Kerry is really stretching credibility in claiming that Bush may bring back the draft. That could only happen in an extreme emergency, under which Kerry might also have to bring back the draft. To be fair to Kerry, his enlarging the military and plan for Iraq would make the draft somewhat less likely under his presidency.
All that being said, Kerry might feel he is doing the nation a service by either locking Bush into the "no draft" position, or making Bush pay a high price should it happen. This would be the Bush counterpart to Kerry being locked in on not raising taxes for people earning less than $200,000. I don't think saying Bush will create a "great potential" for the draft is the appropriate way to lock Bush down, however.
A Bush quote:
''Sometimes a show of force by one side can really clarify things."
That quote was favoring leaving Ariel Sharon alone to use military force in the West Bank and Gaza. The result has been less than clarifying. I think though that the real reason that Bush and his administration have stayed out is because they knew they couldn't match Clinton's personal ability to negotiate a deal, and didn't want the comparison to be so obvious.
Another excellent analogy, from the same website:
"If America were Iraq, What would it be Like?"
An ethical dilemma
A Democratic Congressman in a tight race in Oregon, David Wu, was involved in some kind of assault on an ex-girlfriend 28 years ago, as a college student. Neither Wu nor the woman will discuss the details - the woman never pressed charges. The question is whether this disqualifies him from re-election. Wu apologizes for his "inexcusable behavior" but is otherwise non-forthcoming. My take is he should either cooperate fully with questions so the world can judge him, or the woman could (anonymously, through reporters) let the world know what she thinks of him now, but absent either thing occurring, he's disqualified.