Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

MEDICAL DRAFT ALERT! HANG THIS NEW FLYER IN YOUR TOWN!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-24-04 06:41 PM
Original message
MEDICAL DRAFT ALERT! HANG THIS NEW FLYER IN YOUR TOWN!
Edited on Sun Oct-24-04 06:51 PM by Dems Will Win


PRINT AND HANG THIS FLYER!
http://www.blatanttruth.org/mddraft0000.pdf
In the second debate, President Bush asked us to “forget all this talk about a draft” and refused to answer the question of how he would prevent it—then he rudely cut off Charles Gibson’s next question as to why the overuse of Reservists on long deployments was not a back-door draft.

Yet the issue of the draft deserves a fair debate based on the facts before the election.

President Bush also said in the second debate that he “hears there’s rumors on the Internets” about the draft. What you are about to read is not a rumor and the Freedom of Information Act document now posted on the Web has been acknowledged as authentic by Selective Service Spokesman Dan Amon, speaking to the Rocky Mountain News. The timeline below shows that the Selective Service System is not telling the truth when they say this is only “food for thought”—the SSS is in fact preparing for the real possibility of a Skills, Medical and Combat Draft for 2005. Congress of course must still pass a 1-page trigger resolution reauthorizing current conscription law, but the Selective Service will by early 2005 have geared up the entire draft system and be prepared to register more than 40 million Americans for a new Skills Draft and the Medical Draft; they will be using complex forms that will track a person’s skills—man or woman.

The most important thing to keep in mind about the draft before the election is that, if it wanted to avoid a draft, the Bush Administration could add several billion dollars to the Defense budget and add 2 active-duty divisions to the military to save the Volunteer Army. John Kerry is actually proposing doing just that in his $7 billion plan to add the 2 divisions, and to preserve a purely Volunteer Army with increased benefits, a doubling of Special Ops, and several other programs like his volunteer Civilian Stability Corps (kind of a Peace Corps on steroids).

Yet instead Bush is stretching the Army so thin, they are now calling up the retired Individual Ready Reserve—and they have even sent Company B of the Arlington Color Guard to the Mideast, giving them real bullets instead of the blanks they were firing at military funerals.

If the Republicans want to preserve the Volunteer Army, as Bush said in the debates, and not have to reinstate the combat draft, why has the Bush Administration not added the several billion needed to avoid having to call a draft? Out of the $200 billion allocated for Iraq, not one penny was ever allocated to do this. It’s as if Bush deliberately wants to wreck the Volunteer Army so the country has to call a draft.

On October 4, Republican Rep. Tom Delay attempted to defuse fears about a Bush Draft by calling for a vote on Democrat Charlie Rangel’s protest legislation HR163, which would have (1) expanded the draft from only men 18–25, to women and men aged 18–34, and (2) reinstated the compulsory draft immediately. Not only was the legislation defeated by a vote of 402–2, Rangel voted against his own bill—a House first. The Republicans are saying that since the Rangel legislation has been defeated, no one need worry about a re-instatement of the draft if President Bush is re-elected.

The truth is that any President can go to Congress under the Military Selective Service Act, the current registration law, and ask for re-authorization of the Combat Draft. All Congress need do is pass a 1-page “trigger resolution” and the Combat Draft for men 18–25 is back. At the same time, the Medical Draft is automatically activated for men and women, 18–44, with no deferments for health reasons. The NY Times on Oct. 19 published a long article on a subcontractor, Widemeyer Communications, that over the summer consulted the SSS on how a Medical Draft could be started up with minimal attention. The SSS said 36,000 doctors and nurses would be taken in the first batch of draftees. Why would Bush need so many? 36,000 is a huge number.

An article in The New York Times titled “U.S. Has Contingency Plans for a Draft of Medical Workers” appears, revealing that Widemeyer Communications was hired during the summer to help the SSS prepare an enormous draft of doctors, nurses, and 61 medical specialties. What is not mentioned is that the Medical Draft will be expanded to include medical equipment repairpersons and even medical form processors--any job having to do with health care will be subject to the Medical Draft up to age 44. SSS spokesman Flavahan says that 36,000 doctors and nurses, more than 1% of the total 3.4 million men and women in the U.S. under the age of 44, are planned to be inducted in the first batch once the Skills Draft is activated, showing the current great need or possibly a future need from new invasions and conquests.
http://tinyurl.com/4rylt

If these Repub doctors want to vote for Bush, they should know they're putting their life and their financial well-being on the line.


MORE: http://blatanttruth.org/draft.php

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-04 11:01 AM
Response to Original message
1. kick!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 09:17 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC