This morning flyers were posted all over the building where I work. "Thanks to Bush and His Administration," it began, there’s going to be a "Mandaory [sic] Draft for Boys and Girls (Ages 18-26)." It then listed several web addresses that purport to prove the truth of this statement.
This is, of course, just a paper version of an e-mail that’s been making the rounds among college students. The lie about a Bush-backed conscription bill has been fully debunked. Indeed, I visited the sites listed on the flyer, and they indicate clearly that the sponsor of the draft bill is the left-wing Democrat Charlie Rangel. I guess this is the sort of desperate thrashing about that we’re going to see on the part of the Kerry campaign in these final weeks before Election Day.
While I’d rather have an all-volunteer army, why is the draft such a bad idea in times of national need? If you are a citizen of this country, you have a duty to defend it if called up.
John there is no W in Rangel. Otherwise you are spot on. You might mention the other 14 sponsors of the bill. guys like Jihad Jim McDermott, and most of the moonbat wing of the Democrat party.
1. Draft systems are inherently corruptable. I no war were all drafteescalled up equally. The Vietnam war was only the most obvious. Wealthy families seek deferrments, if at all possible. Would you do any different for your kid? Recruiters are as succeptible to the blandishments of the very wealthy as any one else.
2. Draft systems hit the rural communicties the hardest. In most large scale communities onkly a small percentage of the likely candidates were sent to Vietnam. In one of my college classmates town in upper state New York, everyone was taken. The community was devistated.
3. Draft systems have no selectivity. Only a few men and women have the personality and skills to make effective soldiers. In a draft system the military services are burdened with large groups who do not want to be there and take avery measure to remove themselves from unpleasent assignments and active combat.
4. The all-volunteer service is more efficient, better trained , far-better equipped and much more dedicated than any other.
Well, that might be true Garrett, unless you need a 10 million man army to fight the forces of facism (how’s that for an alliteration?)
Thanks, Gary, for the correction. See, the ombudsman function of the blogosphere once again works to fix errors! That’s more than we can say for CBS, of course.
"Desperate thrashing," yes. But who’s to say it won’t work?
An interview with Rep. Tim Ryan, D-Ohio, made the front page of today’s "Buchtelite," the student newspaper at The University of Akron. The headline:
"Ryan: military draft possible."
This follows at least one edition’s worth of buzz on the newspaper’s op-ed page. Oddly, nobody has yet mentioned in the newspaper that all sponsors of both the House Bill and the Senate Bill are Democrats. (Fringe Dems, I might add. And to be fair, Ryan states his opposition to any draft in the interview, though he doesn’t give due credit to his party colleagues.)
The "desperate thrashing" is taking hold in a small way at universities like this...but also among the mothers and grandmothers of young adults. I know of at least two who have read of this drivel (I have my suspicions as to which magazines are carrying the stories.) and expressed deep concern. The best way to de-bunk when answering their concerns, I’ve found, is to point out (quite accurately) that the bills have no support from the Republican majority or from the credible Dems.