1

"Third, if you are so stupid that you are actually falling for this nonsense then you are too immature to vote. Voting is an adult responsibility."

Hmm. A draft is certainly possible and certainly more likely in the event we start another war (say, against Iran) which is more likely if Bush is elected again.

Compare that "nonsense" with the nonsense of Saddam being personally involved in the planning of 9/11 which *62% of Republicans believe*, and which has been demonstrated to be FALSE, and which is a view perpetuated by the misleading statements of Bush and Cheney and the rest of the Republican script-readers.

Talk about a litmus test for ignorance.

In any event, we won't have a need for a draft if all the sons and daughters of rich hawk Republicans do the right thing and enlist immediately. Are the children of the top 20% of wage earners outnumbering the children of the lower 20% of wage earners in the ranks of enlisted teens? Let me know when that happens. Also, let me know when Karen Superbeach Hughes' son enlists and asks to be sent as soon as possible to Iraq.

2

Anyway, to add to my above posting. I will be sad when the draft finally is reinstated. Currently it is mostly republicans taking casualties in Iraq. Under a draft, the distribution of bodybags maybe a little more equal and unfortunately that means some innocent democrats drafted into Bush's war will die also.

3

Huh, more lies, and now again about the draft possibly being reinstated...interesting how the more desperate and nervous Kerry supporters get, the more lies and slandering gets blatantly obvious...

4

"A draft is certainly possible and certainly more likely in the event we start another war (say, against Iran) which is more likely if Bush is elected again."

Lets see, restarting the draft would require a bill going through a House which last opposed it by 402-2. The only reason it was proposed in the first place is because minority democrats were concerned over two things (1) the over-representation of minorities in the military (2) the over-representation of Republicans in the military.

Its funny for me to see people worried about minority over-representation. Shows what they really think of the military doesn't it? For those that don't get it, they are only complaining because they see the military as a negative. These same people would never complain about minority over-representation in, say, the technology sector. They would trumpet it.

The Republican thing scares them because they are starting to realize that the military will follow Bush into hell and back. Bush doesn't need to worry about military moral, its a given so he can follow whatever policy he thinks is best. (This is as opposed to whatever policy the democrats think is best.) Not much chance of the military refusing to follow their orders from this CinC.

5

Jeff the Baptist, a True Idiot, writes

"These same people would never complain about minority over-representation in, say, the technology sector."

Wow. That's some awful hypocracy you pointed out, Jeff. So, how many minority civilians died of shrapnel wounds in the technology sector in the past year?

6

Not much chance of the military refusing to follow their orders from this CinC.

Perhaps you missed the news from a few days ago...

Army Reserve Unit Reportedly Balked at Risky Mission in Iraq (http://tinyurl.com/66smk)

I remember drinking the Limbaugh & right wing pundit kool-aid when Clinton was elected. He was going to wreck an already marginal economic recovery. There would be mass exodus from the military--especially after "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." He was going to make the U.S. the laughing stock of the world. Let's see, we had the longest peace time economic expansion since WWII, there was no mass defection problems with the military and we were still looked at around the world as being the champion of democracy and freedom.

7

A wanna-be Larry Lord wrote

"Anyway, to add to my above posting. I will be sad when the draft finally is reinstated. Currently it is mostly republicans taking casualties in Iraq. Under a draft, the distribution of bodybags maybe a little more equal and unfortunately that means some innocent democrats drafted into Bush's war will die also."

I understand that Christians believe that lying and killing is okay as long as it results in some benefit to the liar or killer. But assuming another's identity on a blog is not only lying and misrepresentation, it's cheezy and immature.

I'm always happy to be shown when I've got the facts wrong. Unfortunately for many of the regulars around here, my predictions about Bush's failures have turned out to be correct for the most part. I understand that might make you uncomfortable if you were led to believe that your God was somehow on Bush's side. Perhaps you would be better advised to take out your frustrations on your preachers and ministers who led you to that belief, rather than to the people who are trying to show you the facts about the worst president the Supreme Court has ever elected.

8

Larry Lord:

Hmm. A draft is certainly possible and certainly more likely in the event we start another war (say, against Iran) which is more likely if Bush is elected again.

Umm.. he didn't say the draft wouldn't be reinstated. He said that THE PRESIDENT CAN'T DO IT. And then don't vote for someone who tried to insinuate that the president can draft you, hoping of gaining your confidence through FUD.

9

Larry,

Do you actually have current demographic data on the current military?

And the reports from the military that I've read is that they are currently exceeding their recruiting goals (turning people away). If you have facts to the contrary feel to share.

That doesn't make a draft sound likely to me. Suggestions of a draft are just yet another "slimy campaign tactic" courtesy of the Kerry campaign.

10

Brandon, flailing at a strawman, writes

"he didn't say the draft wouldn't be reinstated. He said that THE PRESIDENT CAN'T DO IT."

Yes. And I didn't contradict what "he" said.

This post is so stupid. How about attacking Bush for misleading Americans into believing that he could amend the constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman? Surely you could find a lot of Bush-supporters who believe that Bush could do that. At least 62% of Republicans believe that, I'd guess. Or that Bush can appoint Justices to the Supreme Court just by naming them and voila! they are on the Court, no questions asked. How many Republicans believe that is the case? I don't recall Bush going out of his way to make that clear in the debates.

11

Clinton cut the military back by 33%. Any mass exodus that might have occurred pales in comparison to those kind of numbers. He decimated our military forces 3 times. I suggest you find some of those news stories from before we went to Iraq comparing the difference in soldier experience levels from Gulf War I and II. The reason is that a disproportionate number of old hands retired under Clinton.

As for the economy, we basically learned why that was too. His whole second term was a speculative bubble driven by the tech sector and the Y2K phenomenon. Notice how our economic numbers are about where we were at the end of Clinton's first term? Its not a coincidence.

12

"the nonsense of Saddam being personally involved in the planning of 9/11 which *62% of Republicans believe*,"

WHERE does this statistic come from? The number keeps creeping up. It *was* 30 something percent, then 50 something and now it's 62%? I'll bet by election day, 98.75% of Republicans will be said to believe the Saddam was personally involved in 9/11.

Talk about repeat a lie often enough.....

13

Mark O

"Do you actually have current demographic data on the current military?"

Nope. Do you believe that Bush will pass or intends to pass legislation aimed at diminishing the obligations of reservists and enlisted men?

14

Larry Lord,

Why you are always so bitter and vindictive?

15

The draft won't be necessary. As soon as JFK2 loses this election, I say we put him in a uniform, and ship him out to kill all the Al Queda in the world. He has a plan to hunt down and kill all the terrorists on earth, and, despite what 96% of the men who served with him say, Kerry was one tough sonofabitch. He's also nearly immortal, as three purple hearts attest, yet he was back at 100% just minutes after receiving all of them.

16

Muzjik writes

"WHERE does this statistic come from? The number keeps creeping up. It *was* 30 something percent, then 50 something and now it's 62%? I'll bet by election day, 98.75% of Republicans will be said to believe the Saddam was personally involved in 9/11. "

Take a reading comprehension class, my friend.

The truth you seek is in the details which are so often ignored by fanatic script-reciting conservatives. The earlier stats, as I recall, referred to the percentage of *all* Americans who believed in the Great Lie.

The new stats refer to Republicans only and come from David Marcoe's favorite pollsters, Gallup:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0410/05/lol.03.html

FRANK NEWPORT, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, GALLUP: Hello, Kyra.

Indeed, Dick Cheney, not surprisingly, has more negative baggage than John Edwards going into the debate tonight. That's how I would summarize it.

Here's our latest September favorable/unfavorable ratings on the two VP candidates. Dick Cheney over here, 48 favorable, 44 unfavorable -- so, roughly balanced. John Edwards relatively untouched by a lot of negativity, so far -- 56 favorable, 30 unfavorable. So, he goes in with a more positive image. We'll see how he comes out of the debate tonight.

Who's going to win? It's the expectations game, of course, for all these debates. Bush was favored going into the first one; our data show he didn't win. Who's favored tonight? The public splits, Kyra, right down the middle: 40 percent say Cheney, 42 John Edwards. So, no favorite going into tonight's proceedings there in Cleveland.

PHILLIPS: All right. Where do Americans stand on Iraq?

NEWPORT: Well, that's an important question that's clearly been the focus of the first debate. It may come up tonight, of course.

We've seen it change. The question that we've been asking about wars here at Gallup since the Korean War: Was it a mistake to get involved? And the percentage say yes -- it's this bottom line -- right after the Republican convention, it had dropped. Only 38 percent of Americans right here said it was a mistake. In other words, that was more positive about the Iraqi war. Only 38 saying it was a mistake.

But the percent saying it was a mistake has gone up. We're now -- we're at split half and half: 48 say it was a mistake, and 51 percent say not. So, we're kind of back where we were -- America split right down the middle in terms of perceptions of the Iraq war at this point, Kyra.

PHILLIPS: So, do Americans agree with Kerry's statement during his debate that Osama bin Laden was behind the 9/11 attacks and not Saddam Hussein? NEWPORT: Well, that's the key issue. You know, all these comments by Donald Rumsfeld, secretary of defense, have come into the fore even yesterday and today. It's very political.

This is fascinating. Look carefully. If you're a Republican, 62 percent say, yes, Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the 9/11 attacks. Almost two thirds say yes. But Democrats and Republicans, exactly as many, two thirds say, no, there was no connection.

So, the Republicans -- at least at this point, Kyra -- have bought into the Bush/Cheney and the Republican administration logic that they've advanced over the last year or two that there was a connection.

17

Pentecostal Chick asks me

"Why you are always so bitter and vindictive?"

I'm not always bitter and vindictive.

But I'm often frustrated to the point of madness by the blind willingness of folks who call themselves Christians to stand by a certain President whose ineptness is utterly transparent and who has thus far refused to acknowledge his gross errors.

And then there's the continual denial of indisputed facts. And the continued recitation of facts which were debunked weeks, months or years ago. And underneath it all, rearing it's head from time to time, is the vile stench of religious fanaticism, bigotry and hatred. Not everyone here stoops to the lowest levels, but I find people here are more tolerant of backwards discriminatory views against, say, gays, Muslims, or atheists, than they are against anyone who believes that George Bush is a terrible President.

18

Kevin W writes

"The draft won't be necessary. As soon as JFK2 loses this election, I say we put him in a uniform, and ship him out to kill all the Al Queda in the world. He has a plan to hunt down and kill all the terrorists on earth, and, despite what 96% of the men who served with him say, Kerry was one tough sonofabitch. He's also nearly immortal, as three purple hearts attest, yet he was back at 100% just minutes after receiving all of them."

Heh. The irony here is that when Arnold runs for President this sort of argument is going to be very compelling for a substantial portion of the American population.

19

How many times can Larry respond without getting a response?

62% of republicans believe that 98.75% of democrats are fooling themselves into beliving we are not at war...
What a "nusance"!

20

Larry,

You aked, "Do you believe that Bush will pass or intends to pass legislation aimed at diminishing the obligations of reservists and enlisted men?

Why no Larry, I believe Bush is in the Executive branch of the government. The Legislative branch would be Congress. That's were the legislating gets done. Since You also seem to think Arnold will run for president, either you missed his heavy Austrian accesnt and dno't realize that he is foreign born, or you don't realize that one must be born in the US to become president. Either way your civics needs some boning up.

21

Iraq tried to procure yellowcake from Niger, Saddam is reconstituting its nuclear capacities, no smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud...

And kids today don't believe this guy? I'm shocked, shocked!

22

"At least 62% of Republicans believe that, I'd guess. Or that Bush can appoint Justices to the Supreme Court just by naming them and voila! they are on the Court, no questions asked. How many Republicans believe that is the case? I don't recall Bush going out of his way to make that clear in the debates."

Um, a much better analogy would be Bush accusing a Kerry presidency of increasing the chances of illegalized abortion. It makes no sense, given the public statements of the involved parties. See, the point here is that Bush has repeatedly and publically announced his total opposition to the draft, yet it is being asserted by the left that he in fact wants one. Seems like a healthy thing to point out that Bush has neither the desire nor political ability to do so, and has clearly said as much.

As for war with Iran, it simply will not be approved by Congress given the present climate, short of open, hostile actions on the part of Iran. Whatever momentum Bush had for preemptive war has been thoroughly squandered on Iraq, while NK and Iran build their nukes in safety.

23

"As for war with Iran, it simply will not be approved by Congress given the present climate, short of open, hostile actions on the part of Iran."

Since when does the Bush Administration need to prove that Iran had any part in the "hostility." ANY major terrorist attack on US soil which hasn't clearly been committed by a non-Islamic American will do the trick nicely.

24

Mark writes

"Why no Larry, I believe Bush is in the Executive branch of the government. The Legislative branch would be Congress. That's were the legislating gets done."

Spare me. Yes, I was sloppy. You knew what I meant. If the Republicans continue to control Congress and Bush is elected, I expect he'll get whatever he claims he needs militarily without too much trouble.

"Since You also seem to think Arnold will run for president, either you missed his heavy Austrian accesnt and dno't realize that he is foreign born, or you don't realize that one must be born in the US to become president."

Oh, and I guess no one ever told you about "amendments."

25

Perhaps Mr. Moderate might watch "Black Hawk Down" to get an idea of our glorious success in Somalia under Clinton. Or he might chose to take a look at how well Bosnia is doing, another great Clinton success. Then there was that little "crime" where they tried to blow up the World Trade Center, the first time. Just because you managed to ignore world events with Clinton in office doesn't mean that the world was a wonderful place when he was in office. And I suspect that the economic boom had more to do with the failure of his health care plan and Alan Greenspan than anything else.

26

There's one thing most everyone seems to forget to mention in this "draft" debate... and that is that not only did Bush say he wants NO part of it, but the Democrats actually introduced the bill! These kids need to know that Kerry not only lied about Bush wanting a draft, but John Kerry is also lying about HIS democratic party NOT wanting one. Youth of America should teach him a lesson on Nov.2nd.

27

There would be mass exodus from the military--especially after "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

Clinton's original position was that he was going to allow gays to openly serve in the military. "Don't ask, don't tell" was a compromise position when he couldn't get a Democrat controlled Congress to change the UCMJ.

He was going to make the U.S. the laughing stock of the world.

It is certainly arguable that Clinton's fecklessness in response to terror attacks on the WTC, Kobar Towers, and the USS Cole, and the military fiacso in Somailia (I could go on) led in part to the attacks on 9/11.

Let's see, we had the longest peace time economic expansion since WWII,

I would argue that much of the expansion was fueled by the Reagan tax cuts of the 1980's and 1990's the tech-bubble, which had started to collapse before Bush took office.

there was no mass defection problems with the military

I hadn't noticed that there were mass defection problems in the military. As a civilian employee of the US Navy, I think I would have noticed. But let's not forget that under Clinton, the active military strength was reduced by nearly a third.

and we were still looked at around the world as being the champion of democracy and freedom.

Many, if not most people around the world still look to the US as the "champion of democracy and freedom. It appears that you are confusing people with governments. You seem to think that the governments of repressive regimes like Iran, China, Syria, and North Korea actually represent the views of their citizens (or prisoners to be more accurate). I imagine if you went to any one of those countries and were able to get honest answers, most people would jump at the chance to emigrate to the US.

28

May I suggest one easy way that conservatives could make us in what you guys call the "reality-based community" admit that all the talk about draft is just scare talk.

Make a legally binding pledge of some significant sum of your money, perhaps $10,000 or so, to be paid to DNC in full provided that (1) Bush wins the election and (2) military draft begins during his presidency.

Since you are so absolutely sure that there will be no draft if/when Bush wins, you could pledge significant sums of money without any risk. That gesture would pretty much show the people who is right, and make the lieberals and demoncrats shudder in fear and shame of another of their evil lies being revealed. They could in turn, of course, make a symmetric pledge that pays off if there is has been no draft when the Bush presidency ends.

Any takers?

29

"But let's not forget that under Clinton, the active military strength was reduced by nearly a third."

Well, less government. Government is the problem.

30

How about this, Ilkka?

We'll make a wager, just you and me, for the $10,000. If Bush wins the election, and manages to re-institute conscription, I'll send you a check. If no, you owe me.

Any takers?

31

Ilkka,

May I suggest one easy way that conservatives could make us in what you guys call the "reality-based community" admit that all the talk about draft is just scare talk.

Before I get to your suggestion, may I offer one of my own? As I’ve pointed out in my post, the military doesn’t want a draft. Has there been a single high-ranking military leader that has publicly supported the idea of a draft? No. If the military doesn’t want it and it is politically unpopular, then why is it even being discussed?

Make a legally binding pledge of some significant sum of your money, perhaps $10,000 or so, to be paid to DNC in full provided that (1) Bush wins the election and (2) military draft begins during his presidency.

I’m willing to make that pledge provided that someone will also pledge to provide the same amount a disabled veteran's charity if no draft beings during Bush’s second term.

Since you are so absolutely sure that there will be no draft if/when Bush wins, you could pledge significant sums of money without any risk. That gesture would pretty much show the people who is right, and make the lieberals and demoncrats shudder in fear and shame of another of their evil lies being revealed.

Shouldn’t they already be shuddering in shame after proposing a draft in Congress, implying that it was the Republicans who wanted a draft, and then voting against their own bill? Since they didn’t it just goes to show that they have no shame at all.

They could in turn, of course, make a symmetric pledge that pays off if there is has been no draft when the Bush presidency ends. Any takers?

Any takers on my counter-pledge?

32

"Any takers on my counter-pledge?"

Myself, unfortunately I don't have enough boasted certainty about draft to make such a pledge. Although I do wish that political claims and predictions from all sides tended to come with such pledges of significant money attached.

I'd imagine that such a "put your money where your mouth is" convention would clarify lots of things, and also show how serious politicians and pundits really are about the claims and the predictions that they make.

33

Who is doing all the shouting about a draft? Kerry and Democrats. Democrats author the bill which was voted down 402-2 the 2 voting for were democrats but NOT Rangel who was one of the co-sponsors.

Oh, anyone remember what Kerry proposed to do in his first hundred days that has since removed from his website?

In a May 2003 speech on National Service, John Kerry said: "I propose that all high school students should also be required to do community service before they graduate."

A New Hampshire political news web site reported on the speech: Kerry pushes mandatory national public service: (I vow to) make national service a way of life by requiring mandatory service for high school kids and giving Americans the chance to earn four years of college tuition in exchange for two years of service.

http://www.gazetteonline.com/iowacaucus/candidate_news/kerry46.aspx

Speaking to veterans and to students at his former high school, Sen. John Kerry proposed a $3.5 billion national effort to involve more Americans in public service building on the framework of other programs and mandating that all high schools incorporate service requirements for graduation.

Makes ya wonder dont it?