Posted on 09/22/2004 4:55:02 PM PDT by RedBloodedAmerican
Bud Beck, of the Bud Beck Show, Mountain Laurel Review, and Political Gateway, perpetrated an act of political misinformation and bigotry in his June 9, 2004 column, “Graduation Presents.”
He writes about his nephew who just graduated high school with honors, who comes from a “privileged” background, and identifies himself as Republican. Beck writes:
"I mentioned to him, causally of course as not to ruin his day or the festive atmosphere, about the possibility of him winding up in the army before he graduates from Ohio State. I received a blank stare. What was I talking about?
"I explained the Republican heroes in the White House, the Congress, and the Senate have introduced pending bills mandating the nation bring back the draft. "Right now there is pending draft legislation that is targeted to go into effect in the spring of 2005. "That’s right, the hated Draft will start once more in June 2005 - June 15 to be exact."
In the typical liberal fashion, Beck was trying to spew his liberal propaganda unto the impressionable ears of his Republican nephew, perhaps in an attempt to dissuade him from identifying with the Republican party.
Why do I suggest Bud Beck was “spewing liberal propaganda?” Beck continues to misinform:
"I went on to tell him the pending legislation in the Senate and the House (they are twin bills: Senate Bill 89 and HR 163) is timed so the program’s initiation (a new draft) can begin at early as Spring 2005 – just after the 2004 presidential election. "Steve didn’t know about these bills and neither did his father, my brother. Did you? And if you didn’t, why don’t you? Think about it!"
Liberals think all Republicans are stupid… even their own family. In the age of Al Gore’s Internet, simple research will trounce on Beck’s alleged facts.
Looking first at Senate Bill 89, one can quickly and easily note that this bill was introduced on January 7, 2003 by Senator Fritz Hollings (D-South Carolina).
Now, looking at HR 163, one will note the names on the bill introduced the same day that Senator Hollings introduced SB 89:
Representatives Charles Rangel (D-New York), Jim McDermott (D-Washington), John Conyers (D-Michigan), John Lewis (D-Georgia), Pete Stark (D-California) and Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii).
My Gosh! Look at all those Republicans. Are all Republican schemes perpetrated by Democrats? The hate and lies continue:
"George Bush needs the draft and George Bush wants the draft. George Bush will tell us the draft is necessary for us to maintain our national security. On the surface most people would be inclined to believe him, too."
A simple news search on your portal of choice, or even the George W. Bush website, yields no such substance to that claim. Beck placated himself by reminding his readers of the falsehood that President Bush avoided the draft:
"George Bush, like my nephew Steven, was a son of privilege. He saw no reason to 'squander' his life so he didn't. Instead his father used certain political favors and had George quietly moved over 150,000 applicants and accepted into the Texas Air National Guard. Back then, aside from going to Canada, the Guard and the Reserves were havens for draft dodgers. "Right now the same man who avoided his draft along with officials in his administration that also avoided their military obligation, are all quietly trying to get these bills passed. Do you see a certain irony here?"
Beck obviously has motives to propagate the belief that President Bush is quietly advocating the draft, when, in fact, there are seven Democrats in Congress who are not shy to admit their desire to reinstate the draft.
To further prove Beck’s misinformation, I looked up some of the things that the sponsors of the twin bills had to say about the man Beck assumes is conspiring with them:
Senator Hollings has vehemently trashed Bush’s Middle East policies.
Representative Rangel has called on Congress to impeach Bush’s Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and has rallied with President Bush’s opponent John Kerry.
Representative McDermott has insisted that Bush lied to gain favor for the war in Iraq and that Saddam Hussein’s capture was staged. He has also marched with anti-war protesters while accusing Bush of trying to be Emperor.
Representative Conyers hosted a meeting of anti-Bush advocates to discuss impeaching the President.
Representative Lewis endorses Senator John Kerry’s run for president and says he "cannot trust the Bush Administration to do the right thing."
Representative Stark, on the eve of the initial bombing of Baghdad, called the plan to bomb Baghdad "an act of terrorism."
Representative Abercrombie, while at a Howard Dean rally, described Bush as a "right-wing, Fascist, reactionary."
These don’t sound like the words of Congressmen who are working at the behest of the President–these are the words of men who despise President Bush–they are Bush Haters. They despise him so much, that they are the ones pushing legislation to reinstate a politically damaging military draft in an attempt to purport the notion that President Bush is the one who supports and needs this legislation. Liberal opportunists like Bud Beck continuing to profess this liberal propaganda to the like-minded, as well attempt to derail some right-minded young republicans by wrongfully suggesting the way it is being done.
If we need a draft-–which I don’t think we do-–than it should be the honor and privilege of any and all citizens to serve this great nation. It is not something to shy away from, shun, or belittle. This country gives its citizens all the opportunities and privileges the world has to offer, and many risk their lives to achieve the same freedom. Freedom is not free, and sometimes you need to risk your life to protect it. After witnessing over 3,000 lives lost in a single day on 9/11, how could anyone reject the defense of the United States of America?
Mr. Beck, tell your nephew he has nothing to fear–the draft is not some Republican scheme, and at this point in time, the President you so strongly dislike has not supported the reinstatement of the draft. Just because you hate Republicans doesn’t give you the right to tell vicious lies to propagate your hate. I invite you to tell your nephew the following truths:
1) HR 163 & SB 89 were introduced and sponsored by Democrats–-not Republicans. (You can then apologize to your nephew for scaring him with your lies and bigotry.)
2) The draft is not a death sentence, it should be perceived as an invitation to honor and dignity. To look at military service as anything less is spitting on all men and women, past and present, who have served our country.
3) We all owe our country a debt of gratitude for the rights and privileges we’ve come to take for granted–and there is no better way to repay that debt than to serve your country, especially when asked. The military has produced some of the finest examples of Americans.
While conservatives have repeatedly debunked this, and many other liberal "revisionisms," never have I heard of a liberal apologizing for his or her fouled escapades. I hope Mr. Beck forwards the truth to his young Republican nephew, and apologizes for his blatant hatred of Republicans. I hope to hear that the apology and admission of guilt will occur as soon as possible, not only to your nephew, but to all your readers.
Interesting read.
Ping.
They are counting on the ignorance of the public, especially the young, to sucessfully propagate this spin. It is truely a loathsome performance by them.
Excellent read... Fox needs to do a story on this issue... NOW...
An excellent read about the draft.
Fox news should do an exclusive indepth report of this call it "Proud to Serve".
It's not just the draft. Check the title and the text of
HR 163. It's National Service.
Ask Kerry & Edwards, who pretend to oppose the Draft, if
they also oppose National Service.
_____________________
Standard summary #4F:
Yes there are draft proposals, almost all Democrat,
such as HR 163, which is entirely Dem.
They have NOTHING to do with military manpower requirements.
As intended-to-fail proposals, they are straw men set up
so that Kerry+Edwards can promise to oppose them (even
though they probably support them - see below). When do
you need to worry about what Kerry's plans are on an
issue? When he takes a position, any position.
Bush already opposes draft proposals, but don't expect
the legacy media to tell you this. They also won't pass
either the House or the Senate, but Bush wouldn't sign
them if they did.
As serious proposals, "draft" revival proposals have
everything to do with Universal National Service -
stealing two years from every life, then 3, then 4,
and why stop there ...
And National Service has nothing to do with service.
It has everything to do with indoctrination of the slaves.
Which means that if the "progressives" ever get control
again, kiss your liberty goodbye.
From HR 163: "...or a period of civilian service in
furtherance of the national defense and homeland
security, and for other purposes."
"other purposes"
The Democrats would love to bring back slavery.
Egalitarian slavery, but slavery all the same
(except for their own kids, of course).
BTTT
I think that if Kerry wins, you will need the Draft to meet minimum enlistment in any branch of the Service.
My son wants to join the Marines, he is 18 and can do as he pleases, but he should wait until after the election to decide. My reasoning is that if Kerry wins, I don't think my son would want to join the U.N. Marines.
I agree that there's good information in this article, but I think it's poorly arranged.
An old maxim applies: Bottom line up front.
Not only are you 3 to 4 paragraphs into the article before you realize that it's not the Republicans who are pushing a draft, but the 1st few paragraphs in being coy, actually give the impression that it's those dirty Republicans.
Some people read no further than the 1st few paragraphs, so I'd rearrange the article a bit.
Absolutely nothing wrong with the article other than that criticism.
Their real motive was to stop the war. They were trying to popularize the notion that we could not have a war unless we were going to have a draft. Seems reasonable. Afterall, we've never had a war without a draft before--at least no significant war.
I'm sure that they knew Bush would get the blame for both the war and the draft, so obviously that was part of it. But the main idea was to popularize the notion that if we had a war, the draft was inevitable.
For all the reasons the Defense establishment is on record opposing the draft--it is not economic to make real soldiers out of draftees in the modern world. Not necessary either--you make pay and benefits sufficient to induce enlistment and then you don't need the draft.
All said, it is a reasonable argument that George will need an expansion of military forces and attempt to get it by installing conscription because it would be cheaper. If George does not intend to reinstitute the draft, all he has to do is get the Selective Service Registration Act repealed. The young people of the era are well informed and have heard all the arguments about it being only liberal dems who support the draft bill and the response is that if Bush really opposes the draft, he gets rid of Registration. If he does not do so, they all vote for Kerry.
Ping to post and link................
Beck in June 8 column
I explained the Republican heroes in the White House, the Congress, and the Senate have introduced pending bills mandating the nation bring back the draft.
Beck in June 14 column (after Margolis response)
He cried foul not because it wasn't true. He cried foul because Democrats introduced both bills. True enough but how does that make me a bigot? And, how does the fact Democrats introduced the bills make what I said about the Republican heroes of the Bush administration, Georgie Bush himself, any less eager to have their draft and continue their wars on the world?
Actually, it makes him a liar.
I call the Dems, and raise -- let's bring this puppy to the floor, and see how many of them actually want to vote for it!
The DOD does not want any part of a draft. All branches of the military will LOSS if the draft is re-instated.
DAMN IT. The military talked the law makers into abandoning the draft and providing a the funds to create an all volunteer military, so that we would only have those that want to serve would be trained. Thereby:
* Insuring that we have a strong and reliabile military.
* Not waste man power resources on training those that hate the military to try to turn them into fighting men/women.
* Not waste huge amounts of tax dollars on trying to train people who do not wish to serve honorably.
* One benifit of not having a draft is that there is much less chance of having another Big John Kerry help the enemy
win the war.
Those that sign up. Sign up willingly. They take the oath to protect the United States of America. They take the oath
to protect the Constitution of the United States. And they
hang their hides out on the line when they are required to go into harms way!
Those bills as many have said above are simply clever attempts by the far left to further weaken our nation.
GWB better make this clear, if it comes up in the debates,
that is if the debates will happen. After all Lurch's voice is going grok.....pretty soon he will only be able to speak French at his rallies.....His advisers will use his failing voice as a clever excuse to beg out of the debates,
just you wait and see. Then again maybe since he is a stranger in a strange land (still free) maybe all he will be able to say is grok............grok that?
It's not a W program and both the White House and the Pentagon have repeatedly denied the need for an active draft.
Repealing the Selective Service Registration Act is something that would have to start in the Congress anyway.
That said, I'm firmly opposed to the draft myself. I see it as a form of slavery. If you can't get enough of your young people to defend your country, maybe it isn't worth defending.
For the record, I'm a two-term veteran of the US Navy. I volunteered, and I wouldn't have wanted someone beside me on the deck of an aircraft carrier that didn't want to be there.
Dems went quiet.
Most recently, Kerry and Murtha spewing about a "secret" post-election deploymentplan. Same day the "secret" was revealed in American MSM; dittos MSM in Britain, nearly identical, going after Blair. Same ruse; two countries; same problem -- MSM who didn't even bother to check the Selective Service website; much less ASK the Bush Administration directly. And if MSM reporters DID ask.. they certainly DID NOT CARRY the denials in the same article as the "draft" propoganda. Only a couple of smaller, local newspapers carried the strong, vehement and clear denials by Bush Admin of "a draft". So now, there's this "big secret" -- of a "super secret" deployment to take place after the election. Is MSM clarifying or fact checking this? NO. They are merely spewing the anti-Bushie "gnus" and conspiracy.
All it would take is a call to the Pentagon to reveal (what I and most military ALREADY know) -- these deployments are on routine schedule; nothing secret about it.
In Re National Guard and Reserves -- most have been in standby mode for over a year.
Again, the MSM is not doing any fact checking in re these rumors.
Bias? What Bias? ...
There are lots of draftees like myself who served honorably in defending this nation. Beware of over generalizing.
I agree. I think from the link, at the bottom it says the author is 23-ish? Has good points, but I agree with you.
And speaking of the Swiss Model of Defense, check out this thread from May of 2001, it's an oldie but a goodie! I had to pull it out of the ole memory hole! Enjoy...
Swiss Gun Laws- and some rebuttal to HCI "spin"-- Thread II
I pinged a few people from that thread if you're wondering what brought you here.
My 17 yr old nephew is a Marine Recruit right now, in his third week at Parris Island. He enlisted while he was still in highschool. I am so proud of him, but, also have alot of other mixed emotions...
God Bless him, and keep him safe.
This is such an easy kill for Bush.
He just needs to stand up in the debates and say he will never, ever introduce a draft.
Then he can say, it is the Democrats who have proposed this in the House and in the Senate. Mr. Kerry, I'm assuming these Democratic House and Senate members would want you to implement these bills and implement a draft if you are elected President.
Let the MTV ads run for awhile (scare the college kids enough) and then run your own ads saying the Democrats want to implement a new Draft in 2005 if Kerry is elected. President Bush has stated that he would never, ever introduce a Draft.
The Dems totally set themselves up again.
Both Kerry and Edwards have proposed civilian service for high school students as a prerequisite to graduation. No community service = no diploma.
> ... Kerry and Edwards have proposed civilian service for
> high school students as a prerequisite to graduation.
Got a link or reference on that?
I'd love to fold it into my stock response on this.
>>Got a link or reference on that?
I knew that was coming. Back during the primaries, both of them had it on their websites, and it is probably still searchable. Try Google first. If you can't find the links, then try Graymatter. :)
Kerry has removed a page, formerly at:
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/natservice
and still referenced by disidents at:
http://www.comdsd.org/article_archive/JustasUrgent.htm
"(II) A MANDATORY HIGH SCHOOL SERVICE REQUIREMENT.
As President, John Kerry will ensure that every
high school student in America does community
service as a requirement for graduation. . . ."
The current K+E National Service is more watered down:
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_service/
The truth about the Kerry scare ads, as usual, is
the EXACT OPPOSITE of what the ads are saying.
The typical "accuse your enemies of what you are doing",
in this case, hiding a secret plan for civil draft.
The writer has the goods on the Dem candidates, and has updated info, reporting on how the candidates webwash their sites when it suits them. Here's a sample: "Kerry just moved his threat to another part of his site where he can direct bigots while hiding it from our visitors. His threat against American youth is now found at http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/ 100days/communityservice_high.html "
Naturally, that link is no longer working, but some others are. The one nailing Edwards, that's still good.
Thank you! That's much better searching than I could do!
You are right and in time the Dems will be exposed.
> The one nailing Edwards, that's still good.
http://www.senate.gov/~edwards/issues/educ/service.html
" School Service Act of 2002
Senator John Edwards
Support States that Require Service as a Condition
of High School Graduation"
Amazing. Did these clowns think we still lived in a
legacy-media-controlled paper world when they hatched
the draft ads?
DITTO!
Okay, this is one of those lies the Left keeps repeating, and so far, I have heard no one give a real challenge to this.
People joining the Reserves do so knowing full well that they can be called to active duty any time! Being in the Reserves in no way prevents or protects someone from going on active duty or into a war zone. Just ask all the Reservists who have gone to Iraq! To equate Reservists to draft dodgers (in order to try to make a political point) is a huge insult, hugh, even!
On a related note, I've met several Reservists who would love to go active duty. There isn't enough room for them in the regular service. In some military jobs, only one in ten can actually transfer to active duty. One woman I talked to had been trying to go active for two years. What in the world do we need a draft for?
(SEE RAT POST) What's all this OTHER they are pulling over there? - The Draft is very real. Please hang this flyer EVERYWHERE! Dems Will Win (1000+ posts) posted Mon Sep-20-04 12:19 PM
Original message
Timeline shows truth of Impending Bush Draft in 2005
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2373651
BUMP!
And rebump!
As always, Charlie is a few fries short of a happy meal.
A few nuts in excess of a snickers bar...
But since I can't look at someone and determine whether they want to be there or not, I'd rather not risk it.
You're already going to be doing dangerous things. Why look for trouble?
It provides them a whole new group of victims and a new, invaluable tool to divide the country.
bttt
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.