Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

HR 163 (Draft bill?) (Vanity)
http://thomas.loc.gov/ ^ | Trampled by Lambs

Posted on 09/22/2004 9:26:17 AM PDT by Trampled by Lambs

My wife forwarded me an email regarding HR 163 which is a bill put before congress Jan 7, 2003 which apparently would allow a draft of men and women by 2005.

I won't post the email since it was riddled with typical sky-is-falling and anti-Bush comments but I am curious about the bill so I thought I'd throw it out here and see what you all think.

You can go to http://thomas.loc.gov/ and search for HR 163 and read the bill itself. The email claimed that the Bush Admin. is hushing this up and trying to keep it low-key till after the election.

I do have an 18 year old son. While I don't want him in harm's way, of course, I do realize that if the WoT escalates or remains a "long, hard slog", we may not have a choice in the matter.


TOPICS: War on Terror; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: congress; draft; hr163; warofterror

1 posted on 09/22/2004 9:26:18 AM PDT by Trampled by Lambs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Trampled by Lambs

I think that that's Rangel's Bill -- nothing to do with the Republican majority, and not going anywhere


2 posted on 09/22/2004 9:28:05 AM PDT by expatpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Trampled by Lambs
When you get this sort of crap in your in-box, you should check it out via Snopes.com.
3 posted on 09/22/2004 9:28:10 AM PDT by Izzy Dunne (Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Trampled by Lambs
"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."

Notice who the sponsors and cosponsors for this bill are? All Democrats.

4 posted on 09/22/2004 9:28:12 AM PDT by COEXERJ145 (Hannity Was Right, FReepers Tend To Eat Their Own)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Trampled by Lambs

Look at the sponsors and co-sponsors of the bill, and it's companion bill in the Senate (S89). They're all liberal Democrats.

These bills have about as much chance of getting out of committee (let alone passing), as I do of winning the next Boston Marathon. ZERO.

Tell your friends who are concerned about the draft to vote out the DEMOCRATS... who are the ONLY ones supporting the legislation.


5 posted on 09/22/2004 9:28:34 AM PDT by So Cal Rocket (Proud Member: Internet Pajama Wearers for Truth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Trampled by Lambs

It was introduced by two far-left Dems, I think to make Bush look bad and shake up people. For the lowdown in this, go to:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/draft.asp


6 posted on 09/22/2004 9:28:35 AM PDT by 3AngelaD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #7 Removed by Moderator

To: Trampled by Lambs

Check the authors of that bill. If you see a (D) after their names (and you will), you can consider it a campaign tactic. Judging by the way MTV has been whoring the story in their advertisements, the draft lie is starting to bear fruit.

APf


8 posted on 09/22/2004 9:28:59 AM PDT by APFel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Trampled by Lambs

PLEASE do a FR search before you panic.

It was proposed by Democrats. Also please send the information you find to all of those you e-mailed and the sender of this propaganda.


9 posted on 09/22/2004 9:29:09 AM PDT by netmilsmom (Does a clean house indicate that there is a broken computer in it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Trampled by Lambs

Standard summary #4F:

Yes there are draft proposals, almost all Democrat.

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.

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.


10 posted on 09/22/2004 9:29:33 AM PDT by Boundless
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Trampled by Lambs

Universal National Service Act of 2003 (Introduced in House)

HR 163 IH


108th CONGRESS

1st Session

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







A BILL
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.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) SHORT TITLE- This Act may be cited as the `Universal National Service Act of 2003'.

(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS- The table of contents for this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

Sec. 2. National service obligation.

Sec. 3. Two-year period of national service.

Sec. 4. Implementation by the President.

Sec. 5. Induction.

Sec. 6. Deferments and postponements.

Sec. 7. Induction exemptions.

Sec. 8. Conscientious objection.

Sec. 9. Discharge following national service.

Sec. 10. Registration of females under the Military Selective Service Act.

Sec. 11. Relation of Act to registration and induction authority of Military Selective Service Act.

Sec. 12. Definitions.

SEC. 2. NATIONAL SERVICE OBLIGATION.

(a) OBLIGATION FOR YOUNG PERSONS- It is the obligation of every citizen of the United States, and every other person residing in the United States, who is between the ages of 18 and 26 to perform a period of national service as prescribed in this Act unless exempted under the provisions of this Act.

(b) FORM OF NATIONAL SERVICE- National service under this Act shall be performed either--

(1) as a member of an active or reverse component of the uniformed services; or

(2) in a civilian capacity that, as determined by the President, promotes the national defense, including national or community service and homeland security.

(c) INDUCTION REQUIREMENTS- The President shall provide for the induction of persons covered by subsection (a) to perform national service under this Act.

(d) SELECTION FOR MILITARY SERVICE- Based upon the needs of the uniformed services, the President shall--

(1) determine the number of persons covered by subsection (a) whose service is to be performed as a member of an active or reverse component of the uniformed services; and

(2) select the individuals among those persons who are to be inducted for military service under this Act.

(e) CIVILIAN SERVICE- Persons covered by subsection (a) who are not selected for military service under subsection (d) shall perform their national service obligation under this Act in a civilian capacity pursuant to subsection (b)(2).

SEC. 3. TWO-YEAR PERIOD OF NATIONAL SERVICE.

(a) GENERAL RULE- Except as otherwise provided in this section, the period of national service performed by a person under this Act shall be two years.

(b) GROUNDS FOR EXTENSION- At the discretion of the President, the period of military service for a member of the uniformed services under this Act may be extended--

(1) with the consent of the member, for the purpose of furnishing hospitalization, medical, or surgical care for injury or illness incurred in line of duty; or

(2) for the purpose of requiring the member to compensate for any time lost to training for any cause.

(c) EARLY TERMINATION- The period of national service for a person under this Act shall be terminated before the end of such period under the following circumstances:

(1) The voluntary enlistment and active service of the person in an active or reverse component of the uniformed services for a period of at least two years, in which case the period of basic military training and education actually served by the person shall be counted toward the term of enlistment.

(2) The admission and service of the person as a cadet or midshipman at the United States Military Academy, the United States Naval Academy, the United States Air Force Academy, the Coast Guard Academy, or the United States Merchant Marine Academy.

(3) The enrollment and service of the person in an officer candidate program, if the person has signed an agreement to accept a Reserve commission in the appropriate service with an obligation to serve
on active duty if such a commission is offered upon completion of the program.


(4) Such other grounds as the President may establish.

SEC. 4. IMPLEMENTATION BY THE PRESIDENT.

(a) IN GENERAL- The President shall prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out this Act.

(b) MATTER TO BE COVERED BY REGULATIONS- Such regulations shall include specification of the following:

(1) The types of civilian service that may be performed for a person's national service obligation under this Act.

(2) Standards for satisfactory performance of civilian service and of penalties for failure to perform civilian service satisfactorily.

(3) The manner in which persons shall be selected for induction under this Act, including the manner in which those selected will be notified of such selection.

(4) All other administrative matters in connection with the induction of persons under this Act and the registration, examination, and classification of such persons.

(5) A means to determine questions or claims with respect to inclusion for, or exemption or deferment from induction under this Act, including questions of conscientious objection.

(6) Standards for compensation and benefits for persons performing their national service obligation under this Act through civilian service.

(7) Such other matters as the President determines necessary to carry out this Act.

(c) USE OF PRIOR ACT- To the extent determined appropriate by the President, the President may use for purposes of this Act the procedures provided in the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 451 et seq.), including procedures for registration, selection, and induction.

SEC. 5. INDUCTION.

(a) IN GENERAL- Every person subject to induction for national service under this Act, except those whose training is deferred or postponed in accordance with this Act, shall be called and inducted by the President for such service at the time and place specified by the President.

(b) AGE LIMITS- A person may be inducted under this Act only if the person has attained the age of 18 and has not attained the age of 26.

(c) VOLUNTARY INDUCTION- A person subject to induction under this Act may volunteer for induction at a time other than the time at which the person is otherwise called for induction.

(d) EXAMINATION; CLASSIFICATION- Every person subject to induction under this Act shall, before induction, be physically and mentally examined and shall be classified as to fitness to perform national service. The President may apply different classification standards for fitness for military service and fitness for civilian service.

SEC. 6. DEFERMENTS AND POSTPONEMENTS.

(a) HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS- A person who is pursuing a standard course of study, on a full-time basis, in a secondary school or similar institution of learning shall be entitled to have induction under this Act postponed until the person--

(1) obtains a high school diploma;

(2) ceases to pursue satisfactorily such course of study; or

(3) attains the age of 20.

(b) HARDSHIP AND DISABILITY- Deferments from national service under this Act may be made for--

(1) extreme hardship; or

(2) physical or mental disability.

(c) TRAINING CAPACITY- The President may postpone or suspend the induction of persons for military service under this Act as necessary to limit the number of persons receiving basic military training and education to the maximum number that can be adequately trained.

(d) TERMINATION- No deferment or postponement of induction under this Act shall continue after the cause of such deferment or postponement ceases.

SEC. 7. INDUCTION EXEMPTIONS.

(a) QUALIFICATIONS- No person may be inducted for military service under this Act unless the person is acceptable to the Secretary concerned for training and meets the same health and physical qualifications applicable under section 505 of title 10, United States Code, to persons seeking original enlistment in a regular component of the Armed Forces.

(b) OTHER MILITARY SERVICE- No person shall be liable for induction under this Act who--

(1) is serving, or has served honorably for at least six months, in any component of the uniformed services on active duty; or

(2) is or becomes a cadet or midshipman at the United States Military Academy, the United States Naval Academy, the United States Air Force Academy, the Coast Guard Academy, the United States
Merchant Marine Academy, a midshipman of a Navy accredited State maritime academy, a member of the Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps, or the naval aviation college program, so long as that person satisfactorily continues in and completes two years training therein.


SEC. 8. CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION.

(a) CLAIMS AS CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR- Any person selected under this Act for induction into the uniformed services who claims, because of religious training and belief (as defined in section 6(j) of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. 456(j))), exemption from combatant training included as part of that military service and whose claim is sustained under such procedures as the President may prescribe, shall, when inducted, participate in military service that does not include any combatant training component.

(b) TRANSFER TO CIVILIAN SERVICE- Any such person whose claim is sustained may, at the discretion of the President, be transferred to a national service program for performance of such person's national service obligation under this Act.

SEC. 9. DISCHARGE FOLLOWING NATIONAL SERVICE.

(a) DISCHARGE- Upon completion or termination of the obligation to perform national service under this Act, a person shall be discharged from the uniformed services or from civilian service, as the case may be, and shall not be subject to any further service under this Act.

(b) COORDINATION WITH OTHER AUTHORITIES- Nothing in this section shall limit or prohibit the call to active service in the uniformed services of any person who is a member of a regular or reserve component of the uniformed services.

SEC. 10. REGISTRATION OF FEMALES UNDER THE MILITARY SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT.

(a) REGISTRATION REQUIRED- Section 3(a) of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. 453(a)) is amended--

(1) by striking `male' both places it appears;

(2) by inserting `or herself' after `himself'; and

(3) by striking `he' and inserting `the person'.

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Section 16(a) of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 466(a)) is amended by striking `men' and inserting `persons'.

SEC. 11. RELATION OF ACT TO REGISTRATION AND INDUCTION AUTHORITY OF MILITARY SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT.

(a) REGISTRATION- Section 4 of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 454) is amended by inserting after subsection (g) the following new subsection:

`(h) This section does not apply with respect to the induction of persons into the Armed Forces pursuant to the Universal National Service Act of 2003.'.

(b) INDUCTION- Section 17(c) of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 467(c)) is amended by striking `now or hereafter' and all that follows through the period at the end and inserting `inducted pursuant to the Universal National Service Act of 2003.'.

SEC. 12. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:

(1) The term `military service' means service performed as a member of an active or reverse component of the uniformed services.

(2) The term `Secretary concerned' means the Secretary of Defense with respect to the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps, the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the Coast Guard, the Secretary of Commerce, with respect to matters concerning the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services, with respect to matters concerning the Public Health Service.

(3) The term `United States', when used in a geographical sense, means the several States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam.

(4) The term `uniformed services' means the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, commissioned corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and commissioned corps of the Public Health Service.


11 posted on 09/22/2004 9:30:30 AM PDT by Spackidagoosh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Trampled by Lambs

Go to the website for the entire text; this is just an excerpt.



Draft Fears Fueled by Inaccurate E-mails
A scare story spreads electronically, but it gets facts wrong.
June 15, 2004
http://www.factcheck.org/printerFriendly.aspx?docid=200
Modified:June 15, 2004
Summary
Several FactCheck subscribers have asked about an e-mailed rumor that is causing a lot of anxiety. It claims that steps are being taken to resume military conscription next year. But the message abounds with misinformation and half-truths. And some experts say conscription is the last thing the military wants or needs, despite being stretched thin in Iraq.
Analysis

We can't say whether this one is deliberate misinformation or just sloppy reporting, but it sure is generating a lot of needless anxiety. It amounts to another "lying e-mail" of the kind we've warned about before (check the links to "related articles" at the end of this one.)


12 posted on 09/22/2004 9:31:18 AM PDT by Maria S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Trampled by Lambs
The front man for this thing was Democrat, Charlie Rangle.

They want this so they can return to the glory days of millions of anti-war protesters marching on washington.

The dirty little secret of those anti-war marches is that just as soon as the draft ended, so did the attendance at the marches. The kids didn't care about lefty causes. They just didn't want to be drafted.

13 posted on 09/22/2004 9:31:20 AM PDT by narby (Kerry - The great whiner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Trampled by Lambs

Obviously those sending the e-mail didn't read the bill--this bill is a Dem ploy/scare tactic.


14 posted on 09/22/2004 9:33:19 AM PDT by socialismisinsidious ("A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Marcel de Vries
...the pro war talkers must put their money where their mouth is.

Great to hear from you -- it's always wonderful to see that there are Freepers all over the world.

Your comments are good. I think you'll find that in the United States, most of the parts of the country with the highest rates of military service are the so-called "red states" that support George Bush.

15 posted on 09/22/2004 9:34:03 AM PDT by 68skylark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Trampled by Lambs

The Democrats are trying to bring back the draft.
A vote for Kerry, is a vote for the draft.


16 posted on 09/22/2004 9:34:56 AM PDT by mabelkitty (Watch for a CBS employee in a trench coat going by DeepWord.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spackidagoosh

Is there a reason you've posted this nonsense?


17 posted on 09/22/2004 9:35:11 AM PDT by 68skylark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Marcel de Vries
well I am not an American so.....because this war vs terrorism is the most important thing of the 21st century and victory is necessary.

But you should be. You are smarter than half of the Americans.

18 posted on 09/22/2004 9:35:28 AM PDT by elbucko (A Feral Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Marcel de Vries

Well, since you aren't an American, and you signed up today to post on ths story, let me tell you that we have a voluntary military, and those who "put their money where their mouth is" sign up. We don't seem to be having any trouble signing up thousands of men and women to fight for our country. How about you? Where are you from?


19 posted on 09/22/2004 9:37:10 AM PDT by mabelkitty (Watch for a CBS employee in a trench coat going by DeepWord.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom
PLEASE do a FR search before you panic. It was proposed by Democrats. Also please send the information you find to all of those you e-mailed and the sender of this propaganda.

No panic here. I read the thing and saw the names on it which is what got me curious. I suppose I should have searched - you got me there.

Also, I never forward crap like this to anyone. Unfortunately, my wife is sometimes taken in by these things, especially when they play on the fears a mother naturally has about such things. I did send her the Snopes link and a suggestion that she pass it along..

20 posted on 09/22/2004 9:37:13 AM PDT by Trampled by Lambs ("Making Al Gore regret inventing the internet, one post at a time")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: socialismisinsidious

Is Chuck Hagel a liberal democrat?
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04113/304598.stm

Look, I'm in the process of applywing for WOFT with the US Army right now. I'm putting MY money where my mouth is, because I think the WOT is real and needs to be fought in the tradition of thousands of Americans in days gone by.

However, putting your heads in the sand as to the troop levels and writing the draft off as RAT scare tactics may well cause a rude awakening next year. I thought most Americans stopped hitting the snooze button on 9/11...


21 posted on 09/22/2004 9:40:06 AM PDT by Veritas et equitas ad Votum (If the Constitution "lives and breathes", it dies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Trampled by Lambs

Ahhhh! You are a rightous dude!


22 posted on 09/22/2004 9:40:37 AM PDT by netmilsmom (Does a clean house indicate that there is a broken computer in it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Trampled by Lambs
I do have an 18 year old son.

Has he registered for the draft yet? If not, he can register online at www.sss.gov .

And you can also find this:

"Notwithstanding recent stories in the news media and on the Internet, Selective Service is not getting ready to conduct a draft for the U.S. Armed Forces -- either with a special skills or regular draft."

23 posted on 09/22/2004 9:41:23 AM PDT by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Trampled by Lambs
It's simple. If Bush wins, there will be no draft, because there will be no need for one because it will send a strong message to Americas enemies that Americans are resolute. Conversely, if Kerry wins, there will be a draft before the end of his first term. A Kerry win will signal weakness to Americas enemies and they will attack more. As well, who wants to enlist to fight for Kerry. "Who wants to be the last man to die for a mistake?"

It's the "Peace Paradox". If you want peace, prepare for war.

24 posted on 09/22/2004 9:42:36 AM PDT by elbucko (A Feral Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Trampled by Lambs

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

A BILL

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.


8


Nothing, but rat agitprop. Neither Bush, or any other significant Rs support this.


25 posted on 09/22/2004 9:44:07 AM PDT by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #26 Removed by Moderator

To: Veritas et equitas ad Votum

Of course it is a RAT scare-tactic. If the military were to need more troops it could obtain them with minimal changes in the qualifications.

Our problems in Iraq are not because of the lack of troops but because of the perception caused by the RATS that the nation is divided and ready to cut and run. This encourages further attacks from the terrorists who believe we can be driven out because our population doesn't have the cajones to drive to victory.


27 posted on 09/22/2004 9:47:37 AM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (My father is 10X the hero John Fraud Kerry is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: expatpat

It is Rangel's bill. It also is left in commitee and has not moved since March of 2003.


28 posted on 09/22/2004 9:48:38 AM PDT by television is just wrong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Trampled by Lambs

Draft Fears Fueled by Inaccurate E-mails

Excerpts:

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."

29 posted on 09/22/2004 9:48:55 AM PDT by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Trampled by Lambs

The bill is real - sponsored soley by RATS. The blogs fo bush web site has the full story


30 posted on 09/22/2004 9:51:19 AM PDT by AZhardliner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
I plead guilty to the crime of Net Laziness.

But I posted this here because I knew I could count on FReepers to quickly provide the straight poop on the bill. That was my only motivation.

The dissemination of the conservative viewpoint - isn't that what FR is here for?
31 posted on 09/22/2004 10:01:07 AM PDT by Trampled by Lambs ("Making Al Gore regret inventing the internet, one post at a time")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Trampled by Lambs

DEMOCRATS keep trying to do this. They are the only ones talking about the draft. Their objective is obvious, they are trying to scare people, that Bush is going to reinstitute the draft, when in fact nobody, but the Democrats are talking about it.

The Dems just trying to turn the American people against the war. They want us to sit here and be slaughtered by terrorists, while we are sitting at home, protesting againt the war, instead of going after the terrorists and killing them, before they come and kill us.


32 posted on 09/22/2004 10:01:32 AM PDT by QQQQQ (Defeat Kerry. Support the SwiftVets. Keep the ads on the air. http://www.swiftvets.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Trampled by Lambs

Charlie Rangel's been touting this draft concept on TV for quite a while now, since he says blacks are disproportionately dying in Iraq, and it's Bush's fault of course.
Dems want the draft, especially if Kerry gets elected, since our all volunteer service members will likely flee for civilian jobs rather than serve with Kerry as CIC.


33 posted on 09/22/2004 1:11:22 PM PDT by tinamina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Trampled by Lambs

I think Kerry would start a draft. He will muck things up in Iraq and start giving in the terrorist demands. Terrorism will flourish and spread around the world with vengence. Our stay in Iraq might be prolonged. We will have another Vietnam.


34 posted on 09/22/2004 2:52:41 PM PDT by Milligan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #35 Removed by Moderator

Comment #36 Removed by Moderator

To: Milligan

Your absolutely right! Kerry will bring back the draft because his dream world policies will fall apart in Iraq. You have to remember his cabniet will included Jimmy Carter retreads. Kerry is the wrong person to lead the world in dangerous times. In Kerry's world he will start bilaterial talks with the terrorist. In Kerry's world he will start giving them things if they stop being terrorist. By his liberal nature he will do this. Just like his doomed policies with the North Koreans. Kerry wants to give the North Koreans nuclear energy to make electric power if they stop making nuclear bombs. In Kerry's world he wants to give up our bunker busting bombs with nuclear war heads to end nuclear proliferation. We will be totally defenseless to deter dangerous regimes like Kim Chong-il of Korea or the Mullah of Iran who do have them. If we don't have them, they will extort world peace. In Kerry's world, he believes all nations will put down all their terrible weapons and we will live in a peaceful world ever after.

Kerry lives in a dream world. Sorry Senator Kerry, leading our country will not be like a debate. Reading bullet points from a index card will not protect me and my family.


37 posted on 10/04/2004 4:39:32 AM PDT by Milligan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson