Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
United States

Journal bmetzler's Journal: The Democrat's Military Draft 5

Written by guest blogger Betsy Newmark of Betsy's Page.

This is a copy of an e-mail that is being sent to college students. The daughter of one of my readers is attending the University of Arizona recieved this e-mail and so did many of her classmates. They are all worried about its contents:

Mandatory draft for boys and girls (ages18-26) starting June 15, 2005

There is pending legislation in the House and Senate, S89 and HR 163,to reinstate mandatory draft for boys and girls (ages18-26) starting June 15, 2005. This plan includes women in the draft, eliminates higher education as a shelter, and makes it difficult to cross into Canada.

The Bush administration is quietly trying to get these bills passed now, while the public's attention is on the elections. The Bush administration plans to begin mandatory draft in the spring of 2005, just after the 2004 presidential election.

The Congress has added $28 million to the 2004 selective service system budget to prepare for this military draft that could start as early as June 15, 2005.

Bush has ordered the Selective Service to report to him by March 31, 2005 on their readiness to implement the draft by June 2005

The pentagon has quietly begun a public campaign to fill all 10,350 draft board positions and 11,070 appeals board slots nationwide.

Please act on this:

Tell everyone you know - parents, aunts and uncles, grandparents, godparents, friends, teachers

Call and write to your U.S. Senator and your U.S. Representatives and ask them why they aren't telling their constituents about these bills

Of course, the implication is that Bush wants to draft college students to fight in Iraq. No wonder they're scared. I'm sure the next step will be to mobilize them to vote against Bush. I saw a spokeswoman for Rock the Vote yesterday on TV and she was going on about what a worry an approaching draft is for young voters.

What the e-mail doesn't mention is that the bill in the e-mail HR 163 was introduced by prominent Democrats like Charlie Rangel, Jim McDermott, John Conyers, and John Lewis. There aren't any Republicans involved in the bill.

They are introducing the bill to make people think just what the e-mail is trying to make them think. They are also using the bill to drum up opposition to the war. They are in the minority. The bill will never, ever pass.

It's just a publicity gimmick and now they're using the bill to go anti-Bush.

If you look at the report from the Selective Service System and you will find that the SSS is setting up a prototype exercise of a lottery. And the reason they're doing that is because Congress passed a law requiring them to do so. That is the Government Performance and Resuults Act which was passed in 1993. I seem to remember that George Bush wasn't president then. And the Republicans didn't control the Congress in 1993.

So, according to a Democratically passed law signed by President Clinton, the Selective Service System is setting up a prototype lottery system for use in a national emergency.

But liberals aren't interested in facts; they just want to scare college students into voting against Bush. That is truly slimy."

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Democrat's Military Draft

Comments Filter:
  • by js7a ( 579872 ) <james@bovikBOYSEN.org minus berry> on Sunday September 26, 2004 @01:44PM (#10355664) Homepage Journal
    This is a really weird issue. I agree the Democrats have dropped the ball. For background, please see Fallows' The Hollow Army [theatlantic.com].

    My own comments [washingtonmonthly.com] on the topic have included this:

    Those bills were introduced by
    Democrats, and when you look at their explainations of why they support the bills, it's the "rich kids would have to go too" argument [house.gov]. But I can't find anything like that in the bill texts. They leave the criteria for who serves overseas and who serves stateside entirely up to the administration. And check this out from Section 12 of H.R. 163:

    "(4) The term `uniformed services' means the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, commissioned corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and commissioned corps of the Public Health Service."

    So the rich end up in the Coast Guard or NOAA or PHS corps.

    • Those bills were introduced by Democrats, and when you look at their explainations of why they support the bills, it's the "rich kids would have to go too" argument.

      So, why are Democrats now blaming Republicans for the draft legislation? I've seen this in several places now. Don't you think this will backfire on them? Is it just because they realized after the legislation was authored that poor people don't care about rich children not being in the military?

      After all, poor mom's are going to see the

      • Don't you think this will backfire on them?

        Yes, but not a lot. Presumably they introduced the legislation to prevent a similar bill exempting people for the reasons that the convicted drunk drivers were exempted from service in Vietnam. They erred in haste by not making the bills even more egalitarian, but they are free to amend their bills if the subject is taken up in Congress.

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Unfortunately, I don't think that one has to be totally stupid to buy into this - just disinterested in and therefore uninformed about politics and current affairs. That, unfortunately covers a significant percentage of eligible voters, students or not. Your point that college students tend not to vote is probably precisely what those behind this email had in mind. I would imagine that they are hoping that distributing this to a group of disinterested voters will tend to push them enough to get out and v

I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the demigodic party. -- Dennis Ritchie

Working...