Bogus E-mail about the draft response?

I got this e-mail that has been circulating about HR 163, and I am writing a response. If anyone has one already written, I would love to hear it, if not, please copy mine and send it out to all of the idiots who sent you the original scary e-mail.

-------------------------------
This is just another internet rumor gone wild, but instead promising free money from Microsoft or trips to Disneyland, this one serves to scare the kids (and gullible adults) into voting against Bush. Yes, HR 163 & S 89 are real bills, but like many bills of a nature this extreme, they have been sitting in committee untouched since they were introduced.

Both of these bills were written by Democrats - Charlie Rangel from NY in the House, and Fritz Hollings from SC in the Senate.

Do not fall for the hype and scare tactics of the left. 5 minutes of research on the internet will reveal the truth about this bogus e-mail. Please forward this to anyone who has read the original message so the truth can be told!

http://www.politicalgateway.com/main/columns/read.html?col=54&id=9
--------------------------------------

This was my response to the sender:

I strongly suggest that you take a look at the sponsors of the House and Senate bills. Last time that I checked, They were Democrats. I would like to know why Mr. Kerry has not used his considerable influence to have the bills withdrawn. Perhaps you should ask him about that. Fortunately with Republican control of both houses, you have nothing to worry about. Please keep me informed.

This was my response to the sender:

Draft Fears Fueled by Inaccurate E-mails

Excerpts:

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."

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.