Do I smell hypocrisy?

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration is expressing steadfast opposition to reviving the military draft despite the stress placed on America's all-volunteer force by large-scale operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"I just can't imagine it," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said last week when asked under what circumstances it might be necessary to resume the draft.

"As a matter of fact, despite all the talk about the stress on the force, today we still are having very good results with respect to recruiting and retention. And we do not have a problem of attracting and retaining the people we need in the military," Rumsfeld said.

No problems attracting people they need in the military? You say that, but you have the involuntary recall to action of people that already served. That sounds to me like they're short on volunteers for service. At least we've got time to build up an opposition. Congress is reluctant to reinstate the draft during an election year and there's very little support right now on the bills proposing to bring it back.
_ _ _ _ _ _
"We still believe, on America's 228th birthday, that freedom has the power to change the world," Bush said in remarks laced with references to God and the courageous character of the U.S. military.

"We are proud of our founders, but I know that the founders would be proud of America today," Bush said. "They would see a nation that is the world's foremost champion of liberty. They would see a nation which stands strong in the face of violent men."

Also, I think about what bush said at his speech about not being able to nogotiate with "terrorists."

"You can't talk sense to them. You can't negotiate with them. You cannot hope for the best with these people. We must be relentless and determined and do our duty."

Then, I think how much that sounds like one of those Islamic extremist terrorist guys that they talk about and am again reminded of how is words compare to horrible dictators like Francisco Franco (because the left like to compare him to Hitler and Franco... a lot).
Bush: "You are either with us, or against us."
Franco: "Those who are not with us are against us" (or something to that extent. I'm not going to bother looking it up. It's just a translation from Spanish anyways. I'm not even concerned because the comparison is made too often) Maybe it would be more orginal to go for something less overused like Ezra Pound's broadcasts to Italy. Someone also recommended Joseph DeMaistre and George Lincoln Rockwell.

Maybe something to look into? I enjoy a good critique of American policies, but I've seen to many Hilter/Third Reich or Franco/Fascism comparisons to really bother reading them. I mean, I'm an anarcha-feminist, so of course I enjoy reading good leftist literature, but a lot of it is really predictable and unorginal these days. If I can barely stand to listen to their crap, I doubt the moderates/ conservatives in power will take them seriously. Obviously it's a good thing that people are discussing and critiquing the government and stuff, but it doesn't do much good if you keep putting out the same crap all the time.

Honestly, if it didn't get through before, you should make your argument less cynical and more objective so more people will take it seriously. I really think that the leftist intelligentsia is too comfortable. It's like most of them live in a comfort bubble of wealth and have some kind of subcultural heirarchy that they do well in. It seems to me that most social change is coming from the result of poor and working class folks actually getting off their asses and doing stuff rather than this armchair/rich coffee house craptivism that seems to be dominating the left these days. Granted we need some intellectualalism to pump out criticism cure ignorance to help make social change, but something about the system just isn't working.