Bush's poor attempt to hide that fact that he'll reinstate the draft

speaking of verbal slip, I want to know if bush really said this
""The most important job is not to be governor, or first lady in my case."—Pella, Iowa, as quoted by the San Antonio Express-News, Jan. 30, 2000 "
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']speaking of verbal slip, I want to know if bush really said this
""The most important job is not to be governor, or first lady in my case."—Pella, Iowa, as quoted by the San Antonio Express-News, Jan. 30, 2000 "[/quote]

No idea, but I wouldn't be surprised. Geez, he even said "Saddam Hussein -- I mean Osama bin Laden" in one of the debates. Obviously he didn't mean to say that! He even makes fun of himself for mangling the English language in his speeches.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']If you believe Bush's constant verbal slips are what he really means to say, you're pretty dumb.[/quote]

Ever heard of Freudian slip?
 
Havent we been over this. The Dems are responsible for the draft legislation. And you eat up their bullshit like its going out of style.
 
To reiterate...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6267559/

The Associated Press
Updated: 12:00 p.m. ET Oct. 17, 2004

"President Bush turned the tables Saturday on Sen. John Kerry, declaring "the best way to avoid the draft is to vote for me," and pledged to oppose mandatory military service."

Bush continued to say:

"The person talking about a draft is my opponent."

Note that the only people who have proposed a draft so far have been two Democrat senators, including Charlie Wrangle. Bush's administration has repeatedly stated that a draft would never happen, and Rumsfeld stated that they would simply increase the benefits/incentives of joining the military if they needed more people. Don't buy into the Kerry scare tactics.
 
[quote name='mingglf'][quote name='elprincipe']If you believe Bush's constant verbal slips are what he really means to say, you're pretty dumb.[/quote]

Ever heard of Freudian slip?[/quote]

Bush constantly mispeaks, he is a poor public speaker.
But Bush has constantly said there would be no draft, so it is no Freudian slip.
 
[quote name='mingglf'][quote name='elprincipe']If you believe Bush's constant verbal slips are what he really means to say, you're pretty dumb.[/quote]

Ever heard of Freudian slip?[/quote]

Yes and this is not a Freudian slip unless you think the draft brings about some sexual motivation for Bush :) As another poster pointe out above, Bush always has these misspeaks.

Bush and Rumsfeld have both said he wouldn't have a draft for months now, it's simply not necessary. The only people bringing it up are Democrats, and the only reason they are bringing it up is because their candidate is losing and they need to use every scare tactic in the book to get more people to not vote for Bush. Whether you fall for that scare tactic or not really depends on how much research you've done and how much you follow the news IMO.
 
As long as the GOP has the Swift Boat Liars, questions about "global tests" and terrorists "nuisances," I don't see the problem with Bush being hounded about the draft.

Maybe he can get his daddy's friends to pull some strings and get him out of this draft too.
 
There's a difference.
The Swift Boat Vets are Americans exercising their right to free speech, even though Mccain/Feingold did their best to curtail that. I guess Democrats support free speech as long as it's from hardcore rappers talking about killing cops or smackin' ho's, or Howard Stern talking about whatever he talks about.
The questions about global test and nuisances refer directly to quotes from John Kerry.
Bush isn't a great debater/public speaker, I will grant that. Kerry is much better. Except for the fact that either his speeches get *too* 'nuanced' and complex and confusing, and thus require some clarification [not a good thing for a presidential candidate], or his speeches are aimed solely at whatever his target audience is that day.
The draft scare, much like the Vietnam service, was brought up by Kerry, his campaign, and other powerful democratic elite [like MTV] though it is based on either absolutely no facts at all, or a bill that was submitted two years ago by 9 [I think 9] Democrats. Much like John Edwards thinks Kerry will wave his hands and cure All Our Ills causing the Lame to Walk and the Dead to Rise, the media apparently believes in Kerry's telepathy and precognition, somehow knowing 'Bush will reinstate the draft' [along with starving children, killing old people, banishing gays to an island somewhere, and requiring all people to become Christian.]

MrBadExample: So serving in the National Guard is equivalent to being a nation-fleeing draft dodger?
" On any given day, an average of 4,700 ARNG soldiers are away from home in support of our national security.
"Nearly everyone has seen or heard of Guard units responding to battle fires or helping communities deal with floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, snowstorms or other emergency situations. In times of civil unrest, the citizens of a state can rest assured that the Guard will be ready to respond, if needed. During 2001, 34,855 Guardsmen were called to duty in response to the needs of their community or state."
"Operation Lone Star OLS [which includes members of the Texas Army National Guard, U.S. Navy Reserve and U.S. Marine Corps Reserve.] offers general medical care, adult dental care, sports physicals, eye exams, immunizations, diabetes screening, high blood pressure screening and pharmacy service -- all without charge. :"

You're right, they're totally worthless chickens.

Anyway, it would be political suicide for *either* party/candidate to bring back a draft.

Agree or disagree with either candidate [or agree/disagree with each of them to some extent, as most people who research issues would do], but like Ruined says, quit falling for the bullshit scare tactics, do some research, and form an *educated* opinion.
 
[quote name='dtcarson']There's a difference.
The Swift Boat Vets are Americans exercising their right to free speech, even though Mccain/Feingold did their best to curtail that. I guess Democrats support free speech as long as it's from hardcore rappers talking about killing cops or smackin' ho's, or Howard Stern talking about whatever he talks about.
The questions about global test and nuisances refer directly to quotes from John Kerry.[/quote]

I'm not arguing with the Swift Boat Liars right to speak. I'm saying they have lied and are still being treated as credible critics by the conservative media.

Both of those Kerry quotes have been distorted by the Bush administration as well. The 'global test" did not refer to having the UN approve everything we do. It meant that the reasons for going to war should pass a global, or universal, test to prove they are true unlike the various excuses Bush has given for Iraq.

Kerry never called terrorism a nuisance, yet you wouldn't know that from what conservatives have said. He said that we should fight terrorism until it is reduced to a nuisance level. Who wants say they are not in favor of reducing the threat of terrorism to a level where it is not a major global concern any longer? No one.

So given those three lies/distortions Kerry has had to keep answering for, I'm glad Bush has to keep dancing with the draft issue whether he has any intention of bringing it back or not.

MrBadExample: So serving in the National Guard is equivalent to being a nation-fleeing draft dodger?
" On any given day, an average of 4,700 ARNG soldiers are away from home in support of our national security.
"Nearly everyone has seen or heard of Guard units responding to battle fires or helping communities deal with floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, snowstorms or other emergency situations. In times of civil unrest, the citizens of a state can rest assured that the Guard will be ready to respond, if needed. During 2001, 34,855 Guardsmen were called to duty in response to the needs of their community or state."
"Operation Lone Star OLS [which includes members of the Texas Army National Guard, U.S. Navy Reserve and U.S. Marine Corps Reserve.] offers general medical care, adult dental care, sports physicals, eye exams, immunizations, diabetes screening, high blood pressure screening and pharmacy service -- all without charge. :"

You're right, they're totally worthless chickens.
Click to expand...

I have nothing but respect for National Guard service. What I don't respect is Bush getting his father to pull political strings to get him into the Guard where he knew he would never see enemy fire when he was so supportive of the Vietnam War. I don't respect him weaseling out of his duty to go to Alabama to work on a friend's political campaign. I don't respect his refusal to take a flight physical (around the time the Guard started drug testing) and being grounded. I don't respect him never fulfilling the rest of his service agreement. I don't respect the conservatives denigrating Kerry's service when he won the Bronze Star, Silver Star and 3 Purple Hearts.

Bush got a free pass out of Vietnam service and he was neither appreciative enough nor man enough to complete the basic requirements yet he wants to continue to be Commader in Chief? I don't think so.
 
[quote name='Ruined']To reiterate...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6267559/

The Associated Press
Updated: 12:00 p.m. ET Oct. 17, 2004

"President Bush turned the tables Saturday on Sen. John Kerry, declaring "the best way to avoid the draft is to vote for me," and pledged to oppose mandatory military service."

Bush continued to say:

"The person talking about a draft is my opponent."

Note that the only people who have proposed a draft so far have been two Democrat senators, including Charlie Wrangle. Bush's administration has repeatedly stated that a draft would never happen, and Rumsfeld stated that they would simply increase the benefits/incentives of joining the military if they needed more people. Don't buy into the Kerry scare tactics.[/quote]

Kerry's scare tactics?!?!

Bush is running on the fact he was president when 9-11 happen and if you don't vote for him you will die. He doesn't stand for anything, he's a joke to the country and a joke to the world.

One saying I like is "Live free or die." I rather take my risks with Kerry being president than loose all our freedoms in this country.
 
[quote name='mingglf']Campaigning in an area heavily dependent on the military, Bush said, "We will not have an all-volunteer army" before correcting himself. "Let me restate that," he continued. "We will not have a draft ... . The best way to avoid a draft is to vote for me."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041017/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_rdp&cid=694&ncid=716[/quote]

You must be completely blind. IN FACT THE ONLY PARTY THAT HAS CALLED FOR A DRAFT HAS BEEN THE DEMOCRATS HEADED BY RANGEL OF NEW YORK...THE REPUBLICANS SQUASHED THE BILL OVERWHELMINGLY...You really need to get off of your ideologically blinded pedestal and pay attention to you know ACTUAL FACTS!!!!
 
[quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='alonzomourning23']speaking of verbal slip, I want to know if bush really said this
""The most important job is not to be governor, or first lady in my case."—Pella, Iowa, as quoted by the San Antonio Express-News, Jan. 30, 2000 "[/quote]

No idea, but I wouldn't be surprised. Geez, he even said "Saddam Hussein -- I mean Osama bin Laden" in one of the debates. Obviously he didn't mean to say that! He even makes fun of himself for mangling the English language in his speeches.[/quote]

I think you're wrong brother. Kerry said Saddam Hussein--Oh I mean Osama bin Laden. Either that or they both said it because I 100% remember Kerry saying that during I believe it was the 3rd debate...
 
October 19th, 2004 7:56 pm
Feeling the Draft


By Paul Krugman / New York Times

Those who are worrying about a revived draft are in the same position as those who worried about a return to budget deficits four years ago, when President Bush began pushing through his program of tax cuts. Back then he insisted that he wouldn't drive the budget into deficit - but those who looked at the facts strongly suspected otherwise. Now he insists that he won't revive the draft. But the facts suggest that he will.

There were two reasons some of us never believed Mr. Bush's budget promises. First, his claims that his tax cuts were affordable rested on patently unrealistic budget projections. Second, his broader policy goals, including the partial privatization of Social Security - which is clearly on his agenda for a second term - would involve large costs that were not included even in those unrealistic projections. This led to the justified suspicion that his election-year promises notwithstanding, Mr. Bush would preside over a return to budget deficits.

It's exactly the same when it comes to the draft. Mr. Bush's claim that we don't need any expansion in our military is patently unrealistic; it ignores the severe stress our Army is already under. And the experience in Iraq shows that pursuing his broader foreign policy doctrine - the "Bush doctrine" of pre-emptive war - would require much larger military forces than we now have.

This leads to the justified suspicion that after the election, Mr. Bush will seek a large expansion in our military, quite possibly through a return of the draft.

Mr. Bush's assurances that this won't happen are based on a denial of reality. Last week, the Republican National Committee sent an angry, threatening letter to Rock the Vote, an organization that has been using the draft issue to mobilize young voters. "This urban myth regarding a draft has been thoroughly debunked," the letter declared, and quoted Mr. Bush: "We don't need the draft. Look, the all-volunteer Army is working."

In fact, the all-volunteer Army is under severe stress. A study commissioned by Donald Rumsfeld arrived at the same conclusion as every independent study: the U.S. has "inadequate total numbers" of troops to sustain operations at the current pace. In Iraq, the lack of sufficient soldiers to protect supply convoys, let alone pacify the country, is the root cause of incidents like the case of the reservists who refused to go on what they described as a "suicide mission."

Commanders in Iraq have asked for more troops (ignore the administration's denials) - but there are no more troops to send. The manpower shortage is so severe that training units like the famous Black Horse Regiment, which specializes in teaching other units the ways of battle, are being sent into combat. As the military expert Phillip Carter says, "This is like eating your seed corn."

Anyway, do we even have an all-volunteer Army at this point? Thousands of reservists and National Guard members are no longer serving voluntarily: they have been kept in the military past their agreed terms of enlistment by "stop loss" orders.

The administration's strategy of denial in the face of these realities was illustrated by a revealing moment during the second presidential debate. After Senator John Kerry described the stop-loss policy as a "backdoor draft," Charles Gibson, the moderator, tried to get a follow-up response from President Bush: "And with reservists being held on duty --"

At that point Mr. Bush cut Mr. Gibson off and changed the subject from the plight of the reservists to the honor of our Polish allies, ending what he obviously viewed as a dangerous line of questioning.

And during the third debate, Mr. Bush tried to minimize the issue, saying that the reservists being sent to Iraq "didn't view their service as a backdoor draft. They viewed their service as an opportunity to serve their country." In that case, why are they being forced, rather than asked, to continue that service?

The reality is that the Iraq war, which was intended to demonstrate the feasibility of the Bush doctrine, has pushed the U.S. military beyond its limits. Yet there is no sign that Mr. Bush has been chastened. By all accounts, in a second term the architects of that doctrine, like Paul Wolfowitz, would be promoted, not replaced. The only way this makes sense is if Mr. Bush is prepared to seek a much larger Army - and that means reviving the draft.
 
[quote name='strayfoxx'][quote name='mingglf']Campaigning in an area heavily dependent on the military, Bush said, "We will not have an all-volunteer army" before correcting himself. "Let me restate that," he continued. "We will not have a draft ... . The best way to avoid a draft is to vote for me."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041017/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_rdp&cid=694&ncid=716[/quote]

You must be completely blind. IN FACT THE ONLY PARTY THAT HAS CALLED FOR A DRAFT HAS BEEN THE DEMOCRATS HEADED BY RANGEL OF NEW YORK...THE REPUBLICANS SQUASHED THE BILL OVERWHELMINGLY...You really need to get off of your ideologically blinded pedestal and pay attention to you know ACTUAL FACTS!!!![/quote]

the fact is that Bush claim a raise in payroll will keep enough volunteer force in the army even though most of them are already forced to be in active duty already. Yea go blindly trust whatever Bush says with illogical support to back it up.

goto http://www.house.gov/abercrombie/mil.draft.floorstatement.04a.htm
to see why the Democrat proposed the draft bill.
 
The draft would would with taking 24/25 year olds then 22/23, 21/20, 19/18. That was the plan after 9-11 happened. So how many people here would be one of the first for the upcoming draft?
 
[quote name='mingglf']Those who are worrying about a revived draft are in the same position as those who worried about a return to budget deficits four years ago, when President Bush began pushing through his program of tax cuts. [/quote]

This is an excellent analysis of why more than a few people suspect a draft is going to happen. Bush's description of the US military's capacity and readiness simply don't match reality. We don't have enough troops in Afganistan to do the job, we don't have enough troops in Iraq to do the job, and we (virtually) have no reserves left to reinforce and act as backups, fill in to give the active troops a chance for leave, etc.

Our military has been stretched to the breaking point by being forced to fight poorly planned wars on two fronts. We MAY be able to muddle through the current problem, but if anything else comes up that requires US troops, we're going to be in deep shit, and there WILL be a draft (regardless of who is president.) This is just simple, basic reality. The military is simply unable to take on any additional responsibilities at this time, and any additional military action that may be needed is going to push them past the breaking point - unless there's a draft.

The question, then, is which canidate is less likely to get the US involved in any action. Who, who, who would be more likely to (possibly because of an unrealistic analysis of US military strength) get us involved in yet another quagmire, possibly in, say, Iran, which they have perhaps made some remarks on regarding theoretical terrorist connections. Which canidate would be so arrogant and deluded enough about reality to ignore their previous mess to create a new one based on questional information, perhaps ignoring the wishes of the international community and alienating long-standing allies to do so? Hmmm...

Then, of course, there's the most important question of all: Will Poland be involved?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top