General Clark join forces today with Democratic leaders

[Monkeyman]

Today House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate leader Harry Reid and other House anfd Senate Democratic leaders jioned former Secretary Madeleine Albright,retired U.S. Army General Wesley Clark ,and former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski at a news conference today to call for a New Direction for Real Security.

General Clark hit hard a the readyness of the Military .Plus nailed them on the lack of care when troops come home. It was great to see our former General stand tall for Troops and Veterans.

Here is the link to Nancy Pelosi with the statements made

http://democraticleader.house.gov

[Renew Deal]

1. Leonid Brezhnev is helping the Democrats?

We're in big trouble.



:evilgrin:

[Monkeyman]

2. Such a wise guy LOL

[ArkySue]

3. This is great!

Now if the stupid MSM will pay attention and quit with the "the Dems don't have a plan" crap, things may start looking up.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[madfloridian]

6. Iraq apparently just asked Iran for help. Are you ready for the draft?

To most people in this thread denial is more than a river in Egypt.

They are saying we need to stay....not leave. What part of that are you guys not getting while defending the general?

[madfloridian]

7. A couple of links about the Iran Iraq thingy.

Iran is telling us what to do. And we are talking about staying to win?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/13/iraq.iran/


Iran Iraq declare ties are excellent.

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/09/E10DFD4E-CEEE-4934-A96E-38DD2813F25F.html

I could go on.

[FrenchieCat]

8. well obviously you don't get the part where it ain't our call

in the reality of things.

Denial is a biotch....but yeah, that's what I call it...when folks think that "calling" for something means a damn thing to Bush...who has already told you straight up.....we is stayin' till the next Prezident.

So, considering that this is close to election 2006...I'm asking you this....

can you save this shit till after the votes. Jeeze!

[madfloridian]

9. Well, by damn, we don't have to be enablers anymore.

This is going to turn a whole generation of young people's lives upside down.

I hope they are ready.

No, I am not going to stand by and say nothing. The election will continue, and I think those who dare oppose Iraq will come out winners.

[CarlVK]

10. Bravo. BRAVO.

[FrenchieCat]

12. Y'all know each other?

Cause you seem pretty "in step".

Seeing Democratic Unity is good....even if its from those who eat their own at a critical time.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[madfloridian]

15. I am worried about the draft being forthcoming....

and you are accusing us of collusion? No, I don't know who that is at all. But he has the courage to be in a thread where I am....now that is brave.

[FrenchieCat]

17. We have an election in less than 60 days...and you are worried about

a draft! how's that for timing.

Think we'll have a draft before or after the election?

[CarlVK]

19. madfloridian sees the bigger picture. I'm sad that you do not.

[madfloridian]

20. Yes, I think it will have to happen soon. I think our Dems called for one

when they said we have to succeed in Iraq. What other answer is there?

This is kind of sad.

[CarlVK]

21. Rangle called for one to make a point.

Namely that it would hit privileged Rethug and the rest of us alike. Rangle was right of course....the draft that he "proposed" was staunchly rejected by the chickenhawk Rethugs.

[FrenchieCat]

25. Rangel Supported Wes Clark in '04...and still does....

So talk to Madfloridian again.....then you can change your mind and say that Rangel really does want a draft....and wasn't making any point.

The draft must be coming before the election!

OK...here's the strategery for election 2006 where we need to win SEATS NOW HELD BY REPUBLICANS (only way we can win back any house of congress):
1. Tell everyone that the draft is coming, then mention that Rangel supports it.
2. Tell voters that we are no longer a superpower and that Iran has won.
3. Tell voters that we need to have gotten out yesterday (although I still need the name of a Dem who is proposing we get out tomorrow).
4. Tell voters that the military stinks like shit....even the Democratic ones
5. Tell voters that Conyers is the only one that can be the next President, cause he supports Impeachment.
6. Tell Democrats just don't even bother to vote, cause Pelosi is a witch.
7. Tell Military voters that we just hate them period. Militarist need not apply

OK...lemme know how the election turns out. Lords knows we were going to have a hard enough time as it is!

[CarlVK]

48. I don't agree with Rangle's support of Clark

But then there is much with which I am in disagreement when it comes to Rangel.

To state again, Rangel's draft issue was an excellent way to point up that no draft is a great way to keep the privileged (or socially promoted, in Bush's case) either out of the military or in safe places during a conflict. And it was a point well taken. Rangel wasn't actually desirous of a draft.

[Texas_Kat]

54. If you think Charlie wasn't serious as a heart attack

then you don't know Charlie.

Maybe you'd better go back and re-think your assumptions. In this case, as in others, you're dead wrong.

[CarlVK]

62. Are you unaware of Rangle's intent on calling for a draft?

HINT: It wsnt REALLY to get a draft - but make the rethug chickenhawks and their kin wake up to realize if they insist on prosecuting this stupid, criminal war, more and more troops will be needed and at some point THEIR dearest sons and daughters will be swept up to go and die for that idiotic venture.

Do I REALLY have to explain this to you?

[Texas_Kat]

11. I'm old enough to have friends who died as a result of the draft

You can bet that if left to General Clark, there won't be one.

It's something he's always been adamant about. He has always been a proponent of the VOLUNTEER services.

If we don't change the House and/or Senate in 06, and since Bush won't have anything else to lose, watch the draft start up under what's left of his regime.

So save your hysteria for working for 06 candidates like the Clark folks are doing.

[madfloridian]

14. If we stay we will need more forces right now. Not later.

For goodness sake, this is not about Clark. This is about our country and its young people.

Even Murtha called for a draft today. Don't kid yourselves and don't belittle what I do for the party...because you don't have a clue.

[CarlVK]

18. Some simply don't care about the looming draft.....

But I do. That's why I don't support the purported "plan" at the head of this thread. It basically says we're staying militarily in Iraq until "success".

How fucking Klingon! It's not enough to screw a poor country up the ass with a criminal invasion and occupation, we now have to nuance our way into conforming to the continuing...INSANE....occupation.

well I say bullshit to that.

[Texas_Kat]

23. Link to Murtha's "call for a draft" please....

So far as I have been able to find, he's said no such thing.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-john-murtha/my-resolution-calling-for_b_29346.html

[madfloridian]

24. He was on TV yesterday or today.

I think it was the Situation Room, and I think today. But I am just not sure. The interviewer asked if it would require a draft, and he made clear there was no other way. The transcipt should be up by now.

I was switching channels during that time, but I think CNN.

[madfloridian]

29. Murtha's call for draft...link. He is right.

We can not keep on changing the middle east without a draft.

"MURTHA: That's exactly right, Wolf.

What I'm saying is, all the troops in the United States, almost every brigade in the United States, combat brigade, is not prepared to go to war in another area.

For instance, we use the rhetoric about Iran and the rhetoric about North Korea. And, yet, our units, because they don't have the equipment, because they're taking people are not as qualified as they used to, up to 42 years old, and putting them in the armed forces, they're not as qualified as they should be.

The troops overseas are fine. The ones in Iraq are in good shape. But the ones back here could not respond. We have no strategic reserve. And it's the worst I have seen it since the Vietnam War.

BLITZER: We're out of time, but a quick answer.

Are you suggesting in your report -- because I read it -- that it's time to think about reviving the draft?

MURTHA: I will tell you this. They either have to do that, or they have to start to redeploy the troops, one or the other. We cannot sustain troops being there -- being home only a year, and going back in less than a year.

BLITZER: Congressman John Murtha, as usual, thanks for coming in.

MURTHA: Nice talking to you, Wolf."

[Texas_Kat]

30. This isn't news

and it's not a "call" for reviving the draft. It is a stark assessment of what may happen if Bush doesn't change what he's doing RIGHT NOW. Please note that most experts say the Military can only continue the way BUSH is operating for another year. It won't be a Democrat who has the say over it regardless -- it will be Bush. Since he has nothing to lose, guess what his response is going to be?

Charlie Rangel 'called' for a draft, Murtha did not.

[madfloridian]

31. Yes, it is a stark assessment.

And you appear to be saying that since Bush is in charge, we might as well go along with saying we can't leave and have to succeed.

[Texas_Kat]

33. Unless we take control of one of the 2 Houses of Congress

there won't even be an effort to change the course. Railing about Democrats is not going to help.

I personally don't want to see a regional war erupt in the Middle East, because if THAT happens, we won't be able to stay out. It's why Clark keeps insisting on dialogue with Iran and Syria rather than sabre rattling. The Bush administration is taking us down the path to a wider conflict. Right now. Today. Every chance he gets to push it just a little further to a wider, ideological conflict.

It's bad now......but, it will be much much worse if Bush has the next 2 years unrestrained.

[madfloridian]

34. If we can't beat them, we join them in saying we have to succeed..

in a war which is already lost?

[Texas_Kat]

35. Obviously you don't understand what I'm saying

So I'll go back to work. I have a couple of Democrats running for office that I'm doing some work for.

Thanks for playing.

[madfloridian]

36. Well, I just sit on my butt and don't do anything.

I am lazy, worthless, uninvolved. I never take part in any local activities. I am not a good Democrat at all.

[Texas_Kat]

41. I've never been impressed with passive-aggressive techniques

so..... whatever floats your boat.

[madfloridian]

42. You really are insulting me.

.

[CarlVK]

49. EXACTLY. THANK YOU.

I keep hammering that point home to the Clark adorers, and its not making it through the wall. Thanks for trying.

[CarlVK]

16. Read this carefully....

"“Democrats are united that no matter how high the price, how heavy the burden, or how fierce the foe, we will do everything necessary to protect the American people,” said House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi. “Keeping America safe is our first responsibility as elected officials. Democrats have a record of achievement in national security and sound ideas about how to combat terrorism, change course toward success in Iraq, and protect the American people.”

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

See the bold part? Thats nuanced talk for "we're gonna keep our troops in Iraq come hell or high water". And you know what that means? A DRAFT. So, Wes clark is actually PROPOSING a draft without coming out and saying it. See its what I hate about dishonest people. If Mr. clark would come right out and say that we need to get OUT of their country before doing further damage, I'd be four square behind him.

But he doesn't!

[Texas_Kat]

22. That's not what it means

But you are certainly entitled to make up the meanings of words that don't exist in common usage.

First, you need to try to understand what "success" means (have you ever followed this debate before? or are you just starting?

In terms of Democrats use of the word "success", it amounts to NOT starting a regional war and getting out without killing and maiming more of our troops.

Second, you are quoting Nancy Pelosi, not Wes Clark.

[Jai4WKC08]

28. Yeah well, that's "what I hate about dishonest people" too

They make things up, take things out of context, assign meanings that aren't there, and, when particularly desperate, attribute words from one person to another.

And then they have the audacity to pretend they're on our side. Sheesh.

[CarlVK]

40. I'm sorry you don't agree with my interpretation.

Can you give me a better one, and tell me why you convinced it is so?

[Sparkly]

47. Well let's really parse what Pelosi said.

"Democrats have a record of achievement in national security and sound ideas about how to combat terrorism, change course toward success in Iraq, and protect the American people.”

I'll go out on a limb here and take a wild guess that she was trying to send a message saying that Democrats have a record of achievement in national security and sound ideas about how to combat terrorism, change course toward success in Iraq, and protect the American people.

[CarlVK]

52. Okaaaaayyy..does that mean withdrawal from a stupid, criminal war?

Yes or no?

This is lke pulling teeth from a lion.

[CarlVK]

37. Then why didnt the Holy Third Way just say that in plain print?

Isn't it easy? "Whereas the initial, and continued, presence of US forces in Iraq has done little good and daily mounting harm to the Iraqi people, we are for an immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq."

Is that so hard? I'm not even a press writer and I can do it.

[Sparkly]

45. Please provide a list of those who have. nt

[CarlVK]

50. Nice diversion, but it ididn't work. I ask again -

Why didn't the so called third Way just come right out and call for an immediate tropp withdrawal and cessation of hostilities within Iraq against Iraqi armed groups?

Was it cowardice, or quiet agreement with the warmongers/PNACers uncomfortably close to this group?

[wattaworld]

27. Changing Course is Pretty Essential

if we hope to take both houses. Can't we stop fighting about "nuanced talk" and whether Clark's running or not and try to find stuff we agree upon? The Clark points make sense. They talk about security HERE. Pelosi's almost committing to involving the rest of us, as well as the soldiers overseas, which is what Bush should have done way back when. And let's get real about all of this. Let's talk about solar power and hybrids as meaningful tax deductions directly related to homeland security....not the $100,000 gems the GOP gave away. We are so interdependent that we become sitting ducks for small terror groups which are incapable of defeating us militarily, but could sure bring us to our knees with a few strategic successes on power grids, refineries, etc. Can't we discuss what it might mean to "Change Course" that would appeal to Americans in general? Things where GOP has shot down Dem proposals: implement 9/11 commission recommendations; set planned Iraq takeover of specific geographic areas; TALK to emerging opponents (Venezuela, the Palestinians, Iran).Most of all redefine "war on terror" as a worldwide "alliance against terrorists." Dems could do that; GOP has lost its ability to deal effectively with other nations.

[CarlVK]

39. I have a course change for you - TROOP WITHDRAWAL

Why won't they come out and say it directly?

[Clark2008]

32. Wow! You should be a fiction writer to make that leap.

That is NOT what it says at all!

:eyes:

[CarlVK]

38. Really? Then flesh out for me "success in Iraq"

with sources that back up your interpretation of that phrase.

[Sparkly]

46. Democrats in Congress have used that term frequently.

Even offering bills with that language.

Got a problem with that, or just with "Mr. Clark?"

[CarlVK]

51. Again, tell me what you think "success in Iraq" means, please?

Come on, be braver than the "Third Way" and lay it on the line for me.

And yes, I am not a fan of Mr. clark. Is that against DU's rules somehow? Because if it is, they are going to be awfully busy banning people.

[Jai4WKC08]

55. Only busy because

The people they ban keep coming back.

You also keep ducking the question of telling us what other prominent Dems are calling for immediate withdrawal. Are they all warmongers or just "Mr. Clark"?

[Sparkly]

44. LOL!!!

"Success in Iraq" -- how many others have used that term? And were THEY thus "actually PROPOSING a draft without coming out and saying it?"

This is laughable.

Let me play. Subject: "General Clark says, 'The Cow Jumped Over the Moon.'"

Response: The Cow jumped over the moon. See the bold part? Who "jumps over?" The military, who "jump" from aircraft, send bombs jumping from planes and jump through other countries to occupy them. People "jump rope," so this is also a reference to the rope that tied the victims of US torture. Who else jumps? Ballet dancers! It's nuanced talk for "if you don't enlist in the army, you're a girly man." It's the false dichotomy of the fatigues or the tutu. I'm so sick of all this macho shit!

The Cow is obviously the hegemonic philosophy of Clark's military industrial complex and the Moon is the sovereignty of other nations. That's what I hate about dishonest people -- if Mr. Clark would either come right out and SAY that we should invade other nations, torture people and steal their oil, or SAY that the cow performed a grand jete over the moon rather than leaving it vague with words like "jumped over," why THEN I'd be behind him.

But he doesn't!

:sarcasm:

[CarlVK]

53. I didn't ask how others used it. I asked how THIRD WAY did.

So far, I've asked in multiple posts for a direct answer to my question "What does 'success in Iraq' mean to third Way or Wesley Clark?"

Think I'm any closer to one here?

[Tom Rinaldo]

71. You got an answer quite a ways up thred but you ignored it

It obviously wasn't what you wanted to hear. Something to the effect of Democrats talk about Success in Iraq as withdrawing from Iraq without leaving behind an ever widening Regional War in the wake of our disasterous invasion. Democrats put an emphasis on diplomatically engaging all of the major powers in the region, which means direct talks with nations that are not "our friends" as well as with American client States in the Middle East.

Now you may disagree that there is a real danger of regional war breaking out in the Middle East, or you may believe that only by an immediate U.S. withdrawal will such a war be avoided, but that is how "success" is defined by a great many Democrats; avoiding the blodshed and unpredictable chaos of the entire Middle East region being pulled toward war, with some kind of Iraq nation state remaining that is less terrorist base friendly than Afghanistan under the Taliban.

And Check out Al Gore's current position on Iraq sometime when you get a chance. You might find that he and Wes Clark are pretty much saying the exact same things.

[Mass]

26. The bill the democrats should be promoting ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2826615

I could not believe it the other day when I learned that Third Way did the finding and that Carper was the one promoting that.

Hopefully, once this election is finished, somebody in the Senate will find the courage to introduce the McGovern bill in the Senate, rather than being worried to be labelled weak on defense.

[wiley]

43. Thanks for the post!

[sarcasmo]

56. Kick for my Candidate if Gore doesn't run.

Gore/Clark would Win us the White House.

[Clarkansas]

57. Kick for my candidate! Or at least one of them.

[CarolNYC]

58. Thanks Monkeyman...

for posting this.

Nice to see that Pelosi and Reid recognize what a gift the Democratic Party has in General Clark and nice to see General Clark out there doing what he can to help get Democrats elected in 2006.

The rest of the shit from the tag team here is just that...shit...and I got no time for shit right now. :P

[Monkeyman]

59. Wow thanks guys

[CarlVK]

60. Can someone help me here.....

I read the joint statement posted on this thread, looking for our Party's proposed solution to the Iraq mess. Here is the operative part I think I gleaned:

"There are only two directions to take in Iraq: Bush’s plan of staying the course to let a future President to sweep up after, or the Murtha plan to change the direction of that course. Rep. Pelosi has joined with Rep. Murtha in calling for the redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq to make our country safer, our military stronger, and the region more stable."

Now to my question: Is this just a politically safe way to say "Withdrawal"? Because if it is I can back the plan. But if this is just another chicken-shit half measured way to duck the problem I'm going to have more than a few words for Ms. Pelosi.

[janx]

63. I suspect it is, yes.

Semantics are getting in the way in some of these conversations. There's a civil war going on in Iraq. The Congress knows it. I'd wager we're going to start getting some troops out of there within the next several months.

[CarlVK]

64. That's very good news for US troops.

What I don't get is, what's the big bone gnawing fear of saying "WITHDRAWAL"? We need to start speaking plainly and truthfully to Americans if we ever expect to get more of sense of trust back.

[janx]

66. Agreed!

We might get more plain speech after November. The hard truth (and Congress knows this) is that we can't wreck a country and then leave it abruptly and completely. The civil war will continue whether or not US troops are in Iraq, but an abrupt departure will cause more bloodshed.

A lot of our representatives voted to give the Chimp power to wage this war. They're having a hard time saying WITHDRAWAL because that would concede defeat--which is ridiculous, obviously, but it's human nature.

[madfloridian]

65. Murtha has said redeploy to nearby areas, as have others.

Some say stay. I think it is fast becoming evident that there will be few options for us.

[CarlVK]

70. Being a non-interventionist, I guess I'd part from Murtha there

We're going to have to address our whole psychology of military intervention to really turn our nation around - but that of course is something that will take a long time and Herculean efforts.

[madfloridian]

61. From Slate: There are no more troops to send to Iraq.

http://www.slate.com/id/2149684/

"The only problem with Kristol and Lowry's recommendation is that it is premised on an illusion: In fact, there are no more troops to send to Iraq.

That is the unmistakable message of an Army briefing making the rounds in Washington. According to in-house assessments, fully two-thirds of the Army's operating force, both active and reserve, is now reporting in as "unready"—that is, they lack the equipment, people, or training they need to execute their assigned missions. Not a single one of the Army's Brigade Combat Teams—its core fighting units—currently in the United States is ready to deploy. In short, the Army has no strategic reserve to speak of. The other key U.S. fighting force in Iraq, the Marine Corps, is also hurting, with much of its equipment badly in need of repair or replacement."

I don't know how true this is, but it is interesting.

Also this:
Iran and Iraq working together.

http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-24/0609140073004803.htm

"At the end of official visit of Iraqi prime minister and accompanying delegation, three Memorandums of Understanding (MoU) were signed here on Wednesday evening.

Cooperation between Iran's Interior Ministry and Iraqi Immigration Ministry to facilitate affairs of both countries citizens was the first MoU signed between Iran's Interior Minister Mostafa Pour Mohammadi and the Iraqi minister.

The second MoU was about security cooperation and exchanging information which was signed by Iran's Intelligence Minister Gholam-Hossein Mohseni Eje'ie and Iraqi National Security Advisor Mwaffaq al-Rabiei.

The third agreement was about development and expansion of cooperation between the two countries which was signed by Iran's First Vice-President Parviz Davoudi and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki.

Iraqi PM at the head of a high ranking delegation arrived in Tehran on Tuesday for a 2-day official visit."

[Donna Zen]

67. A question I read:

MFloridian, somewhere, I thought it was this thread, you posted a question about General Clark's thinking about the subject of Private Military Contractors. He was asked about PMCs during a Q & A at Johns Hopkins. His words: put that Jack back in the box. He went on to explain how the use of force must be contained to legitimate governments. Private Militaries are dangerous. Recently he expanded on those views. He said that the US Military has the interests of America as the source of actions; whereas private militaries are driven by other concerns first and foremost: profit, special interests...whatever.

It is also fair to note that Wes Clark both helped conceive and build the "all volunteer" army. That meant entering the market place for talent and standards by offering competitive packages of incentives: pay, educational benefits, housing, health care, etc. He does not want to see a return to a draft.

During a conference I attended, a news-person--maybe Rather, said, that the army that entered Vietnam in the early 60s was not the army in Vietnam in 1967. He pointed out that in the early years there was a seasoned force that remained from Korea. By the time 67 rolled around, the military was made up of a steady stream of mostly unwilling draftees. I'd never thought about this before, but of course it is true. The news-person went on to make their case that this later army was simply unwilling to keep their sentiments out of the press. Interesting.

I'm very impressed with many of the vets that I've met recently. In fact, it has been a small welcome bright spot in what is otherwise a dark horrible period. I always had lots of friends from the Vietnam Vets Against the War, but I've been privileged to met a new generation of really great people. The army that bush sent to Iraq will not be the army that leaves. Wes Clark is very worried that it will be broken beyond repair.

Anyway, to somehow presume that Wes Clark supports this or that, is quite unfair. I remind you: that he was standing up for us while many silently stood down. I understand that there are those who don't ever want to see anyone once associated with the military any where near public office. Well, I can only control my own mind. Nevertheless, when the hysteria builds up, I feel it should be pointed out, that Wes Clark has never sold you out, and will not. My scorn is reserved for the assholes who got us into this war.

[madfloridian]

68. Ok, the problem is that there will have to be draft if we stay.

That is what I am getting at. It is getting so dangerous there and all around the middle east. I don't see how there is time to build a volunteer army that fast, and I imagine Northrup Grumman and others have mercenaries ready to go.

I am glad General Clark does not want that. It would hurt our country.

I guess I just feel that our Democrats are not forcing honesty from the Bush administration on this subject.

I fear that is danger even in waiting for a draft to be commenced. It is so much looking like Vietnam.

It is time to say out of Iraq..I don't care if they just go to bordering countries, that might help some. But if we stay we will have to kill so many civilians that we will not survive as a country.

I think that is the advice being given. I fear it.

[Donna Zen]

69. D- or F?

Reployment, which is a settled upon concept by the Democrats, means moving out of the cities and to the perimeters. It probably also includes reinforcing Afghanistan. Basically, anyone who has been at all specific has courted this concept. I would imagine that is an effort to contain the damage. Not the greatest solution, but just about the only one available. It is a politically smart way of saying start getting "Out Now."

The actual solution to Iraq, and that will only mean a "D-" and not an "F", would be to get serious about the political and diplomatic efforts in the region. bush will never do this. He is incapable of understanding the concepts needed, and he's got his cowboy image to protect; the bush administration is peopled by incompetent assholes who are not up to the task, and rummy-- of this I am convinced--is totally fucking insane. Really. That's who is running the show while we here condemn various plans being put forth by thoughtful people. Actually, the plan layed out in OP by the Third Way (jackasses) surprised me, it was actually okay. True, Reid had to call Clark in to say the majic words: we are not safer, but at least the study had plenty of teeth. Oh, and that's fact: Reid did call Wes to do the risky deed.

Our military is now a mess, but bush may be able to cobble together something to see him through two more years of carnage. I don't expect a draft. Nevertheless, if all hell breaks loose in the region, and we get caught up in the mess, that is when we will see a call for forces that will not be there. I would expect that to be in after bush leaves. Right now, as bad as it is--it can be worse. Fortunately Javier Solanas is currently negotiating with Iran. Solanas is very good and making progress. Between the brass at the Pentagon (very pissed off) and a Spanish Socialist we may make it out with a D- and not an F.