You beat me to it, John. I couldn't believe this story when I read it, especially coming on the heels of that ridiculous fiasco concerning Cheney's comment.
Well, I guess you can leave it to me to be contrary. I have seen nothing but signs that this could be true, other than Rumsfeld's words, of which for some reason I am a bit skeptical...I rest assured however knowing that all the young supporters of the war will volunteer if needed and make this issue meaningless...
NYT:Panel Calls U.S. Troop Size Insufficient for Demands http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/24/politics/24military.html
Ben, the only one who has mentioned draft is Charlie Rangel. If Bush hasn't mentioned it. If Rumsfeld hasn't mentioned it. If Powell hasn't mentioned it. If Cheney hasn't mentioned it. If the Pentagon hasn't mentioned it. If the heads of the Army, Navy, Marine Corp., or Air Force haven't mentioned it... From where exactly is Kerry getting the idea that Bush and co. will institute a draft? The answer is either from Charlie Rangel or thin air. Either way, Bush hasn't mentioned it.
"I have seen nothing but signs that this could be true." What does this mean. Are you saying that since no one has refutted a non-existent charge, it proves that the charge, when so-meekly leveled, is true or believable?
Here's the left's new maxim: In the absense of evidence to the contrary, I will believe whichever baseless charge is to my greatest liking, no matter un-plausible, or baseless, or, in this case, charge-less, the charge may be. Any denial of any charge - no matter how ludicrous - will be taken as proof of guilt.
What sort of mixed up world is this that a Government must publish daily a laundry list of things they WON'T do -- before anyone asks -- so that when someone does ask, they can say: "we said yesterday we weren't going to do it, and we're sticking to that." In that spirit, here are something I won't do, so I can be on record, lest anyone accuse me otherwise:
Tomorrow, I won't be going to Kansas. Sunday, I will not eat clam chowder and I won't eat it with crackers. Monday, I will not burn my house down. I have no plans of killing anyone either. I will not urinate in public on Tuesday. Or Wednesday. I have no plans to paint my house, or my room, or my neighbors room on Thursday. Or any Thursday.
In sum: The Gov't hasn't said anything about a draft, the only one who has, Democrat Rangel, set it up as a classic straw man, and when questioned, Rumsfeld said a draft was not going to happen. All this leads some people to believe there WILL be a military draft? If that's the case, I don't think the Gov't could provide you with enough proof to change your mind.
Actually the dire need for troops is THE prime reason to believe a draft will be necessary. Even McCain has said reason Number One we have not done better in Iraq is not enough troops on the ground. Rumfeld says we need more troops...Rumsfeld didn't say we'd have a draft, Bush didn't say it, Cheney didn't say it, etc....so what? Newsflash: It's election time and an impending draft does not spell re-election. And these guys don't exactly have a history of being forthcoming about policies relating to war, especially when it could hurt their public image...Secrecy is a prime cause for suspicion, so this isn't just "thin air." I believe you won't go to Kansas, I believe you won't eat clam chowder (but as for public urination, I have my doubts), but you haven't got a pressing need to do those things, and as far as I am aware you have no motivation or history about lying about those things...Also, while Selective Services says there are not current plans for a draft, they have begun hiring to fill review boards, from what I'm hearing...Do I believe a draft is impending? Not necessarily, but it is a distinct possibility. Furthermore, as far a "scare tactics" go, Kerry and Edwards have both only discussed the draft in relation to direct questions about it, so I don't think it's like a tactic worked into their stump...
(BTW, the Democratic Senator from South Carolina Ernest Hollings introduced "The Universal National Service Act of 2003" for reasons similar to Rangel, and I believe it is still on the table...just so you know)
Just so we're clear, instituting a draft requires an act of congress as well as presidential authorization. I can't believe I'm even entertaining the possibility. DO YOU KNOW WHAT IT WOULD TAKE TO GET THE DRAFT THROUGH THE SENATE? The Senate won't even confirm Bush's judges, much less institute a non-wartime draft. Outside of being attacked by some rogue state it is just not politically possible. Supporting such a thing would be suicide and every half-witted pol knows it (By the way, Repubs could control all 100 seats in the Senate, have the tie-breaking VP, and still not pass a draft).
You said: "Newsflash: It's election time and an impending draft does not spell re-election." True enough. Ever wonder why it's only Democrats like Rangel, McDermott, Fritz Hollings and Kerry talking about bringing back the draft?
You said: "I believe you won't eat clam chowder (but as for public urination, I have my doubts), but you haven't got a pressing need to do those things, and as far as I am aware you have no motivation or history about lying about those things." First, I don't know exactly who has a history of lying about the draft. It hasn't been in place since 1973. In fact the previous 3 (maybe two) drafts were instituted by Democrats and phased out by Republicans.
Second - It's true I have no pressing need for clam chowder. I could eat beans or cereal or many other things. It's also true that the country has no pressing need for a draft. According to Bloomberg: "The U.S. has 850,000 in the Selected Reserve, members of the National Guard and Reserves who attend drills and are considered active, and 450,000 in the Individual Ready Reserve, who are not required to attend regular training, Rumsfeld said."
You said: "Also, while Selective Services says there are not current plans for a draft, they have begun hiring to fill review boards, from what I'm hearing." Show the source so we can know whether to believe it or not. Is this chatroom fodder or real news? By the way, check out www.sss.gov for their reaction.
You said: " Furthermore, as far a "scare tactics" go, Kerry and Edwards have both only discussed the draft in relation to direct questions about it, so I don't think it's like a tactic worked into their stump." Surely you know that the stump is not the only place where candidates are thinking politics. Every response to every question has a purpose. Don't accuse Kerry of naivete in his response to the draft question. You and I both know better. He knew exactly what he was doing.
In the end, this is simply another product of the Democratic rumor mill. It's happened before -- Dems creating out of thin air a rumor that a Republican would do something that would displease Democrats. Then (about six months ago) all the left was speculating who Bush would use to replace Dick Cheney as his running mate. The left had convinced itself Bush would dump Cheney. It made sense, they figured. Cheney is a political liability, right?
Why would the administration talk about the draft if it would be political liability? Say in some alternate universe where a draft really is impending, would they tell us before re-election?
"I don't know exactly who has a history of lying about the draft." Perhaps you misunderstood, but I thought I made it clear Bush and the administration have not been forthright about many things in relation to the war and outside of it, and I wouldn't expect an honest answer on this.
Did you read the NYT article above about not enough troops? Or what I said about people saying we needed more troops on the ground (McCain) and in the system (Rumsfeld)? Do you think Iraq is getting better? Maybe we'll need less troops?
This is real news, about recruiting for Selective Service boards, the importance of which is debated, either being a "new move" or "routine." And I have been to sss.gov, which is why I said Selective Services is saying there are no current plans for a draft.
Not to get so esoteric, but C.S. Lewis wrote something once about the danger in assuming something based upon the lack of contrary evidence. He said the same logic could prove invisible cats existed. He said someone could perfectly reason: If an invisible cat sat in a chair, the chair would seem empty. But since the chair looks empty, there must be an invisible cat there.
7 Comments:
You beat me to it, John. I couldn't believe this story when I read it, especially coming on the heels of that ridiculous fiasco concerning Cheney's comment.
Well, I guess you can leave it to me to be contrary. I have seen nothing but signs that this could be true, other than Rumsfeld's words, of which for some reason I am a bit skeptical...I rest assured however knowing that all the young supporters of the war will volunteer if needed and make this issue meaningless...
NYT:Panel Calls U.S. Troop Size Insufficient for Demands
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/24/politics/24military.html
-Ben
Serenity now, insanity later.
Ben, the only one who has mentioned draft is Charlie Rangel. If Bush hasn't mentioned it. If Rumsfeld hasn't mentioned it. If Powell hasn't mentioned it. If Cheney hasn't mentioned it. If the Pentagon hasn't mentioned it. If the heads of the Army, Navy, Marine Corp., or Air Force haven't mentioned it... From where exactly is Kerry getting the idea that Bush and co. will institute a draft? The answer is either from Charlie Rangel or thin air. Either way, Bush hasn't mentioned it.
"I have seen nothing but signs that this could be true." What does this mean. Are you saying that since no one has refutted a non-existent charge, it proves that the charge, when so-meekly leveled, is true or believable?
Here's the left's new maxim: In the absense of evidence to the contrary, I will believe whichever baseless charge is to my greatest liking, no matter un-plausible, or baseless, or, in this case, charge-less, the charge may be. Any denial of any charge - no matter how ludicrous - will be taken as proof of guilt.
What sort of mixed up world is this that a Government must publish daily a laundry list of things they WON'T do -- before anyone asks -- so that when someone does ask, they can say: "we said yesterday we weren't going to do it, and we're sticking to that." In that spirit, here are something I won't do, so I can be on record, lest anyone accuse me otherwise:
Tomorrow, I won't be going to Kansas.
Sunday, I will not eat clam chowder and I won't eat it with crackers.
Monday, I will not burn my house down.
I have no plans of killing anyone either.
I will not urinate in public on Tuesday. Or Wednesday.
I have no plans to paint my house, or my room, or my neighbors room on Thursday. Or any Thursday.
In sum: The Gov't hasn't said anything about a draft, the only one who has, Democrat Rangel, set it up as a classic straw man, and when questioned, Rumsfeld said a draft was not going to happen. All this leads some people to believe there WILL be a military draft? If that's the case, I don't think the Gov't could provide you with enough proof to change your mind.
Actually the dire need for troops is THE prime reason to believe a draft will be necessary. Even McCain has said reason Number One we have not done better in Iraq is not enough troops on the ground. Rumfeld says we need more troops...Rumsfeld didn't say we'd have a draft, Bush didn't say it, Cheney didn't say it, etc....so what? Newsflash: It's election time and an impending draft does not spell re-election. And these guys don't exactly have a history of being forthcoming about policies relating to war, especially when it could hurt their public image...Secrecy is a prime cause for suspicion, so this isn't just "thin air." I believe you won't go to Kansas, I believe you won't eat clam chowder (but as for public urination, I have my doubts), but you haven't got a pressing need to do those things, and as far as I am aware you have no motivation or history about lying about those things...Also, while Selective Services says there are not current plans for a draft, they have begun hiring to fill review boards, from what I'm hearing...Do I believe a draft is impending? Not necessarily, but it is a distinct possibility. Furthermore, as far a "scare tactics" go, Kerry and Edwards have both only discussed the draft in relation to direct questions about it, so I don't think it's like a tactic worked into their stump...
(BTW, the Democratic Senator from South Carolina Ernest Hollings introduced "The Universal National Service Act of 2003" for reasons similar to Rangel, and I believe it is still on the table...just so you know)
-Ben
Just so we're clear, instituting a draft requires an act of congress as well as presidential authorization. I can't believe I'm even entertaining the possibility. DO YOU KNOW WHAT IT WOULD TAKE TO GET THE DRAFT THROUGH THE SENATE? The Senate won't even confirm Bush's judges, much less institute a non-wartime draft. Outside of being attacked by some rogue state it is just not politically possible. Supporting such a thing would be suicide and every half-witted pol knows it (By the way, Repubs could control all 100 seats in the Senate, have the tie-breaking VP, and still not pass a draft).
You said: "Newsflash: It's election time and an impending draft does not spell re-election." True enough. Ever wonder why it's only Democrats like Rangel, McDermott, Fritz Hollings and Kerry talking about bringing back the draft?
You said: "I believe you won't eat clam chowder (but as for public urination, I have my doubts), but you haven't got a pressing need to do those things, and as far as I am aware you have no motivation or history about lying about those things." First, I don't know exactly who has a history of lying about the draft. It hasn't been in place since 1973. In fact the previous 3 (maybe two) drafts were instituted by Democrats and phased out by Republicans.
Second - It's true I have no pressing need for clam chowder. I could eat beans or cereal or many other things. It's also true that the country has no pressing need for a draft. According to Bloomberg: "The U.S. has 850,000 in the Selected Reserve, members of the National Guard and Reserves who attend drills and are considered active, and 450,000 in the Individual Ready Reserve, who are not required to attend regular training, Rumsfeld said."
You said: "Also, while Selective Services says there are not current plans for a draft, they have begun hiring to fill review boards, from what I'm hearing." Show the source so we can know whether to believe it or not. Is this chatroom fodder or real news? By the way, check out www.sss.gov for their reaction.
You said: " Furthermore, as far a "scare tactics" go, Kerry and Edwards have both only discussed the draft in relation to direct questions about it, so I don't think it's like a tactic worked into their stump." Surely you know that the stump is not the only place where candidates are thinking politics. Every response to every question has a purpose. Don't accuse Kerry of naivete in his response to the draft question. You and I both know better. He knew exactly what he was doing.
In the end, this is simply another product of the Democratic rumor mill. It's happened before -- Dems creating out of thin air a rumor that a Republican would do something that would displease Democrats. Then (about six months ago) all the left was speculating who Bush would use to replace Dick Cheney as his running mate. The left had convinced itself Bush would dump Cheney. It made sense, they figured. Cheney is a political liability, right?
Why would the administration talk about the draft if it would be political liability? Say in some alternate universe where a draft really is impending, would they tell us before re-election?
"I don't know exactly who has a history of lying about the draft." Perhaps you misunderstood, but I thought I made it clear Bush and the administration have not been forthright about many things in relation to the war and outside of it, and I wouldn't expect an honest answer on this.
Did you read the NYT article above about not enough troops? Or what I said about people saying we needed more troops on the ground (McCain) and in the system (Rumsfeld)? Do you think Iraq is getting better? Maybe we'll need less troops?
This is real news, about recruiting for Selective Service boards, the importance of which is debated, either being a "new move" or "routine." And I have been to sss.gov, which is why I said Selective Services is saying there are no current plans for a draft.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1077906,00.html
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/147483_draft08.html
I believe they were genuine responses to genuine questions about the draft, not naivete...
I hope it is just a rumor...
Not to get so esoteric, but C.S. Lewis wrote something once about the danger in assuming something based upon the lack of contrary evidence. He said the same logic could prove invisible cats existed. He said someone could perfectly reason: If an invisible cat sat in a chair, the chair would seem empty. But since the chair looks empty, there must be an invisible cat there.
Post a Comment
<< Home