Anyone Feel a Draft?
Josh Marshall raises an excellent point, and gives details about the Bush Campaign's latest attempt at supressing free speech.
In a nutshell: Rock the Vote has been using the possibility of a draft to motivate young people to register to vote. Considering how many troops we have in Iraq, and how long they could be there for, it's certainly a possibility, however distateful it might be. And the people who would be most concerned are the very people that RTV is trying to reach. (Of course, their parents and toehr loved ones should be very concerned too. And if your kid isn't draft age now, just remember that they're growing every day.)
The Bush administration, all the way up to the President himself, have said that there would be no draft, that our all-volunteer army is doing just fine. (This, despite the fact that a substantial chunk of the National Guard isn't, y'know, guarding the nation. At least not our nation. They're in Iraq, because we can't spare more troops from the regular army.)
And so, the chairman of the Republican National Committee has sent them a cease-and-desist letter (.pdf link) to shut them up, threatening to revoke their IRS advantages that come with being labveled a "non-partisan" group -- because the idea of a draft is purportedly so preposterous that they're obviously just doing this to cause trouble.
And his proof of this? A few soundbites from Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld. Essentially: "Because we said so."
That's not good enough. Not from anyone, but especially not from these guys. This is thuggery, pure and simple.
Rob
Friday, October 15, 2004
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
You know, if RTV was telling people that the Bush/Cheney crew kept dead babies in the White House basement so they could eat them with breakfast, I imagine the Republicans would be upset. "Well, why would they be upset," you ask, "if it's the truth?!?!"
Oh wait. It's not.
If you can't prove your accusations, you shouldn't be making them. If you ask me, the thuggery is coming from Rock the Vote.
Sorry, but that doesn’t wash. Eating babies – even delicious, fresh ones – isn’t within the realm of serious possibility. The draft, unfortunately, is. And while I think it’s more likely that another four years of Bush policies will bring it about than Kerry’s more reasonable stance, with the shape our army is in, if another serious need arises, we’ll be desperately strapped for troops. The difference between the two men is that Kerry will use troops if there’s a serious need, and Bush will decide to use troops, and then figure out how to convince people that it’s a dire emergency that we do so. But either situation could lead to a draft, despite their promises. And that’s something for Rock the Vote (and everyone who knows anyone between the ages of 10 and 30) to be seriously concerned about.
It may not happen. I hope it won’t. But that’s no reason to stifle legitimate political dialogue. As opposed to, say, baby-eating accusations.
But thanks for posting! I can’t tell you how happy I am to have someone commenting who fundamentally disagrees with me!
Rob
Sorry, but that doesn’t wash. Eating babies – even delicious, fresh ones – isn’t within the realm of serious possibility. The draft, unfortunately, is. And while I think it’s more likely that another four years of Bush policies will bring it about than Kerry’s more reasonable stance, with the shape our army is in, if another serious need arises, we’ll be desperately strapped for troops. The difference between the two men is that Kerry will use troops if there’s a serious need, and Bush will decide to use troops, and then figure out how to convince people that it’s a dire emergency that we do so. But either situation could lead to a draft, despite their promises. And that’s something for Rock the Vote (and everyone who knows anyone between the ages of 10 and 30) to be seriously concerned about.
It may not happen. I hope it won’t. But that’s no reason to stifle legitimate political dialogue. As opposed to, say, baby-eating accusations.
But thanks for posting! I can’t tell you how happy I am to have someone commenting who fundamentally disagrees with me!
Rob
Tom's right that there was a bill. It was introduced in early 2003, done to draw attention to the military's lack of preparedness for this war as well as the lack of equal socal and racial representation in the military. There can be no doubt that he knew it would never pass, but he tried to get the publicity anyway. He wrote an op/ed piece in the New York Times, found a link to it here: http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/010203B.rangel.oped.htm
I wish he'd gotten more publicity, but it really was viewed as a stunt. Even Rangel didn't vote for it, and urged other democrats to vote against it! The only reason the GOP leadership ever let it come to a vote recently was so the GOP could vote against it and tell everyone that they did. But Rep. Rangel's points are valid, particularly about who serves in this military and who doesn't. Rep. Murtha, who voted for it, echoed the views about a small segment of the population paying the price in a war.
I never visited their site before this debate- so maybe it's changed- but Rock the Vote just doesn't seem that partisan to me. They aren't saying that a vote for Bush is a vote for conscription; they are just using the issue to show how politics can directly affect a young voter, so you'd damn well better vote. Before they drew attention to it, no one was really talking about it; even that bill was virtually ignored for a year and a half, then rushed to vote with basically no discussion. The cease-and-desist letter was a bad idea, because now the GOP looks like they are defending themselves. Whether or not they have something to defend against, it's really stupid in a very close election year to look like you do.
(If you want to see more: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/05/politics/main647612.shtml is a good place to start.)
Tom:
What she said.
Rob
Post a Comment