I have a number of times mentioned that some members of the Democratic Party have been dishonestly spreading rumours about a pending draft. They imply it is being planned behind the scenes in the current administration and will be unveiled after the election if Bush wins. In fact, the only activity behind the noise is a Bill backed by a handful of extremist Democrats and introduced by Democratic Party slavery advocate Charles Rangel.
I have been reading quotes from DOD briefings for almost four years now. Every time the issue comes up, DOD officials diplomatically state it is a bad idea and they do not want it. I believe the continuing appearance of this outright lie all across America is beginning to wear bureaucratic diplomacy thin. Here is a portion of the transcript of Donald Rumsfeld with Albuquerque’s KKOB-AM Radio host Jim Villanucci:
Q: We’re talking with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld at the
Pentagon. Secretary, there’s been a lot of discussion, I know, and this is a very
political question, but I’ll ask you anyway, because it will become your decision,
ultimately. Will there be a draft? Do you see any present situation where we
might reinstitute a draft in the United States?SEC. RUMSFELD: There isn’t a chance in the world. It is clearly mischievous. Somebody is going around spreading that nonsense. There’s a couple of congressmen and maybe a senator or two who’ve put in bills to reinstitute the draft. I am dead set against it. President Bush is dead set against it. It simply is not going to happen. And the perpetrating of that myth I think is unfortunate. We don’t need a draft. My goodness, we’ve got, what, 295 million people in this country and we’ve got a 1.4 million on active duty. We can certainly attract and retain the people we need and we are attracting and retaining the people we need. And if we can’t, all we have to do is change the incentives, so that we are a more attractive place for people to come.
The next time someone tells you the current administration is going to re-instate the draft… tell them their source is an intentional, blatant and provable liar.
And the people pushing the bill in the House are two Democrats who are doing it just to be naughty….
bad little dems, bad!
It really is quite disturbing what the media and lefty pundits are saying about this. Kerry even tried to slip it in during the debate. It is a disgusting strategy that we must keep on our toes about.
I have a list of the congress members who support it on my site, as well as the details of the bills.
Honestly, I wouldn’t trust Kerry not to reinstate the draft, were he elected. First, he would have to do something as as “look tough” and avoid looking like an international pushover. Second, he wants rid of the Iraq war quickly. Third, a draft would be totally in keeping with the democrat agenda of “centralize, socialize, nationalize”. A draft basically nationalizes labour, and it could morph smoothly into compulsory non-military “national service”.
It’s a well known psychological thinagamajig, for plotters to accuse others of plotting…
check this link: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:H.R.163:
it outlines hr163, the bill to be voted on after the election (regardless of who wins). make sure you see the republicans and democrats who introduced it as well as the others who support it.
democrats and republicans. americans.
To be bluntly honest, the military does not want ANY draftees.
We have enough people on active duty, and there is a reduction in quality. They would also be a leadership problem, because suddenly there is a large number of unwilling personel, that require far different motivation than an all volunteer military.
I think the only interesting political question about the reinstating the draft, which I agree will not happen, short of a horrifying emergency here at home, is the position of feminist organizations. NOW has opposed the draft, because war is violent, but has been in favor of drafting women should the draft be reinstated. I think that is a bluff; I don’t believe the majority of feminists would support drafting women. I don’t know about the other feminist organizations. I do believe we have a world of hypocrisy bespoken by a generation who think citizenship is awarded through entitlement and would reject the notion that they owe something to the nation.
There will probably be a major push after 2008, esp. if a Dem candidate wins, for some form of national service. This would fit in with a very common requirement in many secondary schools that seniors complete a service project in order to graduate.
I tend to think that there would be a range of options, including military, social service, educational, and ecological postings.
Everyone, male and female, would register at 18 and serve for 2-3 years after selecting their preferences.
I suspect it will become law because there will be a tremendous need for social service workers at a low wage level to help wipe the rears of millions of incontinent boomers as they take advantage of every possible medical advance to prolong their utterly precious lives to the last possible second.
For the record, I oppose this entire program root and branch. I would hope to take Edward G’s route in “Soylent Green”, but I don’t think I would make a very good cookie.
… tell them their source is an intentional, blatant and provable liar…
But enough of Donald (what torture?) Rumsfeld.
The draft debate took a strange turn in the USA when C-BS demonstrated once again while it is the official proganda arm of the Democrats by broadcasting a story spinning the draft story without mentioning the only people pushing it were democrats nor that the woman featured in the story was an Democrat appartchek. I expect US media will produce more stories in a similar vein before the election in November in an effort to make for for CBS failure with its national guard “scandal” story.
Mr. Andrea:
I looked at the list of co-sponsors for H.R. 163, the bill authorizing a draft, and I saw 1 Democratic sponsor, 14 Democratic co-sponsors, 1 Democratic former co-sponsor, and no Republicans at all.
For the record, the Democratic sponsor is Charles Rangel; the Democratic co-sponsors are Neil Abercrombie, Corrine Brown, Donna Christensen, William Lacy Clay, John Conyers, Elijah Cummings, Alcee Hastings, Jesse Jackson Jr., Sheila Jackson-Lee, John Lewis, Jim McDermott, James Moran, Fortney Pete Stark, and Nydia Velazquez; and the Democratic former co-sponsor is Eleanor Holmes Norton.
H.R. 163 has not even made it out of subcommittee yet. It is not going to be voted on before the election, or afterwards either.
To round out the Democrats’ involvement with the draft–
– as noted above, only two bills are pending to reinstate it, sponsored and co-sponsored only by Democrats. Yes. it was a publicity stunt that fell flat. Nevertheless the bills remain active, as the sponsors have not withdrawn them.
– the military absolutely DOES NOT want conscripts.
– CBS touted the rumor without also stating that it had been publicly discredited. See factcheck.com. They also failed to note that the nominally nonpartisan Rock the Vote organization that circulated it is dominated by Kerry partisans.
– the e-mail campaign, the CBS segment and a Kerry speech suggesting the possibility of a draft if Bush were re-elected all coincided in time.
– Kerry used to have his compulsory national service plan on his website, but removed it. You can read the text here.
In short, the Democrats have come the closest to advocating a draft, yet CBS helped Kerry paint it as a Republican secret plan.
“We can certainly attract and retain the people we need …”
Google ‘stop loss’ to see what Rumbo meant, there. The army doesn’t want involuntary volunteers? It sure needs ’em, though!
Adhib
Sorry. Doesn’t count. Stop Loss is part of the deal you sign up for when you put the pen to paper and then put up your arm and swear in. If you don’t like it you don’t sign up. That is voluntary contract. Just because you don’t like the contract after the fact means diddly. I’ve read my credit card contract and it is full of clauses and and whereas’ etc, ad nauseum. I signed it, it is my problem.
I do not feel sorry for any serviceman who doesn’t like the Stop Loss actually hitting them. It’s a fact of service life that in war time you don’t necessarilly get out when you think you will. It’s in the fine print.
Well, actually, as I understand it, it’s more in plain ordinary print.
Well, I was incorrect to say that H.R. 163 would not be voted on before or after the election. It was voted on yesterday.
And it failed by a vote of 2 to 402. Among the representatives who voted against it was the main sponsor, Charles Rangel.