Skip to comments.Jan. 2003: Democrats Criticize Rumsfeld Comments About Why There Will Be No Draft
Posted on 09/22/2004 1:49:08 PM PDT by crushkerry
Kerry Spreads Draft Lie John Kerry today hinted that a 2nd Bush term would cause the draft to return. This is of course, nonsense. In fact, Democrats criticized Donald Rumsfeld when he said, in January, 2003, that there would be no draft because draftees would add "no value" and "no advantage" to the military.
What's next, Kerry's plan to wipe out the national debt by first sending money to M Sese Seko to invest?
Universal National Service Act of 2003 (Introduced in House)
H. R. 163
To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 7, 2003
Mr. RANGEL (for himself, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. STARK, and Mr. ABERCROMBIE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services
Good for Rummy. Keep it up.
Yet another flip-flop.
We have some freeper around here who constantly pretends to be worried about a draft. Despite our giving him links that the administration has repeatedly said they are meeting or exceeding enlistment goals.
The only way the Democrats can win now is to frighten people. They are in full blown panic mode now.
If you didnt notice. That bill was a dems bill and not a gop bill.
The bills are not being pushed. It's quite true that the two bills mentioned would require both men and women aged 18 through 25 to perform a two-year period of "national service," which incidentally could be either military or non-military service. But the bills are sponsored only by Democrats, and there's not the slightest evidence that the Bush administration is pushing for them, quietly or otherwise.
One bill is HR 163 , whose principle sponsor is Democratic Rep. Charles Rangel of New York. It has 14 co-sponsors, all of them Democrats in a Congress controlled by Republicans. The bill was dead on arrival: it sits in a House subcommittee with no hearings or votes scheduled and no action expected.
In fact, Rangel told FactCheck.org through his spokesman Emile Milne that even he isn't pushing for passage, let alone Bush (emphasis added):
Rep. Rangel: I'm not pushing this bill . It's up to the President to come to me when he needs it.
The identical Senate bill, S. 89 , introduced by Democratic Sen. Ernest Hollings, and also was DOA. Not one other senator has co-sponsored it. It also sits in committee with no action scheduled or expected.
Both bills in question were drawn up before the Iraq war started, mostly to make a political point. Rangel said he acted to highlight Democratic objections to use of military force against Saddam Hussein. He wrote , "I truly believe that decision-makers who support war would more readily feel the pain of conflict and appreciate the sacrifice of those on the front lines if their children were there, too."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.