Drafting Scare Tactics
June 24, 2005
Posted by at June 24, 2005 12:58 PM
The trackback entry for this page is : http://www.inthehat.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/966
Yesterday, Secretary Rumsfeld said, "There isn't a chance in the world that the draft will be brought back." Rumsfeld has been remarkably consistent on this fact for well over a year now, but that didn't stop some people (Charles Rangel) from suggesting that a draft would happen if President Bush were re-elected. Well, Bush is still in office and yet the draft is still being used as a scare tactic.
This week, the AP polled Americans about a potential draft. Not surprisingly, Americans are still overwhelmingly opposed to this mythical draft.
My question is why this poll was taken and why it's news. The military has emphatically stated that there will be no draft. So what's the point of the poll? Is it to make people think that a draft is a strong possibility? Is it to scare people into demanding that troops be sent home from Iraq immediately? Is it to weaken support for the war? Gosh, it's as if this media organization has its own agenda or something. Who woulda thunk it?
Posted by at June 24, 2005 12:58 PM
The trackback entry for this page is : http://www.inthehat.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/966
| Trackback Entries |
Comments
| # June 24th, 2005 1:10 PM nate78 |
| Total scare tactic. I can tell you that all of the other military that I have spoken with are vehemently against the draft. No one wants to be fighting shoulder to shoulder with someone who did not volunteer to be there.
The huge scares before the election on MTV and CBS made me so mad. This is one of the biggest non-issues the liberal media has ever created. The worst thing is that they know it is blantently false reporting. The have to know because there is no one from the military who has even hinted at bringing back the draft. Now some people feel that President Bush used scare tactics to get us into Iraq. The difference is, he wasn't the only one saying that Iraq had WMD. Almost all of the prominant Democrats are on record of stating the same in the past, including Bill Clinton and John Kerry. This talk of the draft is being perpetuated by one side and without any ounce of substance. |
| # June 24th, 2005 1:45 PM cokane |
| non issue? what about the reports of the military missing its recruitment quotas for several months now. I really don't see any factual support for the argument that the media is using the draft as a scare tactic. However, there is factual evidence of why a draft could happen--i.e. missing lowered recruitment quotas.
Odd that you have no facts to back of your conspiracy theories. |
| # June 24th, 2005 1:52 PM kris |
| The Pentagon has stated, again and again, that there will be no draft. The Pentagon did NOT state that there will be no draft, if we hit our recruiting goals. |
| # June 24th, 2005 1:54 PM cokane |
| i find it odd that a conservative forms conspiracy theories about the goals of private organizations while putting total faith in the word of the government |
| # June 24th, 2005 2:03 PM Laura |
| For factual evidence, there are numerous studies that show a draft has a very detrimental effect on readiness and is just not worth it. The military emphatically does not want it, and no republican president will back it. Read Snopes take on this.
The draft bill discussed before the election was written and sponsored by Democrats, who also don't want a draft, but did want to have something to scare people with. So they came up with these two bills and then talked about the fact that a draft was imminent. S 89 and HR 163. This NY Times article is archived, but you can read the excerpt here. DISPLAYING FIRST 50 OF 1027 WORDS - 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...So in other words, Dems wrote the bill, got some air time talking about it, Republicans brought it to the floor and unanimously voted against. How was that not a Democratic scare tactic that was quashed and is now undergoing a resurrection effort? |
| # June 24th, 2005 2:05 PM kris |
| Well, let's see. Before the election Dems and the media implied that a Bush victory would equal a draft. They said the mechanisms for the implementation of a draft were already in place, just waiting for the voters to speak their minds.
It's now almost July. Bush was re-elected, we're still in Iraq and yet their is no draft. There's no talk, from the government, of a draft. It's hardly a matter of "faith in the word of the government". It's more like living in reality. |
| # June 24th, 2005 2:09 PM cokane |
| you burn too many strawmen by creating reasons why Democrats did things. You don't know their real motivations, but you pretend to. Rangel believed that there SHOULD be a draft because he felt that the burden of the war effort was being put too squarely on some shoulders (poorer folks, minorities). This is not a ridiculous stance, just look at the numbers of casualties in Iraq/Afghanistan and other foreign policy adventures. Those Americans hurt by this war tend to come from a particular socioeconomic class.
Rangel is against the war, but for the draft. An interesting position that we shouldn't just reduce to simplistic RvD idiocy. American politics is actually more complex and nuanced than that, although it doesn't surprise me that you fail to look beyond it. I mean, you're the kind of person who believes that if the Pentagon said it, it must be fact. His logic makes sense if you think about it. If everyone had to sacrifice a little for this war, would we even be in Iraq? The word "chickenhawk" comes to mind and I think is perhaps something Rangel might accuse pro-war advocates of in private. |
| # June 24th, 2005 2:12 PM kris |
| cokane,
you're free to express your opinions, but stay the hell away from phrases like "you're the kind of person". You don't know anything about me, so don't pretend to. I think it's especially ironic you would use such a phrase mere seconds after typing something about how we shouldn't dare to pretend we know about the motivations of Rangel. |
| # June 24th, 2005 2:30 PM Laura |
| Burning a straw man, that's funny. A straw man argument is set up to draw attention away from the real point, or as Dictionary.com puts it, to be easily defeated or refuted. If you use a straw man argument, you don't burn a straw man, you prop him up and keep him there as long as possible. |
| # June 24th, 2005 2:33 PM Laura |
| (Criticizing a posters grammar, spelling etc. can also be considered a straw man, or at least off topic. Sorry, I just wanted to let you know so you don't make that mistake again.) |
| # June 24th, 2005 2:36 PM Laura |
| Related to the number of minorities in the military compared to the general population: Read Colin Powell's bio, My American Dream for an excellent explanation on why this is so. As an added benefit, it's a really good read. |
| # June 24th, 2005 2:38 PM Laura |
| One last thing, then I have to get back to work - If Rangel is for the draft, and the bill he sponsored would seem to indicate then why did he vote against his own bill? |
| # June 24th, 2005 2:41 PM JohnTant |
| The military has been quite blunt in addressing manpower shortages.
The military has been equally blunt in saying the way to solve those shortages isn't through a draft. I'm thinking I'd rather trust the military to manage the logistics of a fighting force instead of Charlie Rangel. And you know, this whole Lefty viewpoint of looking at the world as a collection of different victim groups is just goofy anyway. Seriously. Incidentally, cokane, spare us the chickenhawk argument. Hey, I really doubt you're out there volunteering for the police forces, but that doesn't really stop you from calling them if someone breaks into your house. Or are you volunteering for your local fire station? Ooops, better not bother them if your house catches on fire, after all you wouldn't want to be a hypocrite now, would you? Frankly, the idea that unless you ride on the trash truck you have no business having your garbage disposed of is a very interesting one coming from a guy complaining about strawmen... |
| # June 24th, 2005 2:48 PM JohnTant |
| As an aside, isn't it interesting to watch a leftie complain about an organization having TOO MANY minorities in it...? |
| # June 24th, 2005 2:53 PM Walleye |
| Cokane,ly
While you are quick to point out that the Army is missing its recruiting goals you seem willing to igonre that the Marine Corps (taking the brunt of the casualties), Navy, and Air Force are all meeting their goals so far this year and that the reporting year (for recruiting anyway) is only half over. Will the Army recover to 100% of their goal, probaby not, but I think it is a little early to throw out (against all that the DODis saying in the first place) that there will be a draft. Secondly, I am stunned that you are willing to echo sentiment that poor peple and minorities are bearing the brunt of the volunteer military load. There was a study released in 2002 (I am still looking for the actual text) that points out the majority of high risk combat positions are occupied by middle class whites because they tend to join the military for the "adventure" and college money instead of for training that can be transferred directly to the civillian world. |
| # June 24th, 2005 3:09 PM Walleye |
| Here's a link to an article referencing the study I saw. I'm still looking for the study numbers themselves
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A21039-2003Feb3?language=printer |
| # June 24th, 2005 3:43 PM nate78 |
| This article in the AP was an anti-war vehicle for these points:
“…military's efforts to meet recruiting goals in the all-volunteer service haven't been going well this year.” DRAFT MUST BE COMING “More than 1,700 members of the U.S. military have died since the start of the Iraq war and thousands more have been wounded.” DRAFT MUST BE COMING “…top U.S. commander in the Middle East, told members of Congress on Thursday that the Iraqi insurgency is as active as six months ago and more foreign fighters are flowing in all the time.” DRAFT MUST BE COMING And I love this wonderfully chosen quote from some retiree, “If we had more manpower in the Middle East we could get this over with…I'm a Republican, I'm with the president. But things in Iraq are not going good at all." UH OH, REPUBLICANS ARE FOR THE DRAFT…DRAFT REALLY MUST BE COMING Or how about this gem of common sense from a Ohio State professor, “"People simply don't want their kids to be sent off to Iraq to be shot…" Really, they don’t? Great substance in this article. I love it. Buried in there is this little nugget from Rumsfield, “There isn't a chance in the world that the draft will be brought back.” Case closed. |
| # June 24th, 2005 3:51 PM BrianH |
| If Mr. Rangel really wanted the draft, WHY DID HE VOTE AGANST HIS OWN BILL?????
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2004/roll494.xml That bill also had 14 cosponsors. Of those only Pete Stark voted for it! Now explain how these people thought we needed the draft. I think you can only make that case for Stark. |
| # June 24th, 2005 7:26 PM random10 |
| Don’t the Milwaukee Bucks have the first pick in the draft? |
| # June 24th, 2005 10:09 PM TheUnabrewer |
| Why is the liberal response "Start a draft" and not "give them a big honkin' pay raise"? We've finally found a problem that liberals aren't willing to throw money at. |
| # June 25th, 2005 6:40 AM BrianH |
| It's politics Unabrewer. They think they can score points by spreading what we used to call FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) in the computer business. By spreading FUD, they get some young people on campusses worked up and against the Republicans. It works to some extent and for a short time. The problem is when (if?) people find out the truth, they get a little pissed off at the attempt to manipulate them. At least that was MY reaction to the Democratic FUD after Reagan's first election (they had me convinced Reagan wanted to launch nukes the day after he took office, I voted for Andersen instead). When I saw how Reagan actually governed, I got pissed at the Democrats. For years afterward, they were the Damned Lying Democrats, not just the Democrats.
I actually hope they continue to push their lies. While it gets them some temporary votes, it does get the Republicans some permanent converts when people find out the truth. |
| # June 26th, 2005 9:07 AM crtune |
| With a name like "cokane" perhaps we can assume that there has been some drug usage? That's ok - - many of us have done something of the sort. . .I try to keep anything of that sort to a "dull roar" and certainly don't smoke what I smoke while I'm posting.
Problem is. . .Cocaine leaves a user with a SUBSTANTIALLY lowered IQ. . .(maybe you didn't know this. .It's been proven in clinical studies). particularly while you are using it. Perhaps it would be better to wait for the effects to wear off before posting? Regarding the draft, you can only establish as fact those things that have or have not ACTUALLY HAPPENED. It actually happened that the Dems proposed a draft. . .it actually has not happened that the military has asked or attempted to implement a draft. . .the Republicans ACTUALLY HAPPENED to have voted it down. . .the rest is all very weak speculation. The arguments about this or that conspiracy are pretty useless. Now, arguments about whether the news media embraces certain issues more than others and whether those emphasized issues are elevating to liberal causes or conservative causes. THAT is interesting. I would assert that MSM still seems to promote a liberal agenda. That's quite a clear phenomenon. Chris |
| # June 26th, 2005 9:47 AM Laura |
| crtune, ouch! and here I was just thinking that cokane = Carol Kane. Don't I feel silly.
In all seriousness, I would draw your attention to this comment. Your points about what actually happened with the draft, etc. are well put. |
| # June 28th, 2005 7:48 AM JohnTant |
| In case anyone cares:
http://icasualties.org/oif/ETHNICITY.aspx From this, we see the following of US casualties in Iraqi Freedom: American Indian: 0.88% Asian: 2.01% Hispanic: 11.39% Black: 11.01% White: 72.44% So, what does this mean? If we take seriously what Rangel is saying (I'll give you a minute to stop laughing) then wouldn't casualties for minorities be higher? Oh, but what if the percentage of minorities in the while military (or even only in theater) are higher? Well, then we have the spectre of whites being killed disproportionally....which I don't think Rangel had in mind when he came out with his Moonbatese. In sum, Rangel is racebaiting in a most clumsy way, and partisans are only too eager to lap it up. |