I agree, no guarantees. It was an 'mild' overstatement on my part. However, Bush is still virtually assured re-election despite a historic US deficit/debt (which shows no signs of abatement) - with a number of prominent American economists concerned that job gains are still falling substantially short and out of pace with the recent US economic uptick. Universally, the electorate tends to be myoptic. Another catastrophic terrorist attack on US soil (virtual certainty that it will happen sometime in the not so distant future), and this will catapult Bush even further. And Bush does operate in a vacuum (which sets him aside from recent US presidents), as already proven to the World at large when he launched his illegal and personal war against Iraq for the expressed purpose to unseat Saddam (which his father could not or would not do). No WMD's or evidence that Iraq aggessively supported terrorism (very bad blood between Saddam and al Qaeda and other Arab terrorist organizations), hmmm. Paranoid, hmmm. Then the World is filled to the brim with us, and we fall within the full political spectrum. CBC, BBC, MSNBC and CNN have discussed and continue to discuss these very issues, along these lines. The Washington Post must be staffed by paranoid writers and editors as they have asked many of the same questions. Further, Syria is still not really cooperating, and will never part with their WMD's (chemical and possible biological weapons that Iraq lacked in recent years, but Syria currently has), or significantly tone down their stance against Israel - they are still at war with a hostile nuclear power. Talks with North Korea (DPRK) are not going all that well, according to a number of international affairs experts I've been listening to in the mainstream media. DPRK will never give up the bomb. Kim has too much to win in keeping the bomb, and potentially so much to lose if he gives it up - they are still at war with a hostile nuclear power. Recent activity at one of DPRK's facilities has South Korea and Japan a bit concerned. And Iran nuclear inspections are not as thorough as the World had wanted - although Irani nuclear weapons capability would serve as Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) stance against the Middle East's only nuclear power and antagonist to the Arab World, Israel. However, only considering Canada, Saddam was never a significant clear and present danger to Canada. Bush is. The threat of the Bush Administration to Canada is recognized by virtually all of Canada (including even our new Prime Minister, Paul Martin). The US tends to not honour international agreements when they do not favour the US even when the US acted improperly (an example, being the illegal softwood countervailing tarriffs that the US imposed on Canada - to name just one where we were vindicated by the WTO). Being the larger country, the US can sit these out until it resolved by the WTO years later - hoping that Canada (or some other country) will fold on the trade issue. And, Bush (albeit not insane or inherently evil as Saddam) still presents a greater 'potential' danger to the World, than Saddam ever could. World opinion (as seen in many polls taken around the World) seems to support this.

And, the US draft can always easily make a comeback. The US is at war (War on Terrorism which has been described as WWIV, where WWIII was the "Cold War") - a crusade that will last years, if not (and probably) decades (as it is unwinable, as history tells us). And a large percentage of US soldiers polled, suggested that they will not re-enlist. Fighting a majour global war on multiple fronts, if the US military staffing falls short, are you saying that Bush would not consider the draft to ensure "victory" or otherwise face possible defeat? If they open up a new front (as a number of pundits suggest may happen if 2005), then a comeback of the draft is a virtual forgone conclusion if not enough US soldiers re-enlist. I cannot see it as a political hot potato, as enough Americans (largely neocons and religious extremeists who do not question Bush or his administration, and accept all that Bush says and does as the Gospel) will stay with their man in the Oval Office. But we'll see how things shape up in a year and half to two years when Bush does not have to face re-election again - then the proverbial gloves will be off.

----
Cheers,

Dan
Founder and CEO

LionsGate Creative
GoodPassRobot
Magelln