Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bill to Restore the Draft Is Defeated in the House
NY Times ^ | October 6, 2004 | CARL HULSE

Posted on 10/05/2004 9:30:21 PM PDT by neverdem

WASHINGTON, Oct. 5 - Trying to quiet fears of a return of the draft, the House Republican leadership engaged in a hasty call-up of its own on Tuesday. The Republicans brought to the floor a Democratic-sponsored proposal to reinstate mandatory military service and presided over its overwhelming defeat on a vote of 402 to 2.

"We're going to put a nail in that coffin," said the House majority leader, Representative Tom DeLay of Texas. He accused Democrats of generating opposition to President Bush - especially on college campuses - by raising the idea that the draft might be re-established after the November election to provide troops for service in Iraq.

Democrats were outraged at the tactic, charging Republicans with a cynical political ploy on a matter that merited more thoughtful hearings and debate. The Democrats originally introduced the measure early last year as a way to protest the war, even before it began, and to spotlight how low- and middle-income Americans shoulder much of the burden of serving in the military.

"It is a prostitution of the legislative process to take a serious issue and use it for political purposes on the eve of the election just to say they are against the draft," said Representative Charles B. Rangel, Democrat of New York, the author of the bill, who ended up voting against it.

With the military strained by its operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, talk of a return of the draft - discontinued in 1973 during the Vietnam War - has persisted, fueled by e-mail and Internet chatter warning of a new draft once the election is concluded. The activist group Rock the Vote, which seeks to register young Americans to vote, has also broadcast public service announcements pointing to the draft as an important campaign issue.

Members of Congress are regularly asked about the idea as well, often by worried parents.

"This is the issue that will not go away," said Representative Jim McDermott, Democrat of Washington. He and other Democrats suggested again on Tuesday that Mr. Bush's re-election could mean a return of the draft, because the administration is already calling back reservists and halting the discharge of military personnel. Senator John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate, has referred to such moves as a backdoor draft.

"How big a step is it from where we are right now to the president saying it is the national interest that everyone serve?" asked Mr. McDermott.

Republicans portrayed such claims as part of a pre-election fraud. "The reason we are doing this is to expose the hoax of the year, which has been needlessly scaring young people," said Representative Duncan Hunter of California, chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

Administration officials including Mr. Bush and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld have said they have absolutely no plans to restore the draft and believe that the all-volunteer military is the proper way to field troops. Both of them have reiterated that position in recent days.

"We will not have a draft so long as I'm the president of the United States," Mr. Bush said to applause from a crowd in Iowa on Monday.

"We do not need a draft," Mr. Rumsfeld said during a radio interview with Sean Hannity. "We've got, you know, 295 million people in this country and we have an active force of about 1.4 million and we are having no trouble at all attracting and retaining the people that we need to serve in the Armed Forces."

Some Democrats said it was the administration's loss of credibility due to the failure to find chemical and biological weapons in Iraq and its mishandling of the aftermath that was to blame for worry about the draft. "The president's foreign policy is scaring the kids of this country," said Representative Tim Ryan, Democrat of Ohio.

The Internet traffic on the draft often cites as evidence of a future draft the measure sponsored by Mr. Rangel, which would require two years of military service or the alternative of national service, as well as its companion in the Senate sponsored by Senator Ernest F. Hollings, Democrat of South Carolina.

The issue has also gotten an airing from Rock the Vote. Officials of the group have said the draft is a subject that should be addressed in detail by the presidential contenders. "We are not saying there is going to be a draft," said Jay Strell, a spokesman for the group. "What we are saying is we need to have an open an honest dialogue about this based on the facts."

With lawmakers acutely aware of the potential political ramifications of backing a draft, the Rangel measure languished without much attention until the Republican leadership decided to force it to the floor to make a political point.

One lawmaker spoke in favor of the bill, saying it was time Congress gave some thought to future military manpower needs.

"I believe we have to start looking at this right now," said Representative John Murtha of Pennsylvania, a leading Democrat on military issues. He was joined in backing the bill by Representative Fortney Stark, Democrat of California.

Senate officials said they had no intention of acting on a similar proposal, but the Democratic leader, Senator Tom Daschle, said he doubted the House vote would put the matter to rest.

"I would expect you're going to continue to see debates about the viability of a draft as we move forward," Mr. Daschle said.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: District of Columbia; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: draft; selectiveservice
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-38 next last

1 posted on 10/05/2004 9:30:22 PM PDT by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem

EXCELLENT!!!!!


2 posted on 10/05/2004 9:32:08 PM PDT by Brad’s Gramma ($1 a month/each Freeper/Tick off the libs/End the Freepathons/$1 a month/each Freeper/Tick off the l)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
"It is a prostitution of the legislative process to take a serious issue and use it for political purposes on the eve of the election just to say they are against the draft," said Representative Charles B. Rangel,

Rush always says these people are engaging in transferrence. You can't get a better example of that than the author of the draft bill condemning the Republicans of playing politics with it.

3 posted on 10/05/2004 9:34:41 PM PDT by John Jorsett (Kerry-Edwards: FORGING AHEAD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Who voted for it if Rangel voted against it? And is this the first time an author has voted against his own legislation?


4 posted on 10/05/2004 9:35:03 PM PDT by Blogger (The only difference between Terry McAuliffe and Michael Moore is about 300 pounds)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Who the heck voted "yes" on this? There are only 2.


5 posted on 10/05/2004 9:35:27 PM PDT by WomanofStandard (Life is Hard, but God is Good)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Who were the 2 who voted in favor?


6 posted on 10/05/2004 9:36:22 PM PDT by John Jorsett (Kerry-Edwards: FORGING AHEAD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
to spotlight how low- and middle-income Americans shoulder much of the burden of serving in the military.

Hmmm.

Low AND middle-income people shoulder much of the burden, eh?

In an all-volunteer military.

Imagine that.

Only in a Dim mind can that be a bad thing...

7 posted on 10/05/2004 9:36:23 PM PDT by Izzy Dunne (Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
That Stark and Murtha sure are geniuses!!!!

They must even be smarter than John Kerry.

I shudder in awe at their "complexity"

8 posted on 10/05/2004 9:38:32 PM PDT by Rome2000 (The ENEMY for Kerry!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
You know, this gets weirder the more I read it.

to spotlight how low- and middle-income Americans shoulder much of the burden of serving in the military.

Isn't this an argument for military pay raises? After all, if someone is in the military, then most (if not all) of their income is from their job, i.e. the military.

So there are no rich people in the military - that seems perfectly normal to me. The military doesn't pay enough to make you rich.

And if there are poor people in the military (as I'm sure there are), perhaps the answer is to raise military pay, rather than FORCE SOMEBODY ELSE to join for low pay.

9 posted on 10/05/2004 9:41:41 PM PDT by Izzy Dunne (Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blogger

I admit that I scanned it, but did it really say that Rangel voted against it? The two quotes by Rangel in the article didn't seem to indicate to me that he voted against it.


10 posted on 10/05/2004 9:46:12 PM PDT by texasflower (How appropriate...... the pro abortion party is the "D 'N' C")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
What a disaster for the Dems. This was only introduced to support he conspiracy theory crowd and make Pres. Bush look bad. It back fired big time.
11 posted on 10/05/2004 9:48:10 PM PDT by rickp3131
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Jorsett

Stark & Murtha


12 posted on 10/05/2004 9:51:16 PM PDT by aynrandfreak (If 9/11 didn't change you, you're a bad human being)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I wonder if See BS covered this story?


13 posted on 10/05/2004 9:52:09 PM PDT by Founding Father
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

"The Democrats originally introduced the measure early last year as a way to protest the war...."

"It is a prostitution of the legislative process to take a serious issue and use it for political purposes on the eve of the election just to say they are against the draft," said Representative Charles B. Rangel, Democrat of New York, the author of the bill, who ended up voting against it.




Rangell should live by his own words....


14 posted on 10/05/2004 9:53:27 PM PDT by Peace will be here soon (Congrats Port Adelaide Power ! 2004 AFL champs !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peace will be here soon
"It is a prostitution of the legislative process to take a serious issue and use it for political purposes on the eve of the election just to say they are against the draft,"

If that's a 'prostitution of the legislative process', then what do you call creating a prank bill to be used by your political party to scare parents and adolescents into voting for you or else suffer forced labor and possibly death?

What do you call that, Mr. Rangel?

15 posted on 10/05/2004 9:57:41 PM PDT by Steel Wolf (Proudly FReeping in my invisible pajamas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Brad's Gramma
EXCELLENT!!!!!

I would have thought it better to leave it hanging in the fire with extended debate while all the Pubbies blast it as a rat scheme to enslave America's youth.

16 posted on 10/05/2004 9:58:34 PM PDT by night reader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Blogger
And is this the first time an author has voted against his own legislation?

I don't know, but it usually only happens after poison pill amendments are tacked on. If it was a clean bill, i.e. no attached amendments, it could be a first. It shows what a cynical dem Rangel is. He's a Korean Veteran, and was my Congressman at one time.

17 posted on 10/05/2004 9:59:50 PM PDT by neverdem (Xin loi min oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Steel Wolf

I watched some of the debate on the house floor today on this and the lies that were flowing out of the mouths of the democrats were unreal. I had to turn it off.


18 posted on 10/05/2004 10:03:25 PM PDT by Peace will be here soon (Congrats Port Adelaide Power ! 2004 AFL champs !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
a Democratic-sponsored proposal to reinstate mandatory military service and presided over its overwhelming defeat on a vote of 402 to 2. "We're going to put a nail in that coffin," said the House majority leader, Representative Tom DeLay of Texas.

Hot tub Tom is an effn stud. Charlie Rangel hasn't been spanked that bad since the DNC convention in San Francisco.

19 posted on 10/05/2004 10:06:53 PM PDT by Maynerd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aynrandfreak
>> Stark & Murtha <<

To elaborate:

Rep. John Murtha (D) and Rep. Pete Stark (D) were the ONLY members of Congress to try and enact the "Republican" plot to bring back the draft.

EVERY "R" in Congress voted AGAINST the secret "Republican" plot (which was coincidentially written and sponcered by DEMOCRATS) to bring back the draft.

20 posted on 10/05/2004 10:07:33 PM PDT by BillyBoy (George Ryan deserves a long term...without parole.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-38 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson