(Senator) Clinton questions future of volunteer army

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4372246/

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said Wednesday the all-volunteer military "raises serious questions in a democracy, both (about) how we define ourselves (and) what the real risks politically and militarily of taking action might be."

The all-volunteer force may make it “easy for decision-makers just to try to keep it out of sight and out of mind,” she said in a speech to the foreign policy think-tank the Brookings Institution in Washington.

Clinton, a member of the Senate Armed Service Committee, called for a vigorous election-year debate about the future size and composition of the U.S. armed forces.

The New York Democrat did not call for a revival of conscription, which ended 30 years ago, but said the all-volunteer nature of the military hides from the public the costs of overseas actions.

[DerBeppo]

1. so, wait?

haven't i've read dozens of threads here that have denounced this administration in advance for the need of a draft in the coming months/years?

i know charlie rangel and fritz hollings have sponsored bills in the house and senate (hr 163 and s 89 respectively) that are essentially compulsory military service.

what's the angle?

[Mozam]

32. Not Going to Happen

[trumad]

2. overseas actions???

I love you Hill, but you wouldn't be talking about that war you voted for?

[DennisReveni]

3. One tends to forget

One tends to forget that there are just as many idiot Democrats as Republicans. This is another example. The Syria bill plays into the hands of those desiring a non-stop war. The draft bills do the same.
Hillary knows god damned well Afghanistan and Iraq mean serious trouble for the US, and are at present falling apart. But during her recent sojourn there she praised what the US had accomplished in Afghanistan.
Sadly, http://www.motherjones.com/news/special_reports/arms/
"Early on, Clinton required our diplomats to shill for arms merchants to their host countries. The results were immediate: During Clinton's first year in office, U.S. arms sales more than doubled. From 1993 to 1997, the U.S. government sold, approved, or gave away $190 billion in weapons to virtually every nation on earth.

The arms industry, meanwhile, has greased the wheels. It filled the Democratic Party coffers to the tune of nearly $2 million in the 1998 election cycle."

She is one of the people who need to be voted out of office, if anyone expects to see any type of policy change.

[SaddenedDem]

5. Thank you for that

and for having the courage to post it here.

I hope you have you asbestos suit on and are prepared for the flames thrown your way for daring to criticise St. Hillary.

These people have a draft in the works and the Democrats like Sen. Clinton are going to help them pass it.

[Zhade]

34. "Saint Hillary" my ass. I totally agree with you on this.

NT!

[PassingFair]

52. I have NEVER seen a post wherein Hillary was referred to

as anything LIKE a saint. Not accusing anyone of anything, but from my experience, only Freepers assume Hillary worship from Democrats.

[mobuto]

8. Absolutely not

the problem with the lottery was that it allowed the rich and influential largely to avoid service. They could either exercise connections and get into the Guard or they could get university deferments, etc. A period of universal conscription would be different. You could have everybody, men and women, serve the country in some capacity for two years after they turn 18. I think that would make the politicians a lot less likely to send our troops into war - because they'd know who'd be doing the dying.

But during her recent sojourn there she praised what the US had accomplished in Afghanistan.

Of course. Because unlike Iraq, Afghanistan was a just war. The US needs vastly to step up efforts there, however, and is being impeded by the lack of available manpower. That needs to be changed.

The arms industry, meanwhile, has greased the wheels. It filled the Democratic Party coffers to the tune of nearly $2 million in the 1998 election cycle."

You're wrong. In 1998 they gave $3,240,654 to Democrats, according to the CRP. That same year they gave $6,505,563 to Republicans. Guess whose side their bread is buttered on? Every year for the past ten years, the Defense industry has given twice as much money to Republicans as Democrats.

She is one of the people who need to be voted out of office, if anyone expects to see any type of policy change.

Brilliant. And replaced with whom? You really think Senator Guiliani or Senator King or Senator Lazio would be less friendly to Lockheed Martin? Hillary Clinton is a committed liberal who runs one of the tightest ships of any member of Congress.

[DennisReveni]

15. Are you insane?

"Brilliant. And replaced with whom? You really think Senator Guiliani or Senator King or Senator Lazio would be less friendly to Lockheed Martin? Hillary Clinton is a committed liberal who runs one of the tightest ships of any member of Congress."

She ain't know Liberal.
And, why would Mother Jones lie about donations? Try reading the WHOLE article at their link.
This is what REAL LIBERALS have to say about her.
http://www.dsausa.org/lowwage/Documents/TANF.html
"Unfortunately, a cadre of "moderate Democrats" affiliated with the Democratic Leadership Council, including Senators Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman, has joined the President. They have embraced the higher work requirements and seem unwilling to seriously address the problem of poverty. Some of these Democrats have gone so far right on welfare that a number of Republican Senators, including Olympia Snowe and Orrin Hatch, have actually found themselves significantly to the left of the DLC Democrats."
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0605-07.htm
"At a time when Democrats like U.S. Reps. Marcy Kaptur of Ohio and Maxine Waters of California were battling the corporate-sponsored free trade agenda; when Nydia M. Velzquez, D-N.Y., and Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., were battling to defend the interests of low-income families; and when Tammy Baldwin, D-Madison, and Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., were championing real health care reform, Hillary Clinton always refused to ask the tough questions, take the tough stands or abandon the risk-averse course set by the Clinton administration.

When Clinton was elected to the Senate in 2000, there was a brief flurry of hopeful speculation that she would emerge as the liberal her most ardent supporters - and her silly right-wing critics - believed her to be. But, in the Senate, Clinton has generally served as an uninspired, if competent, moderate.

With other Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, she has stood up to some of the worst of President Bush's judicial nominees, and like the vast majority of Senate Democrats she has voted against the worst elements of the Bush economic agenda.

But no one is going to confuse Hillary Clinton, who has cozied up to the conservative, corporation-funded Democratic Leadership Council, with a progressive reformer. She remains the conventional inside-the-Beltway pol who angrily shouted, "Russ, live in the real world," after U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., tried to explain why Democrats should embrace campaign finance reforms he had proposed.

Hillary Clinton's determination to remain in the cautious, unquestioning center was very much on display last fall, when the Bush administration came to Congress seeking a blank check to wage an unnecessary and unjustified war with Iraq. While other senators expressed concern over the failure of the Bush administration to make a credible case that Iraq posed a serious threat, Clinton bought the White House line.

"I will take the president at his word that he will try hard to pass a U.N. resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible," she declared.

Twenty-three more skeptical senators chose not to take the president at his word. Among them were Bob Graham, D-Fla., who then chaired the Senate Intelligence Committee, and Carl Levin, D-Mich., the ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee. While Clinton was praising the president's pronouncements, the skeptics voted "no."

Now, as each day brings new revelations about the "creative" analysis of intelligence information by the administration, the skeptics are looking more and more visionary. And what of Hillary Clinton?

She is in the midst of a furor about a few paragraphs in her new autobiography, which suggest that she was surprised by her husband's admission, more than six months after the initial public reports of his affair with Monica Lewinsky, that he had indeed cheated on her. Her right-wing critics have gone so far as to suggest that Hillary Clinton must be lying.

But let's be fair here: If Hillary Clinton was willing to believe George W. Bush's pronouncements with regard to Iraq, why would anyone find it hard to accept that she believed another president's dubious claims?"

http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2002/11/04/tomo/index.html

http://www.fair.org/articles/hillary.html
"Return to the March 1992 Illinois presidential primary, when Bill Clinton's campaign was rocked by charges (from the Washington Post and candidate Jerry Brown) of unethically close relations between Bill's Arkansas administration and Hillary's law firm, which represented corporations regulated by the state, including the failed Madison S&L.

Many will remember -- since it dominated campaign news for days -- how Hillary used a feminist appeal to fend off attacks on her husband: "I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas, but what I decided to do was pursue my profession?"

Hardly noticed was her revealing response that day about her representation of Madison: "For goodness sakes," she answered, "you can't be a lawyer if you don't represent banks."

The fact is that most lawyers -- from Arkansas to New York and beyond -- don't represent banks, while many do represent the activist constituencies that Hillary, we are told, will be galvanizing during next year's campaign: unions, consumer and civil rights groups, environmentalists and the like.

These other lawyers are the kind who battle corporations like Wal-Mart (with its anti-labor record) or Lafarge Corp. (with its controversial environmental practices), companies whose boards Hillary Clinton sat on."

http://www.contactmusic.com/new/xmlfeed.nsf/0/36ABC2610F85C1AC80256DD7006AE4E6?opendocument
"Outspoken star SUSAN SARANDON has launched a scathing attack on America's former first lady HILLARY CLINTON, insisting she feels nothing but contempt for the senator.

The THELMA AND LOUISE actress has slammed Clinton's political performance - claiming she "blew" her chance of success - and is convinced the only reason she'll go down in history is for supporting her adulterous husband, former American President BILL CLINTON.

She spits, "Hate her! The only thing she's going to be remembered for is standing by her man, and that is really sad.

"She had a shot, and she really blew it. She turned out to be just another politician, which was really disappointing. I also think she lost a lot of support. I know a lot of people who write very large cheques who have told her, 'That's it for us, don't come back.'" "

[mobuto]

22. I'm not saying Mother Jones "lied" but their numbers are wrong

the CRP at www.opensecrets.org tracks campaign contributions better than anybody. Their figures show the $3 million+ figure.

She ain't know Liberal.

And you ain't "know" speller.

Your articles seem to make the following arguments:

1. That Sen. Clinton has a conservative record on TANF benefits.

2. That Sen. Clinton has a conservative record on trade.

3. That Sen. Clinton has a conservative record on universal health care.

4. That Sen. Clinton has a conservative record because she represented banks when she was a lawyer, and the kind of lawyers who represent banks are bad.

5. That Sen. Clinton has a conservative record because Susan Sarandon doesn't like her.

They are all spurious. Clinton has repeatedly led the fight to extent TANF benefits, which she has done successfully on a number of occaisions (c.f. 11/15/02)

Clinton has a very liberal record on trade, voting against, for example, extending free trade to Andean nations (Bill HR.3009 ; vote number 2002-130 on May 23, 2002) which would have hurt American workers.

The idea that Hillary Clinton hasn't supported universal healthcare is just bizarre. I can't think of anyone who's staked more on exactly that.

Arguments four and five are even weirder and don't merit a response.

[DennisReveni]

27. Gotcha.

"And you ain't "know" speller."

Threw that to see if you are one of those correct the spelling types.
They tend to be more simple minded toward their political affiliations.
You use a single source and it only address the Arms industry.
How do you plan to defend against the rest of the REAL LIBERAL sources I cited?
Unless
http://www.inlyrics.com/display/Ochs_Phil_Lyrics/Love_Me,_I'm_A_Liberal_Lyrics/34161.htm
OCHS PHIL - LOVE ME, I'M A LIBERAL LYRICS


Phil Ochs
I cried when they shot Medgar Evers
Tears ran down my spine
And I cried when they shot Mr. Kennedy
As though I'd lost a father of mine
But Malcolm X got what was coming
He got what he asked for this time
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal
I go to the civil rights rallies
And I put down the old D.A.R.
I love Harry and Sidney and Sammy
I hope every colored boy becomes a star
But don't talk about revolution
That's going a little bit too far
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal
I cheered when Humphrey was chosen
My faith in the system restored
And I'm glad that the commies were thrown out
From the A.F.L. C.I.O. board
And I love Puerto Ricans and Negros
As long as they don't move next door
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal
Ah, the people of old Mississippi
Should all hang their heads in shame
Now I can't understand how their minds work
What's the matter don't they watch Les Crain?
But if you ask me to bus my children
I hope the cops take down your name
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal
Yes, I read New Republic and Nation
I've learned to take every view
You know, I've memorized Lerner and Golden
I feel like I'm almost a Jew
But when it comes to times like Korea
There's no one more red, white and blue
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal
I vote for the democratic party
They want the U.N. to be strong
I attend all the Pete Seeger concerts
He sure gets me singing those songs
And I'll send all the money you ask for
But don't ask me to come on along
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal
Sure, once I was young and impulsive
I wore every conceivable pin
Even went to socialist meetings
Learned all the old union hymns
Ah, but I've grown older and wiser
And that's why I'm turning you in
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

Now old Jello Bifra captures your stance perfectly
http://www.lyricsdownload.com/cgi-bin/frames.cgi?http://www.lyricsdownload.com/data/b/biafra_jello/biafra_jello_love_me_im_a_liberal.php4?r=1
Phil Ochs/Jello Biafra/The Toadliquors)

I cried when they shot John Lennon
Tears ran down my spine
And I cried when I saw "JFK"
As though I'd lost a father of mine
But Malcolm X and Ice-T had it coming
They got what they asked for this time

CHORUS
So love me, love me, love me
I'm a liberal

I go to pro-choice rallies
Recycle my cans and jars
I'll honk if you love the Dead
Hope those funny grunge bands become stars
But don't talk about revolution
That's going a little bit too far

CHORUS

I cheered when Clinton was chosen
My faith in the system reborn
I'll do anything to save our schools
If my taxes ain't too much more
And I love blacks and gays and Latinos
As long as they don't move next door

CHORUS


Rush Limbaugh and the L.A.P.D.
Should all hang their heads in shame
I can't understand where they're at
Arsenio should set them straight
But if Neigborhood Watch doesn't know you
I hope the cops take your name

CHORUS

Yeh, I read the New Republic(an)
Rolling Stone and Mother Jones too
If I vote it's a Democrat
With a sensible economy view
But when it comes to terrorist Arabs
There's no one more red, white and blue

CHORUS

Once I was young and had an attitude
Stickers covered the car I drove in
Even went on some direct actions
When there weren't rent-a-cops to be seen
Ah, but now I've grown older and wiser
And that's why I'm turning you in

CHORUS

[mobuto]

46. Huh?

Threw that to see if you are one of those correct the spelling types.
They tend to be more simple minded toward their political affiliations.

Um, yeah, sure.


You use a single source and it only address the Arms industry.
How do you plan to defend against the rest of the REAL LIBERAL sources I cited?


Huh? I addressed all of the asinine claims made, which was more than I probably should have done.

You and Jello Biafra run along now, you here.

[1971]

25. Another sorry rabid Hillary hater?

Haven't you noticed how just about EVERY politician elected to office has had to make compromises that their supporters condemn them for?

Could it be that if they, too, had attained the position of a congressional seat that they, too, would be confronted with distasteful choices to make?

There are most likely many many reasons for such choices, and many of them will never reach the light of day, because if it was ever expected that they would, then many many votes would never have been cast for -good- deeds done in Congress.

Think about it.

[Sterling]

41. I did not vote for her to have her comprimise with the MIC/BFEE

Maybe that is what you expect from your Congress people but I have different standards.

[1971]

20. Thank you for that...

...and for having the wisdom to put Clinton's comments in perspective.


Some are jumping the gun as to what they imagine is on Hillary's mind.
Let's give the smart senator from NY a chance to elaborate on the issue... and that is exactly what I think she is asking others to consider, i.e., it's a critical issue and must be discussed. So far there are no ultimatums, only the request for discussion.

[Rebellious Republican]

24. Well said 1971, that was my point in post #21 N/T

:kick:

[Krakowiak]

29. the problem with conscription is ...

that the wealthy and well connected will still find ways to avoid having to serve. We had a draft during the Vietnam era, and the people who are currently leading us into war had no problem weaseling out of that one. You say that universal conscription will be different, but I'll believe it when I see it. All that will change will be that the U.S. will have more able bodies in supply to fight on even more fronts for even more dubious causes.

[mobuto]

48. There were two problems with the draft

1. the lottery, which was open to manipulation; and

2. the fact that there were so many easy deferments. College kids were simply able to avoid service, which meant that the poor did the dying.

The solution is simple - require everybody to serve in some capacity.

You say that universal conscription will be different, but I'll believe it when I see it. All that will change will be that the U.S. will have more able bodies in supply to fight on even more fronts for even more dubious causes.

Well, then we are at an impass. I think universal conscription is the solution and moreover, it will raise the political stakes of combat to the point where we will not fight unless its really necessary.

[wickerwoman]

54. 3. the fact that citizens in a democracy (and their labor) do not belong

to the government. The government belongs to them.

The draft is glorified feudalism.

[mobuto]

59. Government OF the people, by the people, for the people

You can't just expect the government to work for us. You have to take a leadership role if you want it to represent you. And its our responsibility as citizens to make the sacrifices necessary for our country to work.

The draft is glorified feudalism.

Not if every citizen a certain age is drafted, it isn't. Its a great civic experiment.

[wickerwoman]

60. I'm not sure how universal serfdom makes serfdom a civic experiment.

I believe (and I believe the founding fathers believed) in certain inaliable rights- including the right to enjoy the fruits of your own labors and the right to freedom of movement (restricted only by the requirements of national security). Both of these woud be violated by a law which required me to live in a particular place for a particular period of time and to labor without compensation equal to what I may be able to earn in the private sector.

I don't expect the government to simply work for me, but the essence of liberty is that I will repay that government when I choose to and in the manner I choose to. It may not be the most secure or efficient system, but property rights and reasonable freedom of movement are (for better or worse) cornerstone liberties of a true democracy. The fact that you don't like how others have chosen to use those liberties is not a good enough reason to take them away.

[mobuto]

61. Then did you oppose the draft

in the Civil War? The Second World War?

I believe (and I believe the founding fathers believed) in certain inaliable rights- including the right to enjoy the fruits of your own labors and the right to freedom of movement (restricted only by the requirements of national security). Both of these woud be violated by a law which required me to live in a particular place for a particular period of time and to labor without compensation equal to what I may be able to earn in the private sector.

You are required to go to school until you are 16. Isn't that inherently unfair? You could, after all, be working in a coal mine and earn respectable union wages. Instead, the government's forcing you to live off your parents! The government makes Americans go to school for precisely the same reason it should make Americans serve - to provide the understanding necessary to produce competent and able citizens.

I don't expect the government to simply work for me, but the essence of liberty is that I will repay that government when I choose to and in the manner I choose to.

Oh? You pay taxes every year and you don't choose how you do that, unless you're hoping for a date in tax court.

It may not be the most secure or efficient system, but property rights and reasonable freedom of movement are (for better or worse) cornerstone liberties of a true democracy. The fact that you don't like how others have chosen to use those liberties is not a good enough reason to take them away.

I'm not suggesting taking those away. I'm suggesting taking those away for two years. Democracy cannot exist without an informed and participating population. The draft would help to rectify that - it would make all Americans true stakeholders in our system of government. It gives perspective and it makes better citizens.

[wickerwoman]

63. If I had been alive, I would have.

Yes, you are required to go to school until you are 16 but you aren't really a legal citizen until you are 18. The state assumes that children are not ready to participate fully in the rights and responsibilities of their citizenship so they require them to attend school until they are ready to guide and discipline themselves. There is a world of difference between requiring an 8 year old to be in a structured environment doing something constructive for 6 hour a day and requiring an adult to do the same. If you want to draft 14 year olds in order to teach them the meaning of citizenship that's a seperate issue. I assume that it is the primary duty of a liberal arts secondary school education to teach children what it means to be a citizen in a democracy. If our schools aren't doing that (and I agree that they aren't) maybe we should look at that instead of jumping to universal conscription.
As for taxes, I am paying for something concrete- roads, schools, defense, emergency services, industrial regulation, etc. If I owe more, raise my taxes- you won't hear a peep out of me. What exactly is it that I need to repay with my enforced labor for the state that I don't pay with taxes over a 20 or 30 year working life? I choose to pay the government with taxes instead of time. If you want to stop taxing soldiers, that's fine with me.
How does this sound: I'm not taking away freedom of speech, I'm only taking it away for two years. I'm not taking away your right to an abortion, I'm only taking it away for two years. I'm not taking away your right to own a home and your own business, I'm only taking it away for two years. Freedom is freedom is freedom. If you want to take it away from a child, it's different from taking it from an adult. If our school are failing to create citizens, fix the schools.

[Zhade]

36. Please explain to me how Afghanistan was a "just war".

First off, while the Taliban did indeed harbor Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, we still have as yet to see conclusive proof that either was behind 9/11. (And don't bother to bring up the laughable "confession" tape, as it's clearly a fake.)

Thousands of innocent Afghanis were, and still are being, killed in the course of the ongoing fighting. Our military used cluster bombs and depleted uranium - both illegal under international law.

There were plans on b*sh's desk to attack Afghanistan before 9/11, by the way. That sounds like the war in Afghanistan was just waiting for an excuse, just like the invasion and occupation of Iraq and many of PNAC's goals.

[mobuto]

49. We disagree

I think the evidence is conclusive that Osama bin Laden was responsible for 9/11. I'm not going to debate this with you, as you're welcome to believe anything you like.

Since the Taliban was protecting and harboring the enemy of the United States, the Taliban became our enemy. End of story.

[Sterling]

40. I was banned for posting that

The day she signed the IWR. I still believe she needs to go. We can field a better Dem in NY.

[damnyankee2601]

4. The New York Democrat did not call for a revival of conscription

Coward. That's why so many people despise the Clintons. They are smart as hell, but not commited to any ideals other than their careers.

Conscription is exactly what we need to level the political and social demographics of the armed forces. Everyone who benefits from our Republic should first serve it. It would also mark those(like Shrub) who dodge their service as unpatriotic cowards.

And, yes, I volunteered because I believed what I just said, so put away your litmus paper.

[SaddenedDem]

6. YET.

And what about your hero (Bill Clinton) who didn't serve either?

Come on - people can have great respect for the political career of both Clintons, but we don't have to agree with what they are doing. I vehemently disagree with this bullshit and that's exactly what it is.

[damnyankee2601]

10. Umm... hero?

Please re-read.

I am anti-Clinton and PRO draft. Write me a flame if you want, but make sure it's on the right subject.

[tkmorris]

12. I am fairly certain

that he was not holding up Clinton as a "hero". Quite the opposite in fact.

[AndyTiedye]

13. Let it Stay Volunteer. What if They Gave a War And Nobody Came?

That would be a good indication that the war isn't worth fighting.

If nobody wants to fight Bush*'s Crusade, then END THE CRUSADE!

[damnyankee2601]

19. What if the gave a war...

...and only fascists showed up to fight? That would be even worse, and that is where we are heading.

[Big_Mike]

14. I disagree vehemently. It comes down to one word.

READINESS! If you conscript, you cannot train the conscripts adequately to maintain the knowledge levels necessary in (at least) today's ground forces. If you figure either the old draft term of service of 2 years, or if you go with what some other nations use (15 months for Germany) you simply don't have time to produce a skilled force. You can produce one that will die well on camera, but not a force capable of utilizing the equipment and the requisite Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures extant in the current battle drills. It always took me about 10 to 14 months to train up a new troop where he was a contributing member, and not a drag in one manner or another. The books used to train todays solders in just their own MOS stack up between 6 and 10 inches deep in most cases. For very technical ones, they are even thicker!

AFAIK, it would only be worse for the USAF and the Navy, given the task of trying to keep their aircraft in the air and their ships at sea.

As far as I view it, conscription is just not a viable option for our force. It had dubious (sp?) results for Saddam twice as well.

[damnyankee2601]

18. I generally would agree with your points.

But a military packed with right-wing zealots who harbor romantic fantasies of war is hardly what we want either. And that is what we are moving toward. Something drastic has to be done to break this up. Got any better suggestions?

[Mozam]

35. BINGO

It is also a political live wire

[Kellanved]

57. even less

The drafts are vanishing in Europe. France has reduced the period to one day (sic!). Germany currently has nine months and 11 months for conscientious objectors. However the civil service program for the latter is being phased out, something seen as an early sign for the end of the draft.

[Rebellious Republican]

7. Here's a thought, maybe Hil is being a sly fox, remember the

republican party only plays by there rules. I believe that maybe she is putting the debate out in the open to expose this administrations "05" draft plans! Could it be that she is trying to let Young Americans know what shrub has planned for them if he is reselected in "04". Just think about what she is really doing!

[DennisReveni]

17. No

"Here's a thought, maybe Hil is being a sly fox"

Read my fairly long post from liberal voices. Hillary does what is good for Hillary, just as Bill did what was good for Bill.

[Rebellious Republican]

21. Got a link, lots boards, lots of threads here, I will be happy to

your "fairly long post from liberal voices". Can not comment on what I can not find.

[Sterling]

42. Read the thread.

I did and my opinion is more informed for my trouble.

[Rebellious Republican]

47. If you and he are talking about the Hill and Bill bashing post he..

posted, I was not even going dignify it with a reply. I do not believe in bashing other Democratic party members at this time, unity and taking down the Bush cabal is much more important than any petty in fighting right now. We can work on our party's faults once we have taken this country back from these freaking fascists. Some NEWBIE poster trying stir up trouble is not what this party or country needs right now. Its obvious that some do not understand just how dire this situation is for our nations survival as a Democracy. I do not know what you meant by "my opinion is more informed for my trouble". I am glad that you have a better informed opinion. Whatever that is?

[1971]

26. Greenspan's being "sly" as well...

...don't you think?

"Greenspan has done us a BIG favor!"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=383832&mesg_id=384722&page=

Also
"The Democrats have been given a beautifully wrapped gift..."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1160902#1161721

[Rebellious Republican]

28. Very astute observations, I agree!

Great stuff, me thinks your on to something! Thanks for the links, RR.

[Sterling]

43. No hes not. He is serving you for dinner.

That is how bad it has gotten. The RW knows they can get away with anything. Discriminate against gays, jews, tell us we wont be getting our SS. He is just the deliverer of bad news.

[plumbnsquare]

9. If not "volunteer" then what??

I've heard many in the military friends express the sentiment that someone who is there by choice is someone they'd rather have watching their backs. If you're forced into such service, how loyal are you going to be? Clinton's remarks are just plain stupid.

[mobuto]

16. I don't know

If you're forced into such service, how loyal are you going to be

We forced young men into service in the Second World War, First World War and Civil War and they seemed to do just fine. Are conscripted soldiers less dependable in unpopular ill-advised wars? Sure - but then all soldiers are. If anything, conscription would mean that we'd only fight when we really had to.

[Mari333]

11. Lets start by demanding each member of Congress send one

of their own kids. Until then, the wealthy will never send their kids into a bloodbath, and will always pull strings to get them out.
http://www.bringthemhomenow.com

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

38. And make it the Marines.

No desk jobs.

[metisnation]

45. infantry O five hundred hours

fall in soldiers of freedom!

:kick:

[Columbia]

55. Marines got desk jobs too

[midnight armadillo]

23. How about a limited draft

We can limit it to the children/grandchildren of Congress, the President, the 50 state governors, and the Supreme Court. Put 'em straight into the infantry. Maybe then they'd make these decisions a little more carefully...

[koopie57]

31. actually

I wouldn't mind seeing grandma Barbara Babs in fatigues. She is so mean that we should send her to Afghanistan and see how Bin Laden reacts. I bet he would give himself up rather than mess with that crazy old biddy.

[Nlighten1]

30. How exactly does it hide anything?

What about having an all volunteer military is invisible? The people are very real, the equipment is very real, and the costs associated with them are very real and easily tracked.

[turnhardleft]

33. Just what we need...a thug lite call for a draft

Why would she say something as stupid as this?

[scarletwoman]

37. The Ruling Class has decided -- you can BET there'll be a draft!

People who think that the big power Dems aren't part of the Ruling Class just are NOT paying attention!

sw

[saigon68]

39. You are right.

People who think that the big power Dems aren't part of the Ruling Class just are NOT paying attention!

Bill Clinton knew how to run the country. He was a fine President

But you know what---- he was a "Draft-Dodger"

No one who is rich or upper middle class will be drafted as an 11-B.

Never happen GI

Take it to the Bank

</for the night>

[Legate]

44. hmm

There is nothing wrong with conscription of itself if there are no exceptions made. Men, Women, the Weathly and Powerful.

[IndianaGreen]

50. I think Hillary is right!

The all-volunteer army is un-American and un-democratic. This was one of the criticisms that were made when the idea was first proposed.

We need an open debate on this issue, and it should be coupled with a frank discussing of what constitutes national security, and what sort and size of military do we need.

Feeding the military-industrial complex is not a valid criteria to maintain such a large military machine.

[quaker bill]

58. She has a point

I oppose conscription, but more specifically, I oppose the foreign policy that results in it being necessary.

On the other hand, she has a point, if government was taking people's childern from their homes for use as cannon fodder, warfare would become a far less popular "policy option".

You never know, it could even result in an anti-war candidate winning the Whitehouse.

[legin]

51. Brookings Institute article

http://www.brook.edu/comm/op-ed/20040225clinton.htm

Worth reading for a different perspective on what happened at the meeting.

But we will need the full text of the speech which isn't up yet.

http://www.brook.edu/

[CHIMO]

53. Which

K is she going to discuss the issue with?

[Voltaire99]

56. Her Iraq position makes me sick. But she's partly correct.

Here are my premises.

1) Our volunteer army is staffed by the economically marginalized and outright downtrodden.
2) That's unfair. Wal-Mart America shouldn't have to defend Neiman Marcus America.
3) We need to debate how the nation's military is staffed.

Now, whatever her other merits, Hillary is hardly to be trusted on matters of war. She's already blown it on Iraq, which she enthusiastically supported (look up her comments in advance of the vote; she was for giving Bush the OK to take any action he deemed necessary). Indeed, her views on the Middle East are scarcely more nuanced than those of Perle or Wolfowitz, with whom she could easily take tea.

But funnily enough, she is right to question who will fight our future imperial wars. The honest answer is easy: the only fair way to staff the military in an era of supposed lethal peril is to expose everyone of draft age to equal risk of conscription. In fact, it's probably disingenuous to oppose our current vile war while opposing a draft, because the absence of a draft condemns the economically depressed to keep fighting it and helps dampen broad popular opposition. It's always easier to slap a "support our troops" sticker on the SUV when "our troops" are people you never see or meet!

Better if the risk of draft fills the air, and the resulting youth and bourgeois outrage forces our politicians to rethink the current overseas adventure. This might be the surest way to pry us out of Iraq. When the richer neighborhoods awake one day to find Fox News solemnly explaining that the disposable poor no longer have to do the dying alone, America is sure to discover a newfound conscience about barging into other people's nations.

Bring that moment to pass, and Hillary will get her debate, all right.

[IndianaGreen]

62. Don't forget Hillary's trip to Israel!

Hillary and Joe Lieberman traveled to Israel 2 years ago on separate trips.

Hillary met with Likud officials and pro-settlement Israelis. Hillary was clearly pandering to the most rightwing elements in her Jewish constituency.

:puke:

Joe Lieberman, on the other hand, met with Israeli and Palestinian representatives that reflected all points of views in the conflict. Lieberman showed that he had more integrity and character than Hillary!

:thumbsup: