DescentBB

To me, this manufactured rumor shows the utmost worst from the Dems. Thank goodness it died a merciless death today.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- House Republicans sought to quash a persistent Internet rumor that President Bush wants to reinstate the draft if he is re-elected, engineering an overwhelming vote Tuesday killing legislation that would do just that.

Speaking to Iowa voters Monday, Bush said, "We will not have a draft so long as I am president of the United States."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/ ... index.html

Bizarrely, even the Democratic sponsor of the phoney bill jumped in front of the parade and urged that it be defeated. It died 402-2. Good riddance!

Watching McDermott (D) prior to the VP debate trying to keep the rumor alive just to scare the bejebus out of young voters is demagoguery at it's most shameful. Can't the Dems win on an honest platform? I suppose they would just justify their attempts to steal voters based on an obviously fraudulent scare tactic as fair turnabout for the mythical *stolen* election of 2000. I hope young voters get pissed and punish the Dems for trying to pull off this BS.

bash wrote:I suppose they would just justify their attempts to steal voters based on an obviously fraudulent scare tactic...

You mean, like, WMDs in Iraq?

Saw that coming a mile away. There was evidence to support the existence of WMD and the sources of that evidence was not the Whitehouse or the Republicans but intelligence agencies from around the world. It was not made from whole cloth, as the draft rumor was, nor was it designed solely to swing an election.

Or how about Reps saying that Dems would ban the bible?

I don't see how they are equal (frankly, I never heard of the pamphlet before you linked the Al-Reuters *story*) or why one would justify the other. Dirty tactics from both parties? *gasp* But the draft one, imo, is a much larger lie and much harder to kill. Banning the Bible would be very difficult in that it would mean rewriting the Constitution (not gonna happen). That some state-level RNC office was so stupid as to suggest that banning the Bible was part of a liberal agenda will undoubtedly backfire on it, as I hope the draft scam backfires on the DNC. But keep fishing.

bash wrote:But the draft one, imo, is a much larger lie and much harder to kill.

Not really. At least the Dems were nice enough to do this in a public forum like Congress where anyone can point back and say "see, I voted against that". All in all, yes, a very stupid move. The Reps are much better at painting bad light on the other side. But is there really anyone here that actually thought that the draft would be reinstated anyway?

Tetrad wrote:But is there really anyone here that actually thought that the draft would be reinstated anyway?

Yes, there were many on this forum that were complaining about it. There are probably some first time voters this year in every state who registered just because they were sold that line of crap.

Lets see if I understand this correctly. The Dems sponser the draft bill, then the Dems scare the young'ns as to how Bush is trying to draft their sorry butts to go fight in Iraq.
Four years ago in Dem. controlled Florida precincts, voters are turned away due to ineptness on dem. election officials. The Dems then blame the Rep. for "voter disenfranchisement".
Am I seeing a pattern here?

woodchip wrote:Am I seeing a pattern here?

Yea, right blames left...left blames right....stupid people focus their support to either the left or the right....the left and the right celebrate because once again they have fooled most of the people into perpetuating the cycle which empowers them.

And in spite of this inneffecient government run by con artists and pimps america still rocks heavy compared to other places! Imagine how great it would be if real men ran this place!

Will Robinson wrote: Imagine how great it would be if real men ran this place!

Is that like real men don't seek help from the French?

No woodchip i think what will said is a little beyond the pettiness of your statement. I have a question, now I've never been to France, nor did I really pay much attention to what they said during the build up to this war, but why do we hate them again now?

Instead of a real draft we have a backdoor draft where thousands of people who signed up for "one weekend a month, two weeks a year," are being forced to spend a much longer time then they had ever expected. (As a side note, they had to pull all of those commercials!)

Most sign up for the reserves thinking that they are doing it to protect America...not to invade other countries that pose no imminent threat to us.

Gooberman wrote:Instead of a real draft we have a backdoor draft where thousands of people who signed up for "one weekend a month, two weeks a year," are being forced to spend a much longer time then they had ever expected. (As a side note, they had to pull all of those commercials!)

Most sign up for the reserves thinking that they are doing it to protect America...not to invade other countries that pose no imminent threat to us.

For one thing, it's not a "backdoor draft" or any other kind of draft! It's a voluntary thing, a draft is *not* voluntary so don't try to taint it as something nefarious.

Second, if they really didn't notice the history of the national guard when they signed up then they are truly ignorant because most of us know the "one weekend a month, two weeks a year," deal is just the minimal amount of service they will pull for training and they may very well end up in a real war like those that volunteered before them!
WTF did they think they were training for?!? A possible campout and pantyraid on the cheerleaders camp nextdoor?

Third, just about everytime we have gone to war to "protect America" we've done it by invading other countries.

Fourth, Bush specifically said he wanted to get them *before* they pose an imminent threat...

Nice spin though

Will the commercials said "most spend one weekend..." check them for yourself.

If you are right, then why did the commercials say "most"?

Second, why did they pull the commercials?

It seems pretty deceptive, changing the word "minimum" to "most"!

But hell, so long as we get them to "volunter".

Bush said he wanted to get them *before* they pose an imminent threat...

Exactly. I doubt they were told before they signed that they will be required to fight against anyone that might become a threat to us in the distant future!

WTF did they think they were training for?!?

Um, to be able to protect America against a real threat, maybe?

oops

Gooberman wrote:Will the commercials said "most spend one weekend..." check them for yourself.

If you are right, then why did the commercials say "most"?

Second, why did they pull the commercials?

It seems pretty deceptive, changing the word "minimum" to "most"!

I don't recall seeing a commercial that said "most" or "minimum". Even as a kid I always knew the training was not the 'most' time I would spend if I joined and a war broke out. Who knows, maybe I was just a smart kid.

As to pulling the commercials, I'll take your word for it that they did and just say that they probably did so it couldn't be used as campain fodder for Kerry & Co. to portray it in the way that you did.

If the volunteers thought they wouldn't have to go to war unless we were attacked on our soil then have them tour ground zero in NYC or watch this and get back to me.

You know, I kinda think there should be a draft, whether or not it is a dire necessity. I don't say this because I wish political harm to Bush. I think that any leader should be forced ask all the citizens to bear the costs of going to war. The way it seems now, it is easier to justify going to war than it is to justify a draft. I think there should be better balance between the two.

I'm strange, though.

The way it seems now, it is easier to justify going to war than it is to justify a draft. I think there should be better balance between the two.

exactly.