>>Uh, didn't O man say he wanted a national service? Gee, I seem to recall seeing him saying it.
>
>He didn't say it would be mandatory. You can bet there would have been a lot of noise about that, given that we are a nation of spoiled children.

Interestingly, most people tend to forget the War Powers Act of 1973 (passed by congress despite Nixon's veto). Since that time, U.S. presidents have violated it and invaded several countries including Lebanon, Grenada, and Panama without congressional approval. In October 2002 Congress (Joint Resolution 114) granted Bush authority to use any "necessary and appropriate" force against Iraq to protect America and its citizens. That was without returning to Congress for approval. Bush was actually one of the few who had permission ahead of time to do as he wanted. That is the fault of the congress in not looking ahead and making political decisions at the time (no one wanted to appear un-patriotic) which would later come back to haunt them.

What concerns me most, is not his plan for the Civilian national security force (I've posted previously in what sense I support that within limitations and roles and responsibilities and mandatory national service of some type for each person), but that no one has pinned him down to state what it means exactly, what it's role will be, and whether or not it would be mandatory. Why is that??????