October 6, 2004
SORRY, CHARLIE:
Republicans Glad to Lose on Bill to Start New Draft: The hasty House vote 'putting a rumor to rest' is 402-2. Democrats call the tactic a sham that trivializes the problem of troop shortages. (Faye Fiore and Richard Simon, October 6, 2004, LA Times)
Seeking to dispel suggestions that the war in Iraq could lead to reinstatement of the draft, House Republicans on Tuesday hastily brought the idea to a vote — with the express intent of shooting it down.The vote, launched with only hours of notice and no public hearings, was designed to put an end to talk that President Bush's foreign policy could overtax the all-volunteer Army that has been national policy since the end of the Vietnam War.
"It's putting a rumor to rest," John Feehery, a spokesman for House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), said even before the 402-2 vote to reject the bill that would have mandated two years of military or civilian service for all men and women 18 to 26 years old. [...]
"After all the conspiracy talk and the e-mails flying all over this country," House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas said, the vote would "put a nail in that coffin." He accused the Democrats of using the issue as a "dishonest and willful campaign of misinformation."
"This campaign — which started as a whisper but has since been given voice by the leading Democrats in the country today — asserts without any evidence whatsoever that there is a secret Republican plan to reinstitute the military draft," DeLay said.
Democrats and activists dismissed Tuesday's House action as hollow. Rangel voted against the very bill he wrote and accused the Republicans of "prostituting" the legislative process for political gain.
Only Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) and Rep. Pete Stark (D-Hayward) voted for the measure.
We should bring back the draft, but if you see a fish in a barrel it's awfully hard not to shoot it. Posted by Orrin Judd at October 6, 2004 9:19 AM
How about a 1 year mandatory military service to be completed by all males and females before reaching the age of 23?
Posted by: Bartman at October 6, 2004 10:57 AMOr military training followed by a broader selection of national service.
Posted by: oj at October 6, 2004 11:04 AMWhat's up with that headline? In what way was this initiative related to Republicans? Just one last gasp attempt to equate support for the draft with them. Pathetic.
Posted by: brian at October 6, 2004 11:18 AMOnly a traitor, or someone wholly ignorant of the knock-on effects, would propose renewing the draft.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at October 6, 2004 12:07 PMTraitor.
Posted by: oj at October 6, 2004 3:11 PMMaybe ordering all first time, low-level, nonviolent criminals (the kind that normally would receive probation or community service) between 18-25 to serve in the military would be a good idea.
Posted by: Vince at October 6, 2004 4:03 PMI would rather not have a military made up of people with a propensity to be a criminal, no matter how non-violent. If anything, your suggestion says that serving in the military is a punishment, and should be reserved for those in need of such.
Posted by: Raoul Ortega at October 6, 2004 6:53 PMRaoul:
You are probably right. I have heard your argument before, and I always agreed with it. I just thought that maybe first time, low level, nonviolent offenders, who would normally receive probation or community service for their offenses, should be draftable, but your point still holds true for any criminal. Our military should consist of good citizens.
Yes, I can change my mind about things.
Posted by: Vince at October 6, 2004 6:58 PMI still have this nagging suspicion that the idea behind reviving the draft was Nostalgia for Vietnam.
Here in California, KFI 640's afternoon drive-time guys describe the gerrymandered-for-life state legislature as "Old hippies who just realized they don't have too many years left to Change the World and Have to Do It All at Once."
Posted by: Ken at October 6, 2004 8:16 PM