HolidayBuyer's Guide

Speakeasy forum

General discussion

Kerry campaign issues Draft Scare

by Mac McMullen / September 26, 2004 6:12 AM PDT

Kerry and his campaign spokespersons claim or imply that the Bush Administration intends to reinstitute the draft, if re-elected:
------------------------------------
"................ college students at the University of Arizona have been getting an e-mail that says: "There is pending legislation in the House and Senate, S 80 and HR 163, to reinstate mandatory draft for boys and girls (ages 18-26) 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."

-------------------------------------------

There are bills in the House and Senate calling for reinstitution of conscription. They have attracted a handful of sponsors and cosponsors, all of whom are Democrats.

The bills are going nowhere, because the Bush administration strongly opposes them, as do about three-quarters of the members of Congress.

Full article: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04270/384949.stm

If you don't vote on Nov 2.....
,,,,you can't complain for 4 years
So vote, and vote smart

Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Kerry campaign issues Draft Scare
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Kerry campaign issues Draft Scare
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
Kerry's lower lip
by TONI H / September 26, 2004 6:36 AM PDT

looks more and more like a shovel everytime I see his face on tv........keeps digging that hole deeper and deeper every time that lip moves.

DUCT TAPE BEING SHIPPED TO HIS HEADQUARTERS BY SUPPORTERS ALL OVER.......PACKAGE LABELED "HERE'S HOW TO SAVE YOUR ***.....APPLY TO FACE LIBERALLY"

TONI

Collapse -
Kerry is shameless
by EdH / September 26, 2004 9:07 AM PDT

How anyone can take him seriously is beyond me. This draft thing is completely fabricated out of whole cloth.

It's like his entire life is the Vietnam war.

Collapse -
For the record...........
by Mac McMullen / September 26, 2004 9:38 AM PDT

Yeah, there is proposed legislation in both Houses, but nothing has happened with the two bills in over a year.

Where the lies and deceptions occur is when they say the Bush administration will implement a draft if re-elected, when the Bush administration is opposed to such a measure. Further, they forget to inform their audience that both bills were introduced by Democrats, or possibly they don't know that fact, or probably, it's not important to their agenda.

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.

and

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.

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Another nail in Kerry's coffin - silly man
by SteveGargini / September 26, 2004 10:25 AM PDT
Collapse -
For the record?I say, ?Bring It On!?
by Catgic / September 27, 2004 7:54 PM PDT

As regards the H.R.163 and S.89, I say, ?Bring It On!? In this Forum, I?m already on record for being in favor of Universal Service. The Rangel and Hollings, bills are a step in that direction.

Rangel agrees with me, the All Volunteer Military (AVM) mechanism is not egalitarian enough. As I shared with Angeline in a previous post, I ?approve of? the AVM, but don?t ?believe in? the AVM.

I believe in some sort of universal national service obligation for every citizen, like that I?ve observed in countries like Taiwan and Israel. No citizen is exempt, no lifelong or family influence-pure school-yadda, yadda deferments. The post-High School College bound would be able to meet their citizen national service obligation via a "work-study" mechanism.

All U.S. citizens must become stake holders in the business of the United States of America, not just those who understand what Estados Unidos de Am

Collapse -
I too have said that I favor it...
by Edward ODaniel / September 28, 2004 5:03 AM PDT

back when Dave made his initial claim that Bush was "conspiring to bring back the draft". That is when Several here pointedly linked him to the bills and their sponsors and co-sponsors.

Dave doesn't follow links though unless they are supportive of his spoon-fed-by-his-party "ideas" and "values". That way he can keep bringing up things long and thouroughly discredited or disproved. "I was too busy" or "I am a busy man" or something of the like is the usual reason.

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Roger that, Ed.
by Catgic / September 28, 2004 9:05 AM PDT
Collapse -
Since when is truth-telling 'shameless?'
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / September 26, 2004 10:41 PM PDT

Del, Kerry is simply saying out loud what's common belief in Washington. I've been saying this since early this year. We simply don't have enough troops to maintain the current level of force in Iraq, even with policies keeping folks in the military after their scheduled discharge date, and heavily using the Guard and reserve. Why won't Kerry have the same problem? Not because he'd cut and run, but because he has a much better chance of getting multinational assistance in Iraq from countries that won't give Bush the time of day.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
Did you miss...
by Edward ODaniel / September 27, 2004 5:49 AM PDT
In reply to: More truth
Blum cited two main reasons why the Guard is attracting fewer soldiers from the active-duty force - a pool of recruits that in some states accounts for half of the new Guard members in a given year.

One reason is the active-duty Army is prohibiting soldiers already in units in Iraq or Afghanistan - or preparing to deploy there - from leaving the service, even if their enlistment term is up.

The other reason, Blum said, is that active-duty soldiers know a growing number of Guard units are being sent to Iraq and Afghanistan, so they figure there is little to be gained, in terms of reduced personal risk, by switching from active duty to the Guard.


That goes well with the fact that active re-enlistments are up (in other words fewer are choosing to depart the service) and that results in a smaller pool of personnel to enlist in the guard or Reserves.

In other words a non-story and your interpretation is nonsense.

Collapse -
Re: Did you miss...
by Dan McC / September 27, 2004 6:17 AM PDT
In reply to: Did you miss...

You and Blum must share the same fondness for rose-tinted eyewear.

Dan

Collapse -
Nope, unlike you we are both actually...
by Edward ODaniel / September 29, 2004 12:06 PM PDT
In reply to: Re: Did you miss...

FAMILIAR with the military.

You won't learn about it in thos SGT Rock comics you seem to favor.

Collapse -
Kind of makes me wonder if.......
by Glenda / September 27, 2004 6:50 AM PDT
In reply to: Did you miss...
Collapse -
Re: Did you miss... this, Ed?
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / September 27, 2004 10:24 PM PDT
In reply to: Did you miss...
Collapse -
Re: Did you miss... this, Dave?
by Catgic / September 28, 2004 11:53 AM PDT
Collapse -
You are a day late and a dollar short...
by Edward ODaniel / September 29, 2004 12:26 PM PDT

didn't bother doing any checking at all, and being totally unfamiliar with the military (as was the author) of the original piece you didn't note the words of one of the soldiers (because who needs to research anything when they can rely on an AP reporter in the HC):

The second soldier, an enlisted man who was interviewed separately, essentially echoed that view.

"They told us if we don't re-enlist, then we'd have to be reassigned. And where we're most needed is in units that are going back to Iraq in the next couple of months. So if you think you're getting out, you're not," he said.


The unit in question is being reorganized and in EVERY reorganization personnel are moved to aid unit cohesion. Short term personnel with no intent to re-enlist generally are not retained in the unit but instead are cross leveled to other units with other missions. Any service member with less time remaining than the deployment requires is normally not deployed UNLESS the needs of the service require it. The needs of the service are the overriding factor and are noted in EVERY enlistment contract.

Re-enlistments MUST be made within specific windows near the end of an enlistment and it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY that even 10 percent of any unit would be in any window allowing a three year re-enlistment to cause their new ETS to be 31 December, 3007 as the story claimed.

Here is a tiny bit of info regarding reenlisting.
http://www.armystudyguide.com/resources/reenlistment/faq.htm Might not be as interesting as SGT Rock but the info is more accurate.

Collapse -
Re: Did you miss...
by Roger NC / September 29, 2004 1:56 PM PDT
In reply to: Did you miss...

Actually I'd expect Guard and reserve enlistment to be down because of the conflict in Iraq, but not necessarily just because of the risk of being sent to a danger zone.

I'm sure some pause when they feel it's almost certain they will have to go back to Iraq again.

And AGAIN is the key part I think. With the first Gulf War, then Afganistan, then the second Iraq war, and other smaller callouts, reserve and guard units have had demands on them that should have never been necessary. We (all of us) let the military numbers decline because the "cold war" was over.

Now guard and reserve units have faced repeated activations and service, much more than should be reasonable. Before the new more flexible faster movement military idea was favored, Guard and reserve were unlikely to experience more than one call out to true battle during their service, or even none. Now some in the last two decades many have rolled out 2, 3, even 4 times.

It becomes a high price to pay to serve, and some may well re-evaluate their choices, completely without accusations of cowardance or weekend only warrior slur attempts.

RogerNC

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Only 35 more days.............!
by Mac McMullen / September 27, 2004 5:26 AM PDT
Collapse -
Never but it doesn't explain why Kerry and YOU...
by Edward ODaniel / September 27, 2004 5:57 AM PDT

refrain from telling the truth. That truth being that it is ALL Democrat sponsors and co-sponsors on the bills to reinstate a draft. No Republican support at present INCLUDING the president.

The TRUTH Dave is something that is. An untruth or LIE is something that isn't but you would like to make others believe.

You present untruths persistently but appear to be unfamiliar with truths.

Since you claim it is "common belief in Washington" and that Bush is going to do it and that he has been plotting it I think it only fair that YOU provide us with the names of the bills and the names of the bills sponsors and co-sponsors and in the interest of truth tell us their party affiliation.

Time again to put up Dave.

Collapse -
"common belief"
by EdH / September 27, 2004 9:24 AM PDT

It is also "well known" (in nutty left wing circles) that we have Osama Bin Laden under lock and key and will reveal his "capture" just before the election. THK recently said as much but I first heard this back when Saddam was caught. The buzz was that we had Saddam all along and released the news to deflect public scrutiny of Halliburton.

Libs where I work actually believe this and say it with a straight face!


Personally I wish it was true. But I wonder how Kerry reconciles his wife's belief with his own "Bush let Bin Laden go at Tora Bora...I would have caught him by now?"

Collapse -
Yeah, riiiiiight.......
by David Evans / September 27, 2004 7:32 AM PDT

> We simply don't have enough troops to maintain the current level of force in Iraq... Why won't Kerry have the same problem? Not because he'd cut and run, but because he has a much better chance of getting multinational assistance in Iraq from countries that won't give Bush the time of day.

Oh really? How you gonna spin this DK?

No French or German turn on Iraq

French and German government officials say they will not significantly increase military assistance in Iraq even if John Kerry, the Democratic presidential challenger, is elected on November 2.

Mr Kerry, who has attacked President George W. Bush for failing to broaden the US-led alliance in Iraq, has pledged to improve relations with European allies and increase international military assistance in Iraq.

"I cannot imagine that there will be any change in our decision not to send troops, whoever becomes president," Gert Weisskirchen, member of parliament and foreign policy expert for Germany's ruling Social Democratic Party, said in an interview.


There ya go. John "bowl of mush" Kerry's last phony reason that he should be POTUS is gone.

And how can you say he won't cut and run when this Bozo has had about 8 positions on the Iraq war? I want to thank you all for nominating this clown, lol.

DE

Collapse -
Like President Bush said in Ohio today........
by Mac McMullen / September 27, 2004 8:29 AM PDT

"..... when this Bozo has had about 8 positions on the Iraq war.....", he could debate himself for 90 minutes.

Collapse -
"Bozo." Nice.
by Josh K / September 28, 2004 5:03 AM PDT

I guess he hasn't learned anything from his father (who used the same epithet during the desperate last days of his own campaign) either.

Collapse -
Give him a break
by Dan McC / September 28, 2004 5:22 AM PDT
In reply to: "Bozo." Nice.

He doesn't know that many two syllable words and wants to use them all.

Wink

Dan

Collapse -
Re: Give him a break
by EdH / September 28, 2004 9:48 AM PDT
In reply to: Give him a break

Calm down, boys. I don't believe President Bush actually called the bozo a bozo, though it would be accurate if he had.

Collapse -
Sorry, Josh, et all........
by Mac McMullen / September 28, 2004 2:10 PM PDT
In reply to: "Bozo." Nice.

President Bush DID NOT use the term. In my post the
term was part of the quote from Dave's post. The
partial retort from the President is correct.

Desparate ? At this point ? Hardly.

Collapse -
Re: Sorry, Josh, et all........
by Josh K / September 28, 2004 11:19 PM PDT

Thanks Del. I hadn't read DE's post or I'd have known that.

Collapse -
Kerry ruled himself out long ago...
by Edward ODaniel / September 28, 2004 4:55 AM PDT
?Let me put it plainly: The President's policy in Iraq has not strengthened our national security. It has weakened it.? (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At New York University, New York, NY, 9/20/04)

Although earlier he has plainly said:

Kerry about Dean - ?Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe we are not safer with his capture, don?t have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president.? (Anne Q. Hoy, ?Dean Faces More Criticism,? [New York] Newsday, 12/17/03)

Kerry's VILLAGE OF ADVISORS aren't much help
http://www.gop.com/RNCResearch/Read.aspx?ID=4722

Popular Forums
icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

HOLIDAY GIFT GUIDE 2017

Cameras that make great holiday gifts

Let them start the new year with a step up in photo and video quality from a phone.