More Democrat propaganda to scare the voters away from Bush.
The only draft bills in congress are the ones drafted by democrats to scare voters.
Period.
No one in the military wants a conscripted military.
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.
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.
Unless the DEMOCRATS institute one.............
Oh, and while I'm on this, the "There's a Draft in No Child left behind act" is BS too!
It's sole purpose is to fire up idiots into thinking that there's a slight chance it may pass.
Apparently, the idiots are sufficiently spooked.
It's gotta be embarrassing to be tricked into hysteria by a boob like Rangel.
H.R 163 was introduced by Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY), and S. 89 was introduced by Sen. Fritz Hollings (D-SC). You can figure the rest out for yourself.
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.
Mr. RANGEL (for himself, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. STARK, and Mr. ABERCROMBIE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services
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.
Mr. HOLLINGS introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services
DEMOCRATS!
Its just a Dim-Bulb scare tactic that will go nowhere.
Dear tickles,
Did you actually look at the website and the bill?
It was sponsored by Mr. Charles Rangel, Democrat of New York, and his illustrious fellow felons, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. STARK, and Mr. ABERCROMBIE, Democrats all.
It was introduced last year, 2003, and went nowhere, because no Republicans, and very few Democrats actually want to re-introduce the draft. The president has not, and will not ask for it.
It was a Democrat cheap trick (redundant - all their tricks are cheap) to undermine support for the war for Iraq by suggesting, throught the introduction of the bill, that we'd need to bring back the draft to continue the war.
Don't be fooled by the evil of Democrats.
sitetest
This is DU blather. They're actively looking for people to spread this tripe. Don't take the bait.
Gad, Chuck Rangel's bill continues to generate smoke and confusion (which was his intention.) It's my understanding that this draft bill is an attempt by Dems to create "war fear" and has had occasional success in that arena. Howver, it has not a snowball's chance of passage and none of the services has expressed support, to my knowledge.
As long as Republicans control the House and Senate they will not be allowed out of committee.
As long as there is a Republican President, they will not be signed into law if passed.
So9
Oh, really??
Rumsfeld: No Need for Draft; 'Disadvantages Notable'
By Kathleen T. Rhem
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Jan. 7, 2003 -- The United States is not going to implement a military draft, because there is no need for it, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said today.
Rep. Charles Rangel said last week he was planning to introduce such legislation in the New Year. Rep. John Conyers Jr. has since expressed support.
"I believe that if those calling for war knew their children were more likely to be required to serve -- and to be placed in harm's way -- there would be more caution and a greater willingness to work with the international community in dealing with Iraq," Rangel wrote in a recent commentary in the New York Times.
Rumsfeld dismissed the notion out of hand during a Pentagon press briefing. "I don't know of anyone in this building or in the administration who thinks that anyone ought to go to war lightly," he said. "I know the president doesn't, and I know I don't."
The country doesn't need a draft because the all-volunteer force works -- in fact, the United States has the most effective military in the world precisely because it is all-volunteer, Joint Chiefs Chairman Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers said.
"(The all-volunteer force is) efficient; it's effective; it's given the United States of America, the citizens of this great country, a military that is second to none," Myers said.
"The people that are in the armed services today … are there because they want to be there and are ready and willing and, without any question, capable of doing whatever the president may ask," Rumsfeld added.
The secretary described "notable disadvantages" to having a conscripted force. He said people are involuntarily forced to serve, some for less than they could earn on the outside. There are many exemptions, which change all the time, thus providing for unfair situations. Troops are "churned" through training, serve the minimum amount of time and leave -- thus causing more money to be spent to churn more draftees through the system.
He also dismissed the notion that the all-volunteer force leads to a disproportionate number of blacks and other minorities being killed in battle.
"I do not know that that's historically correct," Rumsfeld said. "And I do not know that, even if it were historically correct, that it's correct today."
He and Myers kept coming back to their bottom line: America is better off for the force it has today.
"We have people serving today -- God bless 'em -- because they volunteered," Rumsfeld said. "They want to be doing what it is they're doing. And we're just lucky as a country that there are so many wonderfully talented young men and young women who each year step up and say, 'I'm ready; let me do that.'"
Not likely to happen. I'll go if my number comes up, but I'd probably fail the physical again. But who knows, maybe I won't.
Oh, and the bill in Congress regarding the draft is a Democratic bill, not a Republican bill.
The bills are not being pushed. It's quite true that the two bills mentioned would require both men and women aged 18 through 25 to perform a two-year period of "national service," which incidentally could be either military or non-military service. But the bills are sponsored only by Democrats, and there's not the slightest evidence that the Bush administration is pushing for them, quietly or otherwise.
One bill is HR 163 , whose principle sponsor is Democratic Rep. Charles Rangel of New York. It has 14 co-sponsors, all of them Democrats in a Congress controlled by Republicans. The bill was dead on arrival: it sits in a House subcommittee with no hearings or votes scheduled and no action expected.
In fact, Rangel told FactCheck.org through his spokesman Emile Milne that even he isn't pushing for passage, let alone Bush (emphasis added):
Rep. Rangel: I'm not pushing this bill . It's up to the President to come to me when he needs it.
The identical Senate bill, S. 89 , introduced by Democratic Sen. Ernest Hollings, and also was DOA. Not one other senator has co-sponsored it. It also sits in committee with no action scheduled or expected.
Both bills in question were drawn up before the Iraq war started, mostly to make a political point. Rangel said he acted to highlight Democratic objections to use of military force against Saddam Hussein. He wrote , "I truly believe that decision-makers who support war would more readily feel the pain of conflict and appreciate the sacrifice of those on the front lines if their children were there, too."
The only people pushing for the draft are people that voted against the war, and all dems. Rumsfield has said if they need a draft it will be because he screwed up. Ain't gonna be no draft while he's around, which could be part of the reason the Dems are pushing for him to resign.