The PNAC did NOT request a draft.

[Peak_Oil]

Please read the document.

Link to article:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20050128.htm

Nowhere in that article does the word "draft" appear. Nor does the word "conscription" appear. The article does say that as a percentage of GDP, we are below cold-war levels of spending. I suppose you might construe that to say that we should staff up to cold-war levels, but we didn't have a draft during the cold war. We had a draft for Vietnam.

Also, in searchig the PNAC website in the following manner,

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Awww.newamer...

we discover that in the nine instances of the word "draft," the PNAC were referring to a paper. Even the most ambiguous use of the word "draft," contained in the sentence "...White House National Security Council is circulating a new draft national security strategy that challenges the Pentagon's accepted standard..." certainly refer to a paper of some kind and not the conscription of soldiers.

The title for this thread is misleading and disingenuous. It is disinformation.

Let's consider another twist of fact. In Michael Moore's movie Fahrenheit 9-11, he states that Bush spent 43% of his time in the white house at his ranch. What he doesn't say is that included in that 43% is weekends. When you subtract the weekends, you're left with 13% of his time spent on the ranch. Well, 13% isn't quite as impressive as 43%, so Michael ran with 43%. He's not actually lying, but I'm sure you see the connection.

There is plenty of accurate and useful information to use. such as the fact that due to the use of depleted uranium, the US is subjecting itself for prosecution under war crimes. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en /
For that one, read down to where it says..."may inhale contaminated dust and consume contaminated food" and then head to
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5941.ht... where you find out that the toxic dose is a millionth of a gram.

Not posting this to shit on anyone's parade, just to say that I've found lots of interesting, accurate, and useful information on DU, and this ain't it.

[alittlelark]

1. They did not request one... they just requested more troops.

Wonder where they will be coming from? Hmmmm, I dunno - they are certainly having problems recruiting. They are calling up 60 year olds. There are thousands who have just not shown up for duty.....


Wonder where these troops will come from?

[kendall]

18. They are turning away fine people right now

I have a brother in law that tried to enlist - but some obscure thing in his medical history led them to turn him down.

He is otherwise healthy and intelligent, yet was turned away. If they are still turning people like that away then a draft is distant.

25,000 a year over the next several years (a number quoted before) is not much a stretch to get from increasing recruitment efforts, and sweeting the bonuses for joining (which they have done).

The time for a draft is when you need millions of trooops now, not tens of thousands over several years.

Furthermore the miltary is no longer geared to handle something like a draft. Soldiers today require quite a long period of training, they can't just roll people through the system like they used to in WWII. Being even in the infantry today requires more training than it used to.

If you think our miltary is stretched thin right now, then how are they supposed to handle the large influx of people from a draft?

[alittlelark]

19. 2 words B. S.

They have already filled the draft boards (a friend is on one in MD).

Get a clue... this is American Colonization (for oil). Stop drinking the Kool-aid and you will 'get it'.

[Tacos al Carbon]

59. We went through this on another thread

Draft boards are always active. They are NOT harbringers of a draft. Talk about needing a clue ...

[alittlelark]

61. Uh, yeah.... this is the first time in 20+/- years that the boards

have been FILLED. Ads taken out in local papers, calls to eligible board members...... THINK....as Americans, we must.

[Tacos al Carbon]

65. As a thinking American

I THINK that there are two types of people anyone who are saying that there will be a draft in the forseeable future. Partisan propogandists and the simpletons who believe them. That's just my opinion.

[kendall]

66. You got that right

A draft in the near (or even mid) term is ludicrous, for many reasons - and there is no concrete evidence of one approaching.

How long before people give up the fantasy of the impending draft? Two years? Will people still be pushing this issue four years hence, without a draft in sight?

A dangerous distraction from real issues.

[mordarlar]

70. A court insisted a serviceman about to retire in 3 mos. serve 27 MORE YRS.

He is 27 yrs old now. This is desperation.

[elehhhhna]

73. Sue for false imprisonment.

[DistantWind88]

76. 27 years?

That sounds, well, unbeleiveable...can you provide a source for that?

[mordarlar]

94. link below

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-575537.php

[leesa]

87. You wish. There will certainly be a draft...they will just call it

something like travel opportunities for young people. Open your eyes...turn off Faux news...join the draft board and find out. First time they have been filled since Viet Nam...the LAST war everyone said there would not be a draft for.

[DistantWind88]

Several DUers

have been saying a draft has been coming for over a year. First it was in June of '04; then it was in September '04, then "days after the election," then by January '05. So far, they've been consistently wrong. "The draft is coming, the draft is coming" is begging to sound a lot like "the Russians are coming."

[mordarlar]

69. I have seen the ads. The draft boards were RECENTLY filled.

[tabasco]

96. Always active?

The draft board in my county has been vacant since Vietnam.

Only recently was there an effort to fill the board. I was contacted to see if I was interested, but I am not eligible because I am still in the reserves.

Always active? You need to check your facts before you insult others.

[The Sad Little Pony]

80. Why?

Why can't they simply increase the funding for recruiting and training?
Why must there be a draft?

With the CURRENT recruiting drive, ALL of the services with the exception of the NG are meeting their goals.
This is also true of reinlistments.

Could not an increase in troops come without a draft?
Would not a draft actually cost MORE?

[leesa]

89. Because few people are desperate enough to be killed for oil and Bush's

Imperial Fantasies. People are on to the con of these fake wars.

[The Sad Little Pony]

92. But....

...what about all the stupid people?

If everyone is so smart, how come they all voted as they did in November?

Couldn't THEY be talked into enlisting?
Current Enlistment goals ARE being met, after all.
The media seems more than eager to help paint Iraq as something to be proud of....

[leesa]

85. You're trying to pretend the military is not stretched too thin?? Funny.

We're getting our asses kicked in both Afghanistan and Iraq...2 countries who don't even HAVE militaries.

You are full of shit!

[The Sad Little Pony]

86. I don't know about THAT.

But regardless...

WHY is a draft a logical solution?
Why not just increase the size of the military, WITHOUT having a draft?

[ProfessorGAC]

90. Utter Nonsense!

I went to a going away party YESTERDAY for a 24 year old, with no prospects, who seriously contemplated suicide just 6 months ago. They took him! He ships off to basic training on Wednesday!

Otherwise healthy? Yeah, physically, but a young guy who couldn't keep a job, drank too much, and contemplated ending it all enlists and they accepted him.

They will take anyone who signs on the dotted line, and you know it.
The Professor

[tabasco]

95. They turned away Rush for anal cysts during Vietnam.

Did your brother-in-law have something like that?

[Peak_Oil]

109. NEW INFORMATION HAS COME TO LIGHT...

Please see the following thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3034828

The draft legislation is most certainly underway. Poe dug up the facts, they're on another thread of Poe's. I know all about the PNAC, I know about our military adventures and the reasons for them. As my name implies, I'm a tinfoil hat nutjob, and have lots of guns and sacks of rice in the closet and all that shit. I have a "bug out bag" ready to go at a moment's notice in case Cheney, slumped over by a huge hunk of ham heading its way through his aorta plugs something up and causes him to slump onto the big Red Button that HE certainly isn't trusting Bush with.

Nevertheless.

The original thread said that... well, that's all documented below. We don't need to rehash. Suffice it to say that Poe stepped up and did the detective work necessary to get rid of the second-class cite for the draft and came up with a totally credible and very verifiable source that certainly stands right up and says what it means.

Outstanding job, Poe. I hope the mods lock this thread at this point and lets it sink into obscurity. It's served its purpose and is now of no further use.

On a personal note, I don't think Congressman Rengel's legislation was prompted by the PNAC. I don't see any more connection from PNAC to that particular bill than I do between Saddam Hussein and 9-11. He's been floating that bill for some time now. The PNAC article is more recent than the text of that bill. Text of PNAC article is dated January 28, 2005.

Not that the PNAC isn't evil, but let's nail them on something that hasn't been dreamed up on a night of mescaline. There's plenty of meat out there, and we're drinking a thin broth here.

[alittlelark]

129. Rangal has no rose colored glasses... he saw what was happening, and

started fighting for a REAL Draft right after 9-11, - no deferments, no rich daddies.....

He is fighting the PNAC in a very smart way.


PS - PNAC and 'mescaline dreams'.... give the Native Americans more credit. Do not connect the two.... How about '4th generation rich psychotics wish to take over the world with the blood of your children'. It fits, doesn't it!

[walldude]

2. Well not to shit on your parade or anything

but explain what this means to you.
"So we write to ask you and your colleagues in the legislative branch to take the steps necessary to increase substantially the size of the active duty Army and Marine Corps."
The word "draft may not be in that sentance but what are "legislative steps"?

They also mention Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, I assume they mean this part:

Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

Clause 13: To provide and maintain a Navy;

Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To provide... hmmmmm

[Peak_Oil]

11. OK, let's read that again, shall we?

Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To provide... hmmmmm

They're providing it right now, aren't they?

Circle YES or NO on your computer monitor.

Then, let's try this one.

Is there currently a draft in the US?

Circle YES or NO on your computer monitor.

Got it?

[alittlelark]

21. uh, yeah....... whatever you say.

PS - do you really circle things on your monitor? That would kind of mess it up and make it difficult to see the information (and truth) staring out at you from the 'internets'.

[Swamp Rat]

37. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!

:D

[walldude]

22. Um.. yes there is currently a draft.

Apparently we have a differing opinion of what a draft is. The stop loss policy now in effect forces people to extend their service in the military. Forces. Thats a draft.

[Peak_Oil]

27. I agree with you for the most part.

I believe it's involuntary service, and I've heard of recalling people they had no business recalling.

That is, nevertheless, a different matter from having the lottery balls drop on your birthdate and having to go to boot camp for the first time.

I agree with you that we have involuntary military service, and that it's cowardly to not admit that it's a kind of a draft, but it's not what we had in Vietnam.

[alittlelark]

We're only a year and a half into our crusade

Lets watch what happens, shall we.

[The Sad Little Pony]

88. Increase funding?

Funding for recruiting and training.

I still do not understand why people insist that a DRAFT is the only solution.

[serryjw]

3. Tell me that when someone in your family gets drafted.....

When are you going to learn with these Neo-cons they never say anything. If you don't learn to read Between the rotten lines/lies why are you here?

[Finding Rawls]

6. And when will

you learn that a Republican congress would never institute a draft. Democrats would sweep the Senate and House the next election.

There are "legislative steps" that Congress can take that would increase the size of the military without the draft. Increase bonuses and pay. Offer better college plans.

You're just all too willing to interpret anything as a sign of massive Republican evil and corruption.

[alittlelark]

13. HAHAHA !!!! are you for real??

They control the vote-count, and they are feeling cocky. All it will take is another attack on American soil, and they will be 'FORCED' to institute draft. MIHOP.

[Finding Rawls]

24. A lot of substance there nt

[alittlelark]

26. Be impressed !

[Nadienne]

125. I wonder whether they're considering declaring martial law....

to "protect us"...

[walldude]

14. Um.. they can increase the budget

but thats not going to get them recruits. Recruitment is down as it is. The republicans have gotten away with murder, you think a little thing like a draft will get in their way? Hell they'll probably come up with a nice new name for it, maybe Patriotic Service, or American Duty.

[bluestateguy]

15. Or they could do what McNamara made them do in 1965

He forced upon an unwilling Pentagon a program that dramatically lowered the intelligence standards needed for people to get into the military either by a draft or enlistment. I believe it was called Project 100,000, and it resulted in thousands of truly stupid young men being sent off to a war they knew nothing about. Dumb soldiers also jeopardize the lives of the other soldiers that surround them.

[Stirk]

54. You've got to be kidding me.

Wrecking Social Security could end Republican control of Congress as well, but they're pushing for it anyway. What point is there in taking power if you don't put your agenda in play?

[mordarlar]

72. They own congress and the courts. They could call off the next elections.

and we would have little say. Being sarcastic of course but they are not planning on only being in this for only four more yrs. They took it for a reason. Considering the level of fraud that happened and the way they are using the very system to shut down any investigations it is clear this runs deeper than Bush. If the majority was not Bush how did they get two majorities in congress? They are not going to LET the election go honest next time... why should they? they got away with it TWICE! What, if they cheat next time we will stop them? I have heard that before. Back in 2000 when they did not have total control.

[Peak_Oil]

8. Let's try this again.

The PNAC asked Congress to take the necessary legislative steps to increase the size of the armed forces. Where in that sentence does it say draft? Where does it suggest a draft?

There's a better way to say what you want to say. Say exactly what they said. Don't embellish what they said. Be a source of accurate information.

I'm the tinfoil-hat wearing paranoid voices-hearing nutjob around here, and I intend to remain the bottom of the barrel. I'm holding you guys accountable for spreading disinformation to people who trust what you say. Be careful, dammit!

They did NOT SAY DRAFT.

I know how to read between the lines. I don't see draft in there anywhere. There are multiple things they could be implying by saying what they said.

Saying that that letter says Draft shoots your credibility in the head. All anyone has to do is read it for themselves and they'll say, well, this doesn't look like a draft to me. This looks like they want to recruit more soldiers!

Right now, there are THOUSANDS of right-wing types reading DU, scouring it for anything they can find that is false. Whether they're reading it to find things to use against the Democratic party or not, they're READING THIS STUFF.

I remember the day I decided to pick up a Noam Chomsky book. I figured, I better find out what these commie pinko bastards have to say that's so evil. Well, guess what. Now I'm a radical liberal who's probably closer to Libertarian than Democratic, but probably going to vote Green to save my soul. Unless the D's put somebody up there with a spine, like my main man Howard Mothafuckin Dean. Based on just reading something, my whole life changed.

These guys are reading this stuff. This is your opportunity to show that you have integrity. This is your one shot to convince the vast right-wing conspiracy that YOU are to be trusted before THEY are.

[alittlelark]

25. Take off your rose ccolored glasses, and stop circling things

on your monitor.... then you may 'get it'.

[Peak_Oil]

31. Rose colored glasses? OMG.

I've heard everything. I believe we're headed for the 2nd Great Depression very soon, and that the end of the world as we know it is right around the corner. I actually lauged out loud at that one. I am not that guy, I'm not a PNAC apologist...

I think they're among the evillest of evil men. Nevertheless, that document does not... say... draft.

I know you WANT it to say draft so bad it hurts, but it just doesn't say what you want it to say.

[alittlelark]

35. If you cannot read between the lines in that document

YES - you are wearing rose-colored glasses. Simple as that.

That said, I will agree w/ you that we are being led down the primrose(mostly thorns) path to economic collapse.

Perhaps that is their goal - starving ppl w/ families would join up given NO OTHER CHOICE.

[proud2BlibKansan]

38. Give us a break!

Do freepers think we are all so stupid here that we will believe this is not a request to reinstate the draft just because the word draft is not in this letter?

I would like to take this opportunity to convice all lurking freepers that we are not that stupid.

[Peak_Oil]

41. Battling ignorance once again!

we will believe this is not a request to reinstate the draft just because the word draft is not in this letter?

Please. Find me the word DRAFT or CONSCRIPTION in that letter, or find a combination of words that requires a draft. THERE ISN"T ANY SUCH ANIMAL PRESENT.

I know, you want to stomp evil PNAC freeping Repugnitard guts into the dust. Fine. Whatever. But don't insult the intelligence of the five thousand people who read DU by saying it SAYS THEY WANT A DRAFT.

What's the HR bill that's being reintroduced because of this letter? HR 136? I bet I can find it before you can, and I bet I'll find the REAL brass ring you think you've already found.

[alittlelark]

43. Your screen-name says you've got the scoop

but your posts say otherwise.... you sound like a big-time PNAC/b*sh apologist.

[proud2BlibKansan]

49. Take a crash course in reading comprehension

and as another poster said, read between the lines.

Of course they never use the word 'draft'. They are smart enough to avoid it, knowing that will absolve them in the minds of the comprehension challenged.

Your argument is as silly as one presented to me earlier today by a freeper who claimed that since none of these people were members of Congress, they didn't have the power to influence bush or force a vote to reinstate the draft. He went on to say that this letter would have no more effect than any other letter written to Congress by constituents like you and me!

One of these guys was McCain's presidential campaign manager, another was Dole's. And one was an undersecretary in Reagan's cabinet. Many are long time Republican party leaders who just don't happen to be members of Congress. But are they powerful, influential Republicans who have a voice in the bush administration? You bet they are. And they are telling bush and the others the letter is addressed to that the military needs more soldiers.

[Blue_Roses]

104. I concur after

looking at the list of names who signed it. Bill Kristol, Cliff May...these are the hawkish of hawks...

[Finding Rawls]

106. They are

but can't hawks say anything reasonable. . .ever?

Some people are after The New Republic because Biernart signed it. Well, let's say there was a letter to congress to support the idea of having competent people placed in high military posts. Now, wouldn;t you think that both Kristol and Biernart could subscribe to such an idea.

Who signed the damn thing has nothing to do with the content. We do need more troops IF we are going to stay. We'd be doing the troops over there a disservice by not providing them with the support they need. You can simultaneously argue for complete withdrawl WHILE agreeing that if we are to stay, there should be more troops.

[proud2BlibKansan]

108. And highly powerful

in the Republican party. A letter from them carries a lot of weight.

[Stirk]

57. And Bush never actually said "imminent threat", either.

I think their suggestion is pretty damned clear.

[bluestateguy]

4. They don't say they want a draft, but their agenda would require one

And of course, upon the return of the draft they will use some focus group tested term like "national service" to claim that it's not really a draft.

As for the Moore thing, he cited a Washington Post analysis that used the same methodology to calculate the vacation days of the Clinton Administration. Clinton's vacation days were much fewer.

[bluestateguy]

5. Delete

[Dr.Phool]

7. Excuse me, but we did have a draft

During most of the cold war. It only ended with Nixon's all volunteer army.

Although they don't use the specific term, the policy is right there. It's kinda like Repukes saying there is no right to privacy in the constitution. The phrase is not there, but the concept is. There is no phrase about "freedom of religion", but the concept is there. Call it whatever you want, but it's an involuntary conscripted draft.

[smiley]

9. SKILLS DRAFT

"...White House National Security Council is circulating a new draft national security strategy that challenges the Pentagon's accepted standard..."

Personally to me this reads as though there will be a draft, however new and with different standards applied to the process of drafting than previous requirements.

Possibly instead of having an across the board draft of young male citizens- this new draft will focus on special skills?

[Peak_Oil]

17. OK, that can easily be misread.

Think of it in terms of adjective and noun.

"new draft" referring to a new writing of a document, that's the adjective, modifying "national security strategy," which is the document that has been written anew. I'll add the punctuation and a clarifying word.

White House National Security Council is circulating a new-draft "national security strategy" paper that challenges the Pentagon's accepted standard

I don't think they're talking about a draft in that sentence. I know what you're talking about, though, the potential to draft people with special skills.

I volunteered to be on my local draft board so I can see just what is going on when (if) they decide to ramp up the war machine further. I agree with the serious paranoid whackos about the PNAC. I just think it's better to talk facts than conjecture about something as deadly serious as war.

[poe]

28. Please read my post below which cites most recent Weekly Standard

Drafts will come in different ways than traditionally thought.
Rangel's press secretary said last week that he was going to reintroduce H.R. 163 We'll see.
Se rebeller est juste, désobéir est un devoir, agir est nécessaire !

[Peak_Oil]

33. I read it three times.

I don't see anything about a draft in there. Maybe you can point it out to me.

Now, if you have the text to HR 163, we might have something to go with. I wonder, does it say anything about a draft?

[poe]

40. PNAC does not have the authority to request a draft

that is not their function. one must understand coded language and allusions from the bureaucratic tongue. make no mistake they are relentless and their goals are enormous. they want many, many more troops in the mid-east. it is a difficult political task, they will try to soft sell it any way they an. their will also be more hired guns from other countries in a mercenary capacity as already underestimated casualty figures can be obscured further. you can get the text to HR 163 at the website of the House. i read through the earlier version and do not know if there is any important changes. you might also want to look at Dem. Now's archives to hear Amy's interview w/Rangel when he first proposed HR 163. Rangel is serious about the draft for reasons i think are flawed. my understanding is he wants all to share the burden of empire and he is trying to prove a point. i would rather he introduce a bill to indict the war criminals.

[Peak_Oil]

44. Great detective work there, Cluseau. HR163...

I just read HR 163, it took me three minutes. It's about sealing up shipping containers after they've been empited at port, and causes $500K to be allocated for this purpose.

You've floated a bullshit red herring out here for all of us.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:h163ih.txt.pdf

Nice.

[poe]

52. do your own homework next time-HR 163 was last session-new session new#

Rangel, it will be recalled, was the author of the notorious HR 163, the "universal" conscription bill that became a political football during the 2004 Presidential campaign. When charges that Bush would reinstate the

draft emerged as a red-hot election issue last October, HR 163 became a liability for the Kerry campaign -- whereupon Rangel's bill was rushed to the floor and summarily voted down by a huge majority. For tactical reasons even the bill's sponsors, including Rangel, voted against it.

Sometime soon Rep. Rangel is preparing to reintroduce legislation to reinstitute the military draft since he strongly feels everyone should share the burden of war,” Emile Milne, Rangel’s press representative and legislative director, said last week. “He is essentially reintroducing legislation that failed to gain support last session. However, this time around, I think, it has a better chance of passing

You can view the text of the bills introduced in the House and Senate here. S. 89 is the Universal National Service Act of 2003 (Introduced in Senate). HR 163 was introduced by Rep. Rangel "To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes."
US Preparing for Military Draft in Spring 2005 by Adam Stutz • Wednesday January 28, 2004 at 09:50 AM

The current agenda of the US federal government is to reinstate the draft in order to staff up for a protracted war on "terrorism." Pending legislation in the House and Senate (twin bills S 89 and HR 163) would time the program so the draft could begin at early as Spring 2005 -- conveniently just after the 2004 presidential election!

Reinstatement of the draft

Dear Friends and Family,

I urge you to read the article below on the current agenda of the federal government to reinstate the draft in order to staff up for a protracted war on "terrorism." Pending legislation in the House and Senate (twin bills S 89 and HR 163) would time the program so the draft could begin at early as Spring 2005 -- conveniently just after the 2004 presidential election! But the administration is quietly trying to get these bills passed NOW, so our action is needed immediately. Details and links follow.


If voters who currently support U.S. aggression abroad were confronted with the possibility that their own children or grandchildren might not have a say about whether to fight, many of these same voters might have a change of mind. (Not that it should make a difference, but this plan would among other things eliminate higher education as a shelter and would not exclude women -- and Canada is no longer an option.) Please send this on to all the parents and teachers you know, and all the aunts and uncles, grandparents, godparents.... And let your children know -- it's their future, and they can be a powerful voice for change! Please also write to your representatives to ask them why they aren't telling their constituents about these bills -- and write to newspapers and other media outlets to ask them why they're not covering this important story.

The Draft*

$28 million has been added to the 2004 Selective Service System (SSS) budget to prepare for a military draft that could start as early as June 15, 2005. SSS must report to Bush on March 31, 2005 that the system, which has lain dormant for decades, is ready for activation. Please see this website to view the SSS Annual Performance Plan - Fiscal Year 2004.

The Pentagon has quietly begun a public campaign to fill all 10,350 draft board positions and 11,070 appeals board slots nationwide.. Though this is an unpopular election year topic, military experts and influential members of Congress are suggesting that if Rumsfeld's prediction of a "long, hard slog" in Iraq and Afghanistan proves accurate, the U.S. may have no choice but to draft.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5146.htm

Congress brought twin bills, S. 89 and H.R. 163 forward this year, entitled the Universal National Service Act of 2003, "To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes." These active bills currently sit in the Committee on Armed Services.

You can view the text of the bills introduced in the House and Senate here. S. 89 is the Universal National Service Act of 2003 (Introduced in Senate). HR 163 was introduced by Rep. Rangel "To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes."
US Preparing for Military Draft in Spring 2005 by Adam Stutz • Wednesday January 28, 2004 at 09:50 AM

The current agenda of the US federal government is to reinstate the draft in order to staff up for a protracted war on "terrorism." Pending legislation in the House and Senate (twin bills S 89 and HR 163) would time the program so the draft could begin at early as Spring 2005 -- conveniently just after the 2004 presidential election!

Reinstatement of the draft

Dear Friends and Family,

I urge you to read the article below on the current agenda of the federal government to reinstate the draft in order to staff up for a protracted war on "terrorism." Pending legislation in the House and Senate (twin bills S 89 and HR 163) would time the program so the draft could begin at early as Spring 2005 -- conveniently just after the 2004 presidential election! But the administration is quietly trying to get these bills passed NOW, so our action is needed immediately. Details and links follow.


If voters who currently support U.S. aggression abroad were confronted with the possibility that their own children or grandchildren might not have a say about whether to fight, many of these same voters might have a change of mind. (Not that it should make a difference, but this plan would among other things eliminate higher education as a shelter and would not exclude women -- and Canada is no longer an option.) Please send this on to all the parents and teachers you know, and all the aunts and uncles, grandparents, godparents.... And let your children know -- it's their future, and they can be a powerful voice for change! Please also write to your representatives to ask them why they aren't telling their constituents about these bills -- and write to newspapers and other media outlets to ask them why they're not covering this important story.

The Draft*

$28 million has been added to the 2004 Selective Service System (SSS) budget to prepare for a military draft that could start as early as June 15, 2005. SSS must report to Bush on March 31, 2005 that the system, which has lain dormant for decades, is ready for activation. Please see this website to view the SSS Annual Performance Plan - Fiscal Year 2004.

The Pentagon has quietly begun a public campaign to fill all 10,350 draft board positions and 11,070 appeals board slots nationwide.. Though this is an unpopular election year topic, military experts and influential members of Congress are suggesting that if Rumsfeld's prediction of a "long, hard slog" in Iraq and Afghanistan proves accurate, the U.S. may have no choice but to draft.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5146.htm

Congress brought twin bills, S. 89 and H.R. 163 forward this year, entitled the Universal National Service Act of 2003, "To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes." These active bills currently sit in the Committee on Armed Services.

Dodging the draft will be more difficult than those from the Vietnam era remember. College

[Peak_Oil]

56. I found where you cut&pasted that stuff but...

I don't think you did a very good job on the detective work. S89 and HR163, as shown by a search on http://thomas.loc.gov/, show nothing of the sort. I cannot verify this information. I even searched on Rengel's name in http://thomas.loc.gov/ and couldn't find anything even remotely approaching what you're talking about.

I challenge you and anyone else interested in making sure that debate on DU is fair and true to find that bill and link to it from here.

I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I'm saying that you need to state your case better than this. Thousands are watching.

[smiley]

133. I find it amusing that you still disagree....

Are you intentionally trying to cause disagreement.

"I don't think you did a very good job on the detective work. S89 and HR163, as shown by a search on http://thomas.loc.gov/, show nothing of the sort. I cannot verify this information."

Why do you have to? Poe just did....

OK.... you win... the PNAC wasn't calling for the draft. :-)

Who cares if brownshirts are reading this. Hopefully they will be enlightened to the error of their ways. Hopefully you will also.

[Occulus]

46. Defocus on finding the word 'draft'.

You're being too narrowly focused on that exact word. It won't appear. They will not tell us "we will nuke them if it comes to it." Same idea. It's undiplomatic (to say the least) to phrase it thus.

Forget seeing the word 'draft' until it's officially used. Conscription can occur in any number of ways- as a postal employee, for example, I could be ordered to sort military mail on a military base overseas and have no say per the 'skills draft'. It's not really a draft, but hey, you have a special skill, so they can force you.

Uh-huh. Suuuuure, it's not a draft. Try to sell that to me.

*snort*

[alittlelark]

29. Which draft board? I have a friend that would love to chat w/ you !!

Be specific.

[Peak_Oil]

32. The one for zip code 90026. n/t

[alittlelark]

36. Your demographics are HEAVILY white....

...but then so is my neighborhood. I'll be sending you contact innfo for my friend on the draft board in a day or 2.
http://www.city-data.com/zips/90026.html

[Peak_Oil]

39. If there was an ignore feature on this board...

you would be on it. You have absolutely no idea where I live. You ever see the TV show The Shield on HBO? It's set in my neighborhood, and is based on the Rampart police station, which serves my neighborhood. If you ever want to know what my neighborhood looks like, just rent one of the episode discs at Blockbuster.

White.

Crissakes.

[alittlelark]

45. There is an IGNORE feature!!! Donate some $$$ and you will get it!!

:) ;) :) ;) ;)

It appears you have a star (reason for edit).... now explain the demographics I posted above, and now here http://www.city-data.com/zips/90026.html

I could care less, but, uh, you are almost as white as it gets in LA

[Peak_Oil]

47. Did you notice the gold star next to my name?

This is just too funny. PEBCAK is definitely the situation.

[alittlelark]

48. I did, and then altered the post.... I just assumed you would know

that 'ignore' was an option. Just stop circling things on your monitor, you'll find it !!!;-)

[alittlelark]

55. Where did you go?

We need to be ' informed'........ where are you?

[kendall]

67. Was not aware asians are white

You pointed us to: http://www.city-data.com/zips/90026.html

If you look at the aisian figures they are pretty high - and note that the number of "other races" alone is greater than "white". It's impossible to say what the makeup of this other percentage is but I'd bet most of it is non-white.

That's not exactly Provo you are pointing at there. For comparison:

http://www.city-data.com/zips/84601.html

[smiley]

42. skills draft

I believe that it is intended to be interpreted multiple ways.

To say that there won't be a draft is saying that our only goal is to give freedom to Iraqi citizens. I personally feel we are there for geopolitical strategic purposes, specifically to construct military bases with which to base further geopolitical military aspirations of achieving energy dominance. And along with our soon to occur, but probably silent war in south america...

I think there is gonna be draft whether they say "draft" or "maybe not quite a draft"

a draft, is a draft, which is a draft
:shrug:

[leesa]

91. It cracks me up that these people can listen to BushCo say over and over

again that they want 30 years of war and then think this is going to happen without conscription??!!??

After all, we know how many war-lovin' Republicans are storming the gates of the recruiter's offices!

[oasis]

51. 75,000 special skills. Like providing security for U.S. puppets of newly

"liberated" nations, Syria, Iran and maybe Saudi Arabia.

Armies of Occupation. The skill they'll need is dodging bullets.

[smiley]

132. medical and transportation maybe

Certain skills would probably start with occupations such as truck drivers and medical personnel - mostly nurses - which would take care of how they would begin to draft women. just a guess

[Radical Activist]

10. They have all been told to never use the word draft

of course they didn't come out and say it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. Hmm actually we had a draft for most of the cold war

the draft started shortly after December 7th, 1941, and stopped in 1973...

Given the cold war started officially in '47 that means we had a continous draft for thirty two years... (granted the first four was WW II)... the cold war ended in '91, that is 18 years of the cold war where this was fought with a pure profesional force.

As to the spending, yes PNAC needs eternal war for eternal profit.

[Dr.Phool]

16. Fact of life. Recruiting is WAAAAY down.

Re-enlistment is WAAAAY down. They're forcing 60 year old, retired veterans back into service, right now. Believe me, they're talking DRAFT!!!

[AndyTiedye]

30. It's Gettin' Drafty! Close the War!

$28 million has been added to the 2004 Selective Service System (SSS) budget to prepare for a military draft that could start as early as June 15, 2005. SSS must report to Bush on March 31, 2005 that the system, which has lain dormant for decades, is ready for activation. Please see website: http://www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html to view the SSS Annual Performance Plan - Fiscal Year 2004.

The Pentagon has quietly begun a public campaign to fill all 10,350 draft board positions and 11,070 appeals board slots nationwide.. Though this is an unpopular election year topic, military experts and influential members of Congress are suggesting that if Rumsfeld's prediction of a "long, hard slog" in Iraq and Afghanistan proves accurate, the U.S. may have no choice but to draft.
(http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-3130.html and hundreds of other websites)

[lonestarnot]

78. Catchy phrase...Going to add to my collection. Draft IS in the making!

[BrotherBuzz]

58. If you think Re-enlistments are down now....

wait until the spring when we rotate troops out of Iraq. I understand the reserve/guard people will be leaving in droves with a "take that bonus and shove it where the sun don't shine" attitude. The regular army boys will be doing the same, too. I think March-April-May will be the season when the troop strength issue comes to a boil. Bank on it.

[DistantWind88]

71. Actually, the AD

Services met all their recruitment goals.

[poe]

20. Here's what they are sayin' in most recent issue of PNAC Weekly Standard

Open Letter
A bipartisan group urges the congressional leadership to substantively increase the size of the Army and the Marines.
01/28/2005 12:00:00 AM
www.weeklystandard.com or go to www.kurtnimmo.com

Dear Senator Frist, Senator Reid, Speaker Hastert, and Representative Pelosi:

The United States military is too small for the responsibilities we are asking it to assume. Those responsibilities are real and important. They are not going away. The United States will not and should not become less engaged in the world in the years to come. But our national security, global peace and stability, and the defense and promotion of freedom in the post-9/11 world require a larger military force than we have today. The administration has unfortunately resisted increasing our ground forces to the size needed to meet today's (and tomorrow's) missions and challenges.


So we write to ask you and your colleagues in the legislative branch to take the steps necessary to increase substantially the size of the active duty Army and Marine Corps. While estimates vary about just how large an increase is required, and Congress will make its own determination as to size and structure, it is our judgment that we should aim for an increase in the active duty Army and Marine Corps, together, of at least 25,000 troops each year over the next several years. There is abundant evidence that the demands of the ongoing missions in the greater Middle East, along with our continuing defense and alliance commitments elsewhere in the world, are close to exhausting current U.S. ground forces. For example, just late last month, Lieutenant General James Helmly, chief of the Army Reserve, reported that "overuse" in Iraq and Afghanistan could be
leading to a "broken force." Yet after almost two years in Iraq and almost three years in Afghanistan, it should be evident that our engagement in the greater Middle East is truly, in Condoleezza Rice's term, a "generational commitment." The only way to fulfill the military aspect of this commitment is by increasing the size of the force available to our civilian leadership.
The administration has been reluctant to adapt to this new reality. We understand the dangers of continued federal deficits, and the fiscal difficulty of increasing the number of troops. But the defense of the United States is the first priority of the government. This nation can afford a robust defense posture along with a strong fiscal posture. And we can afford both the necessary number of ground troops and what is needed for transformation of the military.

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution places the power and the duty to raise and support the military forces of the United States in the hands of the Congress. That is why we, the undersigned, a bipartisan group with diverse policy views, have come together to call upon you to act. You will be serving your country well if you insist on providing the military manpower we need to meet America's obligations, and to help ensure success in carrying out our foreign policy objectives in a dangerous, but also hopeful, world.

Respectfully,
Peter Beinart - Jeffrey Bergner - Daniel Blumenthal - Max Boot - Eliot Cohen

Ivo H. Daalder - Thomas Donnelly - Michele Flournoy - Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.

Reuel Marc Gerecht - Lt. Gen. Buster C. Glosson (USAF, retired) - Bruce P. Jackson

Frederick Kagan - Robert Kagan - Craig Kennedy - Paul Kennedy

Col. Robert Killebrew (USA, retired) - William Kristol - Will Marshall

Clifford May - Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey (USA, retired) - Daniel McKivergan

Joshua Muravchik - Steven J. Nider - Michael O'Hanlon

Mackubin Thomas Owens - Ralph Peters - Danielle Pletka - Stephen P. Rosen

Maj. Gen. Robert H. Scales (USA, retired) - Randy Scheunemann - Gary Schmitt

Walter Slocombe - James B. Steinberg


Max Boot. “Max Boot, a scholar at the Council on Foreign Relations and former editor for The Wall Street Journal, occupies the extremist end of the neoconservative ideological spectrum,” writes Right Web. He is also connected to the Project for the New American Century (PNAC).


liot Cohen. Cohen is considered “the most influential neocon in academe.” Right Web notes, “Cohen is famous for his thesis that the war on terror constitutes World War IV, and that the Cold War should really be considered World War III… Cohen has been affiliated with a number of hawkish advocacy groups, including the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq and the Project for the New American Century. He also serves on the Defense Policy Board, the Pentagon’s in-house think tank, which has been heavily criticized for members’ conflicts of interests and for its stilted ideological profile. (Nearly a third of the board members come from the staunchly conservative Hoover Institution.)”

Ivo Daalder. Daalder was a prominent member of Clinton’s National Security Council staff. He is considered a “liberal hawk,” a term that is not considered an oxymoron in Bushzarro world.

Thomas Donnelly. Another PNACer. As Donnelly wrote for the Strausscon “think tank” AEI, “the strategic imperative of patrolling the perimeter of the Pax Americana is transforming the U.S. military, and those few other forces capable and willing of standing alongside, into the cavalry of a global, liberal international order. Like the cavalry of the Old West, their job is one part warrior and one part policeman—both of which are entirely within the tradition of the American military.” Considering who is president, the cowboy metaphor is apropos.

Frank Gaffney. A Richard “Prince of Darkness” Perle understudy, Gaffney “is one of the key heavy-lifters of the neoconservative-hawk policy institute world,” as Right Web puts it.

Reuel Marc Gerecht. Gerecht, a former CIA agent and recruiter, was a “vocal proponent of War upon Iraq, Iran and Syria well before 911,” according to Disinfopedia. “If President Bush follows his own logic and compels his administration to follow him against Iraq and Iran, then he will sow the seeds for a new, safer, more liberal order in the Middle East,” Gerecht said in the AEI 2004 Annual Report. In other words, an “order” ruled by Israel and the United States.
Gary Schmitt. Schmitt is the executive director of PNAC, the Strausscon “think tank” responsible for Bush’s Iraq invasion. Enough said.

Robert Kagan. Kagan is one of the top dog Strausscons, co-founder of PNAC, and buddy of William Kristol. In the preface to Present Dangers: Crisis and Opportunity in America’s Foreign and Defense Policy, edited with Kristol, Kagan quotes Elliott Abrams, another rabid Strausscon, who “describes the faulty logic that has driven American policy toward the Middle East for more than a decade, warning that the security of Israel, Turkey, and American friends in the Arab world may be jeopardized unless the United States shifts its focus toward strengthening friends and consolidating American influence in the region,” possibly, as the above letter indicates, with conscripted bullet-stoppers.

William Kristol. Kristol edits the Rupert Murdoch financed Weekly Standard, essentially the Strausscon house organ, and is also a co-founder of PNAC. In 2002, Media Bypass reported, “In what has been called ‘punditgate,’ conservative journalists Bill Kristol and Erwin Stelzer of The Weekly Standard … have been exposed for accepting Enron largesse. … Kristol, chief of staff to former Vice President Dan Quayle, took $100,000 without disclosing the payments at the time. … Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard who postures as an independent journalist, got the money for serving on an Enron advisory board…” In other words, in addition to plotting and facilitating the murder of 100,000 or more Iraqis, Kristol also works for criminal organizations and does not bother to report the income. If your local grocer did this, he would be thrown in the hoosegow.


syzygy

[Swamp Rat]

34. Kick ass poe!

You are on top of things!

Hmm, a "generational commitment" will require WHAT if we are faced with a "broken force?"

"Bipartisan" MY ASS! These bastards are one, unified, singular... ad infinitum... pack of green-blooded lizards with world domination as their MAIN objective.



HAHA!:D

[oasis]

53. Kristol was pissed at Rumsfeld for not using enough troops in Iraq.

More troops=draft. Neocons don't give a shit on who's gonna do the dyin'. As long as it's not them.

[leesa]

93. Thanks Poe! Appreciate the bio on these traitors.

[lonestarnot]

127. Poe thanks for the posted info...just have trouble remembering names

do we have some pictures. Would like to see these freaks.

[0rganism]

23. Twisting facts: it was 42% and 13.4% respectively

"In his first eight months in office before September 11, George W. Bush was on vacation, according to the Washington Post, forty-two percent of the time." -- M.M., F9/11

Since you've decided to nitpick Michael Moore's facts, you may as well do it right. In this case, the 42% stat was drawn directly from Krauthammer's editorial A Vacation Bush Deserves, published in the Washington Post, August 10, 2001.

By the way, that 13.4% is very close to 1 day from every week. So Chimpy McCokespoon was having the equivalent of a three-day weekend EVERY FUCKING WEEK HE WAS IN OFFICE for the first 8 months. Then he spent THE ENTIRE MONTH OF AUGUST at his ranch, which apparently isn't even counted in the overall 42%. So the longest vacation any president had taken in 32 previous years wasn't even part of the stat, at the time of calculation.

[oasis]

50. A draft is implied in the letter. When PNAC says "constabulary duties"

they're talking about using troops for occupation of newly "democratized" nations.. Straight talk is a foreign language to these people.

The UN will not provide these armies of occupation as PNAC had earlier planned, therefore a draft is needed. It's plain and simple.

[bpilgrim]

82. exactly

i'm surprised they were even this bold considering how taboo the subject is for rove-n-crew

of course they won't come right out and say the word plain but nor do they need to.

peace

[ElsewheresDaughter]

101. thank you for pointing the facts out to the PNAC defender!

[Peak_Oil]

102. Why do you hate facts?

Please find in that document the word "constabulary." By the way, constabulary is not the same thing as draft. Constabulary, according to dictionary.com, is An armed police force organized like a military unit. No draft. Our military has been performing constabulary duties in Japan, SKorea, all over Europe, for many years. Oh, lemme clear that up. Many years during which time we had a draft, and many years during which time we didn't have a draft.

See how easy that is to clear up?

This is really getting disappointing. There's a bunch of people tearing me up here, and very few defenders. Did you read the document, or search the PNAC website for their use of the word constabulary, or did you just go, Oh, this peak oil guy's not being as paranoid and full of crap as I am, so he's... A FREEPER! YEAH!

[oasis]

126. You'll find "constabulary duties" in the"Rebuilding America's Defenses"

section. It's part and parcel of PNAC doctrine. If you are going to advocate for PNAC you can't exclude facts just because they don't help your case.

[Tacos al Carbon]

60. Just give up

You will never convince most people here to stop believing something that they so desperately want to believe. Trying to do so is a pointless exercise and will only end up with getting you called a PNAC/* apologist ... wait ... that's already happened.

[Peak_Oil]

62. I'm giving up on this one.

The ignorance is thick as tear gas here tonight. I'll try again later.

I don't care if I'm a minority of one, though. That PNAC document does not say draft, and all the bullshit in the world will not force me to say otherwise.

The PNAC did NOT call for a draft in that document.

That is all.

I'm done with this thread.

[lonestarnot]

128. You must be draft age? n/t

[alittlelark]

63. I guess you are right !!!!

You will not be able to convince people here that what they see staring them in the face is just 'a crock'. Perhaps that is due to the fact that many on this forum are able to utilize their critical thinking skills in order to come to a conclusion +/or fact.

'THINKING' is GOOD.

[alittlelark]

64. Dupe - d-oh

[H2O Man]

68. Two Questions .....

And I'm not asking these in an unfriendly way. I think that there is plenty of inaccurate information on DU, and as in any bureaucratic institution -- from a prison to a school -- a rumor twice repeated is too often taken as fact.

But, on DU, we always have the potential to peal away the layers of confusion and misinformation, and to come pretty close to the truth. In that sprit, I'd like to ask you two simple questions:

{1} Regarding the time that Bush spent in Texas, which you believe was primarily weekends: would you seriously propose that the presidency is a Monday through Friday, 9 to 5 type of job? Certainly, you have the right to view it that way. But certainly there are many examples of presidents with a far more "hands on" approach. And the fact that Bush takes the "hands off" approach is EXACTLY the point that Moore was making.

{2} Do you think that the Bush administration will be able to continue its agenda without a military draft? I'm not concerned with PNAC or anyone else's idea. Just yours.

Thanks for your consideration.

[No Exit]

74. I think I see the point of your question no. 1...

I think you are making the point that the presidency is no ordinary job. Now, let's consider those we know (or know of) who have somewhat powerful/lucrative ways of making a living... certainly being president of the U.S. is both powerful and lucrative (and I ain't just talking about the salary, obviously.)

I mean, I know a manufacturer's rep who makes a million a year, and HE certainly works on weekends when he needs to. And the presidency is obviously WAAAY more demanding than that guy's job!

So the idea that the president would get every weekend off is kind of ridiculous. Yet Bush seems to, according to what we read.

Okay, well, if he absolutely has to have those weekends... some people work better when they take a regular break... okay.

BUT...BUT... how many people do you know who work in one city, but are able to always take their weekends in a place that is over 1000 miles away? I mean, can you imagine some guy saying "I live in San Francisco, but I work in Houston", and every weekend he wants at home in SF, he can easily take? I don't know too many people like that. Okay, I don't know ANY people like that. Talk about your long distance commuting!

I mean, we all know who pays for the fuel and upkeep of Air Force One.

[H2O Man]

77. right.

And you can take it a step further: if George needs that structure, especially weekends "home," then he has about the same maturity of a home-sick college freshman who has to touch base on a weekly basis. Now, there's nothing wrong with thatin terms of teen-aged human development. But it doesn't cut the mustard as far as the presidency goes. For the OP to use it as an indicator that Michael Moore manipulated the statistics is, in my opinion, a clear indicator of a lack of appreciation for what being president actually is.

Could you imagine if JFK were involved in the Cuban Missle Crisis, and said, "Thank fucking God it's 5pm on Friday! What a fucking week! Let's get outta here, dudes. See you Monday morning!" I think that was exactly the point MM was making.

[No Exit]

81. Well, Bush enablers have a special hatred for Moore.

I'll trust Moore, thank you.

Let's also not forget that this "job"--the presidency--comes with what we used to call in-kind shelter, that is, a HOUSE. PLUS, it comes with a vacation spot, which is called... Camp David. Convenient, nearby, etc.

I guess we could say, the pay is so-so, but the benefits are GREAT.

[Peak_Oil]

100. Weekends and the Draft

I think the Presidency is a 24/7/365*4 job, and should count the weekends. That said, MM didn't go into that much detail. It would have taken an extra sentence in his movie to bolster his credibility a great deal. This one little statistic is quoted on a bunch of right-wing criticisms of his movie right at the top of the list. It would have been so easy to not have to explain himself. What a shame.

Can we continue without a draft? I don't know. Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe he'll have a dirty bomb go off in Chicago to whip up assent for his next invasion plan. Who knows.

[H2O Man]

105. I suspect

the right wing would have complained about the movie no matter how much more detailed he might have been. I think that the point about the weekend was as detailed as it needed to be. People who are ignorant about the required work schedule for a president are not making decisions on facts, but rather by emotions and stupidity. I don't think that Michael Moore is responsible for their ignorance, or for meeting the needs of the right wing critics.

Assuming that Bush and friends are likely to let off a dirty bomb to stir up domestic rage appears to be less reality-grounded than anything in F 9/11.

[radwriter0555]

75. Defending the PNAC? The very organization that is the precursor to the New

Americanazis?

Well done!

And that Mike Ruppert is such a stand up, reliable guy who would NEVER tool out for the masters of the regime, now, would he?

Peak oil is a myth, BTW. It's 'theory" is an utter fictitious flight of fantasy and oil co profiteering dreamland.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

84. my 1st thought too "defending PNAC?" WTF??? ....sniff ...pheeeew

[Rapcw]

99. lol n/t

[radwriter0555]

116. ahem, were we the only ones that caught that???

Yikes.

[SammyWinstonJack]

79. I think bush** told the truth before he corrected himself when he said,

"We will not have an all volunteer military...." That may not be an exact quote, but it's pretty darn close. Doesn't really matter if PNAC requested a draft or not, the truth is in there somewhere.

[meisje]

83. The word "Draft" would not be used anyway

"Voluntary Servitude" maybe, but never "Draft"

[Norquist Nemesis]

97. The 43% included weekends? OMG!!!

"Let's consider another twist of fact. In Michael Moore's movie Fahrenheit 9-11, he states that Bush spent 43% of his time in the white house at his ranch. What he doesn't say is that included in that 43% is weekends. When you subtract the weekends, you're left with 13% of his time spent on the ranch. Well, 13% isn't quite as impressive as 43%, so Michael ran with 43%. He's not actually lying, but I'm sure you see the connection."

I was under the impression that POTUS of a 24/7/356 job! I've misunderstooded all this time! /sarcasm

As to the first link, it ain't workin' fer me. But unlike Bush, I really like to read instead of someone else telling me their view and deciphering of what it says. But thanks anyway.

[Cleita]

98. You are wrong about the draft during the cold war.

There was a draft until after the Vietnam war, when the army became a volunteer army. I know. I had five male cousins who were drafted during that period and it was between the Korean conflict and Vietnam war, but very much during the cold war. Mostly they were stationed in Europe, a ploy to keep the Soviets behind the iron curtain and out of western Europe.

[yodermon]

103. Lemme get this straight...

..The only way you can see this article calling for the draft is if it were to contain the literal "draft" or "conscription" or "compulsory service" or some other synonym??

Your analysis is the exact opposite of reading between the lines.
Why are you so obsessed with direct phrases?

Here, let me assist you with these spaces between them thar lines:

"The administration has unfortunately resisted increasing our ground forces to the size needed to meet today's (and tomorrow's) missions and challenges."

OK. What do they mean by this statement? I thought the adminstration has done everything it can think of SHORT of a draft. What, exactly, has the administration been "RESISTING"? Hmmmm? They already have a backdoor draft, and are pulling in reservists who have no business being in a combat zone.. so, Peak_Oil, what do the PNACers mean by "resisting an increase in ground forces"?


"...it should be evident that our engagement in the greater Middle East is truly, in Condoleezza Rice's term, a "generational commitment." The only way to fulfill the military aspect of this commitment is by increasing the size of the force available to our civilian leadership."

"Generational Commitment" sounds like a codeword to me. Guess I've got the :tinfoilhat: on too tight :eyes:

followed by: "The administration has been reluctant to adapt to this new reality."
See my comments above. Really ironic statement seeing as they had just quoted the administrations brand-spankin' new Secretary of State on the whole Generational Commitment thing... yet they are "reluctant". Huh! how about that.

And finally: Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution places the power and the duty to raise and support the military forces of the United States in the hands of the Congress. That is why we, the undersigned, a bipartisan group with diverse policy views, have come together to call upon you to act. You will be serving your country well if you insist on providing the military manpower we need to meet America's obligations, and to help ensure success in carrying out our foreign policy objectives in a dangerous, but also hopeful, world.

Now, I'm wondering why they are invoking the Constitution all of a sudden. Increasing recruitement via standard incentives that's you've mentioned (increased pay, bonuses, etc etc) are all well and good, but do we need to refer to article 1 section 8 every time the Army modifies its recruiting tactics? Fishy.

In sum: What has the administration been "resisting"? Why do we need to refer all the way back to the Constitution to convice Congress to counter this resistance? Why are the PNAC sending this letter directly to Congress instead of the White House?

*smacks self in head* Oh right, what am I thinking, these guys didn't use the WORDS draft, conscription, compulsory, or mandatory service, therefore they cannot possibly be talking about this. These guys always say exactly what they mean, no hidden messages, no innuendo. I forgot.

And when I am "strongly encouraged" to perform x,y, or z "service" in the "generational commitment" to Make America Stronger and Safer by Liberating the World, I certainly can't call it a "draft" because a "draft" has to look, smell, and feel exactly like the vietnam era draft with lotteries, draft cards, and the like. I'm such a crackpot.

Here. If i do not have to invoke my CO status to avoid "working for the promotion of peace and liberty throughout the world" within the next 24 months, then I will agree that there has not been a draft of any kind. Deal?

[underseasurveyor]

107. I am SOOOOOOOOO relieved to hear you say this.......*whew*

Silly me, I keep forgetting *d'oh* :smacksforeheadwithpalm: how open and truthful this administration has always been with the American people. Knowing just how unpopular a draft would be, the BFEE wouldn't dare make preparations or plans to impliment any type of draft, whether it be a special skills or combat or (?) draft, behind closed doors in secret meetings.
No uhhuh never. They would never dream of doing such a thing.




:eyes:

[coreystone]

110. OKEY! DOKEY!…………

The letter to Frist, Reid, Hastert, and Pelosi hit the four leadership positions of the combined Senate and House. I am somewhat surprised that they are coming out of their closet in their attempt to more blatantly confront the issue that MORE troops are needed to conduct their business. I truly feel that the PNAC is an enemy of the citizenry of the American people and the world.

Quoting from that letter:

“There is abundant evidence that the demands of the ongoing missions in the greater Middle East, along with our continuing defense and alliance commitments elsewhere in the world, are close to exhausting current U.S. ground forces. For example, just late last month, Lieutenant General James Helmly, chief of the Army Reserve, reported that "overuse" in Iraq and Afghanistan could be leading to a "broken force." Yet after almost two years in Iraq and almost three years in Afghanistan, it should be evident that our engagement in the greater Middle East is truly, in Condoleezza Rice's term, a "generational commitment." The only way to fulfill the military aspect of this commitment is by increasing the size of the force available to our civilian leadership.”

If the “overuse” of the Reserve and National Guard do not meet the requirements, as put forth by the plans of the global strategy of PNAC, then the armed forces will need to be bolstered by some sort of preparation by our government to enhance the ACTIVE ground forces.

I firmly believe that the Congress, Republicans and Democrats gave a blank check to this administration upon the initial request for funding. As many of you know, the Congress has not utilized its power to “Declare War” since the attack upon Pearl Harbor. During that period of history, President Roosevelt ASKED Congress to declare war in accordance with the Constitutional powers allowed. When will Congress take a responsible role in the “open” blank check which needs to be renewed every time this administration NEEDS more money from the American people to support an “undeclared war”? Here I insert from the PNAC letter, quoting from the January 28, 2005 letter from the PNAC signatories:

“Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution places the power and the duty to raise and support the military forces of the United States in the hands of the Congress.”

In that letter, there is a request to “aim for an increase in the active duty Army and Marine Corps, together, of at least 25,000 troops each year over the next several years”. It would seem that the simple way out would be to increase incentives to “re-enlist” or to offer other incentives to attract those who would “pair” their “patriotic” duty and “educational benefits” upon termination of their commitments as being a possible solution. I really don’t think that it would entice the numbers of “ground troops” necessary for the PLANS!

If there would not be enough of those, who, more than likely, would come from the population of this country that would “economically” be enticed into “taking a chance” to enhance their lives in the future, assuming that their would be one; then, a DRAFT would be implicit in the PNAC letter.

Read it!! There is no way that 25,000 ground troop increase would possibly support the agenda that they prescribe in their “psychotic” mentality!

[coreystone]

111. A rose or the "draft" by any other name is still called...

a rose or a "draft"! And, that is not a "rosey" name!

:-(

[BeHereNow]

112. Peak Oil...What ever it is you're smoking...I WANT SOME!

I am so weary of reading the writing on the wall.
I would much prefer a respite of delusion, so please
pass it on, what ever it is.
I no longer care.
Just give me some.
BHN

[Peak_Oil]

113. Nutmeg, baby!

Grind up one whole nutmeg
Add it to a nice, thick, chocolatey shake

Suck that fucker down

Top it off with a little bottle of Robitussen DM

I promise, you won't see solid ground again for two days. And, it's all legal! Just don't drive anywhere for a couple of days, and call in sick to work and all that.

You know I'm right though, don't you. You read through the stuff, and you know they didn't call for a draft. You want it to be that, you want it so bad the inside of your eyeballs itch. But.... it's not what you want it to be.

In the meantime, read this.

http://www.simmonsco-intl.com/research.aspx?Type=msspeeches

Check out his new speech. It's a doozy.

Really, though. You know as well as I do that the paper you referenced does not call for a draft. There's a million things the administration could do to boost enlistment. They could tank the middle class, impoverishing families and signing them up as the last possible means of supporting a family. They could just advertise the military on TV. That drives up enlistment. They could do any number of things. They could raise the pay! Signing bonuses! All kinds of shit!

But they don't ask for the draft.

I'm going to leave this one alone now.

I'm not kidding when I say that thousands of right-wing eyes are watching this conversation you and I are having. They comment on it in their forums, and they cut and paste what you say and pull it apart and use it for their own discussions. I'm not just talking about FR, either. I've found my own posts dissected on no less than three brand-new message boards in the last two days.

[poe]

114. Here's More for those keeping score

Fast forward three weeks. PNAC Strausscons, mindful of the criticism of “realists” such as Scowcroft and Brzezinski, issue their carefully plotted letter to big shot Congress critters, demanding a beefed up military, including more soldiers. Naturally, they avoid any mention of conscription, although this is a natural conclusion, considering the military is actually shrinking and big fat bonuses are not attracting new recruits, mostly because young people realize going to Iraq means you either come back in a flag-draped coffin, come home missing a limb or two, or return a certified whack job determined to commit suicide by cop. If you read between the lines of the PNAC letter you can see DRAFT in ten foot high red glowing neon letters.

But the Strausscons don’t plan to put 500,000 soldiers in Iraq because Iraq is a done deal—the place is a mess and the “election,” as predicted by Scowcroft, will eventually result in civil war, not because it is a natural state of affairs for Sunni and Shi’ite Iraqis to kill each other—in fact, they have coexisted for hundreds of years together, regardless of the much overplayed schism between these two Islamic factions—but rather because the Strausscons are pushing them in this direction, most notably through a lopsided “election” that will put the Shi’ites and Kurds in the driver’s seat and exclude Sunni Iraqis who ran the place under Saddam Hussein. In short, this will ensure the primarily Sunni-based resistance continues, exactly as planned by the Strausscons.
For the Strausscons and Likudites, a pluralistic and united Iraq is wholly unacceptable. For the Strausscons, there is but one allowable situation in the Arab and Muslim Middle East—and it consists of ethnic strife, civil war, Islamic fanaticism, all of it preventing Arab nationalism and a collective Arab and Muslim identity. The Likudites in Israel want a splintered, chaotic, ethnically aroused and violent Middle East—sort of like gang warfare on Chicago’s Westside, an endless battle of shifting alliances and skirmishes—not peace and certainly not democracy. If you look beyond Strausscon doublespeak you will realize this is the objective: Israeli and U.S. hegemony over cowed Arabs and Muslims.

So what about the revamped military with its additional 500,000 or more soldiers, presumably acquired through bullet-stopper conscription?

The answer should be relatively easy—those bullet-stoppers will be needed for invasions of Iran and Syria, for as the Strausscons know very well simple bombardment will not be enough to spread the required level of chaos and violence smoldering in Iraq into neighboring Iran and Syria. As well, the Strausscons don’t have a spare decade to weaken Iran through sanctions, as Clinton and Junior’s daddy did to Iraq, exacting a terrible cost in human life. It will take brute force. It will take “boots on the ground” and a march down the road to Tehran and Damascus. It will require more doors kicked in, more Abu Ghraib prisons, more execution, covert ops, and Israeli-style checkpoints where civilians are terrorized and killed. Iran will be Iraq on steroids and it will take 500,000 or more soldiers to complete the job.

Of course, the stupidity of this scheme is that the entire Muslim world will rise up in response. But because the Likudites and Strausscons are racists who believe Arabs are stupid and ineffectual—moral and intellectual inferiors to white people and Jews—they do not currently view this as a problem, as they didn’t when Bush invaded Iraq.
www.kurtnimmo.com

[Peak_Oil]

117. As wacky as this may sound...

I agree with that post 100 percent. We're well on our way. Next is Iran.

The reason I got out my bad-info-stomping-boots is because it's so easy to distribute accurate information that makes your point so much better than this bad, reaching argument does. Search out the BBC series Power of Nightmares. It's got three hours of good material that backs up everything you've just said.

All of it.

Power of Nightmares. Find it and use it. We're on the same team, you and me. I just called a foul on you, that's all. We gotta do this right or it's going to make us all look like assclowns.

[BeHereNow]

118. WE look like ass clowns?!?!?!

The people of this country have voted for their
own demise, and WE look like ass clowns?
I repeat: you do not understand, even remotely, what
is happening. Blessings to you even so.
BHN

[poe]

122. I'm with ya' thanks for the...

kind words and also criticisms. too often the "left" whatever the hell that means gets upset with itself and the infighting. the infighting is necessary. you walk awy you come back. I'll be doing leafletting tomorrow and with friends we'll be in the streets give the world a heads up on the weekend.
We don't have to get every detail right or even know every detail. the evidence is scattered all over the floor.


Se rebeller est juste, désobéir est un devoir, agir est nécessaire !
To rebel is right, to disobey is a duty, to act is necessary !

[BeHereNow]

115. Curious to know-

WHY do you care what the uneducated, uniformed
and pathetic freeper and neonaziconservatives think
of our discussions?
Their kids are going to be conscripted shoulder to shoulder with
ours, because, yes, the PNAC letter DID call for a draft.
Hopefully, they will recall this thread when their kid is called.

You, like so MANY good Americans, have no clue
as to how to things work.
The PNAC letter IS a call for conscription.
the fact that you and so many others do not understand
HOW it works is exactly WHY they are going to get
away with it.
PEACE-
BHN

[H2O Man]

119. "WHY do you care ....."

Very good question.

[Peak_Oil]

121. I don't know if you noticed but...

we lost the Presidency, the Senate, and the HR. We are the minority, big guy. We need to win more people over to this way of thinking. Being arrogant or saying Why should you care is exactly how to continue to piss them off.

That is not going to help.

I happen to know a couple of super right-wing guys who are starting to listen. They see what's coming up.

I can't believe I haven't made a single point with you guys in this thread. Do you understand what I was after? There's good supporting data and bad supporting data.

This was a case of bad supporting data.

I agree with the conclusion, and in fact I'd take it further than you guys have. But, PLEASE, use good supporting data.

That fucking document does not say a fucking thing about a draft, and you know it. You read it. It doesn't say draft, does it? And I swear to God, if you dodge this question, which can be answered with a Yes or a No, then I'm wasting my time trying to HELP YOU. This is how you SHARPEN THE SAW.

Please answer this question. Does that document directly say anything about a draft? Please answer YES or NO.

Even if just to yourselves.

[oasis]

130. "bad supporting data"? When you're told "If it walks like a duck" it's

an invitation for you to use the data you have and apply common sense.

This isn't a case of posters using "bad supporting data". The "super right wing" guys you refer to need to get up to speed in the common sense department.

DUers are not obliged to spoon feed brain dead freepers. ( as in the case of those "super right wing guys who are starting to listen.)

[H2O Man]

131. Answers:

{1} I do not believe that the democrats lost elections because of Michael Moore's movies.

{2} While I think that your opinion of the one document may well be correct, it is not significant. The actions of the administration, plus many, many other documents, indicate an aggressive military stance that will in and of itself require a draft.

{3} The democratic party will not win elections by appealing to the extreme right-wing of the republican party. That does not mean that it is wrong for an individual such as yourself to have family and/or friends who you enjoy talking politics with. It should be where there can be communication. But don't confuse that with party unity.

[slutticus]

120. I think we're all missing the point here.

The point is that a fucking Right Wing think tank believes that it has the right to shape national security policy. They need more troops for their version of what they think the world should be. They need more troops for their crusade.

The point is not where the troops will come from. It's the fact that PNAC wants more troops, and they will probably get them. Whether they come from a draft or some program to recruit more volunteers is irrelevent.

[KoKo]

123. Whatever the PNAC Wants....The PNAC Gets....show us what it

hasn't achieved?

[Gold Metal Flake]

124. Quality, not quantity...

...or neither.

From the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A62524-2004Apr8

"This is Bush's 33rd visit to his ranch since becoming president. He has spent all or part of 233 days on his Texas ranch since taking office, according to a tally by CBS News. Adding his 78 visits to Camp David and his five visits to Kennebunkport, Maine, Bush has spent all or part of 500 days in office at one of his three retreats, or more than 40 percent of his presidency."

How do other Presidents compare?

From http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20031001.html

"George Bush Sr. took all or part of 543 vacation days at Camp David and in Kennebunkport. Ronald Reagan spent 335 days at or en route to his Santa Barbara, California, ranch during his eight years in office. Of recent presidents, Jimmy Carter took the least days off -- only 79 days, which he usually spent at his home in Georgia. That's less than three weeks a year, which is closer to the average American's paid time off of 13 days per year."

"What about Clinton? As of December 1999, President Bill Clinton had spent only 152 days on holiday during his two terms, according to CBS News. A former staffer noted Clinton was such a workaholic that "it almost killed Clinton to take one-week vacations during August." In 2000, Clinton cut his summer vacation short to just three days, so he and his wife could concentrate on her Senate race and fundraising for Democrats. While we couldn't find the exact tally for Clinton's last year in office, it's reasonable to expect he didn't increase his vacation rate. And in barely three years in office, George W. Bush has already taken more vacation than Clinton did in seven years."