Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Skywatcher who wrote (639469)	10/6/2004 12:34:00 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769669

DEM EFFORT TO REVIVE DRAFT DEFEATED BY REPUBLICANS Bill to Restore the Draft Is Defeated in the House By CARL HULSE Published: October 6, 2004 WASHINGTON, Oct. 5 - Trying to quiet fears of a return of the draft, the House Republican leadership engaged in a hasty call-up of its own on Tuesday. The Republicans brought to the floor a Democratic-sponsored proposal to reinstate mandatory military service and presided over its overwhelming defeat on a vote of 402 to 2. Advertisement "We're going to put a nail in that coffin," said the House majority leader, Representative Tom DeLay of Texas. He accused Democrats of generating opposition to President Bush - especially on college campuses - by raising the idea that the draft might be re-established after the November election to provide troops for service in Iraq. Democrats were outraged at the tactic, charging Republicans with a cynical political ploy on a matter that merited more thoughtful hearings and debate. The Democrats originally introduced the measure early last year as a way to protest the war, even before it began, and to spotlight how low- and middle-income Americans shoulder much of the burden of serving in the military. "It is a prostitution of the legislative process to take a serious issue and use it for political purposes on the eve of the election just to say they are against the draft," said Representative Charles B. Rangel, Democrat of New York, the author of the bill, who ended up voting against it. With the military strained by its operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, talk of a return of the draft - discontinued in 1973 during the Vietnam War - has persisted, fueled by e-mail and Internet chatter warning of a new draft once the election is concluded. The activist group Rock the Vote, which seeks to register young Americans to vote, has also broadcast public service announcements pointing to the draft as an important campaign issue. Members of Congress are regularly asked about the idea as well, often by worried parents. "This is the issue that will not go away," said Representative Jim McDermott, Democrat of Washington. He and other Democrats suggested again on Tuesday that Mr. Bush's re-election could mean a return of the draft, because the administration is already calling back reservists and halting the discharge of military personnel. Senator John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate, has referred to such moves as a backdoor draft. "How big a step is it from where we are right now to the president saying it is the national interest that everyone serve?" asked Mr. McDermott. Republicans portrayed such claims as part of a pre-election fraud. "The reason we are doing this is to expose the hoax of the year, which has been needlessly scaring young people," said Representative Duncan Hunter of California, chairman of the Armed Services Committee. Administration officials including Mr. Bush and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld have said they have absolutely no plans to restore the draft and believe that the all-volunteer military is the proper way to field troops. Both of them have reiterated that position in recent days. "We will not have a draft so long as I'm the president of the United States," Mr. Bush said to applause from a crowd in Iowa on Monday. "We do not need a draft," Mr. Rumsfeld said during a radio interview with Sean Hannity. "We've got, you know, 295 million people in this country and we have an active force of about 1.4 million and we are having no trouble at all attracting and retaining the people that we need to serve in the Armed Forces." Some Democrats said it was the administration's loss of credibility due to the failure to find chemical and biological weapons in Iraq and its mishandling of the aftermath that was to blame for worry about the draft. "The president's foreign policy is scaring the kids of this country," said Representative Tim Ryan, Democrat of Ohio. The Internet traffic on the draft often cites as evidence of a future draft the measure sponsored by Mr. Rangel, which would require two years of military service or the alternative of national service, as well as its companion in the Senate sponsored by Senator Ernest F. Hollings, Democrat of South Carolina. The issue has also gotten an airing from Rock the Vote. Officials of the group have said the draft is a subject that should be addressed in detail by the presidential contenders. "We are not saying there is going to be a draft," said Jay Strell, a spokesman for the group. "What we are saying is we need to have an open an honest dialogue about this based on the facts." With lawmakers acutely aware of the potential political ramifications of backing a draft, the Rangel measure languished without much attention until the Republican leadership decided to force it to the floor to make a political point. One lawmaker spoke in favor of the bill, saying it was time Congress gave some thought to future military manpower needs. "I believe we have to start looking at this right now," said Representative John Murtha of Pennsylvania, a leading Democrat on military issues. He was joined in backing the bill by Representative Fortney Stark, Democrat of California. Senate officials said they had no intention of acting on a similar proposal, but the Democratic leader, Senator Tom Daschle, said he doubted the House vote would put the matter to rest. "I would expect you're going to continue to see debates about the viability of a draft as we move forward," Mr. Daschle said. nytimes.com

To: Skywatcher who wrote (639469)	10/6/2004 12:39:36 PM
From: Doug R	Respond to of 769669

Choices were also made that put a division between America and our allies: France tried to give us military support, but it was contingent on letting the weapons inspectors do their jobs, which might have interfered with shrub's plans for the midterm elections: French officials were prepared to provide as many as 15,000 troops for an invasion of Iraq before relations soured between the Bush administration and the French government over the timing of an attack, according to a new book published in France this week. The book, "Chirac Contre Bush: L'Autre Guerre" ("Chirac vs. Bush: The Other War"), reports that a French general, Jean Patrick Gaviard, visited the Pentagon to meet with Central Command staff on Dec. 16, 2002 -- three months before the war began -- to discuss a French contribution of 10,000 to 15,000 troops and to negotiate landing and docking rights for French jets and ships. French military officials were especially interested in joining in an attack, because they felt that not participating with the United States in a major war would leave French forces unprepared for future conflicts, according to Thomas Cantaloube, one of the authors. But the negotiations did not progress far before French President Jacques Chirac decided that the Americans were pushing too fast to short-circuit inspections by U.N. weapons inspectors. Chirac, the book says, was prepared to join in an attack if Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had not allowed inspectors into Iraq. "Up until December 2002, what everyone told us is that France thought Saddam Hussein was going to make a mistake and not allow inspections," Cantaloube said in an interview. After inspectors appeared to make progress in Iraq, Chirac's thinking changed, especially after polls in France showed vast opposition to an attack. But of course that would have meant international support, increased manpower on the ground in the early days of the war, and (looking at the difference between what happened in areas under the control of Britain and areas under control of the US) perhaps less of Iraq descending into anarchy, so the administration told France and their 15,000 soldiers to pound sand. Because, see, if the weapons inspectors had been able to do their jobs instead of being driven out of the country at gunpoint (by shrub), we could have avoided this war and closing on 1100 american soldiers and tens of thousands of iraqis wouldn't be dead, but George W. Bush might have lost control of the House. washingtonpost.com livejournal.com