Thursday, September 30, 2004

DNC October Surprise...The Draft

Well, if the Democrats are one thing –it’s persistent and if they are two it’s persistent & predictable… Yes, they are at it again –using false information to try to win elections. No boys and girls, I am not talking about memo-gate…I am referring to the email circulation about the ‘secret plan’ of the President to re-instate the draft….
The email reads as follows:

“Mandatory draft for boys and girls (ages18-26) starting June 15, 2005
There is pending legislation in the House and Senate, S89 and HR 163, to reinstate mandatory draft for boys and girls (ages18-26) starting June 15, 2005. This plan includes women in the draft, eliminates higher education as a shelter, and makes it difficult to cross into Canada.
The Bush administration is quietly trying to get these bills passed now, while the public's attention is on the elections. The Bush administration plans to begin mandatory draft in the spring of 2005, just after the 2004 presidential election.
• The Congress has added $28 million to the 2004 selective service system budget to prepare for this military draft that could start as early as June 15, 2005.
• Bush has ordered the Selective Service to report to him by March 31, 2005 on their readiness to implement the draft by June 2005
• The pentagon has quietly begun a public campaign to fill all 10,350 draft board positions and 11,070 appeals board slots nationwide.
Please act on this:
• Tell everyone you know - parents, aunts and uncles, grandparents,
godparents, friends, teachers
• Call and write to your U.S. Senator and your U.S. Representatives and ask them why they aren't telling their constituents about these bills.” End email.

Funny thing is that even news outlets that are covering this story and reporting that the Administration is (and has always) denying this –are stating that there are indeed two bills right now calling for this –in the House and the Senate. This article goes as far as to say with ‘these bills’ out there it will be hard to kill the rumor…leaving the implication that the administration is involved. What the media has failed to tell the American people is that the two bills (actually three if you count one from 2003) that are ‘out there’ are all sponsored by DEMOCRATS…an integral part of the story wouldn’t you say?!

The House bill was introduced by (D) Charlie Rangel. “Under his bill, the draft would apply to men and women ages 18 to 26; exemptions would be granted to allow people to graduate from high school, but college students would have to serve. Anyone who didn't qualify for military service because of impairments would be asked to perform community service.”
In response to Rangel’s bill Donald Rumsfeld said, “"We're not going to re-implement a draft. There is no need for it at all. The disadvantages of using compulsion to bring into the armed forces the men and women needed are notable."
This House bill presented in 2003 is sponsored by 13 Democrats (8 are members of the Black Caucus –as is Charlie Rangel)

The Senate Bill is Sponsored by Fritz Hollings (with no co-sponsors) also a Democrat. Not one Republican looking to re-start the draft.

I looked at the Selective Service website, and they have a statement regarding this matter on their main page:
“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. Rather, the Agency remains prepared to manage a draft if and when the President and the Congress so direct. This responsibility has been ongoing since 1980 and is nothing new. Further, both the President and the Secretary of Defense have stated on more than one occasion that there is no need for a draft for the War on Terrorism or any likely contingency, such as Iraq. Additionally, the Congress has not acted on any proposed legislation to reinstate a draft. Therefore, Selective Service continues to refine its plans to be prepared as is required by law, and to register young men who are ages 18 through 25.”

Couple this new scare tactic with Kerry out there saying that ‘this administration’ is going to reinstate the draft, implying that there are already plans to disenfranchise black/poor voters (translation –the mean GOP won’t let the jails install voting booths…I’ll have to find that article again), and sending little old people letters saying that President Bush wants them to starve in their old age. In 2000 the NAACP and the DNC ran some of the most despicable ads…saying that black schools will burn and there will be burning crosses on lawns again if a Republican wins –claiming that GWB didn’t want to punish the killers of James Byrd (his young daughter in the commercial saying that GWB was killing her dad all over again) –yet Dubya strongly advocated the death penalty for Byrd’s killers.

Republicans are always being accused of employing the infamous ‘Republican Attack Machine’…a tactic perfected by the Clintonistas to deflect any and all criticism that came their way (never mind the small fact that 99% were true). I have never seen a GOP ad that shows a Democrat picking the pocket of a corpse or a soldier –but a Democrat is running one now. The DNC knows that their base is anything but thrilled over their candidate…no Democrat has ever lost the woman’s vote and Kerry is…they even had to bring in Jesse Jackson because they are losing the Black vote –so they resort to scare tactics and lies to reclaim power. Anyone that says that the GOP is using scare tactics by citing terrorism –better go watch this...

I’m waiting for the true commercials to start…”The Black Caucus thinks you white folks get off too easy…we want to reinstate the draft so you have to serve along with the 30% of the armed services that are minorities….” If they are introducing the bills –why not stand up and campaign on it?


Cigarette Smoking Man from the X-Files said...

Great minds think alike! Hah! ;)

Jensdad said...

The Democrats have perfected the October Surprise strategy into an art form. From indictments by special prosecutors 3 days before the general election of honorable and later exonerated republicans like Caspar Weinberger to the theft of the 1960 election and the attempted theft of the 2000 one, democrats have demonstrated that they will do most anything to win.

They and their supporters at CBS and The New York Times (and others) won't stop with the fake memos or phony draft story. As soon as this one is exposed, they'll move on to another one.

Ala, can you guess what the next DNC dirty trick will be about? Maybe that The First Lady was a drug dealer in college? No, they've already done that one. They used W's DWI guilty plea right before the last election, so that one's spent. Of course, the claim that W was a deserter or is AWOL didn't pan out. Maybe it will involve his extended family, his brothers, the twins or his parents...they really haven't hit that area hard yet.

Kerry and the group he would bring with him have shown that they can not be trusted with national security. Unless democrats are ready to demonstrate that they understand how serious the threat to our nation is, they should never be trusted in any office where they could influence national defence policy again. The years 1992-2000 begat 2001. Never again.

Jericho Brown said...

How'd you guys like seeing Bush get crushed last night? It was a plethora of repeated talking points that exposed the "president" for what he really is: a 2-bit shill fed lines who can offer no real rationale for the unconscionable actions he has taken over the last four years. Four more weeks! Four More Weeks! FOUR MORE WEEKS!!!

tescosuicide said...

We obviously didn't see the same debate JB. I felt they both held their ground well - however, Kerry's still making his ridiculous promises. He'll probably flip by the next debate.

91ghost said...

I'm not on these blogs that much anymore (too consumed with trying to get my paper done as I have to present it in November to get the hell out of grad school)...but just wanted to stop by, say hi, and in regards to this specific post--good job doing your homework.

free0352 said...

Kerry did a good job of delivering a message. He'll see his numbers jump and stick to what he said last night like flys on........ Bush wasn't as likeable as he should have been, smiled more and gone after kerry's voting record in te senate. he'd have shut down his national security crap that way. Bush is hurting on National Security now, his strongest issue. He needs to hammer kerry on tax increases and kerrys leftist voting record. a hard task for bush considering he didn't land his knock out punch.

Cigarette Smoking Man from the X-Files said...

JB, you probably think Kerry can get away with saying "never confuse the war with the war-fighters" in light of his 1971 activities, but some of us have a wee bit better of an attention span than that. He is a despicable, degenerate, disgusting individual who slandered Vietnam veterans en masse, and is today propagandizing for the Iraqi insurgency by saying we have no right to fight them. And he speaks for a crowd of morons who are even worse than HE is. I don't care how much of a master debater he is--that sort of polish is more like lipstick on a pig.

Tom said...

"October Surprises" notwithstanding, as a Republican and father of a draft age son, I say it bring-it-on. It's the only way we'll ever get an accurate measure of how many true conservatives there are in this country. Just like liberals find out how thin their numbers are when a Republican cuts their taxes or Gay marriage is put to a vote.

I think the Rush Limbaughs, Laura Ingrahams, Sean Hannitys and Ann Coulters will be very, very disappointed, and Canada will have a housing shortage.

free0352 said...


Republicans will never support a draft because the military will never support a draft. The draft almost killed the army in the late 1970s. You can't MAKE people fight, we understand that. 1 volunteer is worth 15 conscripts who don't want to be there. War now is no longer a matter of pure numbers, but of professionalism. Draftees are not and never were professionals with the possible exception of WWII. This is a crappy attempt by some drunk congressmen to relive the 60's. While I'm sure that gives you a hard on tom, keep dreaming.

Cigarette Smoking Man from the X-Files said...

Tom, coercive measures like a draft are more the knee-jerk solution of Democrats, who think that if anything is worth doing, then it's worth having the government force people to do (e.g., regulation, taxation).

Free is right in that modern warfare is more about quality than quantity. If 500,000 Jihad warriors are arrayed against us all at once, well, one BLU-82 can take 'em all out. It's the little onesey-twosey groups in spider holes and behind false walls in safehouses that currently need taking out, and while a greater quantity of eyes and ears searching for them would be helpful, a greater quality of spies, informants, and technology would be exponentially so. You can't kill them if you don't know where they are, and that's the big challenge right now. CIA and Special Ops need to step increasingly up to the plate in Iraq, and make the job of the conventional troops easier, give them fewer surprises, and give them an alley-oop for victory. We have spies, spy satellites, infrared tracking devices, Iraqi nationals who hate the terrorists, and many other effective counterinsurgency tools at our disposal; and it's time to put them all together with ingenuity and make the enemy an endangered species. Either Bush OR Kerry could end up doing that, in spite of their debate rhetoric, but it needs to be done. A draft does not.

Tom said...


Republicans will never support a draft because they know it will sound the death knell of their party, or at least the conservative wing and reduce them to merely nominal opposition (even more than they are now). The military will never support a draft because they know that the liberals have won in turning 18-25 year olds into fat lazy nihilists whose parents hang the flag on their SUVs so long as other kids are doing the fighting. Bring back the draft and they will not be the responsible citizen soldiers their fathers, grandfathers and uncles were, but will hightail it to Canada, or revert to the other tried and true methods of dodging the draft - family doctors inventing congential and other disqualifying illnesses, for intance - all with their 'conservattive' parents' blessing (and cash). The military simply doesn't want to be bothered. They have a tough enough time training those enlistess who signed up for the college tuition and medical benefits.

The military would love to go back to the pre Viet Nam draft situation. Your history is a little off. The active draft was discontinued in the mid-70s, after the pullout from Nam. Registration was reinstituted in the late 70s. The draft did not destroy the military. Congress destroyed the military - the almost total feminization of the Army is a perfect example of this - and the liberal culture that took hold post-Viet Nam reduced the effectiveness of the draft.

The quality of draftees post dates WWII. It wasn't an all volunteer force that seized Inchon and won other major enagagements in Korea against far superior forces. Then there's Viet Nam. Conservatives can't have their cake and eat it, too when it comes to that conflict and the draft. They love to argue the cause of Viet Nam was a noble one AND winnable, but that it was the American left, in the media, in government, and in the streets that 'lost' the war. This can only mean then that the military in Southeast Asia, made up mostly of draftees, was an effective fighting force, and failed there because it was sold out. History bears out the effectiveness of the draftee military of Viet Nam: They never lost a major battle. Their communist adversaries subsequently admitted that they were on the ropes and had it not been for the Kerrys, Fondas et al of the anti-war movement, the US would have defeated them.

The draft isn't just about numbers (or hard ons) and never has been. It's about the dedication and service to country many conservatives like to crow about so long as it doesn't cost them anything.

Anyway, the best argument against this enlistees are always preferable to draftees because of the former's professionalism bullshit is and always has been Israel. Their conscript army could kick our vounteer army's ass six ways to Sunday.

free0352 said...

Conscripts vs. Volunteers = Volunteers win every time. Nobody in the military wants to serve next to someone who doesn't want to be there. Not even generals. Nobody.

Why are you bringing up Vietnam, this is 2004.

Other kids who volunteered to do the fighting. Every E-3 who wasn't busted to that rank enlisted after 9-11. Most after the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the privates then are NCOs now. They knew they'd be fighting, they knew what they were geting into.

Democrats trying to force a political agenda by forcing young men to enlist is one more example of thier ends justifies the means aprouch to politics. Its also bad for the military and bad for ongoing operations. They just want to prove a point. Selfish. If the youth don't wish to participate in this war, by all means stay home.

You will find though Tom, most 18-21 year olds think about the war less than they do laundry. I know, I'm in school. The 6 of them who will vote, will probly vote Kerry because MTV says he's cooler than Bush and Bush is mean and started a war. The activism of your youth is limited to a few thousands nation wide. Nobody cares because why should they, they also reason Sadam was bad, so why not. Will they oppose a draft, damn right, they don't want to leave behind thier play stations. But I find it hilarious that a bunch of ex-hippies who burned thier draft cards and bitched out into Canada like scared little women are now arguing for a draft nobody but them and especially not the folks they protested wants. It will never survive the vote, its a joke. It woun't work, quit trying to act as if this is a serious initiatinve. This is a pathetic statement made by a few lone, stupid democrats. And still, no one cares.

Cigarette Smoking Man from the X-Files said...

Alright, settle down, Tom, and wipe the foam off your mouth.

Yes, draftees CAN win battles. Draftees are also more prone, though, to be killed in high numbers over the course of winning said battles. You showed me your history; now I'll show you mine: Iwo Jima alone cost 6,000 draftees. That cost was not so much that they weren't professional or didn't care about the war, but due to the compulsory nature of their service the leadership in WWII was not under the intense pressure they are today, to craft military plans to minimize casualties. Draftees on either side of our own civil war dropped to the tune of over a half million, similarly because there was NOT that immediate threat, in those days, of having the whole population erupt in riots and anarchy over each and every single lost soldier. When a military is based on volunteerism, the pressure is fully on, 1000% and with the dial on 11, for a general to be just shy of suicidal for each and every soldier he loses out there. And you know what? That's actually a good thing. The pressure does need to be on. The days of viewing troops as cannon fodder are over. The rhetoric of "an Army of one" alludes to the fact that each soldier is vital. Not just in his capabilities and dedication, which can be approximated to some degree by SOME draftees, but also in that each volunteer soldier represents very viscerally and immediately, America's WILL to carry on the fight.

What a draftee represents is that he perhaps got lost on his way to Canada--and there may or may not be a will to fight at any given moment.

In a way you are correct that liberals have won over the young vote, but to describe them as fat or lazy would require me to accuse my own eyes of lying. I see thousands of them at concerts and they are not only fit, but rather DARING as they fly dozens of yards up into the air on motorcycles, skateboards, etc., in situations very likely to break their bodies into little pieces if they misjudge their distances by so much as an inch or so. They have remarkable energy and spirit. Currently that energy and spirit is directed in an anti-war way, primarily because their instinct of it being wrong to kill (in cold blood) is exploited by clever left-wing agitators. Rather than nihilists, you see them vigorously defending cows and chickens from the meat industry, etc. All very misguided, but still, all very passionate and activist.

If a draft were to take the place of making a case to young people about the need to fight terrorists, that would only play into the hands of the destructive left-wing agitators. The coersive nature of the draft became an easy case in point, during Vietnam, of how "evil" the administration was and how "unjust" the war was--because instinctively we humans feel coersion to be EVIL.

When the bar is set such that a case must be made to get them to volunteer, it places a higher demand on foreign policy objectives to make sure that it CAN pass a scrupulous test of independant analysis, and the low-hanging dialectic fruit of coercive action is not within the grasp of the despicable, disgusting left wing.

It may be that the case of fighting terrorists will not be properly made to young people. Because young people feel safe on our lands, in spite of 9/11, they may think that no fighting ever was or ever will be necessary. And if the volunteer pool dries up, well, that's it, no victory in Iraq, and the blowhard left gets to add another victorious notch to their belt of conflicts they won by poisoning us from the inside. The John Kerry type and the Jane Fonda type will have reinforced the idea that America is incapable of carrying out wars on foreign soil without disgusting DemonCreeps sucker-punching our will to fight, below the belt. Even so, that's not necessarily a bad thing. If we fail the test sometimes, that doesn't mean the test has to be thrown out. If we CAN make the case for war (as we easily could in 1941), then a draft is a mere formality. If we CAN'T make the case for war (as we couldn't in Vietnam and are starting to slip at today), then no amount of a draft will drag us kicking and screaming to victory.

Would it be trite of me to say, "lose the psyop, lose the war"?

"It's about the dedication and service to country many conservatives like to crow about so long as it doesn't cost them anything."

The cost of war is shared by all, whether we understand how that works or not. If you're not directly fighting it, you're supporting it by paying taxes. Or even if you're tax-exempt in a low income stature, you're facing the realities of it every day on the street. If America is at war and you are IN America, you will feel it.

Now for your implication that all conservatives are so-called "chicken hawks", as a combat veteran I'd still rather see chicken hawks than chicken doves. At least give me VERBAL support while I'm out there sweating and bleeding, instead of saying the whole cause I'm fighting is a lie or some international crime or a "collossal blunder", criticism which is not helpful in the least to the morale of the ones pulling the triggers.

"Their [Israel's] conscript army could kick our vounteer army's ass six ways to Sunday."

I personally think it would be extremely costly to both sides if such a conflagration occurred. Good troops on each side, I'd say. But ultimately it would be psyops that determines the result. Take that the to (West) bank.

free0352 said...


Damn you a smart muth f'er!


Why are we armchair quarterbacking a fight beween us and an ally

redleg said...

Have to agree with CSM on this one.

But also note that the Vietnam Protest Movement lost nearly all of its steam after the draft was abolished. The young ones didn't see much need after their lives were not really at risk anymore.

I was up at Duke today and saw a placard on a wall-- if you are 4 Bush you are 4 the draft! Ignorance runs rampant on our universities. Reminds me of a Steely Dan song-- Reeling in the years.

I would take a platoon of volunteers over a battalion of draftees any day. I agree with Free on that as well. It would take us back to the days of 20 Divisions and a huge infrastrucure that no longer exists to bring back an outdated and obsolete relic of the past. Volunteers are the way to go. I can enforce little things like standards, physical fitness and weight. Remember we lost soldiers in the Korean War because they weren't in good enough shape to even run away from the enemy.

Or as an older gentlemen said:

"I had rather have a plain russet-coated captain that knows what he fights for, and loves what he knows, than what you call a gentleman, and is nothing else."

ALa said...

I also should have put in the post that it was a REPUBLICAN (Nixon) that abolished the draft....

Tom said...

Free & CSM:

Free, considering you were a little shaky on when the draft was discontinued and registration reactivated ("the draft nearly destroyed the military in the late 70s") it behooved you to let CSM take up the fight.

Both of you seem not to have read my initial post very closely or else you wouldn't have imagined seeing "hard-ons" and "frothing at the mouth."

I never said the draft should be reactivated in 2004 because it would reinvigorate our military. I suggested that conservative Republicans endeavor to find out how many true conservatives exist among the electorate and in the blogosphere and out there in right-wing talk radio land by reactivating it. I would be very inconsistent were I to assert that the majority of 18-21 year olds are too fat, lazy and brainwashed by the liberal-media-dominated culture and their left-wing educations to answer the call to serve their country and then say these same fat, lazy, brainwashed post-adolesecents would strengthen the services if called

And CSM, your riff on those athletic skateboarders and such in response to my rhetorical use of "fat and lazy" was cute, but ultimately silly as an argument vis a vis one's responsibilities or duties. As any parent of a teenager will tell you, they are extremely, extremely enthusiastic and physically fit when it comes to their leisure activities, but transmorgrify into tree sloths when it comes to work and other duties and responsbilities. But this is even true for those hearty specimens who enlist in the services. Having gone through Army basic training, I can tell you that 18-year-old sea slugs are as common among your vaunted volunteers. Drill sergeants find that nearly every kid who comes through their cycle needs disciplining.

Be that as it may, you really have no historical precedent in American history to support your contention that a volunteer is somehow a better, more capable, more effective fighter than a draftee. (You might perhaps want to consider the number of desertions and AWOLS during the 91 Gulf War and the current Iraqi conflict when it comes to judging a volunteer's willingness to face combat as opposed to a draftee's. It's a question of motivation to do one's duty when called upon. Explain your theory to the draftee veteran of Normandy, Saipan, Bastogne, etc. and they will laugh in your face (were they younger they would probably put their fists through it).

The majority of today's spoiled kids, many of them from those flag waving "We support Bush and the troops" suburban families lack that motivation and would hightail it out of the country as soon as their number came up. Your responses did absolutely nothing to suggest otherwise. As a matter of fact, I think you all agreed with me. But it seems all of those hawkish righties who are all for other people's kids fighting their wars are bending over backwards trying to demonstrate that the a 'draft' is "militarily" unnecessary now and that as a rule draftees are not as capable as volunteers. Which is nonsense, as stated, and totally disproven by the American military's victories in two World Wars, it's success in repelling the Chinese/North Korean incursions into the South, and its military victories in Nam with conscript armies. The last, as stated before, was lost, at least according to the prevailing conservative view, because of the incompetence of civilian bureaucrats, a left wing media and the left wing anti-war movement. If you guys wish to disagree with that conservative perspective and blame the loss of Viet Nam on draftees, go right ahead. Bill Buckley, Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the conservative coterie who believe the "liberals" (including John Kerry) lost that war give their blessing, I'm sure.

Now, Free asked me why I brought up Viet Nam in my previous posts when "this is 2004". Evidently it was too much of a shock to learn that his claim of draftees being as a rule less capable than volunteers has no historical precedent. But at any rate, I did talk about a modern conscript military force that totally debunks the self-serving theories of chickenhawk American conservatives - Israel. The military that sucessfully defeated the combined forces of mulitple countries multiple times over the past 50 years would laugh at your notions that draftees are as a rule less effective than volunteers. Neither of you chose to address the issue, but instead jumped on my throwaway line that their army could probably kick our army's ass. Evidently, you were both grateful for the diversion. You're more than welcome.

Anonymous said...

Honesty is the best policy.

7uZpa 8cKhd 2vJai 3iCnp 4jPwk 3yJqn 2zRrq 9gCgj 2vEip

Anonymous said...

Cowards die many times before their deaths.

3vBip 1sCnf 2wQkk 9tEen 3xSne 3kNkz 2cUet 0wIai 9kSix