Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

US Preparing for Military Draft in Spring 2005/ Iraq bombing planned 9/11

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
DaveSZ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-20-04 02:35 PM
Original message
US Preparing for Military Draft in Spring 2005/ Iraq bombing planned 9/11
My brother emailed me this today:


http://www.vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2004/01/105146.php




US Preparing for Military Draft in Spring 2005
by Adam Stutz • Wednesday January 28, 2004 at 09:50 AM


The current agenda of the US federal government is to reinstate the draft in order to staff up for a protracted war on "terrorism." Pending legislation in the House and Senate (twin bills S 89 and HR 163) would time the program so the draft could begin at early as Spring 2005 -- conveniently just after the 2004 presidential election!

Reinstatement of the draft

Dear Friends and Family,

I urge you to read the article below on the current agenda of the federal government to reinstate the draft in order to staff up for a protracted war on "terrorism."

Pending legislation in the House and Senate (twin bills S 89 and HR 163) would time the program so the draft could begin at early as Spring 2005 -- conveniently just after the 2004 presidential election! But the administration is quietly trying to get these bills passed NOW, so our action is needed immediately. Details and links follow.

If voters who currently support U.S. aggression abroad were confronted with the possibility that their own children or grandchildren might not have a say about whether to fight, many of these same voters might have a change of mind. (Not that it should make a difference, but this plan would among other things eliminate higher education as a shelter and would not exclude women -- and Canada is no longer an option.)

Please send this on to all the parents and teachers you know, and all the aunts and uncles, grandparents, godparents.... And let your children know -- it's their future, and they can be a powerful voice for change! Please also write to your representatives to ask them why they aren't telling their constituents about these bills -- and write to newspapers and other media outlets to ask them why they're not covering this important story.

The Draft*

$28 million has been added to the 2004 Selective Service System (SSS) budget to prepare for a military draft that could start as early as June 15, 2005. SSS must report to Bush on March 31, 2005 that the system, which has lain dormant for decades, is ready for activation. Please see website: http://www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html to view the SSS Annual Performance Plan - Fiscal Year 2004.

The Pentagon has quietly begun a public campaign to fill all 10,350 draft board positions and 11,070 appeals board slots nationwide.. Though this is an unpopular election year topic, military experts and influential members of Congress are suggesting that if Rumsfeld's prediction of a "long, hard slog" in Iraq and Afghanistan proves accurate, the U.S. may have no choice but to draft.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5146.htm

Congress brought twin bills, S. 89 and H.R. 163 forward this year, entitled the Universal National Service Act of 2003, "To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes." These active bills currently sit in the Committee on Armed Services.

Dodging the draft will be more difficult than those from the Vietnam era remember. College and Canada will not be options. In December 2001, Canada and the US signed a "Smart Border Declaration," which could be used to keep would-be draft dodgers in. Signed by Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs, John Manley, and US Homeland Security Director, Gov. Tom Ridge, the declaration involves a 30-point plan which implements, among other things, a "pre-clearance agreement" of people entering and departing each country. Reforms aimed at making the draft more equitable along gender and class lines also eliminates higher education as a shelter. Underclassmen would only be able to postpone service until the end of their cur-rent semester. Seniors would have until the end of the academic year.

*This article by Adam Stutz is from the "What's Hot Off the Press" column of the newsletter of Project Censored, a media research group at Sonoma State University that tracks the news published in independent journals and newsletters. From these, Project Censored compiles an annual list (more than 20 years running) of 25 news stories of social significance that have been overlooked, under-reported, or self-censored by the country's major national news media. The mission of Project Censored is "to educate people about the role of independent journalism in a democratic society and to tell The News That Didn't Make the News and why."

"What's Hot Off the Press" includes student synopses of articles currently being investigated for inclusion in the next Project Censored report. For more info and/or to receive Project Censored's newsletter, go to http://www.projectcensored.org, or email @sonoma.edu





http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=574&e=12&u=/nm/iraq_retaliation_dc





Ex-Advisor Says Bush Eyed Bombing of Iraq on 9/11
Fri Mar 19, 7:20 PM ET Add World - Reuters to My Yahoo!



NEW YORK (Reuters) - A former White House anti-terrorism advisor says the Bush administration considered bombing Iraq (news - web sites) in retaliation after Sept. 11, 2001 even though it was clear al Qaeda had carried out the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon (news - web sites).


Richard Clarke, who headed a cybersecurity board that gleaned intelligence from the Internet, told CBS "60 Minutes" in an interview to be aired on Sunday he was surprised administration officials turned immediately toward Iraq instead of al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden (news - web sites).


"They were talking about Iraq on 9/11. They were talking about it on 9/12," Clarke says.


Clarke said he was briefing President Bush (news - web sites) and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld among other top officials in the aftermath of the devastating attacks.


"Rumsfeld was saying we needed to bomb Iraq. ... We all said, 'but no, no. Al Qaeda is in Afghanistan (news - web sites)," recounts Clarke, "and Rumsfeld said, 'There aren't any good targets in Afghanistan and there are lots of good targets in Iraq."'


Clarke, an advisor to four presidents, left his position in February 2003 after the White House transferred functions of the cybersecurity board to Homeland Security.


Clarke's comments are the latest to raise the question of the Bush administration's focus on overthrowing Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein (news - web sites).


Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, fired in a shake-up of Bush's economic team in December 2002, told "60 Minutes" in an interview aired in January he never saw any evidence Iraq had weapons of mass destruction -- Bush's main justification for going to war.


O'Neill also charged that Bush entered office intent on invading Iraq and ousting its leader, Saddam Hussein.


"I think they wanted to believe that there was a connection" between Iraq and al Qaeda, Clarke tells "60 Minutes."


"But the CIA (news - web sites) was sitting there, the FBI (news - web sites) was sitting there, I was sitting there, saying, 'We've looked at this issue for years. For years we've looked and there's just no connection,"' says Clarke.




What idiots.

Hello involuntary servitude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
NEOBuckeye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-20-04 02:41 PM
Response to Original message
1. This will destroy the Republican Party
I think we all know Bush's election = Draft, for more and more war.

But if we effectively get the word out, we can turn this back on the GOP. The Draft will be as a noose around their necks for their chances of re-election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DerBeppo Donating Member (452 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-20-04 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #1
9. that's probably why it is democrats who are introducing the bills
S 89 Introduced January 7, 2003 by Sen. Ernest F. Hollings (no cosponsers).

HR 163 Introduced January 7, 2003 by Rep. Charlie Rangel (for himself, Rep. McDermott, Rep. Conyers, Rep. Lewis of Georgia, Rep. Stark, and Rep. Abercrombe).

it's actually a pretty good move, politically. As long as the public thinks there's a need for a draft, it'll hurt bush and the repubs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kalian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-20-04 03:04 PM
Response to Original message
2. Sigh....
it will come to pass because BOTH political parties are for this.
Remember that Kerry has openly stated that he will get an additional
40,000 "fresh" troops for the military. Oh really? And just WHERE does
he plan to get these bodies...? :eyes:

Enjoy it people...cause perpetual war is upon us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yemp4734 Donating Member (63 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-20-04 06:03 PM
Response to Reply #2
11. Yup
and Kucinich openly asked him before if he would call for a draft. Kerry TOTALLY ignored the question. Bad sign number one.

I think, however, it would be much less extensive than a bush draft.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-20-04 06:43 PM
Response to Reply #2
14. Kerry knows the horrors of war...
I don't think he would re-instate the draft unless there was an imminent threat to our country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalManiacfromOC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-20-04 03:07 PM
Response to Original message
3. i e-mailed the kerry officials
and told them this would be great as anti-bush propaganda. i hope it all goes through. thanks for the info!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DaveSZ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-20-04 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. If Kerry is for the draft
Edited on Sat Mar-20-04 03:48 PM by DaveSZ
I cannot support him.

LBJ anyone?

Although at least Kerry wouldn't be dismantling the New Deal and all of our progress of the last 100 years like Bush is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-20-04 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Kerry wants to increase active duty army by 40,000 troops
I can't see how he is going to do that without using a draft.

Did you think that Iraq's occupation was going to be short or sweet?

We will be marching against the occupation next year, and the year after next, no matter who wins in November.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DaveSZ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-20-04 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. You're probably right Indiana
However, I think Kerry is much more adept at diplomacy than Bush, and can hopefully help get more of our allies involved.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-20-04 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. You could do it without a draft
...especially if you were President. Improve foreign policy to include diplomacy, reducing military actions "required". This would help with the re-up problems.

Then change domestic policy to get soldiers out of the poverty level. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yemp4734 Donating Member (63 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-20-04 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #3
12. Not propaganda
if it is true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalManiacfromOC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-21-04 04:15 AM
Response to Reply #12
16. does insane information sounds better? :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elperromagico Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-20-04 04:02 PM
Response to Original message
7. I'll gladly serve if Jenna is drafted too and Dubya heads a platoon.
It's about time he made up those missing hours of service, isn't it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-20-04 06:45 PM
Response to Reply #7
15. No general with half a brain would let Dubya head a platoon...
Kinda scary that America let him be the commander in chief of the military.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
izzie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-20-04 05:47 PM
Response to Original message
10. Our founders wanted a citizen army.
I think our National Guard does that, but it would most likely cut out all these wars which I see as a good thing about a draft. Bush is doing a lots of things that happen after 2004 so that part is not a shock.I am just not sure. I think we have to much into killing people and we are sure no safer today than we were in the Cold War.We spend all this money on arms when it should be going to education and training of our people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yemp4734 Donating Member (63 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-20-04 06:05 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. Didn't stop Vietnam
even at the height of anti-draft/war protests the executive didn't give a fu**. Don't see why it would be any different now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tim_in_HK Donating Member (544 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-21-04 10:08 AM
Response to Original message
17. HR 163
Was the bill Charlie Rangel introduced in Feb 2003 in a move to try to make military service more equitable in forcing the children of the wealthy and privleged who have been able to avoid military service to be forced to.

Funny enough, the logic of the bill is echoed in the somewhat unlcear thinking in the post above: if the children of chickenhawks actually had to fight in war, they'd be less likely to pursue it. That was Rangel's thinking. As far as I know, this bill was killed in committee. Not really much of a smoking gun.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrueStory Donating Member (112 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-21-04 10:25 AM
Response to Original message
18. Translation: it doesn't matter if Bush or Kerry will be the president,
the draft will begin anyway on Spring 2005.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 11:14 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC