Posted on 09/18/2004 5:50:48 PM PDT by TheBlindPig
When I was in New York for the big protest before this year's Republican National Convention, I was confused by some of the professionally printed signs that the protestors were carrying. The signs said "No Draft No Way". The organization that, I assume, had the signs printed have a web site here. Their "Draft Threat Advisory", by the way, is set at "Yellow, Significant Risk of Conscription." Here is a still from some of the video I took of the protest, so you can see one of the signs from this organization in evidence:
The old draft was abolished in 1973, and a new draft would require a new law. "Schoolhouse Rock" pounded into me at an early age the process where a bill becomes a law. The upshot is that a law for a new draft would have to be introduced and passed in both Houses of Congress. If the bill passed in both Houses, then the President could sign the bill into law.
Step number one of instituting a new draft has been accomplished. Not by President Bush or his minions - But by Democrats: Dem. Congressman Charley Wrangle introduced House Bill 163 and Dem. Senator "Fritz" Hollings introduced Senate Bill 89. (Note: You can look up both of the bills yourself, HB163 and SB89 here). Both of the bills seek to introduce a new draft.
So What Gives With the Kerry Stoking Fears of a Draft?
The irony of the protestors carrying the "No Draft, No Way" signs a few weeks ago was not lost on me. I had heard Rangel talk in the past about reestablishing a draft. I merely assumed that the people carrying the signs were your typical liberal lemmings - shove a sign and their hand, point them in the general direction of the protest, and watch them go.
However, what I did not know at the time is that this was the start of a trend. My next clue was an editorial by my favorite "progressive" columnist, Jay Bookman of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. He wrote just this week:
... the U.S. military will be able to take on new commitments only if it is significantly expanded. And that probably means a draft.
Note: I've been reading him for a couple of years, and Bookman is typically either slightly ahead of the curve or right there with the Democratic Party line.
Then later in the week, John Kerry's surrogates, including The Mad Doctor and Mini-Me, are saying that President Bush wants to reinstate the draft. Mini-Me said:
“America will reinstate the military draft” if Bush is re-elected and continues the Iraq War, (Max) Cleland predicted, according to an account of his speech by the Colorado Springs Gazette.
Later in the article, The Mad Doc speaks up:
Former Kerry rival Howard Dean, now traveling the country to drum up support for Kerry and raise money for Democratic candidates, said last week at Brown University in Providence, R.I., "I think that George Bush is certainly going to have a draft if he goes into a second term, and any young person that doesn't want to go to Iraq might think twice about voting for him."
One question: Just what the heck are these Democratic handmaidens talking about? It is their party mates in Congress who have been introducing bill to reinstate the draft. President Bush has never supported a draft. Donald Rumsfeld certainly does not think we should have a draft (quote from the same article as above):
“This country does not need a draft,” Rumsfeld told an Army sergeant who’d just returned from Iraq and asked about the draft at a town hall meeting in Fort Bliss, Texas on Aug. 23.Noting the size of the U.S. population, more than 290 million people, Rumsfeld said, “If you add up everyone we are looking for in the active forces, 1.4 million and the Guard and Reserve and the selective reserve and individual ready reserve and if you add them all up, it’s about 2.5 million. And all you have to do is alter the incentives and we can attract and retain all the people we need. We do not need to go to compulsion.”
Obviously, this is the latest attempt by the Kerry campaign to make up some fake issue, with no basis in fact, to try to keep their loser of a candidate afloat.
This would be, as I count it, the third fake issue the Dems have raised in a week. Number One was "Operation Fortunate Son", with the rather unfortunate associated CBS scandal. . Number Two was "The Other Guy has a secret plan". A plan that apparently only exists in John Kerry's imagination.
Now with the second revelation of a supposedly "secret plan of Bush" in one week, the Dems showing that they are all out of ideas. Of course, as the selection of John Kerry as their candidate demonstrates, this year has not been a good one for smart Democratic ideas.
As the MSM would say, "nothing to see here. move along".
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. Bush
already opposes them, but don't expect the legacy media
to tell you this.
As serious proposals, they 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.
God I love this internet.
Sing the truth people!
George Mitchell was majority leader of the Senate when Bush I was in office. He refused to allow the Senate to address any budget bills until Bush agreed to a tax hike. After he did, the Rats beat Bush over the head with it, eventually winning the WH. Part of the Rat strategy this year was to push through a military draft, then beat Bush over the head with it.
The draft boards have been advertising for replacement members.
The Neocons are preparing the propaganda basis for an invasion of Iran. This would take much more manpower than is now available by any means short of a draft.
Michael Badnarik and the Libertarians, noticing the facts listed above have warned people about the danger. BTW, Michael Badnarik has promised that there in NO CIRCUMSTANCE where he would ask for a draft. A war that could not get volunteers is not a valid war.
Kerry and Edwards have been answering the Libertarian ads on the issue. Though Kerry made it clear that he had no problem forcing community service on all High School graduates. The 13th amendment be damned.
Liberal Democrats, not "neo-cons" trying to bring back "draft"
Congress.org ^ | 6-03-04
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1146987/posts
Posted on 06/03/2004 1:32:35 PM CDT by jmstein7
H.R.163
Title: 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.
Sponsor: Rep Rangel, Charles B. [NY-15] (introduced 1/7/2003) Cosponsors (14)
Related Bills: S.89
Latest Major Action: 2/3/2003 House committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Executive Comment Requested from DOD.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:HR00163:
S.89
Title: 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.
Sponsor: Sen Hollings, Ernest F. [SC] (introduced 1/7/2003) Cosponsors (None)
Related Bills: H.R.163
Latest Major Action: 1/7/2003 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:SN00089:
H.R.487
Title: To repeal the Military Selective Service Act.
Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 1/29/2003) Cosponsors (7)
Latest Major Action: 3/26/2003 House committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Unfavorable Executive Comment Received from Selective Service Comm.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:HR00487:
They are using the same tactic with the "body armor" for the troops.
The Kerry campaign's talking parrots screech about Bush not providing the correct body armor,,supplies, etc.,,,and yet,,they FAIL (one of Kerry's favorite words lately),,they FAIL to mention that Kerry voted against funding for those supplies.
It's heinous!
It's more than wrong, it's evil!
Thanks for the links!
As a soldier I gotta say I'm strongly against the draft also. If someone doesn't want to serve then believe me -- I don't want you anywhere near me or my unit. But it's a moot point anyway. Opposing a draft is about as sane as opposing the boogey man -- it's just something to make timid, cowardly people feel better.
It was a republican, Richard Nixon, who ended the draft. Barry Goldwater had opposed the draft in 1964 but the Democrats won big and the draft stayed in place till Nixon became president and took over the defense department.
I'm with you and against a draft. There is already a problem with the high percentage of first term enlistees that have to be booted. If there was a draft we would need to triple the size of the JAG corps.
Military conscription is not considered slavery. Soldiers are paid, slaves are not.
And I oughta' know, I was drafted in April of 1967.
BTTT
You are patently WRONG!
It was Senator Barry Goldwater that introduced the legislation that ended the draft, reorganized the Joint Chief of Staff's and began the All Volunteer Army. Nixon only signed the bill when it passed. Goldwater carried the water on ending the draft. Furthermore, it was Goldwater that told Nixon he had better resign or face impeachment.
There are good reasons to consider this fear mongering from the left. It was not that long ago that many of us were forced out of the military to pay for the "peace dividend" after we WON THE COLD WAR.
The reductions in force that Bush I and Clinton enacted were painful, but managed via normal military personnel management processes.
If we decided to increase the size of the force, these normal military processes would be used to increase the military end strength. This would include things like reenlistment bonuses, enlstment incentives, etc.
There is simply no way that we would need to increase the military back to the levels that would have to be sustained by a draft, short of total war with a country approximately our size, like China or Russia.
This is a calculated fear-mongering tactic by the Dems, equivalent to stearling Social Security from the old folks or bringing back Jim Crow for minorities.
You can pump this stuff all you want, you are full of it.
One more thing, if we really wanted to address the most dire national security threat we face (documented), we would draft college graduates to serve as teachers. Random draft selection of college graduates would increase the average IQ of teachers in the classroom. Unions would be busted, and learning would take place in devastated innercity classrooms. That's where we need a draft.
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.
