Kerry Falsely Accuses Bush on Draft

In a cynical attempt to scare younger voters Kerry says Bush would bring back the draft if re-elected.

One has to wonder how Kerry can reconcile the fact that all legislation in respect to re-introducing the draft comes from his own fellow democrats in congress.

This accusation is at best propaganda for the under-educated voter, at worst another lie in a long string of lie's by Kerry misleading the electorate.



But then there is this from, CNN

Rangel introduces bill to reinstate draft
Rumsfeld says he sees no need for military draft

Wednesday, January 8, 2003 Posted: 4:28 AM EST (0928 GMT)

Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., wants to reinstate the military draft, saying fighting forces should more closely reflect the economic makeup of the nation. CNNfn's Peter Viles reports (January 8)
PLAY VIDEO

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Rep. Charles Rangel introduced a bill in Congress Tuesday to reinstate the military draft, saying fighting forces should more closely reflect the economic makeup of the nation.

Rangel and his fellow democrats are the only ones pushing for a renewel of the draft. No republicans have signed on to this effort yet Kerry today led voters to believe Bush is responsible.

This is yet another sign of a campaign of desperation that is going to rely on false flag scare tactics to divide the people.

The Bills Sponsers Are,

Sen Hollings, Ernest F. Democrat
Rep Rangel, Charles B. Democrat

The co-sponsers are,

Rep Abercrombie, Neil [HI-1] - 1/7/2003 Democrat
Rep Brown, Corrine [FL-3] - 1/28/2003 Democrat
Rep Christensen, Donna M. [VI] - 5/19/2004 Democrat
Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy [MO-1] - 1/28/2003 Democrat
Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14] - 1/7/2003 Democrat
Rep Cummings, Elijah E. [MD-7] - 1/28/2003 Democrat
Rep Hastings, Alcee L. [FL-23] - 1/28/2003 Democrat
Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. [IL-2] - 7/21/2004 Democrat
Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila [TX-18] - 1/28/2003 Democrat
Rep Lewis, John [GA-5] - 1/7/2003 Democrat
Rep McDermott, Jim [WA-7] - 1/7/2003 Democrat
Rep Moran, James P. [VA-8] - 1/28/2003 Democrat
Rep Stark, Fortney Pete [CA-13] - 1/7/2003 Democrat
Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. [NY-12] - 1/28/2003 Democrat
Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes [DC] - 1/28/2003(withdrawn - 6/21/2004) Democrat

Congress




[edit on 23-9-2004 by Phoenix]

Typical of Kerry to try to scare voters into making them believe what Bush is going to do if re-elected. The entire time that Kerry has been campaigning for the presidency, I've never heard him say anything about what he would do (anything original). The only thing he say's is that he wouldn't do what Bush is doing. That really tells me a lot about what his plans are for America are, "I will do the opposite of what my opponent is currently doing."
No wonder he's dropping behind in the polls at a breakneck speed! The very reason he's going to lose the November elections.

The democrats introduce the legislation and then from time to time put talking heads on TV over a number of months warning of a need for draft because they say Iraq is going badly.

Then they go silent for a couple of months on the subject until their cadidate spins their very legislation into "draft if Bush re-elected" how cynical and hypocritical are they willing to be in an attempt to win election?

Meanwhile democratic operatives are perpetuating this lie by covering university campuses with flyers warning of a secret push for the draft by the Bush administration after the election.

Okay so if Bush is re-elected and calls up the draft I assume all of you would support his impeachement for this deception? Talking to the few people I know in the military today they claim they have already been told to expect a large influx of troops in January or February due to the draft.

Since Bush has failed to meet his promises in the 2000 election I hope everyone is willing to hold him accountable for his promises this time (intead of supporting his lies as seems to be the policy today).

Regardless of who initiated the draft legislation in Congress, the fact is recruiting sucks, soldiers are sticking with enlistments due to stop-loss and Individual Ready Reserve commitments (when they show up for them) and unless they drastically increase enlistment incentives we will see a significant degradation of US troop readiness.

Originally posted by nativeokie
Okay so if Bush is re-elected and calls up the draft I assume all of you would support his impeachement for this deception? Talking to the few people I know in the military today they claim they have already been told to expect a large influx of troops in January or February due to the draft.

What deception is that? President Bush has said nothing about the draft...it's Kerry who is bringing it up as a scare tactic. How can you call something a deception by Bush when he hasn't said anything on the subject?

I and in the military now, and I can tell you for a fact that the Air Force is actually CUTTING it's numbers. The Army is increasing, but they have met ALL enlistment goals for the year. There will be no draft. Period.

I hope none of this is true. I hope there is no draft. I will not fight a war that is unjustified and that cannot be won. I believe we are in Iraq for the oil more than anything else. Bush and his family are wealth people because of oil.

Regardless of who wins if things keep going the way that they are in all likelyhood the draft will be brought back.

I appreciate everyones views on the draft issue itself but the real issue at hand is Kerrys lie about just whom is proposing it.

The truth if told by Kerry would be more like this,

"Due to over extension of the military and national security commitments by the Bush administration, the Kerry adminstration will back our partys bill to re-introduce the draft."

"If Bush wins in November I (Sen. Kerry) will strive to push the draft bill through the senate."

Oh but wait a minute, we can't tell em that - our voter base will stampede!

Bush won't go on record opposing a draft, like Kerry/Edwards.

Why is that?

Now Rangel did make some compelling arguments for a draft over a year and a half ago in January 2003 (like you cited) including in large part to make Chicken Hawks like Bush accountable for the lives of his own draft age daughters and those of his elite base... not just poor kids and those he back door drafts now. It was a tactic designed to put pressure on Bush to think twice about certain ill advised and ill justified policies. But then you knew that.

Now with mounting pressure from all sides to increase International troop levels and replace overextended US troops, the question arises... how?

Kerry/Edwards have promised not to reinstitute the draft and do a number of things to strengthen America's military including strategies Bush has not even a hope of accomplishing, like bringing in more International support Bush already bullied away.

Agree or not, Kerry/Edwards made a promise not to reinstitute the draft.

Bush/Cheney do not rule it out.

If you do an advanced search on the GeorgeWBush website on the word "draft" you get two hits this month, the only one's in months.

GeorgeWBush.com (Bush Answers Draft Question) 9/7

Got a question? Yes. Future farmer of America, there you go.

Q Mr. President, if the war on terrorism continues, do you feel that there will be a need for the draft? And do you want to start the draft again?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, first of all, the war on terror will continue. It's going to take awhile. And, no, we don't need a draft. What we need to do is -- don't worry about it. What we need to do is to make sure our troops are well-paid, and well-housed, and well-equipped. (Applause.)

GeorgeWBush.com (Cheney Answers Draft Question) 9/17

All right, one more question. We got somebody over here? Sure. There you go.

Q Yesterday, a teacher of mine refused to sign an absence slip to come here. (Laughter.)

AUDIENCE: Booo!

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Booo!.

Q And she said do you realize once -- if Bush gets reelected, that he'll make a draft. And I was just wondering what your thoughts were on the draft, and if this teacher what she said was at all necessary. (Laughter.)

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Did you get your -- did you get your absence slip?

I don't foresee a situation in which we'd want to go back to the draft. We made a decision after Vietnam to go with an all-volunteer force. And when I was Secretary of Defense, we were sort of towards the end of that transition that we started back in the '70s. I was there in the late '80s and early '90s. And it produced -- the all-volunteer force has produced an absolutely remarkable group of men and women in the service. (Applause.)

And I think it works. It works extraordinarily well. And I'm a great believer in it -- from having sat there as Secretary of Defense and watched it operate. The other thing I'd say about it, and the reason it's so important and this oftentimes doesn't get mentioned is the transformation that it has worked on the services themselves. An organization, including the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines has to think very differently about how they operate, how they treat they people, what kind of training they provide, and housing and so forth, how to motivate them -- if they have to persuade people to serve rather than if they are in a position they're just sort of -- it's a free good. They get however many bodies they need through the selective service system. And it really has had a remarkable impact, I think, on the quality of our organization, as I say, not just in terms of the people serving but because everybody who is there, has signed up, wants to be there, but also because the services themselves know full well now -- we've got 30 years of experience -- that the key to having a really, first rate military is they really have to look after their people first, last and always. And that has had a quantum effect, as well, I think on the capability of the U.S. military. So I don't foresee a set of circumstances.

Now, we keep the law on the books. It's always conceivable, I suppose, at some point down the road we'd have such a national crisis or emergency, but it would have to be on the scale of World War II before I would think that anybody would seriously contemplate the possibility of going back again to the draft. I think what we have works very well. As I mentioned earlier, one of the great privileges of my career was serving as Secretary of Defense for four years, and serving with the remarkable people today who wear the uniform.

Thank you all very much. (Applause.)

And in contrast:

AP: Edwards Promises No Military Draft if Dems Win 9/15

PARKERSBURG, W.Va. (AP) - Vice presidential candidate John Edwards promised a West Virginia mother on Wednesday that if the Democratic ticket is elected in November the military draft would not be revived.

During a question-and-answer session, the mother of a 23-year-old who recently graduated from West Virginia University asked Edwards whether the draft would be reinstated.

"There will be no draft when John Kerry is president," Edwards said, a statement that drew a standing ovation.

To summarize and contrast:

Bush: "And, no, we don't need a draft. What we need to do is -- don't worry about it."

Cheney: "I don't foresee a situation in which we'd want to go back to the draft. ...Now, we keep the law on the books. It's always conceivable..."

Edwards: "There will be no draft when John Kerry is president."

And of course, you have Kerry's statements against a draft in the cited article questioning Bush's resolve against having one.

It's an extremely valid question. Why can't Bush, put it to bed? Here's how he could... Hypothetically: I, George Bush, am opposed to and will not seek a draft if elected. End of the issue.

He won't. I just saw Norm Coleman speaking to the "Kerry so mean" taking point this morning about bringing up the draft. His effort to clarify Bush's increasingly muddy position was "what we need to do is put this draft issue to bed..." Then he went on to not do it. :shk:

Again, it's a very simple thing. Rule it out if it's not up your sleeve Mr. Bush.

Nobody can really complain about Kerry asking the questions until Bush answers them. Bush has three options: Yes, No or Maybe.

Today Bush stands with a resolute maybe.

Kerry has every right to alert voters to Bush's lack of conviction on opposing a draft. He plainly states Bush might bring back a draft, because as of yet Bush hasn't ruled it out at all.





[edit on 23-9-2004 by RANT]

Yeah but Bush also said he's not interested in nation building and blah blah blah... These guys will say anything to get into office, even threaten terror attacks if the 'other guys' win! Once they get in it's always a different story.

Originally posted by taibunsuu
Yeah but Bush also said he's not interested in nation building and blah blah blah... These guys will say anything to get into office, even threaten terror attacks if the 'other guys' win! Once they get in it's always a different story.

Kerry will say ANYTHING to get elected, dependent on the audience.

If he had been talking to a group in FAVOR of the draft, he would have said he would use it.

Bush is not stupid, as is Kerry. If the USA was attacked in say, February 2005 and the draft was required to protect our country, do you think Kerry would hesitate for a second to institute the draft? Sorry, wouldn't happen.

Bush on the other hand isn't stupid enough to say "never" to something that is always a possibility, regardless of how rare.

Kerry IS that stupid, on several topics WHICH, by the way, he is on BOTH SIDES of....


[edit on 23-9-2004 by Affirmative Reaction]

RANT those are good points you make. What I most appreciate is your admittance that the draft bill by the democrats is.......well just a ploy, politics as usual. To bad Kerry can't be honest about it like you were - but then your the better man aren't you.

Any president or candidate for the office that says something to the effect, "no draft will be allowed while I'm in office" seriously hamstrings that very office and serves to limit unreasonably all options available in a future crisis - its irresponsible to do so - Bush being a responsible president knows better than to limit the office in the way democrats wish to.

Kerry/Edwards on the other-hand being the surrendering types that they are (francophiles?) have no qualms about national security options - of course why would they when the UN will fix everything

On that subject of enlisting international help - did the French just the other day say they would not send troops as Kerry implied?

In Cheney's words that you quoted I find that he erudated on the option issue quite well,

Now, we keep the law on the books. It's always conceivable, I suppose, at some point down the road we'd have such a national crisis or emergency, but it would have to be on the scale of World War II before I would think that anybody would seriously contemplate the possibility of going back again to the draft. I think what we have works very well. As I mentioned earlier, one of the great privileges of my career was serving as Secretary of Defense for four years, and serving with the remarkable people today who wear the uniform.

Seems to be very reasonable and prudent to me!

It's a legitimate debate issue.

And Phoenix you and AR are probably framing it exactly the way Bush should respond.

To put the issue to bed permanently, Bush/Cheney should say something like while we are as opposed to reinstating the draft as anyone could possibly be, we simply can't rule it out and it's a somewhat unrealistic promise on the part of Kerry to do so.

Covers all bases, is direct and turns the tables on Kerry. I couldn't blame them for saying that at all, as that's probably where Kerry/Edwards really are on the issue too, but to define differences they went a different route.

If Bush/Cheney wanted to clarify and turn that difference on them, it would be to their advantage...I think. But you never know.

Perhaps they've done polling and found just even just talking about a draft, even a potential one hurts the Republican ticket. Thus all the "dont' worry about it" and "let's put it to bed" posturing is all they are really comfortable saying.

Keeping in mind, either President would do what they have to do in a crisis, though neither is probably slap happy about a draft. This is just the meaningless "interview" portion of the Ms America contest where differences are drawn.

I don't know though. It still bugs me how careful Bush and Cheney are about wording on this one. They never worried about promises in 2000. It just seems to me they have better options to clarify and respond to this issue than they have. And that they don't is suspect to me.

I'm honestly confused by Bush/Cheney signals on a number of Iraqi fronts right now (like the Novak leak about a pull out), but I don't want to derail from this one issue. In my opinion, they should clarify and willingly debate it. Not just reject the notion as absurd. That's all.

Originally posted by Affirmative Reaction

Originally posted by taibunsuu
Yeah but Bush also said he's not interested in nation building and blah blah blah... These guys will say anything to get into office, even threaten terror attacks if the 'other guys' win! Once they get in it's always a different story.

Kerry will say ANYTHING to get elected, dependent on the audience.

[edit on 23-9-2004 by Affirmative Reaction]

Well, despite your zeal for the candidate you're obviously backing, I trust both candidates words as far as I could pick up both of them tied together, while they each wear 500 pound backpacks.

Originally posted by RANT

Covers all bases, is direct and turns the tables on Kerry. I couldn't blame them for saying that at all, as that's probably where Kerry/Edwards really are on the issue too, but to define differences they went a different route.

Yes Bush/Cheney could do a better job of communicating their position that there is no need for a draft under any normal circumstances.

In defining the issue however, I do not believe Kerry has to resort to outright lying to his constituency in order to get his point across.

That lying is a defining issue IMO.

Let's employ some critical thinking here.
This was written seven days after 9/11:

Large-Scale Ground Wars Unlikely

Department of Defense officials say the military is preparing to wage a "sustained and broad" campaign against terrorists and those who support them.

But the operations the Pentagon is planning are likely not on the same scale or of the same nature as America's last armed conflict � the 1991 Persian Gulf War, when the United States deployed more than a half-million servicemen and women to the region in the successful effort to repel Iraqi forces from Kuwait.

"It's very hard to imagine a military operation on the scale of 'Desert Storm,'" says Campbell. "We're not going to have the same kind of staging areas and I don't think we'll have the same potential uses of ground forces."

Campbell and other military experts say the United States will likely rely heavily on air and sea power and special forces units, which rarely operate in groups larger than one hundred.

"Draftees are what you need for a mass army when you are fighting a mass enemy in conventional warfare," says Cordesman.

"The real challenge for us is to avoid situations where we would need to use large numbers of people in a large, on-the-ground effort," Campbell adds.

Michael O'Hanlon, an expert on defense issues with the Brookings Institution, says even if such an effort does become necessary, it is unlikely to have the manpower requirements that would necessitate a draft.

"Even if one imagines a major ground war against Iraq or Afghanistan," he says, "these are the sorts of things that we've been planning to do with our active duty force for a long time."
ABC News

Obviously, things have changed.

From November 2003:

The Pentagon has begun recruiting for local draft boards, dredging up painful memories of Vietnam era conscription at a time of deepening misgiving about America's occupation of Iraq.

In a notice posted on the defence department's Defend America website, Americans over the age of 18 and with no criminal record are invited to "serve your community and the nation" by volunteering for the boards, which decide which recruits should be sent to war.
...
But it was unclear why the Pentagon decided at this time it was necessary to fill staff bodies which had played no function since the early 1980s.
Guardian UK

Of course, no candidate would admit to a draf' before the elections, but just how long can you rotate the same soldiers without rest, and not let soldeirs leave if they want? We need international help. Which candidate can deliver the re-enforcements?

Originally posted by Phoenix

In defining the issue however, I do not believe Kerry has to resort to outright lying to his constituency in order to get his point across.

That lying is a defining issue IMO.

And what else lying, hmmm, lemme think... Ok, how about saying that 'Democracy is no the move' in Iraq, when the place is at its most chaotic state since the invasion and the military has numerous no-go areas that can't be touched until after the election?

Or, how about saying the world is safer from terrorism since the invasion of Iraq? If that's true, how safe do you feel as an American going abroad these days? Why are there zero investors in Iraq right now compared to a year ago?

I know you like your candidate, but you have to admit that both sides fudge the facts just a wee bit to make themselves look good.

So, did Kerry sear on a stack of catholic bibles that he would never, under any circumstances, insall a draft....because if he did, I'll put him on my "don't vote for list" beside Bush!!

What they are doing now the the reservist and national guardmen isn't quite right either ya know....
And, well, if it comes down to our troops being spread so thinly that they become ineffictive sitting ducks, I would rather they instate the draft. I would prefer that they start fighting their wars better, but that's beside the point.

As far as Bush instating the draft, don't know, he just might let our troops be sittiing ducks, waiting patiently for the supply trucks to come with their precious ammo, after the last of the truckers lost their heads...and he'd probably still be saying that everything is going just grand!!!

I think the draft is coming, regardless of who wins the election...
Besides, the draft that is written up will be useful when the weather gets so outrageous that we want to evacuate large segments of the states, at least our younger members of society will be taken out of harms way (forcibly, but they will be out of harms way), and well, maybe some of industry will take advantage of the new gov't subsidized, free employee program as Bush decides that these public servants should be making this product here, and well, those can be putting calculators together for IMB, ect......

originally posted by taibunsuu,

I know you like your candidate, but you have to admit that both sides fudge the facts just a wee bit to make themselves look good.

Fudging the facts or even exagerating the facts is a timeless and pervasive pastime of all politicians - no doubt about it.

Flat out being a liar is not acceptable though, especially when its about something so obvious.

I know some might like candidate Kerry, just know that you will be supporting a proven liar.

This is not about a campaign promise broken, this is about hoodwinking voters in an effort to win office and shows desperation on Kerry's part.