First Order of Business for Democrats: The Draft

American Thinker ^ | November 10, 2006 | Ray Robison

[JavaJumpy]

On January 8th of 2003, Congressman Charles Rangel [D—NY] began an extensive campaign to bring back the military draft. He repeatedly submitted legislative bills to begin a military draft and compel all American men and women up to the age of forty—two to serve two years of military service. Under the Republican—controlled Congress, such bills went down to defeat.

One of the few notable supporters of the draft was Congressman John Murtha [D—PA]. Congressman Murtha reportedly is preparing to campaign to take over the highly influential position of House Majority Leader. Congressman Rangel is set to take over the House Ways and Means Committee. Two proponents of a military draft will most likely take over two key leadership positions in the new Democrat—contolled House. Surely they were not lying to America when they proposed a draft? They would not make such a serious proposal for a mere political cheap shot, would they?

As recently as last February of 2006, Rangel once again introduced draft legislation. In a press release he stated,

"Every day that the military option is on the table, as declared by the President in his State of the Union address, in Iran, North Korea, and Syria, reinstatement of the military draft is an option that must also be considered, whether we like it or not," Congressman Rangel said. "If the military is already having trouble getting the recruits they need, what can we do to fill the ranks if the war spreads from Iraq to other countries? We may have no other choice but a draft."

[JavaJumpy]

This sounds familiar:

"According to a press release from the new Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (D—CA) we can expect an escalation in fighting in Afghanistan. Congresswoman Pelosi said in a press release just a few weeks ago,

'President Bush's failure to finish the job against terrorism in Afghanistan before launching his ill—advised invasion of Iraq has made the lives of the Afghan people more difficult and the American people less safe. The war against terrorism is in Afghanistan, and unless the President makes winning that war an immediate priority, the risks to the security of the United States will continue to grow.'"

[CindyDawg]

Why do they want a draft?

[DB]

They think it will turn the public away from using our military power if people are forced to be apart of it.

In truth it is simply Democrats shooting themselves in in the head - again...

[hsalaw]

IIRC, that moron Rangel voted against his own bill. Are the dems born stupid, or does it happen later in life?

[2ndDivisionVet]

"Why do they want a draft?"

For all the wrong reasons: Darfur, Haiti, "peacekeeping" between Israel & so-called "Palestine", environmental cleanup, domestic uses, etc...

[SolidWood]

Disagree. They want to break down the US Forces by a) watering down the quality by a draft and b) have a replay of Vietnam. They want to fuel the dodger, refusenik and anti-war “movements”. With a draft you can forget about another US-led war abroad.

[chardonnay]

you answered your own question.

a permanent draft is one of the tenets of socialism. dems are just following the same manifesto.
speaking of manifestos...

where can i find that website that did such a beautiful job comparing the DNC agenda to the communist manifesto? Anyone? if you know of it, could you hare it with me?
me love you long time...

[perfect_rovian_storm]

They just want to gin up the public against the war. They barely get any traction with the anti-war protests. Only the same moonbats each time. But if they could get a draft going, they’d get some more normal people joining them.

In a sane world these idiots would be no threat at all. Here’s to wishing for a sane world someday... :)

[Nick5]

Wasn’t there a draft during WWII? The quality of the armed forces that won that war was certainly not watered down.

[pepsionice]

Whats interesting here...is that there is a pro-”drop them” effort in all four services. If you drafted a hundred guys and forty of them were not able to take discipline or assume orders...then they normally get dumped out of basic training. So congress might go out and draft 100,000 recruits a year, but its the volunteer force that DOD stands by and depends on. So congress would have to destroy the entire volunteer concept to have any marginal affect with this draft idea.

And I might add this comment. As much as congress or the liberal side might think that they can bring in a lousy bunch of American kids and tear apart DOD....I’d be thinking the opposite. We have lots of people in the service who change attitudes and make marginal performers into top-notch military leaders.

The real question here for the pro-draft crowd...if we come to your front door for your 21-year old daughter who is destined for a job after university graduation...and demand two years of active duty and two years of reserve duty...will you the congressman agree or will you play your “wavier” card around and get your own daughter out of the draft. This is the ultimate thrill of the draft....the big-daddy crowd gets their kids out of the line and protects them, via their congressmen or party chief. Thats one of the five reasons of the failure of the draft in the 1960s. We even know one of these characters...Bill Clinton.

[headstamp 2]

“Why do they want a draft?”

Strictly politics nothing more. The DemoLibs like to play politics with everything. If they actually did something sensible and constructive I'd be shocked.

They know a draft would create public agitation against any military action anywhere thus they believe they can live their Vietnam/1960’s/Antiwar wet dreams all over again.

[JavaJumpy]

I’ll see if I can find a source, but I thought it was to ensure the military was equal among races and social classes.

[2ndDivisionVet]

The Civil War/War Between the States, WWI, WWII, Korea, 1950s and Vietnam were all periods when Selective Service was utilized: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_the_United_States

[JavaJumpy]

www.theconservativevoice.com/article/20463.html

www.heritage.org/research/nationalsecurity/cda05-08.cfm

www.blackcommentator.com/24/24_commentary.html

[Candor7]

The US military is all volunteer. That means the men and women are patriots who want to serve their country. They make really good soldiers.The best.

The Dems want to disempower the military and its successes.

Part of the Dem plan is also to allow gays into the military , abandoning the don't ask don't tell policy. What that means is that there would be an exodus of patriots from the military who would refuse to serve with openly gay soldiers who suck on each other in their foxholes and bivouacs.Just google " Military Gays" with safe search off. You will see dozens of gay military porn sites, most sponsored by money from the Pinkos.

In addition to that, the Dems also are sponsoring a " Fallen Hero Commemoration Act" which will allow the MSM to photograph the coffins of fallen soldiers as they enter the US on military aircraft, in order to exploit their sacridfices to bring the US public against the war on Islamofascism.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2062737/posts?page=36#36

There is a concerted effort by the Dems to ruin the US military.

And the Dems will NOT get the military vote, they know that.So they want to ruin the military as a patriot voting block.

The Dems could care less about defending our nation, or about projecting freedom overseas.

The Dems are therefore cruising to get a bruising on the issue. It is their answer to the success of the surge in Iraq. The Dems are out of touch with America, which has developed citizens love for those who serve.

Its all combined a story waiting to be told.

Wait until Murtha is unseated in November!

[Candor7]

I agree 100%.

[Hugin]

Wasn’t there a draft during WWII? The quality of the armed forces that won that war was certainly not watered down.

In WWII half the young people in the country weren't morons or brainwashed lefties.

[AnotherUnixGeek]

"Every day that the military option is on the table, as declared by the President in his State of the Union address, in Iran, North Korea, and Syria, reinstatement of the military draft is an option that must also be considered, whether we like it or not," Congressman Rangel said. "If the military is already having trouble getting the recruits they need, what can we do to fill the ranks if the war spreads from Iraq to other countries? We may have no other choice but a draft."

Actually, every report I've seen says the military is getting the recruits it needs with ease, but if the Democrats want to commit political suicide with this issue then hopefully Republicans will be smart enough to get out of their way.

[dragnet2]

They want to break down the US Forces by a) watering down the quality by a draft and b) have a replay of Vietnam.

If they could speak, I think the 18,000 that were drafted and died fighting in Vietnam would strongly disagree with your, "Watered down" comment.

If you're ever in a group of Vietnam era vets, it would be advisable to keep your comments to yourself.

[AF_Blue]

They are, and the recruits are waiting in line for available positions. The military is limited in size by Congress. If Congress wants a larger military, authorize it and they will come.