Yesterday in Iowa, speaking to the Des Moines Register, Kerry asserted that, under President Bush, there could be a draft, when the likelihood is, that a draft is more likely with Kerry (as indicated below). It is clear to me this is an orchestrated attempt to disenfranchise the 18 to 29 year demographic. I also believe this is in direct response to the latest Zogby poll which indicated more of this group migrating toward President Bush.
First off, the two draft bills introduced in congress were from Democrats (Rangel - House, Hollings - Senate). Secondly, Kerry has almost said that under him there would be a draft, how else will he achieve the claims he made in the debates?
>From the second debate transcript, Sen. Kerry said:
"Now, I'm going to add 40,000 active duty forces to the military...."
>From the third debate transcript, Sen. Kerry said:
"Now, I've proposed adding two active-duty divisions to the Armed Forces of the United States — one combat, one support.
In addition, I'm going to double the number of Special Forces so that we can fight a more effective war on terror, with less pressure on the National Guard and Reserve."
It certainly doesn't take a huge conceptual leap to put these two together, but no one seems to be talking about it. How is Senator Kerry going to make good on these promises?
What kind of a response is this?
When you think about it, when a Republican says Kerry will do something that he obviously won't do, such as ban the Holy Bible, it's simply their way of making a point, and in no way dishonest or unethical.
The draft nonsense put forth by the Democrat ticket is inexcusable and in defense of it you claim some un-named "Republican" said Kerry will ban the Bible? So it isn't dishonest? Take off the partisan rose colored glasses. It is both unethical and dishonset, it is designed to scare the demographic it targets and it is calculated.
Charlie Rangel proposed his draft bill because he said minorities are over represented in the armed forces (a claim not supported by the data). Not only did Mr. Rangel (D-NY) defend his position vehemently in numerous interviews, he supported it, until it was forced to a vote by the House Republicans at which time HE voted against it. IF one wants to debate this, try using substance and not the partisan talking points.
