Rangel needs to be taken out in the 2008 primary

[ButterflyBlood]

If he doesn't quit pulling this crap he has to be removed. He's only hurting the party now, so let's get rid of him. We don't need idiots in high ranking positions who hand the Repukes a great issue on a silver platter.

[KingFlorez]

1. It's an anti-war tactic

Why is that so hard for people to understand? It puts the pro-war idiots on the spot and makes people think.

[ButterflyBlood]

2. Then why not propose a bill to cut off funds for the war instead?

Or to demand a time table for withdrawl?

THE MAJORITY IS ALREADY ANTI-WAR. That's why we won our majority. Now let's actally try to KEEP it instead of scaring voters off. Anything that helps the Repukes electoral-wise is stupid, and this is it. DUMP RANGEL.

[babylonsister]

4. I think Rangel is swinging the talk back to Iraq with his draft talk. He

doesn't want it, but wants people to think.
If funds are cut off, Dems will get a bad reputation, though this might also wake people up. A timetable has already been suggested by many and gone no where, and that includes Dems' opinions.
I think he's just trying to shake the American conscientiousness up.

[BlueCaliDem]

45. Because proposing to cut off funding for our troops will GUARANTEE the...

...Democrats will lose their majority come 2008, and perpetuate the lie that Democrats can't be trusted with national security.

Do you want that?

The republics and their slapped-dog MSM will demonize the entire Democratic Party as being "soft on terror, and against our brave men and women" just like they did with Kerry's vote against the 87 billion after Bush had returned the bill he voted for when the Democrats added a clause to reverse the tax-cuts for the wealthiest in America to pay for this supplement, remember?

I was hard-pressed to find the details of this anywhere in corporate media, either print or broadcast or cable (this was before Keith Olbermann got his show).

Instead, our Democratic leadership in both houses of Congress should warn Bush that since the Iraq Resolution was founded on the War Powers Act which means that Congress merely gave authorization to the president for temporary military action under Congress' supervision, not a full-fledged WAR, they will withdraw the authorization within a few months, and that Bush better seek out the help of alienated allies before the troops are withdrawn from Iraq.

The War Powers Act was created explicitly to avoid another Vietnam, and solely for temporary military action under supervision of Congress. Congress is the ONLY body of government allowed to declare war. Congress has NOT declared war no matter what the republic corporate media is telling us.

[Infinite Hope]

47. Because...

For the same reason Republicans put forth the proposal to withdraw troops immediately. They forced the Democrats' hand and that was probably a large part of Rangel's intent.

[Greeby]

53. McGovern already has such a bill ready

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d109:11:./temp/~bd4S1w:@@@P|/bss/d109query.html|

It's been stuck in committee for a year now (if link doesn't work, go to http://thomas.loc.gov and search for HR4232

[TankLV]

55. because cutting the funds would be SUICIDE for any dem - that's why!

Ever hear of "support the troops"? If funds are cut, then the repukes and whore media will spin it and SUCCEED in saying that the dems don't support our troops...

That's an even crazier idea and will NEVER pass...

[MannyGoldstein]

3. Absolutely!!!

If everyone has some skin in the game, people will start to use their heads.

Also, why shouldn't Jenna, Barbara, and Chelsea be in Iraq instead of doing hedge funds or whatever useful stuff they're doing. If their daddies and mommies want war, they should not send other people's kids to do the deed.

[davidinalameda]

10. it's so hard for people to understand

because they are either sucking down kool-aid or they are just plain stupid

[jaysunb]

18. I think "stupid " ....

n/t

[davidinalameda]

21. I have to agree

[enough already]

22. Maybe Rangel will have the balls to vote in favor of his own stupidity this time

Or, maybe not. Again. This is just plain stupid. Just cut off the fucking funds.

[beaconess]

41. He voted against the previous bill for procedural reasons

Of course, none of this complicated stuff matters to knee-jerk reactionaries who haven't a clue about legislative tactics, strategy or political gamesmanship.

Thank God Charlie Rangel doesn't turn to DU for guidance.

[Le Taz Hot]

26. Most informed people understand

the tactic. The problem is the MSM. He just gave them a boogy man.

[proud2BlibKansan]

5. A draft will end the war

Just think about it for a minute or two.

[ButterflyBlood]

7. It can be ended otherwise

Just cut off funding for it. Pass the bills for a timetable withdrawl. We have Congress.

Rangel is a fucking idiot. He should focus on actually ending the war instead of scaring people to get them anti-war when the majority already is anti-war.

[w13rd0]

15. The majority might be...

...anti THIS war, but they are NOT anti-war. Give them a proposed conflict and a promise that they can win, and they will once again BUY THE BULLSHIT and support additional illegal invasions, because it costs them nothing to do so (in the short term, because that's all they see) and it makes them feel all ra-ra tough American. JUST voting in Democrats and expecting the war to end is STUPID. Thanks for voting, but if we really want this war to end, it's going to take more than that.

Hell, the Democratic caucus is split 100 different ways on whether or not to end the war, and if they are for ending it, they are split 100 ways on how to do so. So we have one voice from the GOP, "Stay the course", and two hundred different voices from the opposition on how to not do so.

If people really expected that by JUST voting in the opposition party into power would end the war, if they are satisfied with abbrogating their civic responsibilities in such a fashion, can they even be bothered enough to recognize if and when the war does end?

I am a liberal, I WANT to believe the best of people. But I am also a pragmatist, and as such, I know that at LEAST half the population of the United States (including good numbers of both Republicans and Democrats) are bone-thick stupid and disengaged as all f'n hell.

[proud2BlibKansan]

50. Then why is the war still ongoing?

Time for a new strategy.

[CTLawGuy]

11. it ended Vietnam

after 8 years...

:eyes:

[proud2BlibKansan]

17. No it didn't

What ended Vietnam was public opinion. It changed dramatically. The people in this country no longer supported the folly in Vietnam and many took to the streets. Soldiers began speaking out. Politicians started listening and they ended the war.

[CTLawGuy]

27. I agree with you

I'm commenting about how people think it was the draft that ended the war when it didn't. If it was around 8 years before the war ended, it probably didn't stop the war.

[The Magistrate]

34. It Is True, Though, Sir

That it was the broad liability to being drafted that made the opposition to the Viet Nam war into a mass movement. Roughly a third of the young men turning nineteen in any given year of the late sixties were being conscripted, and a very high proportion of these were sent to Viet Nam. Those were odds that millions did not relish, for their sons or themselves, and wanted out from under.

[KoKo]

36. And who would have anticipated a wormwood like Rumsfeld and his

band of merry Neo-Cons would take us to war and occupation with a volunteer army? We thought ending the draft would end Presidents taking us to war and using our kids as fodder for their ambitions.

We just didn't anticipate that evil minds will always find a way to accomplish what they want.

Bringing back a draft has consequences,too. Universal service might be a good idea but another Bush could change it into all out draft and a renegade congress could make "exemptions" such as those who allowed Cheney five deferments and Bush to serve in the National Guard.

The time is here when many don't remember what it feels like to have a draft hanging over ones head and this time it's females who will be asked to serve for whatever comes up in an endless war.

Rangel is clever in bringing it up to start a discussion over what "Endless War Against Terror" means for us. But, I hope the draft is not brought back. Don't blame Rangel for reminding us that there's more to War than pictures on CNN.

[TankLV]

56. the draft was a fixture in the VW since it's inception...

the draft was ALWAYS there.

I know - I was there and elligible at the time - it was a very frightening time...I grew up with that knowledge...

[jobycom]

6. If he is, they need to disband the Party. We wouldn't deserve power.

Rangel has been a champion for all that is right in the Democratic Party and the nation. I don't agree with the way he is raising this issue, but he is trying to prove a point. He is trying to prove that the nation is more likely to accept a war because the people who fight it are the underprivildged. The ruling class, and the middle class who vote, don't have to worry about dying for the wars they start.

Rangel is defending his constituency, arguing that if we are going to fight wars, then all of America needs to bear the burden, not just those who can't get better careers. The rich start the wars, the middle class benefits, and the poor fight them and die in them--and if they are lucky enough to not die, they come home to broken promises.

It's been our party's position since the invasion began to argue that Bush should have called for greater sacrifice after 9-11, rather than running up such massive debt. What's wrong with saying that the sacrifice should be spread more equally in human lives, as well? If it's so necessary that we have to fight a war over it, it should be so necessary that ALL Americans share the burden equally.

I don't like what Rangel is saying, but I don't think he's wrong to say it. He's uncomfortably, unfortunately, right.

[alfredo]

12. You are right on the money. It's not just the draft, it is the

inequality. It is the poor dying for the rich. We die, they profit.

[maryallen]

62. Thank you for explaining it so beautifully.

This is such an emotional issue for many of us.
When you're too close to something, it's sometimes difficult to convey what needs to be said.

Rangel is fighting this war the best way he knows how, and I must say, based on several threads on DU and the reaction of Lawrence O'Donnell on Scarborough, Rangel has tapped a raw nerve.

Good.

[loyalsister]

66. Very well said

I know someone who actually says I don't watch or read the news about the war because "it will just upset me."
I agree with Rangel that we should be more invested. We should feel this thing, because it is ours as a nation even if it wasn't our idea and we didn't support it.

[jrandom421]

8. Know anyone in the 15th district

which includes Harlem, who would vote against him? Not me...

[ButterflyBlood]

9. Anyone who doesn't want their kid drafted should

At the very least, he should be stripped of his chairmanship.

[beaconess]

42. I don't either - they must be stupid since DUers know so much more than they do

:sarcasm:

[smalll]

57. Harlem ain't what it used to be -

It's being bought up by rich Manhattanites of all races, mostly white. Gentrification on the move. Multimillionaires in renovated brownstones. Kind of, well maybe, Ned Lamont territory! With some bloggers, a hollywood producer or two and the jeunesse d'oree college kids on vactation I could see Rangel losing a summertime primary.

(Watch out though when he starts up the "New York For Rangel Party" - he could pull off a Lieberman!)

[w13rd0]

13. My Republican father...

...tried pulling this crap today, telling my 14 yr old son, "the liberals are trying to bring back the draft". I overheard him, and just about blew a gasket.

The 'liberals' consist of Charlie Rangel, JUST Charlie Rangel. And I find it the height of irony that those who supported this illegal war launched by a pack of criminals based on lies now want to make hay over someone saying that ALL the people of this country should be expected to make sacrifices. What exactly WON'T Republicans stoop to? And just how in the hell is anyone supposed to believe there are any Republican that aren't anything but corrupt, selfish pricks when even those that tout themselves as 'moderate' and 'rational' spout such utter White House issued bullshit talking points. And this isn't the first time Rangel has proposed this, so why in the hell is everyone getting their diapers in a bunch now? Seriously, the reaction of the Republicans to this tells me a couple things.

1) they are COMPLETELY SHAMELESS opportunists
2) they are LIARS without even a shred of CONSCIENCE and no qualms whatsoever about being manipulative or pretending that they are what they are not (deceptive)
3) they are terribly afraid that they might have to sacrifice something, ANYTHING, for the policies they support...

Fuck them, fuck them all...

[salin]

31. comeback:

No the liberals are trying to start the conversation that our cowardly president never wanted to have in his rush to war in Iraq. Was this war (even at the time) a serious threat to the country, was it a serious enough threat that regular citizens would commit to it, back it, go fight in it - as was the case in WWII. The bushies like to make WWII analogies except that the entire country *gave* to that war effort in terms of enlistment, in terms of rations of goods at homes, all sorts of sacrifices.

One of the leading Generals who (was it Batiste?) who spent more than a year commanding troops in Iraq, and who is now very critical of how the admin has run the war - said he was shocked when he returned how little the public knew or cared about what was happening in IRaq - about how little (or nothing) was asked of the American people regarding the war in Iraq. How taxes were further cut during a war time.

This is the conversation that the Bushies never wanted to had, as it would have foiled their propoganda push - as it would have been held up to closer scrutiny by the public and media were we asked to make great sacrifices in the name of our country. It is likely that the answer to the questions (were we willing to sacrifice) would have been very different to the question of Afghanistan, vs the question of Iraq.

Ask your father why the republicans and bush didn't think it was necessary to act (not play-act, but administer/act) as other war-time presidents, and instead cut taxes, and put a happy face on his "war time presidency" - while gutting the services and the national guard and reserve systems - preventing servicemen and women from retiring (through stop loss), redeploying at rapidly decreasing intervals for longer deployments? Why have the only people asked to sacrifice been those in the military? How disproportionately have those serving and their families been asked to sacrifice while the rest of the country does nothing, save putting yellow ribbons on their cars (symbols that are not even trying to raise $ for those in service or their families - but are simply making money for the manufacturers).

I am not saying that I want a draft. I have four nephews and a niece who are all prime age or near prime age for a draft. I am saying that this is a serious conversation that should have happened prior to committing to these wars. Instead the national conversation was abstract in terms of the 'cost' that was to be asked of the public. Those serving the US in the military were treated, imo, cavalierly by the decision makers. That should NEVER happen again. Never. If we are not willing, as we were in WWII, to sacrifice (my father dropped out of college to enlist) then perhaps it is not a war that is worth pursuing.

[HardWorkingDem]

14. I really surprised at some of the responses here...

This is a discussion we need to be having.

Think of it folks: the abolition of the draft is a politicians wet dream. It allows politicians to commit American's to war and allow for the ignoring of citizen complaints by the excuse of, "the person volunteered and knew what he/she was getting into."

Having an all volunteer military allows for all sorts of young people to ignore public service and the fear of sacrifice.

Yes, there are folks who preach on the abilities of an all-volunteer service, but there are plenty of fields for folks to go into that want to avoid the infantry (in the military it is commonly stated it takes five troops in support for one infantry solider).

This is a topic we sorely need to be talking about. Look at how not having a draft has hurt the Democrats: no protesting on college campuses, no protesting by the influential over the drafting of their children and a loss of connection to those that are fighting in these wars unless you happen to have some sort of close tie to individual soldiers (and this is not to say people with no family or friends in the military don't care, only to point out that there is something additional when you have loved ones in the service in a time of war).

[enough already]

28. Unless you are truly prepared to vote FOR a draft, it's an idiotic topic

Otherwise, you are creating fodder for the fools on the right. Someone tell me specifically which Democrats are going to vote FOR a draft. We all know the answer is nobody. So why even open up this can of worms? We just look stupid. I can't believe Rangel is pulling this bullshit play again. Just de-fund the war. I guess that is too direct an approach for a "genius" like Rangel.

[onenote]

38. unless you're opposed to all persons facing the risk of fighting in a war

its an idiotic topic. Or put another, way its anything but an idiotic topic. There is no question but that this war wouldn't have taken place if all of America's sons and daughters were put at risk. There may be times when going to war is necessary, but in those times, all Americans should be asked to sacrifice, if for no other reason than to ensure that the decision to go to war is a last resort, not a first one.

[HardWorkingDem]

39. Oh, right, Rangel's discussion is idiotic, but "de-funding" isn't?

Have you learned anything from Somalia, Vietnam or the Iraq War at all?

The topic of "de-funding" is worse than a topic leading to a discussion of shared sacrifice when it comes to war. "De-funding" would be sold as leaving troops on the battlefield naked and defenseless.

Take Somalia for example. Bush and Powell started that mess, pull out all of the armor and heavy machinery and Clinton is the one every one hates for losing 19 elite soldiers. Just go ask any young soldier about Somalia and Clinton and get ready for the venom and hate. This is what "de-funding" would get us.

[enough already]

46. De-funding would also keep them alive at home

I can live with that. But keep pushing for the draft, America's moms will love us for it in '08.

[HardWorkingDem]

64. and abandoning them on the battlefield won't?....because...

that is exactly how it will be sold to the American people.....just remember Kerry's 87 billion dollar vote comments.

[Hippo_Tron]

33. Once again, explain Vietnam

We were put into a conflict that was equally as useless as Iraq and yet there was a draft.

[Hosnon]

48. But the draft then had college deferments, right?

Someone in another thread said that the college deferment was ended in '71 and we pulled out in '73.

A draft with an exemption for college kids is simply a way to get more lower class men enlisted.

A draft without an exemption is a different animal.

[DemBones DemBones]

59. For much of the war, there were deferments for

grad school, too. The grad school deferments ended in 1968. I think the marriage and fatherhood exemptions ended shortly afterwards.

[PVnRT]

68. So, you support killing people to win a political argument?

Disgusting.

[Rowdyboy]

16. Our military manpower requirements NEED a public airing....thank God for

Charlei Rangel and his guts. Every move he makes is aimed at unmasking the Bush/McCain charade that our current military is sufficient and up to the job.

[longship]

19. No he doesn't.

I stand with him. He's right to bring forward this issue.
It flies in the face of the ChimpCo disaster and focuses the dialog on many issues which would not otherwise be touched.

Please leave Rangel alone.

[lcordero2]

20. Lemme see

He publicly backed Steny Hoyer for Majority Leader. Steny Hoyer won by a 2:1 ratio.

This tells me that they are doing some sort of horse trading and that they are going to get some sort of secret ballot vote in order to avoid accountability.

[niceypoo]

23. I agree with him

Force their hand. They are the consumate chickens. The thought of their children suffering for their mistakes is unfathomable to them. It will show what true cowards they really are.

[Nimrod2005]

24. ROFL....Calm down please.......nt

[wisteria]

25. I don't get the logic of this suggestion. This makes it look like McCain

is correct in suggesting we need troops in Iraq to "win", and scares the young vote away from voting for us. Even the Republicans haven't been foolish enough to mention bring back the draft.

[enough already]

30. I guess they aren't as politically astute as Charlie Rangel

Of course, when they bring this to the floor again right after Thanksgiving, Charlie will vote with the pukes and be labeled a hypocrite. Again. What a tactician...

[kentuck]

29. That shouldn't be difficult - he only gets 94% of the vote...

:)

[LostinVA]

32. Pulling what "crap"? Being against the war in Iraq?

Being against thousands upon thousand of American men and women killed and maimed for NOTHING but a saber-rattler's ego? Foe wanting to stop this warm and all others by pointing out the hypocrisy and non-sacrifice of the elite???


Rangel is a literal and figurative hero.

[Adelante]

35. How many times has Rangel been reelected to Congress?

18 by now? 19?

Let's throw him out of the party. He wins for the Dems too goddamned much. :crazy:

[onenote]

37. funniest post of the day

Rangel was elected with 94 percent of the vote. That's right ninety-four percent. And he's made statements about the draft before.

So dream on....

[Norquist Nemesis]

40. Actually, it's the over-reacting crap like this that hurts the party

Geez Louise! I can't tell you how pissed it's made me over the years to have Republicans purporting a Democrats are weak lie. Getting all riled up with calls to purge is what hurts us and helps the Republicans.

Instead, of calling for his head let's put the question to Bushetal and the rest of the Republicans. Are THEY going to allow Military Conscription? How much rubberstamping would they do if their family members had no choice but to be shipped overseas into a war? What steps would they take to protect troops and end a war ASAP with their children "over there"?

You can be passionately, fervently, steadfastly anti-war. You can also be reasonable and know that war is sometimes necessary. Iraq was not a war of necessity. Personally, I think there would have been some thorough and thoughtful debate along with hard questions if Republicans knew (not believe, but KNEW) members of their families would be in the middle of a combat zone.

[beaconess]

43. These kinds of posts are why some people think that liberal Democrats are clueless idiots

[geek tragedy]

44. It's funny how all of these DU Primary Warriors

never live in the district of the politician they want to take out.

[CarolNYC]

49. Isn't it though, geek?

Hey, Butterfly, leave my Congressman alone....Take out your own Congressman in the primary.

[Jai4WKC08]

51. I LOVE Charlie Rangel

I wish I could move to Brooklyn just to vote for him. He's one of the true heroes of the Democratic Party and we're lucky to have him.

[Generator]

52. The outrage here on a liberal board

proves Rangel is correct. Obviously,all the words and facts are meaningless compared to the idea that YOU might have to fight in a sham war. Imagine that no WMD, nothing to do with Al Queda/911 bogus bullshit war would do to the average yahoo. We here have been outraged for years-and have wanted this war over since either before it was started or since we find out it was a pack of lies. Why doesn't America give a shit they were lied into war? Sure, now many(but certainly not all-they continue to lie to themselves) of them get it. But now it's STILL going on. And I bet you a million posts it will still be going on in another 2 years.

Maybe they would really give a shit again for their country if they were really asked to die for it. Maybe they wouldn't give Bush a pass. Maybe if there had been a draft, the war would be over, Bush would have been impeached years ago and somebody else would have been president.

The REPUBLICANS will never let there be a draft again. Think about what your enemy wants, it's a big clue.

[TankLV]

54. Sorry - but if I could, I'd be campaigning VIGOROUSLY for him right now and then...

as it is I'll continue my financial support.

His idea is BRILLIANT politics...

This will end the war NOW as opposed to "sometime" if ever...

Get a grip - I will campaign actively against your "purge"...

[DemBones DemBones]

58. Me, too, Charlie Rangel is a great Democrat

and, as you said, it's BRILLIANT politics.

[PVnRT]

69. Would you support a Democrat

bringing up a bill to ban all abortions in the U.S. to "force the hand" of the right-wing Republicans? Would that be "brilliant politics" as well.

[LittleClarkie]

60. That's up to his constituents I reckon

How much did he win by this time?

[QC]

61. Counterrevolutionary elements must be purged for the good of the people!

All hail the glorious people's revolution!

[brucef3680]

63. RANGEL IS RIGHT

I agree with Representative Charlie Rangel's most resent proposal regarding reinstating registration for 'the draft.' But that should be only the beginning.

It is well known that only the most patriotic and lest privileged among us serve in the all-volunteer armed forces. But our all-volunteer services are far from being representative of our society as a whole. ALL Americans should serve the nation in some way. Here's the reasons why, with a real American plan:

I strongly feel it is a privilege, and positive, life-enriching, educational and maturation factor in the lives of America's young adults to serve a mandatory period of service to the nation, with the additional goals of providing increased security or defense for our nation, the promotion of our democratic values, and to help those in this country and around the world who are oppressed or less fortunate. As a wartime veteran myself, I have found this to be so. This service could take the form of a mandatory period of contribution to the United States of America of at least two years in either a branch of the military, the Peace Corps, AmeriCorps or some other approved national-service entity.

The way it stands now, not all strata of society serve the nation equally. It is incongruous and shameful that we take for granted that the under privileged and the poor alone should serve and defend the nation along side the most patriotic volunteers and military academy graduates.

A major advantage of a mandatory period of service is that all become at least minimally prepared to be citizen soldiers, or to assist first responders and other full-time law enforcement agencies. It has become obvious in recent years that the National Guard and Ready Reserve cannot shoulder the weight of all these commitments, nor can the Red Cross and other such relief agencies.

Another superb advantage of mandatory national service is educational. Most of our youth, and an embarrassingly high percentage of adults, know nothing of national or world geography, history, sociology, civics, cultures, or languages and other factors alien to their own immediate surroundings. (A recent poll showed hardly any member of Congress, and even fewer in a random sample of the general public, knew the difference between Shites, Sunnis, and Kurds -- and this after 3 1/2 years of war in Iraq.)

Service to this republic should not be portrayed as "a draft" -- synonymous in the minds of most as a one-way ticket to Iraq or some other battle front. From inception, this union has known that, to survive, all might have to become citizen soldiers at one time or another. That was an accepted fact of this grand experiment.

Since WWII, however, that necessary pride of service by all to this nation has waned until it is now accepted that there are some societal classes that need not serve the nation in even the areas of most minimum need, lest it divert them from some "greater career aspirations and goals." I need not name names.

National service, mandatory or otherwise, should be seen similar to life-long education, as an ongoing long-term commitment BY ALL AMERICANS to serve the nation in some very meaningful capacity in the areas where it is most needed -- NOT were it is most convenient to the individual.

That, my friends, is patriotism. If this is a surprise to most, then it is just as obvious we need to relearn what patriotism is. Words without action are meaningless, to paraphrase the scripture.

The media has proven itself just as under-educated and has not thus far helped shepherd a serious discussion about national service, or in fully understanding the concept and its implications -- not while running such headlines or captions as "Rangel Wants to Send Your Kids to War."

I truly believe that after a couple of generations of mandatory national service, our obligations, military and otherwise, to the destiny of humankind as temporary residents of this republic would again be seen as an accepted and necessary right of passage and educational experience without which an individual's life journey would be noticeably diminished, as would this nation in which we are all blessed to live.

As a 100% service-connected Vietnam era disable veteran, I ask all who read this to push their representatives and senators to propose and pass such legislation as soon as possible.

[kentuck]

67. Welcome brucef!

Look forward to your posts. I'm also a Vietnam vet.

[comsymp]

70. Very well said!

Cool heads and thoughtful comments are always welcome here (well, usually... okay, sometimes - but I like 'em). Glad you're here.

[UScitizen]

65. A honest debate.

Keep in mind the plan is to increase troop levels at this time.

The proponents of "stay the course" must be drawn into a honest debate.

That debate has three options. Genocide is the first, a draft with enough conscripts to lock down Iraq is second and last is withdrawal.

A large and growing percentage of the Iraqi population is against the occupation. We are not trying to kill just Al Qaeda but anyone willing to fight against the occupation. Success with this tactic will be an equivalent to genocide. Many consider "the bomb" the path to genocide but active military operations over a decade or more is the same.

Hopefully the first option will not be chosen.

The second choice "Iraqi lock down" is the current policy. Telling the wingers that if they are for "stay the course" then their kids will go too is a part of a necessary honest debate. The draft is the only way to bring that into focus.

That leaves withdrawal which should be done as quickly and safely as possible for our troops and the Iraqi people.