragedy, but the 709 soldiers who have made the ultimate sacrifice so far is far lower than the 10,000 projected by some "experts" and definitely miraculous compared to the 58,000 we lost in Vietnam. Of course, the fact we actually fought this war to win may have something to do with that.)and he is excorciated 100 times worse than his father ever was.

My point, as I've said multiple times in the past, is that the "we couldn't just leave this threat sitting there" argument is completely and utterly specious -- or utter bullshit, if you'd rather I be less diplomatic.

We've let threats sit around for decades, and still do. Iraq wasn't a necessary war -- it was a war of opportunity. Every single argument trotted out to justify it is easily applied to multiple other countries we HAVEN'T seen the need to invade.

Afghanistan was a necessary action in light of 9/11 -- we've done a piss-poor job dealing with it after the fact, but I think there are very few people diagreeing with the necessity of military action there.

Iraq had no connection to 9/11. It was bottled in and represented no immediate danger (or imminent, or "grave and gathering", or whatever phrase the administration chose to use on a given day). Thus, it was a war of choice, and IMO an incorrect one.

It's really a very easy argument to follow unless one is intent on misunderstanding it.

And as for such lovely out-of-far-right-field slams like "liberals love Vietnam because it's a war America lost" -- would you stop and listen to yourself for a moment? Do you honestly believe those of us on the progressive side of the aisle hate America and root for the deaths of Americans?

If so, I trust you'd be willing to say it to my face, or that of anyone else here ... PAD included. Hell, if you're close enough to me geographically I'd even consider driving to meet you and let you do it. Make me an offer.

If not ... kindly knock it off, as it flies in the face of your repeated claims to be interested in civil discourse.

TWL
who, in light of references to "Bush the Father" and "Bush the Son", is waiting for "Bush the Holy Ghost"

"Do you honestly believe those of us on the progressive side of the aisle hate America and root for the deaths of Americans?"

Not you, Tim. Not PAD, not any of the sane folk on this board. Whatever our disagreements, there's not a one I wouldn't love to share a brew and/or pizza with, though I think we'd all have a better time if we argued over which was the best season of Buffy, as opposed to whether it's Bush or Kerry who have the best likelihood to get us through the next 4 years.

But when a (rightly or wrongly) major voice of the left like Michael Moore says crap like "Why should the other countries of this world, countries who tried to talk us out of this folly, now have to clean up our mess? . . . I'm sorry, but the majority of Americans supported this war once it began and, sadly, that majority must now sac rifice their children until enough blood has been let that maybe - just maybe - God and the Iraqi people will forgive us in the end." well, you have to wonder about some on the "progressive" side.

Had a republican voiced the hope that Americans in large numbers die in Kosovo, so that it would make Clinton look bad he would have been crucified (and I would have gladly helped to hold down his arms). Mikey will probably get a bye and I'm sure many here will endorse his upcoming movie.

Jerome wrote: "You know, at this point I'm convinced if Bush cured cancer people would blame him for throwing people out of work."

Funny you should say that. I'm currently working on the ninth issue of my fanzine "Maelstrom," and I was going to draw a one-page comic strip with a similar twist. The strip would have been on a right-hand page (I'll explain why later).

The basic plot would have been this: A woman is walking down the street towards the reader. A group of people are just off to the left, but the reader can't see any of their faces. In the next panel, switch to an overhead view of the same scene, where the reader sees an air conditioning unit hurtling down towards the woman below. In the same panel, an unrecognizeable man in the group is also turning his head just in time to see what is unfolding. In the next panel, cut back to a street view of the scene, where the alerted, but still unrecognizeable man is diving at the woman, knocking her out of the air conditioner's path, just as it strikes the ground. In the next panel, the woman, realizing her life has just been saved, begins to thank her benefactor, but then recognizes him. "Aren't you George W. Bush?" she gasps. Bush replies, "Why yes, ma'am, I am." Then cut to the last panel, where the woman, storming away in anger, shouts, "@!!%#*?? jerk! You'll do anything for a vote!!"

Now the reason this one-page strip would have been on the right-hand page is because I knew it will evoke extreme reactions in many people, depending on their political leanings. Then, as the angry, or smiling, reader turned the page, there would suddenly have been an identical strip, except with Bill Clinton as the hero.

I recently opted NOT to do the strip, however, because I usually don't put any purely political stuff in my 'zine. Thus, anyone reading this who has a suitable venue for the strip is free to swipe the idea and run with it. I hereby declare it public domain. Have fun!! I know I do when I think this stuff up.

Russ Maheras

This doesn't exactly answer PAD's question about whether or not a draft is constitutional but I'll throw it in anyway.

As a 21-year-old male who's life would most definetly be affected should a draft be initiated, I have to admit that recent discussions about the possibility of the "little man from the draft board" (Daffy Duck is teh sex)showing up at my door with an envelope that essentially says 'you're up' puts a bit of a knot in my stomache. My plans to finish this inane waste of time called college and become a USAF fighter pilot like my father would effectively be put on hold, if not completely shot, altogether.

It's a change. It's uncertain. It's dangerous. It's frightening. And there's NO way that I wouldn't go.

Now, for those who would say that it's a war we shouldn't be in in the first place, it's a quagmire, Bush is an idiot and such the like, I say: whatever. Complain all you want about mistakes made, but the important thing is that we're there now. The problem is there NOW.

There are certain questions that must be asked before a country initiates a draft:
1. What kind of standing military forces do we have at present?
2. What kind of reserves do we possess to relieve said standing forces?
3. What kind of threat is posed to the homeland by the enemy that our forces presently find themselves engaged with and, secondly, what kind of threat is posed to those forces at present and in the future?

Answers:
1. Plenty. There is not a single branch of the US armed forces that is danger of running out of servicemen from lack of volunteers any time soon. Considering that in 403 days we've only lost 718 men and women in Iraq (combat and otherwise) and that all of the military branches are still pulling in more than their quotas for the year, question number one is not going to be a problem.
2. Refer to Answer 1.
3. Here's the sticky one and the reason for my writing this. At present, there's little threat to the homeland and there is always, to a certain degree, a threat to U.S. troops when in a foreign, hostile (read middle eastern) country.

Essentially what all the above is getting at is there is not going to be a need for a draft unless something changes, i.e. the Iraqie insurgents get their hands on an abundance of advanced weaponry (not likely), or another hostile country decides to get Iraq's back (folly because there isn't a present military that doesn't like us with the capability to do our military much damage- 'cept maybe North Korea, but they'll be little problem and will probably get taken out in the next ten years when their crazy leader lobs a nuke at Japan)(then China... they'll be a little tougher).

And now my point. If a draft is initiated in this country it will be with very, very good reason. Something that will pose a threat to the homeland itself or an ally will have to happen for a draft to be initiated, and in the unfortunate event that it should happen, any young man who doesn't answer the call to defend his home and family can go back to France. He can then wait for the problem to work its way up to him until there's nowhere to run, then start calling for help anywhere he can because he wouldn't own up to his responsibility in the first place.

Panzy.

"Do you honestly believe those of us on the progressive side of the aisle hate America and root for the deaths of Americans?"

Not you, Tim. Not PAD, not any of the sane folk on this board. Whatever our disagreements, there's not a one I wouldn't love to share a brew and/or pizza with, though I think we'd all have a better time if we argued over which was the best season of Buffy, as opposed to whether it's Bush or Kerry who have the best likelihood to get us through the next 4 years.

Likely true on that last sentence. :-)

I appreciate the "oh, I didn't mean you", Bill -- honestly. Unfortunately, you're not the one who made the comment in the first place.

Your point seems to be that some on the left can get far enough "out there" that much of what they say becomes suspect.

I can't disagree -- but that's just as true on the right. When you've got people advertising on national television for "clear proof that Bill Clinton had Vince Foster murdered!" and sitting members of Congress using pictures of Clinton for target practice on their own personal shooting range ... I think that's pretty far out there as well. (I'd also note that they didn't get especially crucified for it -- the media sentiment seemed to be more of a "oh, well, there they go again, those wacky guys.")

Regardless, pointing to Moore and saying "therefore all liberals want Americans to die" is about as reasonable as looking at Falwell blaming 9/11 on "the abortionists and the atheists" for 9/11 and concluding that all conservatives cheered the fall of the towers as God's will.

I realize you didn't make the "all liberals" generalization, Bill -- but Jerome has, repeatedly, and this particular liberal is just about reaching his limit on it.

TWL

"Afghanistan was a necessary action in light of 9/11 -- we've done a piss-poor job dealing with it after the fact, but I think there are very few people diagreeing with the necessity of military action there."

You may be surprised, but I've heard a large number of people who use the war in Iraq as a sign that the war in Afghanistan was completely unjustified as well. Admittedly, these are mostly college students and professors saying this, so it's possible that in less enclosed environments most people don't feel that way, but at least on my college campus a lot of people do.

Also:

"I think we'd all have a better time if we argued over which was the best season of Buffy"

Season three. You don't mess with the Mayor, my friend.

"Afghanistan was a necessary action in light of 9/11 -- we've done a piss-poor job dealing with it after the fact, but I think there are very few people diagreeing with the necessity of military action there."

LOTS of folks argued against attacking Afghanistan--among other things we wetre going to be slaughtered like soviets in the legendary Afghan Winter and millions of innocents would starve.

In reality, the Afghan winters are not great problems for soldiers of a modern army and it would have been well nigh impossible to make things worse for the people than the Taliban had done.

I think that the exaggerated claims of the anti-war folk vis a vis afghanistan made the Iraq war more likely to happen. People stopped believing them.

re Buffy--I agree. the Mayor was the best. Like Bill in KILL BILL he seems to have genuinelty GOOD emotions as well as evil ones, which makes him MORE evil than, say, Glory or Adam, who are arguably evil through no choice or fault of their own.

Genuine sociopaths are scary in that they feel no emotions and have no empathy...but to me the true evil would be in the face of a killer who can smile at the face of their child with love and affection just hours after having slaughtered someone else's child.

Tim,
You're right. I made a mistake. I just got done talking about the follies of generalizing groups due to the actions or words of others on another thread, and I just did the same damn thing. I apologize.
Do I think all liberals hate America and root for the deaths of Americans? Absolutely not. Notice I didn't say "of course not" because I obviously haven't made that clear. Do I feel most do? No. But I have met many who do, and yes, they've said it to my face on occasion. How would you take it if immediately after 9/11, the very same week, college students were mocking your concern with "the United States deserves it", we're a "baby Britain", we're "reaping what we've sown" and one of my favorites "that's politics".
And i am at least as fed up with some people as you seemingly are (were?) with me when I constantly hear comparisons betwen this war and Vietnam. To me, this dishonors the men and women who fought there and the ones fighting now.
Yet the media was calling Iraq a "Vietnam-like quagmire" after ONE WEEK! When I told an editor about it, he was like "Well, that is the comparison". Why isn't the comparison ever World War II, or Grenada, or even Korea?" There is almost a morbid fascination with it.
But anything I say I would say to your face, Tim. In fact, I can picture us laughing our asses off debating Buffy and stuff. By the way, Season Three WAS the best, but forget the Mayor. You gotta have Faith!

You're right. I made a mistake. I just got done talking about the follies of generalizing groups due to the actions or words of others on another thread, and I just did the same damn thing. I apologize.

Thank you. Accepted.

The one particular thing I'd question in the rest of your post is that a Vietnam comparison "dishonors the men and women who fought there and the ones fighting now" How so?

I mean, I actually think the comparison is an awfully relevant one (and I realize we're going to disagree on that point until the sun goes red giant), but I see it as an indictment of the policies and the decisions made by the higher-ups, not of the soldiers fighting it. I don't see the comparison as particularly reflecting badly on the soldiers in EITHER action, and I'm at a bit of a loss as to why you do.

TWL

And okay, since several others are hopping into it...

I've never been able to settle on a single best season of Buffy. Season 2 is the one that sucked me and Lisa into the show, season 3's got a lot of strong material (including the Mayor, who's probably the best villain across seven seasons), and I at least really really like a large chunk of season 5, especially the closing episode.

I really need to have a massive DVD-marathon session to be sure, I think. Yeah, that's it... :-)

TWL

"At the risk of being snarky, I have to wonder why you bothered framing the discussing in terms of the constitutionality of a draft if that's your response to someone providing the rationale of a Supreme Court decision on that very issue. Why don't you address the specific points raised instead of dismissing the Court's decision as irrelevant?"

I didn't say it was irrelevant. I said that saying it's constitutional just because the court said it was twenty years ago doesn't really address the question. Ninety years ago, the Court espoused a doctrine of "clear and present danger" and used it to support dozens of people being tossed into jail simply for expressing disagreement with the government. I think that was blatantly unconstitutional even though the court thought it was.

This country has a history of people's constitutional rights being trampled on, and supported by the Court, in the interest of expediency. So the question is, is a draft one of those things?

Isn't your last question sort of the one I asked you? My point was that the earlier post didn't just cite the Supreme Court case, it went into the Supreme Court's rationale for deciding that way. It's one thing to say you disagree with the Court's reasoning, but you have to address the reasoning first. The theory runs thus:

1. The Constitution gives the Congress the right to raise an army and a navy.
2. The Constitution also provides that the Congress may enact laws "necessary and proper" to carrying out their enumerated powers or responsibilities.
3. The draft was enacted by Congress under the theory that conscription is necessary to increase the military to a strength large enough to successfully fight some wars.
4. The Court is traditionally deferential to the Congress's policy decisions, particularly where the decisions are in relation to national security, and where the Congress specifically addressed the constitutionality of a statute.

Point number 4 is debatable, but also probably unnecessary to the decision. Personally, I find the Court's position to be a reasonable interpretation of the text, and consistent with their other opinions, so I tend to agree with them (again, with the possible exception of the superfluous point 4). It's worth noting that even though it was a 6-3 decision, NOBODY questioned the power of the government to have a draft; the issue they fought about was whether the draft was unconstitutional because it was discriminatory based on sex. I certainly agree that in general the fact that the Court said something doesn't necessarily make that something true, but the fact is that you only get to be a Supreme Court justice by being a highly trained and respected jurist (this opinion was before Clarence Thomas, so let's leave him out of this), and the fact that all nine of them conceded the basic constitutionality of a draft is at least some evidence they're right.

And Buffy's best season was Season Five. The Gift is one of the finest hours of television I've ever seen.

David wrote: "It's worth noting that even though it was a 6-3 decision, NOBODY questioned the power of the government to have a draft; the issue they fought about was whether the draft was unconstitutional because it was discriminatory based on sex."

If a draft in the U.S. is ever reinstated, and I sincerely doubt it ever will be under current societal circumstances, then, in my opinion, both men AND women should be drafted equally. After all, whatever calamity the U.S. would have to be in to prompt such a drastic reversal of policy would, no doubt, affect everyone.

Russ Maheras

"Omigod...Rangel AND Hagel??? The groundswell seems well nigh unstoppable!

The military doesn't want it. The public is against it. The number of lawmakers who have expressed support for it can be counted on one's hands and still have enough fingers left to play piano...."

Among those opposed to bringing back the draft, if I understand correctly, is Charles Rangel himself. The purpose of bringing up a bill to restore the draft is to force discussion and debate on it before the need to raise additional forces for the war in Iraq necessitates such a measure rather than after.

It is possible to think of that as an attack on Bush and the Republicans, as some previous posters called it. Certainly that's a frequent tactic in politics (another possible example being the call for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage). In the case of the draft, though, I agree with Rangel that it is an important issue that needs to be considered and discussed sooner rather than later, and think his tactic of introducing a bill to re-instate the draft -- a bill which I understand he plans to vote against -- is a clever way to bring about that discussion.

I'm inclined to think the desire to bring about discussion is the main reason for Rangel's actions, and that the opportunity to put Bush and other Republicans in an uncomfortable position is just a bonus to him. Many Democrats are going to be in an equally uncomfortable position, which I'm sure Rangel was aware.

Complain all you want about mistakes made, but the important thing is that we're there now. The problem is there NOW.

But the problem remains is if Bush gets another 4 years, when will A lead to B?

Meaning, where will he send our troops next to liberate/find wmd/kill terrorists/whatever other reason he comes up with to spread our forces even further?

That's what I take issue with since we're supposedly still trying to rebuild Afghanistan as well.

It comes to the point that, regardless of what Bush or Clinton or whoever does, we have to suck it up rather than have them truly justify what the smeg they are doing.

Regardless of what happens, Bush hasn't justified Iraq. And that will linger.

PAD:
"Because Bush is an inept clod (whom the majority of the country didn't want in the first place) who cynically and ruthlessly capitalized on Post Traumatic Stress of this country after 9/11 to pursue a vendetta against Saddam whom he and his advisors had targeted before setting foot in office."
Wow. Name calling right out of the box. A good sign of a good debate.

The first Gulf War NEVER ended. There was a truce called so Saddam could turn over and/or prove the destruction of his long range weapons and his WMD's. Remember his WMD's? The ones he used on both enemies and his own people? He never did turn them over or destroy them, thus the war was continued. WMD's were found in the form of mortars filled with mustard gas and other burning agents. But I guess those don't count. And neither do the missles that were found by the inpectors and destroyed that could have reached outside the Iraq border. Nope, these just don't count either.

The US Senate agreed to this action, as well as the UN Security Council. Yet another case of "I voted for then I voted against".

As for the vendetta thing, the attempted assassination of a current or former President by a foreign power is an act of war. For no other reason, the US would be justified to go after Saddam for that.

"He did so while repeatedly misleading the country to such a degree that 72% percent of the credulous voters came to believe Saddam was responsible for 9/11 when it was, in fact, Saudis, but the Bush family protects the Saudis due to their history of business dealings."
The Bush administration never said that Iraq was behind 9-11. They said that it was a state that harbored and supported terrorists. Quite a difference there, and if some people can't understand the difference, then they probably the same ones that accidently voted for Buchanan in Florida.

And aren't you stretching it a bit when blaming the Saudi government (that's who the Bush family has had dealings with)? The terrorists that attacked us on 9-11 might have been from Saudi Arabia, but they aren't representative of their government, nor is there any proof of Saudi government involvement. The terrorists were followers of bin Laden and al-Qa'eda. Blaming a country because of the actions of some it's citizens is just sad and prejudicial.

He never did turn them over or destroy them, thus the war was continued.

And here we are, a year after we invaded Iraq, and we have no WMD.

Apparently it's not conceivable that he may have actually destroyed them at some point along the line.

Kind of like how the gov't couldn't conceive of fuel-laden planes flying into buildings...

Blaming a country because of the actions of some it's citizens is just sad and prejudicial.

Now you know how it feels to be an American under the Bush Administration on how the rest of the world views the USA.

Craig,
Seriously, if he HAD destroyed them, don't you think he would have tried to prove it?
Also, reread one of your earlier posts. How can you blame Dubya for invading Iraq with the explicit purpose of saving American lives (whether you believe that or not) in the long run while at the same time blame Bush the Father for NOT invading Iraq and - presumably - saving lives in the long run?
Please, help me understand.

Craig,

It's conceivable that Saddam could have actually destroyed them, but the terms of the cease fire dictated that it was to be done by the UN inspectors, or in front of the UN inspectors. Unless you mean by destroying, transporting to Syria or something along those lines. Then Saddam was just playing games and collecting huge amounts of UN money to build palaces, buy cars, murder his own citizens and so on.

It's obvious that flying planes into buildings was planned long before Bush took office. Who was president for 8 years before Bush when the planning took place? After all, that's when the first WTC bombing, the attack on the Cole, the US Embassy bombings in Africa and other attacks happened. So, the rest of the world, as you put it, must have hated us then too.

It's obvious that flying planes into buildings was planned long before Bush took office

You might want to mention that to Dr. Condoleeza "no one could possibly have imagined this" Rice. Seems she disagrees.

TWL

You might want to mention that to Dr. Condoleeza "no one could possibly have imagined this" Rice. Seems she disagrees.

Some people continue to ignore that point. I don't know why though.

All in all, the WMD argument fails to hold water, regardless, unless we actually find them.

And it's not like Bush actually cared what the UN had to say on the matter.

Craig and Tim,
Could you please kindly get off Dr. Rice's back?
Cheese and crackers, it is obvious to me, and I believe anyone else who is not intent on slandering this marvelous woman in order to attack the Bush administration - that she meant her statement the same way you or I may use the term "unimaginable cruelty" to describe the treatment of some political prisoners for example, or "unimaginable acts' to describe pedophilia by priests, mass murderers like Jeffrey Dahmer, a mother kiling her own young baby, or the murder of a teen by his own teen friends.
It's one thing to hear and read about these things. It's another thing when someone actually does them.
Unless you've never exclaimed "I don't believe this!" in your life, could you please cut the esteemed Dr. a break and concentrate on your stronger arguments, which each of you have?
Thanks.

that she meant her statement the same way you or I may use the term "unimaginable cruelty"

If only it were that easy.

There is enough evidence to show that these attacks were long planned.

The fact that NOBODY planned for them in any way shape or form is what I can't believe.

Could you please kindly get off Dr. Rice's back?

Nope.

Given that Rice's public statements (the infamous "smoking gun as mushroom cloud" example for one) were instrumental in beating the war drums and getting the American public to buy into a completely unnecessary war, I'm not letting her off the hook until this whole group of people is out of office.

You may see a "marvelous woman" and an "esteemed Dr." I'm seeing an out-of-place Cold Warrior and someone who has no scruples about lying to the public in order to achieve a greater goal. So no, no plans to let up.

But thanks for asking.

TWL

Tim,
Didn't think so. But I just had to ask:)

But you failed to address Jerome's main point, that being that "unimaginable" is a figure of speech. Nothing is actually "unimaginable" because if I ask for an example of something unimaginable you can't give me anything (and if you do it is, by definition, imaginable).

So I say go right on nitpicking at individual words that Dr. Rice uses; it's less effective than genuine arguments and therefore has less likelihood of swaying any voters.

Bill,

He didn't say "can you drop this one particular issue". He asked me to "get off Dr. Rice's back."

I answered the question asked. There's enough at stake in this election (IMO) that I consider everything "in play", as it were -- word choice included.

Yes, there are better arguments to use against her -- and I have, as I'm sure you've noticed over the last months. When given an obvious and gift-wrapped invitation to mention the "no one could have imagined" gaffe, however, I will most assuredly do so.

Christ, it's at least as relevant as Clinton's "the meaning of 'is'" bit, and I didn't hear anyone on the conservative side of the aisle complaining that THAT was an irrelevant point...

TWL

Unimaginable?

To quote Joe Straczinsky, in Amazing Spider-Man #31 (I think - don't have the issue numbers handy here, but it was the one about 9/11):

"How do you say we didn't know? We couldn't know. We couldn't imagine. Only a madman could contain the thought, execute the act, fly the planes. The sane world will always be vulnerable to madmen, because we cannot go where they go to conceive of such things."

(And as I'm sure many of you are aware, Straczinsky is hardly an apologist for the Bush administration...)

Unimaginable?

As has been brought up before, just mere weeks (if not days) before 9/11, an episode of The Lone Gunmen had a plot involving a hijacked plane crashing into the World Trade Center.

No, not unimaginable, even in the terms that Rice intended the comment to be used.

"As has been brought up before, just mere weeks (if not days) before 9/11, an episode of The Lone Gunmen had a plot involving a hijacked plane crashing into the World Trade Center.

No, not unimaginable, even in the terms that Rice intended the comment to be used."

And also just weeks prior to 9/11, a John Carpenter movie told a cautionary tale of evil ghosts on Mars that possessed humans to rebuild their cruel, villainous society. Bush and NASA had totally better watch out for that too.

And just how do you defend against the "unimaginable"? Taking the 9-11 incident, what would you do?

- Strip search anyone boarding an airplane?
Oh yeah, that would work. Just look at the complaints now when people are asked to take off just their shoes.
- Compare names of passengers to know terrorism suspects?
Again, that's working so well now, it would have worked before 9-11.
- Profile passengers based on looks or race or national origination?
Sure, the ACLU would have gone for that before 9-11. They won't even go for it after!
Station fighter planes above all major US cities to shoot down commerical airliners?
Um, no. The room for error, even slight is just too great a risk.
- A preemptive strike against people that could do such a horrible deed?
I believe that's part of the reason given for the current situation in Iraq, and we all see how well that's being accepted by a lot of people.

But seriously, what could ANYONE have done to prevent 9-11?

"1. The Constitution gives the Congress the right to raise an army and a navy.
2. The Constitution also provides that the Congress may enact laws "necessary and proper" to carrying out their enumerated powers or responsibilities.
3. The draft was enacted by Congress under the theory that conscription is necessary to increase the military to a strength large enough to successfully fight some wars."
4. The Court is traditionally deferential to the Congress's policy decisions, particularly where the decisions are in relation to national security, and where the Congress specifically addressed the constitutionality of a statute.

Yes, but I already addressed those. Although the Constitution says that Congress has the right to "raise" an army, it does not specifically say that Congress has a right to effectively go door to door, yank citizens out of their homes and say, "You. You're going to war."

Quite simply, at the time that the Constitution was written, slavery was still legal (blacks were only 3/5 of a person, remember?) So not only wasn't it unthinkable that people who have committed no crime be forced to leave their families and serve others, it was in fact SOP.

So now we come to "necessary and proper." "Necessary?" Perhaps. I can see Congress saying, "It's necessary for us to restart the draft because, y'know, all those guys who were trained for one weekend a month, they're kinda getting killed and we need fresh meat." But the 13th Amendment couldn't be more clear: No involuntary servitude. Period. Which means that involuntary servitude is improper as directed in the 13th Amendment. The Constitution didn't say "necessary OR proper," or "necessary and/or proper." It said "necessary AND proper." If it's improper, i.e., in violation of another aspect of the Constitution, you can't do it. So Congress' rationale for WHY it conscripts its citizens should be completely beside the point because the 13th amendment says you CAN'T.

As for the courts being "traditionally deferential," oh yeah. Yeah, a long and proud history of having no legislative guts in the face of Congress waging war is exactly the argument needed to win me over.

Come to think of it...

Has Congress actually *declared* war? I mean, I know they voted to give Bush the power to wage an apparently endless battle against Iraq, but that's not the same as declaring war. The Constitution mandates a specific procedure for going to war, and what we've got isn't it. Which would mean that every single person involved who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution is in violation of that oath. Shouldn't every single person who voted for it or supported it be tossed? Bush? Kerry? Everybody?

Boy, maybe Nader'll be the only one left TO vote for.

PAD

"PAD:
"Because Bush is an inept clod (whom the majority of the country didn't want in the first place) who cynically and ruthlessly capitalized on Post Traumatic Stress of this country after 9/11 to pursue a vendetta against Saddam whom he and his advisors had targeted before setting foot in office."
Wow. Name calling right out of the box. A good sign of a good debate"

Number one, it's hardly right out of the box. And number two, I prefer to think of it, rather than "name calling," as "truth in labelling."

PAD

Christ, it's at least as relevant as Clinton's "the meaning of 'is'" bit, and I didn't hear anyone on the conservative side of the aisle complaining that THAT was an irrelevant point...

I disagree--Clinton's remarkable statement was potentially an example of perjury. It was enough to get him disbarred for a time.

But thanks for bringing it up. We can never have too many Clinton flashbacks for my taste.

But seriously, what could ANYONE have done to prevent 9-11?

How about, instead of being silly beyond belief and failing to make a valid point in your little rant, you consider what should have been done?
Or what has been done since 9/11?

Two spring to mind immediately:
A) Reinforced cockpit doors.
B) Air marshalls.

But wait... the airlines convinced our gov't for years and years that this was too expensive and unnecessary.
Too bad they were so horribly wrong and if it had been done, 9/11 in it's exact form would likely have been prevented.

Is it possible to prevent everything? No.

But when can eliminate the most dangerous stuff BFEORE it can be used, such as a fricking flyable MOAB, you're doing what you can.

I disagree--Clinton's remarkable statement was potentially an example of perjury. It was enough to get him disbarred for a time.

That line alone? No it wasn't. The sentence as stated is absolutely correct -- lawyerly in phrasing and slippery, sure, but technically correct and not perjury. I don't recall exactly what the disbarment was due to, but it sure as hell wasn't that one sentence.

Actually, after doing a little digging ... he was never actually disbarred at all. He's been barred from arguing cases before the Supreme Court , which is something he'd never done anyway and few lawyers ever get the chance to do, and had his law license suspended in Arkansas, not revoked.

Accuracy is a wonderful thing.

Now, if you're going to object that "lawyerly and slippery phrasing" is conduct unbecoming a president, I'll agree -- but I've got sixteen words in the SOTU address forming up outside who'd like to chat. I'm fairly certain that the SOTU is considered the equivalent of under oath in terms of impeachable offenses.

Even if your assertion WERE true, however ... how exactly is lying about a private affair somehow worse than a misleading statement about an attack that killed 3,000 people?

And from PAD...

Boy, maybe Nader'll be the only one left TO vote for.

No way -- that's when Dean hops back in. :-)

TWL

PAD wrote: “So now we come to "necessary and proper." "Necessary?" Perhaps. I can see Congress saying, "It's necessary for us to restart the draft because, y'know, all those guys who were trained for one weekend a month, they're kinda getting killed and we need fresh meat." But the 13th Amendment couldn't be more clear: No involuntary servitude. Period. Which means that involuntary servitude is improper as directed in the 13th Amendment. The Constitution didn't say "necessary OR proper," or "necessary and/or proper." It said "necessary AND proper." If it's improper, i.e., in violation of another aspect of the Constitution, you can't do it. So Congress' rationale for WHY it conscripts its citizens should be completely beside the point because the 13th amendment says you CAN'T.”

Ooooooohhhh! My head is spinning. But you make a good point.

PAD also wrote: “Has Congress actually *declared* war? I mean, I know they voted to give Bush the power to wage an apparently endless battle against Iraq, but that's not the same as declaring war. The Constitution mandates a specific procedure for going to war, and what we've got isn't it. Which would mean that every single person involved who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution is in violation of that oath. Shouldn't every single person who voted for it or supported it be tossed? Bush? Kerry? Everybody?”

That’s something I’ve wondered a number of times over the years as well. Do you realize that the United States has not formally declared war on ANYONE since World War II? We CALL them wars, but officially, they aren’t, I guess. Korea, for example, was a U.N.-authorized "police action."

Here are the “formally declared war” and “Congressionally authorized military engagements” stats from Web site http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:z9nkYmVDC2kJ:johnshadegg.house.gov/rsc/DeclarationofWar.PDF+%22united+states%22+%22formal+declaration+of+war%22&hl=en

The United States formally has declared war against foreign nations eleven separate times. Each time the declaration of war was requested by the President either in writing or in person before a Joint Session of Congress.

Great Britain, June 18, 1812
Mexico, May 13, 1846
Spain, April 25, 1898
World War I – Germany, April 6, 1917
World War I – Austria-Hungary, December 7, 1917
World War II – Japan, December 8, 1941
World War II – Germany, December 11, 1941
World War II – Italy, December 11, 1941
World War II – Bulgaria, June 5, 1942
World War II – Hungary, June 5, 1942
World War II – Rumania, June 5, 1942

Congressionally Authorized Military Engagements:
In several instances, the U.S. engaged in extended military engagements that, while not formally declared wars, were explicitly authorized by Congress, short of a formal declaration of war. In some instances, action was prompted by attacks on U.S. interests.

Undeclared Naval War with France, 1798-1800
First Barbary War (Against Barbary Pirates), 1801-1805
Second Barbary War (Against Barbary Pirates), 1815
Africa (Raid of Slave Traffic), 1820-1823
Paraguay (Seek Redress for an Attack on a Naval Vessel), 1859
Lebanon (Protect Government Against an Insurrection), 1958
Vietnam War, 1964-1973
Lebanon (Restoration of Lebanese Government), 1982
Gulf War, 1991
“Nations, Organizations, or Persons” related to the 9/11 terrorist attacks (authority used against Afghanistan), 2001
Iraq, 2003

Note: the Korean War, 1950-1953, was not a congressionally authorized war.President Truman cited authority under United Nations resolutions.

Russ Maheras

Tim says
"Actually, after doing a little digging ... he was never actually disbarred at all. He's been barred from arguing cases before the Supreme Court , which is something he'd never done anyway and few lawyers ever get the chance to do, and had his law license suspended in Arkansas, not revoked."

"Accuracy is a wonderful thing."

It sure is.

From CNN

Clinton to contest Supreme Court suspension
October 2, 2001 Posted: 8:58 AM EDT (1258 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former President Bill Clinton will contest Monday's Supreme Court order that suspended him from practicing law before the high court, his attorney said.

The Supreme Court gave Clinton 40 days to argue why he should not be permanently disbarred.

"This suspension is simply a consequence of the voluntary settlement entered into last January with the Arkansas bar. Pursuant to the Supreme Court's order, we will show cause why disbarment is not appropriate," said attorney David E. Kendall.

Well, I am no expert on the law and you may indeed have been accurate about Clinton not being disbarred. If so, I hope Bill wasn't paying Mr. Kendall big bucks for his crack legal advice.

At any rate, my point was that Dr. Rice's statement was just a figure of speach. Had she said it in a court of law I suppose some lawyer might try to claim that she perjured herself since he could show that actually people HAD imagined such a thing...but the judge would tell him he was being a dick.

But again, thanks for dredging up Clinton...sniff...God how we've missed him. he entered office with one party in control of both houses and the presidency...and left it the same way. Just not the same party. Karl Rove must light candles in church blessing his name.

Um, Bill -- that's one of the exact same articles I looked at. It says specifically that he was suspended from practicing law before the high court.

Am I completely missing something, or did you just support my point while claiming to refute it?

As for Clinton "leaving it the same way", while you certainly have every right to feel smug ... let's do remember that (a) one of those houses and the presidency were only in GOP hands due to a single vote on the Supreme Court (since the 50/50 tie in the Senate went to whichever party got the presidency), and (b) the GOP promptly managed to overreach and piss off one of their moderate senators, handing control right BACK to the Democrats in a short span of months.

Hardly the mark of some conservative ascendancy in the country. I'm not saying you're not entitled to a little smugness (though I think blaming Clinton for it is absurd) ... but not to the degree you're showing here.

TWL

Tim, I'm not trying to be anal retentive here...I'd pick a much less competant person than yourself to do that...but you said "Actually, after doing a little digging ... he was never actually disbarred at all"

His lawyer says, in the very artcle you apparently read "we will show cause why disbarment is not appropriate,"

The article also states "The Supreme Court gave Clinton 40 days to argue why he should not be permanently disbarred."

So....you say he wasn't disbarred and according to this article both his lawyer and the Supremes say he was. And I would let this slide but for the "Accuracy is a wonderful thing." line which is too hard for my weak nature to resist.

Smug shmug. I'm simply amazed that so many liberals got suckered by Clinton's snake oil. He was good at getting himself elected. he was awful at helping his party. It took him only two years to do what the republicans could probably have never pulled off on their own--take over the House.

I'm not the partisan you may think. I belive that Clinton hurt the Democrats and the country. To put it another way, one you might appreciate--I think that Clinton not only made GW Bush possible, he made him inevitable.

Bill,

I guess that's depending on definitions. I tend to read "disbarred" as being forbidden from practicing law *anywhere*, as opposed to one specific venue. I also tend to read it as permanent -- a revocation rather than a suspension. Certainly when you said "it was enough to get him disbarred for a time", I read the implication as much broader than simply a single state or a single courtroom.

If you use the term to mean that someone has a license suspended or is permanently barred from one particular venue, then you're absolutely right that he was disbarred. I apologize for any muddled phrasing -- I think we were probably using the same words to mean slightly different things.

Smug shmug. I'm simply amazed that so many liberals got suckered by Clinton's snake oil. He was good at getting himself elected. he was awful at helping his party. It took him only two years to do what the republicans could probably have never pulled off on their own--take over the House.

I think Gingrich gets a lot of credit for the House takeover -- Clinton gets some, but I'm not sure he gets the lion's share.

And, perhaps not surprisingly, I have a different assessment. Clinton was by no means my first choice in the '92 primaries (I went for Tsongas, thus continuing my lovely track record in picking the wrong primary horse every single time I've voted in a presidential primary ... sheesh), but I think on balance he left this country in far better shape than he found it. Sure, he's not someone I'd particularly want to hang around with as a friend or someone I'd want remotely near my daughter -- but I don't vote for leaders based on either of those criteria.

I think his heart was generally in the right place. (And I'd point to how Chelsea turned out as at least some circumstantial evidence there. Good parents can easily turn out rotten kids depending on circumstances, but I think the reverse is a lot more rare, especially living in a fishbowl.)

Don't get me wrong -- it's not like I'm suggesting he belongs on Mount Rushmore or anything. But I don't feel especially suckered by him in the slightest. Disappointed at times, sure. Suckered, no.

I'm not the partisan you may think. I belive that Clinton hurt the Democrats and the country. To put it another way, one you might appreciate--I think that Clinton not only made GW Bush possible, he made him inevitable.

I'm not sure how that's a phrase I'm supposed to appreciate. Given that you generally seem to see Bush as competent, strong and effective, I'm honestly not sure how to interpret that last.

Thanks for the attempt, though. Another day, that might actually have cheered me up. :-)

TWL

Typically when something is unconstitutional, you don't address whether unconstitutionality makes it improper under the "necessary and proper" clause. Usually unconstitutionality is enough.

The big question is whether conscription is "involuntary servitude" within the meaning of the Thirteenth Amendment (or ordinary English usage for that matter). It's clearly involuntary, pretty much by definition. But is it servitude? Suppose the Government decided the population drift from rural areas to cities over the last century was a Bad Thing and instituted a draft to compel people to become farmers. This would clearly be involuntary servitude. It's long term, reduces people to a subject state, and would be unconstitutional whether or not the "draftees" were paid, as the slaves were not. This was clearly what the "involuntary servitude" language in the Thirteenth Amendment was intended to forbid the rascally unreconstructed Confederates from doing; the Republicans weren't stupid, and they could anticipate what the Rebels would do as soon as the Federal troops were withdrawn. (They were right, too; consider "Black Codes.") Additionally, it's inconceivable that the Congress in 1865 would have abolished the draft, considering they'd used one to fill out the same Federal Army that gave them the ability to impose the Amendment in the first place.

Unlike Scalia or Thomas, I don't consider the intent or "original understanding" of the drafters to be dispositive over the plain language of the Constitution. The point I'm trying to make is that "involuntary servitude" doesn't really look much like conscription. The draft is short-term, in response to specific crises unless it's being proposed by Charles Rangel, and self-limiting because it has a random chance of affecting everyone rather than creating some permanent or long-term class of helots. And when you're reducing someone to a subject status you usually don't arm them.

he entered office with one party in control of both houses and the presidency...and left it the same way

Which is rather amusing, because I think Clinton would still be in office today if he could run more than 2 terms.

Craig,
I regard to your last comment, I think you may be right. Seeing as how Bush41 won on Reagan's coattails, it's pretty safe to say Reagan would have win a third term. This is why I think term limits are a bad idea. If enough people like the way the country is going, why not keep him or her? It should be up to the people to decide when a President leaves office.
I personally would have enjoyed trying to "knock out" Clinton. He would have run on his record, something Gore refused to do, which I will never understand until the day I die.
Also, if there were not a term limit on the Presidency, we would see incumbents tested in primaries, since there would be no more guarantee of an "open" shot at least every 8 years.

Hold the presses -- I think Jerome and I have found a point we agree on. :-) While I don't know if I totally oppose term limits on the presidency, I'd never thought about what effect it might have on the primaries there. More competition there seems like an excellent thing!

(Of course, that presumes you can make the primaries less money-driven and committee-anointed than they are now ... but that's a problem whether you have term limits or not.)

TWL

Tim,
You agree with something I said? Who are you and what have you done with Tim! :)
Even your last point i was going to contradict you on, but you ended with what I would have said.
Wow! See? Miracles do happen!

Seeing as how Bush41 won on Reagan's coattails, it's pretty safe to say Reagan would have win a third term.

I guess the only thing here is you have to look at Reagan's health at the time he could have ran for a 3rd term.
I don't think it's partisan to say that there are some who wonder about his mental capacities, since he has Alzheimers, when he was still in office and whether it affected him then.

He would have run on his record, something Gore refused to do, which I will never understand until the day I die.

I won't understand it either. I had no intention of voting for Gore regardless, but the fact that he tried to distance himself from Clinton hurt him the most imo.

Gore's problem was that he wanted to distance himself from Clinton's scandals, but he went too far and distanced himself from Clinton's economic success as well.

Instead, he ran on a "people vs. the powerful" platform. I don't think he ever understood how disengenuous that sounded coming from a sitting VP.

Craig wrote: "Which is rather amusing, because I think Clinton would still be in office today if he could run more than 2 terms."

Judging by what a squeaker the last election was even with even a stiff like Gore running, you're probably right.

Hmmm. I personally agree with Heinlein. "Any nation that cannot defend itself with an army of volunteers does not deserve to exist." And remember, this was in his Admiral Bob phase of life, not the hippy free-love part.

Also, for those who're considering it a philosophical argument, know that the head of the draft board recently suggested in a proposal that the draft be raised to a maximum age of 34 and allow women to be drafted.

Storytime! Kay? Kay. A couple years back, my Dad had just gotten out of the hospital after having most of his colon removed and dropping about 60 pounds. He worked at the MOTBY, or for those of you that are like I'd say everyone outside Bayonne, the Military Ocean Terminal. So, he's not doing real hot. (Trust me, there IS a point to my little tale.) Now, while he was sick, they decided to mothball the base, so the first thing to go was security. Ironically enough, you could look from the drydock and see the WTC. Never realized that until now, but that has almost nothing to do with my story. So, Dad's working away at his desk, shipping military stuff all over the place when ALL OF A SUDDEN (could it BE any other way?) he hears a commotion outside his little office. He stands up thinking "Two days back and what the hell?" So, he sees a, well, largish big guy punching his one assistant. Without stopping to think (a malady I share) my just-out-of-the-hospital Dad grabs this guy, throws him against the file cabinets across the room and holds him there.
That's when Dad saw the knife that even Crocodile Dundee would respect in the guy's hand.
Trust me, there is a point.
So, one of Dad's other guys, Peter by name, runs over and helps my Dad hold him there until they can get(I'm not making this up) a large woman they called Miss Piggy to sit on the guy until the cops could come and haul him off. So, my Mom calls Dad around lunch like usual, he tells her the story like it's no big deal, she gets off the phone and hyperventilates. A month later we're all in the Pentagon so my Dad can get a medal along with Peter and Miss Piggy.
Okay, you've come along this far, so I guess you're wondering what the hell I'm talking about. My Dad reacted. To a threat. Without knowing the consequences. Sorry for the partial sentences, but this is my story. He saved a life with corny as it sounds, little regard for his own.
That's right.
He volunteered.
So, my point, circuitous as the path has been, we're Americans. We protect each other when we can. Political commentary aside, that's what the guy in the White House thinks he's doing. Protecting us. I don't think there'll be a draft (not that they would TOUCH my brain-damaged butt) because you know what? When there's a need, we're there.
When there's a need.

When I read my copy of the Constitution of the U. S. of America. I take what it means literally. Kind of like the 13 states did when they ratified it.
I have noted in this string where one person had made the statement that (income) taxes were unconstitutional. This is not true, the 16th amendment grants the federal government to collect this tax on income. The 2nd amendment states after a comma, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." It did not state, the right of the militia to bear Arms shall not be infringed.
This brings us to the 13th amendment. It clearly states that, "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
I suggest to anyone to pick up a dictionary and start by looking up the following; involuntary, servitude, draft, compulsory, and so on for clarification in the meaning of this amendment. Then immediately read the amendment again. I think what the amendment says will become clear to you. You do not need to have a law degree to understand these words. Thank you for taking the time to read this.