OPINION & EDITORIAL
Democrats scare voters with draft
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Mac VerStandig:
- How the Pentagon won the war over Baghdad and the war over public opinion (April 25, 2003)
- Hypocrisy floats riverboats casinos (September 9, 2005)
- Hate crime debate needed on campus (January 20, 2006)
Related Stories:
- Why George Bush will need the draft (November 2, 2004)
- Draft may alter foreign policy (November 29, 2006)
- Letters to the Editor (October 22, 2004)
- Bush policy leads to conscription chatter (October 18, 2004)
- GOP overlooks minority voters (October 11, 2007)
by Mac VerStandig
Monday, October 18, 2004
OSHKOSH, Wis. — Addressing a packed airport hanger of 10,000 people Friday, President George Bush could not have been clearer: he wishes to maintain "an all-volunteer army."
This is hardly breaking news, considering that the point should have been laid to rest at the second presidential debate when he declared, "We're not going to have a draft — period," or at the first meeting with Senator John Kerry when Mr. Bush affirmed, "The military will be an all-volunteer army."
Then again, the point was rather clear in early August when the Commander in Chief told a Florida crowd, "We don't need the draft."
But if there is one thing this campaign has taught us, it is that Mr. Kerry can't even follow his own stances, much less those of his opponent. The delirious flip-flopper continues to prove himself incapable of grasping concepts like the detrimental effects of hiking taxes on small businesses and bureaucratizing health care, much less understanding that when Mr. Bush says the army will remain wholly volunteer, he is not advocating a draft.
Of course, all of this conscription nonsense had to start somewhere — a scare tactic of this proportion doesn't simply materialize out of thin air. And Mr. Kerry is correct in observing that the Universal National Service Act of 2003 was introduced before Congress on January 7, 2003. However, it was not Mr. Bush who brought it before the House of Representatives, nor was it one of the president's many surrogates, or even some back-benching member of the Republican Party. No, it was Rep. Charles Rangel, the radical New York Democrat whose knack for out-of-touch hyperbole has led to other infamous publicity stunts, like the suggestion that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld be impeached. (Though it should be noted that Mr. Rangel hasn't struck a complete ostrich pose — he was astute enough to recently note of Mr. Kerry's lacking touch with the American people, "We don't windsurf in Harlem.")
And yet, despite the bill having been introduced by a Democrat, never endorsed by Mr. Bush, and having recently died on the floor of the House of Representatives, Mr. Kerry continues to cry "draft" in hopes of coercing otherwise sensible Americans into voting for him.
Just this past weekend, the Massachusetts senator told the Des Moines Register that "a great potential" for a draft exists should Mr. Bush be tapped for another four years. And this rhetoric, disguised with all the once-dignified trimmings of a presidential candidate's credibility, is proving horrifically contagious. Draft stories are circulating through e-mail boxes with a ferocity normally reserved for credit card scams, MTV's Rock the Vote website — at the time of this column's writing — features a homepage with a graphic proclaiming "You have been drafted," and the New York Times ran an early October piece hyping the false-notion.
This is freighting rhetoric, especially on a campus like the University of Wisconsin where nearly half the student body — including this writer — has a Selective Service card that has eerily loitered about since around the time of an 18th birthday. But the reality is that these are anachronisms, items once burned in protest of a complicated war, and now being resurrected as tools of an equally political but far less pertinent nature.
Indeed, it shows a great deal of desperateness on the part of Mr. Kerry and his surrogates that conscription has become a cornerstone of campaign rhetoric on college campuses. Apparently unable to defend a record of voting against support for the troops voluntarily in the army, unwilling to recognize the crippling realities of his proposed tax hike, and uncomfortable delving into a platform that would fit well into a Lewis Carroll novel, the Democratic nominee seems content attempting to scare people to the polls via the fiery rhetoric of a fictitious draft.
For a man who has run a campaign largely based on his own military service, Mr. Kerry ought to know better.
Mac VerStandig (mac@badgerherald.com) is a junior majoring in rhetoric.
Anonymous (October 18, 2004 @ 1:20am):
well said.
I never saw whether Rangel proposed an "equal opportunity" draft?
Josiah (October 18, 2004 @ 2:01am):
Hmm, "volunteer army"? Check out this story about a reserve unit that refuses to follow orders to go on supply line runs.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1018/p01s04-usmi.html?s=hns
Makes one wonder if we really are winning the war on terror. Well, who is going to volunteer if this is all we have to look forward to:
"Above all, the case casts a stark light on problems faced by US ground troops in Iraq: Shortages of armored protection, overtaxed National Guard and Reserve units, and increasingly sophisticated attacks by insurgents on supply convoys manned by logistics soldiers with relatively little combat training."
Maybe the solution is for everyone to move to Crawford Texas so we can see what Bush sees.
Anonymous (October 18, 2004 @ 11:35am):
And let's not forget that Crawford's newspaper, the Lone Star Iconoclast, made a very underpublicized endorsement for president.
They endorsed John Kerry.
So if even Bush's hometown thinks he's unfit to be president, shouldn't we give them the last say and vote for Kerry?
Anonymous (October 18, 2004 @ 11:36am):
Josiah - stick to the point...Bush is not advocating a draft, and will not advocate a draft. Kerry is making crap up as he goes along.
jmbeasley (October 18, 2004 @ 12:31pm):
This isn't the first time Kerry has deceived to get votes. Read what the largest poice union in the country said.
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=38194
Anonymous (October 18, 2004 @ 1:13pm):
My roommate and I each support Kerry and Bush, respectively. Because our votes will just cancel we've decided not to vote at all. A lot of people have given us shit for this, but really what is wrong with it?
Anonymous (October 18, 2004 @ 1:31pm):
Bush's policies in Iraq--and possibly elsewhere, Iran?--require more troops than we have right now. For God's sakes, the OPFOR (the training force mentioned in Tom Clancy's books) is being sent over. National Guardsmen are on stop loss. At some point, the reality that we will need more troops to carry out Bush's premptive strike doctrine will meet his rhetoric that there will be no new draft (or, even more ridculously, his statement that a draft is LESS likely under him than under Kerry).
Le'ts be honest: how many times has Bush mislead or lied to the American people about Iraq and its costs? Do you really want to stake everything on Bush's word alone?
Anonymous (October 18, 2004 @ 2:35pm):
Gosh, I guess we get drafted either way. There's only one way out of it: vote for Nader. I'd be tickled to death if he scared the crap out of both parties by actually winning.
Lizzy Lanche (October 18, 2004 @ 2:55pm):
Bush told approximately ZERO lies about Iraq. He may have believed inaccurate intelligence on some points, but that was the same intelligence that Kerry and Edwards used when they decided to endorse the war. (That's assuming the Kerry's vote was based on an assessment of the security risk rather than the risk to his Presidential ambitions.)
There shouldn't be any new troops required for Iraq. Whenever there is a major battle, the US can bring overwhelming force that obliterates the enemy. The shame is the Bush has largely refrained from using that overwhelming force. He allowed the enemy to live, by agreeing to ceasefires in Fallujah and Najaf. That will certainly cost American lives, but it hardly indicates the need for a draft.
Suppose that more troops were needed, however. Would we need a draft then? Nope. During the 1980's our all-volunteer Army had 18 divisions. Currently it has only 10. If we could raise 18 divisions then, it's ridiculous to think that we couldn't have 12 or 13 now.
Anonymous (October 18, 2004 @ 2:59pm):
"There shouldn't be any new troops required for Iraq."
So who should we believe? Lizzy, with no apparent experience in military matters, or a bunch of generals and former high ranking officials in the coalition provisional authority, who all say the US needed and still needs lots more troops, but doesn't have a large enough standing army to pursue the kind of troop movement needed?
Lizzy? Or experts? Hmm...that's a tough choice...
Lizzy Lanche (October 18, 2004 @ 3:12pm):
The comment about more troops referred to the days immediately after the fall of Saddam Hussein. Not surprisingly, the quisling press corps then reported the story in such a vague manner that you would never know it.
Anonymous (October 18, 2004 @ 3:50pm):
Lizzy, i am going to refer you to an article in the New York times that refutes your claim that bush told no lies about the Iraq war. my email is dasyrkinniko@wisc.edu, email me so i have your address and i will show you something you probably haven't seen.
As for Mac's article, i respect his right to have his own opinion, however i don't respect him writing articles that once again side step important issues at hand. The question is not if there will be a draft if kerry is elected, or if there will be a draft if bush is elected, because if the US is attacked again(and with the amount of "Anti American" activity in the world these days, arguably Bush's fault though im not sure the blame rests solely on his shoulders) there will absolutely need to be a draft. This is what is important to consider. So when kerry says if bush is in office for four more years there will be a draft, i will agree that its a low blow and an unfair statement. But this is politics and you gotta play dirty. Bush does it too. It doesnt mean i condone it, but you cant win if you dont. Before kerry started attacking bush personally he was much more passive about it and figured that he could just ride out on bush messing up alot in his presidency. THis failed he was losing in the polls. Then he began attacking the pres. and his standings went up. THis says very little about the american people, but thats probably because of our mass media, but thats a whole different story. Anyways the point is, please use evidence other than "Bush said so". Bush also said initially he wouldn't be a nation builder when he was trying to be elected. He certainly held true on that one. Come on Mac, sometimes you make me just wanna sit down and talk to you for about 5 days straight so I can try and understand if you actually have an honest view point or you are just an ad hominem reporter. Help me out here man!
Anonymous (October 18, 2004 @ 3:51pm):
P.S. that last comment was made by me, dimitri syrkin-nikolau, the guy who wrote the response to your article last week. Which i would still like some sort of response about from you.
Thanks
Anonymous (October 18, 2004 @ 4:12pm):
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Thursday that the size of the military might have to expand if efforts to better manage the existing force do not succeed.
"If we need to increase the size of the force, we need to increase the size of the force, and I'm all for it," Rumsfeld told the Senate Armed Services Committee during a hearing Thursday. "[But] it would pain me to do it when we have so many portions of the force that aren't being properly used, and I'd much prefer to see us do that."
So, if we need to increase the size of our military, where exactly will these people come from, if not a draft? I'm sure as hell not going to be signing up any time soon.
Anonymous (October 18, 2004 @ 4:43pm):
George W. Bush: Worst President Ever
http://iconoclast-texas.com/Columns/Editorial/editorial39.htm
Anonymous (October 18, 2004 @ 11:01pm):
I like the one persons comment about how Lizzy should refer to the New York Times for a refutal. I think hearing someone say that someone should refer to the New York Times for the truth is the most hilarious thing that I've ever heard.
Anonymous (October 19, 2004 @ 1:22am):
To the person who thinks refering to the new york times for the truth is the most hilarious thing you have ever heard. Where do you get your news from. The article that was sent to lizzy was well researched and very indepth. It had many sources and took a great deal of time to gather all the information. I fail to see why this is funny.
