Democrats are pushing for a draft as we speak

Today the House will vote on a Democratic bill to reinstate the draft. President Bush and Republicans oppose a draft and seek defeat of this bill.
Sen. Kerry and Sen. Edwards wrongly claim it is Republicans who support this, yet it is John Kerry who said he may be open to a draft.
Below is more information about this bill, who sponsored it, what Sen. Kerry and Sen. Edwards are saying as well as the truth about President Bush's position regarding it.
We need you to call talk radio shows and write letters to the editor. Let people know that it is not Republicans who support this bill, it is the Democrats.

I Need Your Help Telling the Media!
Kerry and Edwards claim it's Republicans who want a Draft, but it's Democrats who are proposing it in Congress.
The Administration has been clear: President Bush opposes a draft. To call talk radio shows and write letters to the editor click here.
http://www.gopteamleader.com/permission_denied.asp?restrurl=/actions/vie
w_alert.asp?id=309

Democrats Push Draft in Congress
President Bush Opposes Draft And Republicans Seek Certain Defeat Of Bill

Just Who is Proposing a Draft?

Democrat Congressman Charles Rangel (D-NY) Introduced The "Universal National Service Act Of 2003" To Reinstate Military Draft. "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." (H.R. 163, Introduced 1/7/03 By Rep. Charles Rangel)

* Today, House Of Representatives Will Vote On Rangel's Proposal, Which House Armed Services Chairman Duncan Hunter (R-CA) Vows Will Receive "Very Little Congressional Support." "Later today, the House of Representatives will debate and vote on H.R. 163, the Universal National Service Act - commonly known as the Reinstate the Draft Bill. There is very little Congressional support for reinstating the draft." (House Armed Services Committee, "House To Vote On And Reject Military Draft Bill," Press Release, 10/5/04)

Democrat Senator Ernest Hollings (D-SC) Has Introduced Identical Military Draft Legislation. "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." (S. 89, Introduced 1/7/03 By Sen. Ernest Hollings)

Kerry and Edwards Claim It's Republicans Who Want Draft, But Kerry Is Open to Draft
Kerry Raised Possibility Draft Is Returning Under Bush. "Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, citing the war in Iraq and other trouble spots in the world, raised the possibility Wednesday that a military draft could be reinstated if voters re-elect President Bush. ... Answering a question about the draft that had been posed at a forum with voters, Kerry said: 'If George Bush were to be re-elected, given the way he has gone about this war and given his avoidance of responsibility in North Korea and Iran and other places, is it possible? I can't tell you.'" (Mary Dalrymple, "Kerry Raises Possibility That Military Draft Could Return If Bush Is Re-Elected," The Associated Press, 9/22/04)

Edwards Hinted Draft Would Return Under President Bush. "Edwards drew his biggest applause from the audience, which was heavy on union members and laid-off workers, when he responded to a question from a woman who said that her 23-year-old son recently graduated from college, and that she is worried about a draft being instituted for the war in Iraq. 'There will be no draft when John Kerry is president,' Edwards said, to applause and a standing ovation." (Jim VandeHei, "Kerry Accuses Bush Of Dishonesty On Iraq," The Washington Post, 9/16/04)
Yet Kerry Told Reporter That If Large Mobilization Is Needed, Draft Is "Only Fair Way To Do It." REPORTER: "Senator, some in your party have called for reinstating the draft. Do you think that is a good idea?" KERRY: "Not at this moment. I don't. If we had a need for a general mobilization at some time in the future, then I think that's the only fair way to do it." (WLVI's "Keller At Large," Interview Taped 12/2/03, Aired 9/26/04)

Administration Has Been Clear: President Bush Opposes Draft
Secretary Rumsfeld Called Allegations "Absolute Nonsense." "Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld heatedly denied yesterday that the military plans to bring back the draft and boost reserves and National Guard callups after the November election. 'That is absolute nonsense,' Rumsfeld told the Senate Armed Services Committee. 'It's absolutely false that anyone in this administration is considering reinstituting the draft.'" (Richard Sisk, "No Draft, No Extra Troops - Rummy," [New York] Daily News, 9/24/04)
Vice President Cheney Said Rumors Were "Hogwash." "And the notion that somebody's peddling out there that there is a secret plan to reinstitute the draft, hogwash, not true." (NBC's "Nightly News," 9/29/04)
President Bush: "We Don't Need The Draft." "No, we're not going - we don't need the draft. Look, the all-volunteer Army is working. ... I know Senator McCain and I agree on this issue for certain, the all-volunteer Army works."

THEY DUPE YA AGAIN.....!!
THEY LIE, AND ARE SNEAKING THIS IN WHILE BLAMING BUSH....'
How many of you want to be drafted...?
How many of you want your children drafted...?

Can't answer...cos it would mean YOU were WRONG ABOUT KERRY!!!

Kerry is cunning, and he lies...!

This speaks volumes...too bad you all chant how wrong the war is, BUSH has kept it voluntary...Kerry won't!!!

Now how will you vote?

I want to add something...

There is a law that has always been in effect...

THE President in time of war CAN override the Congress.

SO..basically if Kerry gets in and wants this draft...ya bet your bummie, he will have it. NOT a darn thing Congress can do either.

Why is it that Bush that Bush is against the principle of the draft, and yet starts so many large wars that the draft is needed.

Why is it that Bush is in principle against high taxation, yet enlarges government spending so much that there needs to be high taxation.

You can't have it both ways, or you will have budget deficits and lost wars.

oh teen, you speak in terms of reason and responsibility for their candidate, you probably sound like you are speaking a foreign language to them, don't expect much back but quotes scriptures or other thoughts firmly planted in their heads by others.

Don't worry, I've learned to have low expectations from most things.

"the administration has been clear" These are obviously your own words right pat? Cause god knows I haven't heard it a billion times right before they contradict themselves making it very clear, they are all full of shit!

regardless of whether the current administration is thinking about a draft or not, soon we're gonna need one. and it's sad. truly fuckin sad.

And if thats the case, for you bush eaters out there, that means its your candidates fault, not one to generally point fingers so, because there is a lot behing all of it, but for steve and pat, I'll gladly make an exception.

I went thru the whole history of how we got to 911.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/bio.html
biography of Osama Bin Laden

http://www.comw.org/pda/0201strangevic.html The winning in Afghan
(Read biography to see why....setting up freedom where these roaches hide)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1109922/posts
The evidence suggests that "Ramzi Yousef" had close connections to the Iraqi security services. This evidence has impressed, among others, former CIA chief James Woolsey, and Richard Perle, former head of the Defense Policy Board. Mr. Clarke calls the Yousef-Saddam connection an "utterly discredited" theory, unworthy of serious debate. He likes the phrase so much, he even uses it on the dust jacket of his book. But let's review the facts: • Fact #1: "Ramzi Yousef" entered the U.S. in September 1992 on an Iraqi passport, with stamps showing a journey beginning in Baghdad. This fact is attested by the inspector who admitted Yousef into the U.S. Yet Mr. Clarke contends that Yousef entered the U.S. without a passport.

• Fact #2: The sole remaining fugitive from the 1993 bombing, Abdul Rahman Yasin, is an Iraqi. After the attack, Yasin fled to Iraq. The Iraqi regime rewarded Yasin with a house and monthly stipend. Yet Mr. Clarke claims, incredibly, that the Iraqis jailed Yasin.

• Fact #3: Seven men were indicted in the 1993 attack. Two of the seven, Yousef and Yasin, have Iraqi connections. Yet Mr. Clarke inflates the number of participants to 12, so as to create the impression that the presence of one or two men with Iraqi connections was no big deal.

• Fact #4: The truth is, we don't really know much about the prisoner bearing the name "Ramzi Yousef." Judge Kevin Duffy, who presided over Yousef's two trials, observed at sentencing: "We don't even know what your real name is." Yet Mr. Clarke claims to know what the judge did not: Yousef, he writes, "was born Abdul Basit in Pakistan and grew up in Kuwait where his father worked."

http://www.papadoc.net/WoW/ConnectionbetweenAlQuedaandSaddam.htm
Connections of Saddam and Al Queda, and terrorist acts.

Not forgetting the Kurds, altho in 1988, the proof of WMD, and incidently chemical agents if buried and pointed out, cannot be found necessarily.
http://www.kdp.pp.se/chemical.html <~~Kurds.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/585193/posts And lastly, Clinton could have avoided 911, and this war...had he acted responsible for our welfare as acting president.





Thanks leftwood.

I apologize for laziness in not reading all the sites but my question to all that would be, what of the fact that there are and were, far more dangerous spots than Iraq, that the premise was WMD's which we have troops there now and they say "Nope, nuthin", and that those other possible or probable threats have thus grown since? How is it that you manage to always only come with info that supports YOUR possistion, isn't that a little odd, not knocking the effort, but I sense a pattern.

Though I support GW on the Iraq thing, I can't blame the ant-war folk for their opposition... However, there's no doubt that Liberals are masking their true agenda with bleeding heart concerns for innocent civilians, US troops, and their 20/20 hind-sight rhetoric on the missing WMDs...

The Liberal's actual 'axe-to-grind' is the major setback caused by GW and company... The Liberals were very close with Gore, a meal ticket towards furthering the Nanny-Hood dream of Liberals... The United States of Nanny-Hood Ville!

Come clean to Uncle Greasy.

What about the current "back door draft" of keeping people beyond terms and enlistments? Who's to blame for that?

Back door draft...hmmm. Now that's a clever term.

You know there is a significant difference between a 'draft' and 'extended duty.'

All our current military branches are strictly 'volunteer' forces. We sign up without coercion for an agreed enlistment term.

Example: the USAF active duty is typically 4 years, followed by 2 years of inactive reserves. In short, you agree before hand to serve a 4 year term that can be extend up to 2 years after your active duty is over, i.e. your 2 years of agreed inactive reserves can be activated in the event of War or National emergency.

The point here though, is that you 'volunteer' at the front end of the enlistment, you are not coerced at any point.

With a draft there is no contract for service, you are coerced into the service and assigned to a military branch as directed by some leucocratic process.

This term 'back-door-draft' is a twisted way of describing an extension previously agreed to by the enlisted person.

True, but do they ever extend people beyond even those terms? And its also a problem to tell troops they are doing one thing and leaving at one time then not, worse for moral than anything, but trust issues come of these things too (irrelevant to degrees I understand that)

Another problem is how people are recruited in the first place, recruiters would make great politicians and lawyers (and religion pushers), they will do anything to coerce you.

I can tell you one thing, people don't join the military generaly hoping to die or be part of war. Our current enlistment rates (which is prompting this draft talk) shows that quite nicely. Expecially given all the contraversy on the point of and handling of the war.

Leftwood,

To your question, "True, but do they ever extend people beyond even those terms?"

No, they do not get extended beyond the pre-agreed term.

To your next comment, "Another problem is how people are recruited in the first place, recruiters would make great politicians and lawyers (and religion pushers), they will do anything to coerce you."

I think you meant 'persuasion,' because to be coerced requires force. A free society like ours allows you to make choices, but it does not guaranty freedom from persuasion. I could go on with countless examples of persuasion vs coercion, but I think you can figure my point without a long diatribe.

To you last comment, 'I can tell you one thing, people don't join the military generaly hoping to die or be part of war...'

You're right, most join to take advantage of the benefits and they mostly do so with their 'fingers crossed.' The purpose of a military branch is to provide a war machine and everything else is secondary. So, anyone that joins, hoping that they get lucky and never have to be part of a combat scenario... Should not join.

Enlisting as a volunteer is a contract and it must be honored by both parties.