Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« That Made Up For It | Main | After The Spin »

October 17, 2004

Comments

Attila

You know what they say about college kids today -- poor, uneducated, and easily led. They'll all fall for this nonsense hook, line, and sinker, take my word for it.

I'll bet their parents are smarter. I sure am. Look, I still have my draft card from 1973, when the draft was real but the war was coming to an end. Now we've had draft registration since about 1980 (thanks, Jimmy C.) before most of these kids were born, and nothing has happened in a quarter century.

But, hey, Democratic scares are pretty effective. We're way beyond passing moral judgment on them, and you have to give them their due for finding another way to lead the easily led.

Brian

This is a put-up-or-shut-up strategy, at the very least. Notice who brought up all of this legislation in the Congress and their opinions on the war.

Robert Crawford

Brian, it's already been put-up and shup-up. At least one of the draft bills was brought to a vote and shot down 200+ to 2 -- with the primary sponsor voting against and whining about how unfair it was to vote on his bill.

perfectsense

Kerry wants to increase the Army by two divisions, about 40,000 men. A Democrat introduced a draft bill, and only congressmen who voted for were Democrats. So in the perverted world of Democrats, Bush wants a draft!

Snowy

If anyone really wants a draft scare, they should visit the Kerry-Edwards Web site and read Kerry's plan:

http://web.archive.org/web/20040210043828/http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/natservice/

Excerpts:

Creating a New Army of Patriots

Many Americans do full time service. John Kerry believes that in these times, we need to bolster these efforts with a nationwide commitment to national service. Whether it is a Summer of Service for our teenagers, helping young people serve their country in return for college, or the Older Americans in Service program, John Kerry's plan will call on every American of every age and every background to serve. John Kerry will set a goal of one million Americans a year in national service within the next decade.

John Kerry believes we need to think big and do better and get more young Americans serving the nation.

As part of his 100 day plan to change America, John Kerry will propose a comprehensive service plan that includes requiring mandatory service for high school students and four years of college tuition in exchange for two years of national service

Snowy

I'll try that link to the Kerry-Edwards site again; for some reason it cut off:

http://web.archive.org/web/20040210043828/http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/natservice/

Snowy

It's just one big long url, but here is is in two parts:

http://web.archive.org/web/20040210043828/http:
//www.johnkerry.com/issues/natservice/

Perhaps this is big news only to myself, but I was shocked to learn about this plan.

steve poling

Mr. Bush could probably score some points by issuing an administrative order to discontinue registration for the draft. This story has legs because kids this age have actually registered for the draft.

Downside of doing this is that this is *responding* to the dems attacks, not putting THEM on defense.

Whoever

Here's why the draft is a great argument for the Dems: Nobody BELEIVES Bush anymore. He'll say what he needs to say to get elected, then he'll do whatever he wants to complete his visions of apocalyptic empire. This is the guy who had Colin Powell sit in front of the UN with CARTOONS that he said proved Saddam had WMD. Anyone who believes this president is too naive to leave kindergarten.

Today he's going to NJ to whore the souls of the 9/11 victims some more. He'll stand in front of our amputated skyline and use our disfigurement for his political benefit once again. Then he'll trot back to Washington and make sure homeland security funds get allocated by the pork barrel method. After all, Shithole, Wyoming has just as much to fear from terrorists as does Wall Street, right?

This is a man without the thinnest shred of decency or credibility. You simply cannot fault American parents and American youth for understanding he would use them in any way that was convenient for him. All you have to do is look at the 9/11 corpses he carries on his War President belt like a trophy. We will never forget that it was his inattention in the EIGHT MONTHS preceding, more than any other single factor, his complete apathy and disinterest about global terrorism, that allowed our loved ones to die. And now he whores their souls. He is beneath all contempt.

Meep

Too bad that most of these kids aren't registered to vote and probably won't vote at all. My lord, they should keep their scare tactics to the demos who are most likely to turn out... say... seniors. Substitute "Social Security and Medicare cuts" for draft, and they've got it made.

Or maybe the seniors aren't that senile as a group yet. Who knows?

Whoever

Well, my 20 year old registered to vote and wild horses won't keep him away. Likewise his friends on campus. The anti Bush sentiment is a wildfire.

As for Seniors, my 70 something parents, lifelong Republicans, are hardcore Kerry supporters now, as is most of their community. And you are right - they vote like clockwork. The Medicare card nonsense was the last straw. They've had enough of being manipulated emotionally to vote against their own self interests. Plus they love their 8 grandsons and don't cotton to the idea of them being sacrificed on the altar of neocon fantasy.

Appalled Moderate

One of the continuing arguments is that to secure Iraq, we need more troops. The one thing we know about this President is that he is rhetorically committed to staying in Iraq until the job is done. I think it is reasonable to take him at his word.

So, if the President wants to do away with these draft rumors, it's up to the President to explain:

1. How Iraq can be one with the current troop strength; or

2. Where the troops needed to secure Iraq are going to come from in our current army; or

3. What is Bush going to do to increase enlistments?

Unless Bush can plausibly handle either item 1, 2, and 3, the draft rumors will continue. Personally, I don't think the President has the will to impose a draft, and I believe the military voices that say they don't want one. But I'm 43 and childless. I might feel differently if I were younger, or I had a child that might get sent.

Appalled Moderate

er....that's be "won" with the current troop strength. One of these days, I'll learn to use the "preview" key.

Cecil Turner

"Unless Bush can plausibly handle either item 1, 2, and 3, the draft rumors will continue."

1. Current troop strength in Iraq is 138,000. It's been steady for some time now, and can be expected to drop as more Iraqi forces come on line. That represents less than 10% of our active duty forces (currently 1.4 million).

2. We have significant deployments in Europe and Asia that add little to our security in the post Cold War era. The Administration is realigning them . . . while Kerry play politics with the issue.

3. Enlistments aren't a problem. If we wanted more troops, all we have to do is raise enlistment quotas. (But except for Senator Kerry, few people think we should.)

And run this by me again, because I'm obviously missing something. One of the candidates wants to increase the size of the armed forces by 40,000 . . . but it's the other one that's going to reinstate the draft? Yes, there's some explaining required--but not from the President.

TM

Scaring seniors abot Social Security is today's story:

PEMBROKE PINES, Fla., Oct. 17 - Accusing President Bush of plotting a "January surprise" to cut Social Security benefits, Senator John Kerry told voters here and in Ohio on Sunday that Mr. Bush's plans for privatizing the entitlement program could cost them as much as 45 percent of their monthly checks.

"That's up to $500 a month less for food, for clothing, for the occasional gift for a grandchild," Mr. Kerry warned elderly and middle-aged worshipers at a black church in Columbus, Ohio, as he brought to the fore a major issue in the 2000 election that he had rarely touched on.

Say anything, Tall One.

Appalled Moderate

Cecil T:

Item 1: The last time the US relied on native troops to relieve the burden on US troops, it was called Vietnamization. That did not result in victory. I am not saying you're wrong, Cecil. But the President should expain why this isn't the case this time.

Item 2: The President has indeed made these proposals, and Kerry's response to them was opportunistic, to say the least. But the Iraqi problem is more short and medium-term, and, if I remember correctly, Bush's redeployments are more a long-term thing.

item 3: This is probably a good point. The President hasn't made it.

Is the draft charge probably unfair? Yes. But like many a good rumor, there is a reason for it -- Iraq is perceived as an understaffed operation and the President has refused thus far to address the point in a convincingly. Maybe if the Bush campaign hired you to address it...

Whoever

The fears of privatization of Social Security are based on Bush's own words in the NYTimes magazine article...and not even taken out of context as were the hapless Kerry's remarks about reducing terrorism to a nuisance in the future.

Clearly Bush wants to privatize Social Security, at least in part. He said as much himself in the final debates, and his surrogates don't shy away from it. If he feels it is a valid idea, let him explain in simple language how he will pay for it, considering the loss of capital flow into the system that would be necessitated.

He should also explain why it is a good idea to change the concept of Social SECURITY to Social GAMBLING. People have a right to know what they are voting for. Why doesn't Mr. Bush want the American electorate to know what his plans for them are?

Kerry is only using Mr. Bush's own legacy against him. People don't TRUST him - whether it be the draft, Social Security, flu shots - because of his own record of untruths, distortions, secrecy and cronyism. That isn't anyone's fault but his own.

Cecil Turner

"The last time the US relied on native troops to relieve the burden on US troops, it was called Vietnamization."

If we'd taken Hanoi, that analogy might be apt. We didn't, and it isn't. Besides, the "last time" was Afghanistan, not Vietnam.

"Bush's redeployments are more a long-term thing."

A soldier who isn't deployed to Europe or Asia is immediately ready for deployment. A recruit takes much longer, even in one of the non-technical specialties.

"Iraq is perceived as an understaffed operation and the President has refused thus far to address the point . . ."

What point? That a draft is needed? Both the President and SecDef have repeatedly said it isn't necessary. And nobody suggesting a draft even tries to point to an actual need. When he proposed the current legislation, Rangel didn't say it was needed, he just wanted a stronger war protest. Small wonder the professional war protester ran with it.

It's fairly obvious that our current military is the result of significant downsizing from a much larger all-volunteer force. The issue is nonsensical on its face. It's also another good indicator of Kerry's unseriousness on defense. (Which is the main reason 69% of military personnel support the President.)

Whoever

I suspect the reason 69% of the military support Bush has more to do with the indocrination of unquestioning obedience that military service requires.

As for the token insults to the intelligence of American youth, I wonder why one assumes that a young man watching Bush rampage through our national reputationis automatically unintelligent because he then fears he will himself be consumed by the irrational ideological fervor. Speaking for my son, he has a 4.0 GPA in an engineering program at Clarkson University, and HE believes Bush will bring back a draft, at least of skilled personnel.

One of the things working against Bush on college campuses is the inherent contradiction of being a Young Republican. Clearly any young person with any character who supports this warlike administration would not be politicking for Bush on campus from the comfort of his keg party, but would instead be catching the next plane to Parris Island. They are inherently fraudulent (and similar in cowardly nature to the Vietnam-era Mr. Bush in this way) and are treated as such by their peers.

Appalled Moderate

Cecil Turner:

It boils down to this:

Why is the current staffing in Iraq sufficient? Why do events in Iraq over the past year not not demonstrate that there are not enough troops?

And the answer is not whether YOU can explain it. You seem to be one of the more intelligent commenters on here -- it goes without saying that YOU can explain it. It's whether the PRESIDENT can explain it. Just saying "no new troops" "no draft" "not gonna do it", no matter how justified the President may be in his opinion, is going to clear up this draft rumor. Because there is an argument that feels plausible and common sensical that our President's willingness to project force -- and the fact that there are parts of Iraq that belong to the insurgents -- may lead to new troops being required, demanded, and eventually (if regrettably) drafted.

Also, however you feel about Whoever's tone -- he brings up a valid point about Bush's credibility. This President has been proven very wrong on Iraq WMDs and budgetary issues. Why won't he be proven similarly wrong on the need for more troops?

You may feel this arguments are crap. But they feed on real fears -- and those fears won't go away unless faced head on in a credible fashion.

Cecil Turner

"I suspect the reason 69% of the military support Bush has more to do with the indocrination of unquestioning obedience that military service requires."

Yep, they're all brainwashed automatons--and horrible people besides.

If you want any chance of persuading people on this issue, I'd advise losing that whole line of thought. But I'm betting the various proponents of the issue won't. (And the obvious contempt the left displays for those who defend our nation is one of the biggest reasons this is likely to backfire.)

Cecil Turner

"Why do events in Iraq over the past year not not demonstrate that there are not enough troops?"

Because we've won every battle with ease. More troops makes it easier to win battles . . . but that isn't the problem. More troops also cause more resentment among the populace, and present a greater logisitical challenge . . . which are problems.

"You may feel this arguments are crap. "

They're not just crap, they're dishonest. Again, nobody is even trying to show a need for more troops. Kerry's big proposal is mainly focused on increasing Special Forces . . . which has what exactly to do with Iraq? Well, nothing. So if he's obviously not worried about it, why is he claiming we should be?

"But they feed on real fears --"

That's why it's called "fear mongering."

Whoever

It's not contempt for the military. It's merely stating the obvious. When one is trained to obey orders unquestioningly, there is a natural tendency towards admiration of those giving the orders. They are the leaders, the soldiers follow. There is nothing there that precludes future freedom of thought, or indicates lack of intelligence.

Similarly, when one is engaged in a period of great sacrifice, as soldiers and their families currently are, it goes against human nature to entertain the possibility that the sacrifice may be in vain or in any way, unwarranted. It takes extraordinary emotional objectivity to think otherwise. It does not in any way follow that these normal emotional responses are the truest or most correct interpretations of American foreign policy.

That is one of the most basic reasons why we have civilian governance and the concept of military rule is anathema to all American traditions.

Whoever

Cecil, reacting to realistic fears is not fear mongering. It is the most essential survival skill there is. Of course, I fear Bush will engage in more warlike adventuring, which may impact my sons, because he is unapologetic about the debacle he has already created and preaches the moral righteousness of something I view as wasteful and dishonest. Of course, I fear he will move to privatize Social Security,since he has said he will. Of course, I fear he will widen the gap between rich and poor because that is record and his mandate. Of course, I fear he will further destroy our American tradition of seperating Church and State because he owes his entire Presidency to the intolerant, bigoted radical Christian movement known as Evangelicism.

We don't need Kerry to raise these fears. They exist on their own. Kerry is addressing them. If Bush wishes to erase them, he must speak with clarity and HONESTY (which he is unable to do)about them. It is ridiculous to blame Kerry. It's like Bush Cheney seeking to blame Kerry for nearly every problem that exists in our society today, despite their political party having absolute, total, control over all three branches of our government these last 4 years. They have no credibility whatsoever except with those who stand to profit from their policies, or those who are vulnerable to being cynically manipulated through ignorance.

Paul Zrimsek

There's a testable theory, at any rate. If Bush's approval rating among military personnel is owing to their instinct to respect their commanders, then Bill Clinton should have enjoyed similar support. Well?

Paul Zrimsek

And on the subject of fear-mongering: has there ever been anything more ridiculous and futile than Democrats' attempts to convince voters that investing their Social Security money just like they already do with their private retirement money is some sort of novel and dangerous experiment? To hear these guys talk, you'd think the capital markets were some sort of academic gedankenexperiment that Milton Friedman scribbled on a tablecloth just last week.

Cecil Turner

"It's not contempt for the military. It's merely stating the obvious. When one is trained to obey orders unquestioningly, there is a natural tendency towards admiration of those giving the orders."

I knew you couldn't hide it. And anyone who's actually been on the receiving end knows that "admiration" is not the "natural tendency."

"reacting to realistic fears is not fear mongering. It is the most essential survival skill there is"

It's that "realistic" part that seems to've fallen through the cracks. Fear of a draft isn't realistic. Or sensible. And pretending it is isn't honest.

Whoever

The only way to make that equation, Paul Zrimsek, would have been if Clinton had been CiC during a period of active, prolonged warfare. Our soldiers are dying at a rate of almost 4 a day, with a much higher nonfatal casualty rate that is kept secret. It would be inhuman not to expect them to justify this extreme sacrifice to themselves and to wish with all their hearts that it is being done in the service of something noble and worthwhile.


Civilians not making that sacrifice - i.e. the vast majority of the population - are not required to follow along on this self protective defense mechanism. We are free - in fact, we are required, as informed citizens - to question our government and use our critical thinking to evaluate the wisdom of their actions. It does not dishonor the sacrifice of soldiers to come to the conclusion that their Commander in Chief has used them as pawns in a geopolitical game designed by his ideological masters.

Paul Zrimsek

So "the indocrination of unquestioning obedience that military service requires" is actually neither indoctrination nor required, but something soldiers evolve on their own in wartime, and only in wartime? Whatever.

Whoever

Paul, can you explain the Conservative fascination with arguing issues through semantics rather than substance?

Cecil Turner

You mean substance like:

"Our soldiers are dying at a rate of almost 4 a day, with a much higher nonfatal casualty rate that is kept secret."?

Let's see, for a ballpark estimate we're about 19 months into the Iraq invasion, x30 x4=2280 deaths. Looks to me like you're overestimating the rate by a factor of 2. Is there a reason?

I also notice you're not trying to do any of the math necessary to defend the draft as a "realistic fear." (Though judging from the above, I guess I can see why.)

SaveFarris

The fears of privatization of Social Security are based on Bush's own words in the NYTimes magazine article...

Uh... no. The "quotes" were taken third hand from a private rally (with no transcript to verify.) Not to mention the fact that the author of said piece (Suskind) has already released an anti-Bush tome this election cycle. (That would be a bit like hiring Ann Coulter to do an in-depth report on Kerry? If so, would you take it at face value?)

and not even taken out of context as were the hapless Kerry's remarks about reducing terrorism to a nuisance in the future.

What part of Kerry's remarks were taken "out of context"? It's all there in black and white: "nuisance", "prostitution and gambling", "get back to the place".

Brian

Robert,

There was a vote, yes, but the point is, a lot of people suspect that the war in Iraq isn't the end of the military operations for this administration. And with our troops stretched thinly as it is, we are going to need to get people to serve in some fashion. Thus, talks of the draft.

Setting aside my personal feelings, it's a legitimate issue. We've seen Bush and Cheney lie about everything, so why trust them on this? If they are indeed thinking of bringing it back, I cannot blame them for not wanting to talk about it. Their re-election chances could go down the drain if they discussed it openly. But as I said, we cannot put anything past them, and if they are planning something of this nature in a discrete manner, it's truly outrageous.

Paul Zrimsek

We've seen Bush and Cheney lie about everything, so why trust them on this? If they are indeed thinking of bringing it back, I cannot blame them for not wanting to talk about it.

And if the similarly veridically-challenged Kerry is indeed thinking about a huge government-run health program, I cannot blame him for not wanting to talk about that. So what reason, other than the obvious, do you have for treating the one as a lie and the other as "a legitimate issue"?

SaveFarris

We've seen Bush and Cheney lie about everything, so why trust them on this?

Assuming you're talking about WMDs, why should we trust Kerry/Edwards (since they were pushing the same line)?

Whoever

Cecil, just noticed your statement that fearing the draft is neither realistic or honest. Can you explain how Bush's constant fear mongering regarding terror is both realistic and honest? I'm sure there's no corollary with the fact that terror alerts have all coincided with negative developments politically for Bush, nor the fact that this is his polling strength. Bush's message to America has been, Be afraid, trust me and don't ask any questions. Is that honest? Is his ridiculous color coded terror alert system honest? Or even for real? Do you believe he is doing the absolute best he can do to keep the country safe - here at home? I believe he has lucked into the greatest shell game a politician can ever find - convincing people to stay terrified in order to stay in power. I see no honesty there.

As for the draft, we have an administration that clearly is thrilled by military adventurism and that regards the use of force as the primary (if not only) principle of its foreign policy. It is entirely reasonable to presume the likelihood of a draft in the not too distant future, given the destabilizing effect of Bush's policies, their addiction to unilateralism and their apparent program of "constant war".

Perhaps it is different when you do not have children in the 14-20 age range as I do. Perhaps it is also different when you agree with Bush's policies. I do not and neither do my boys. It really isn't a question of whether they would ever serve under Bush. It's only a question if they will be made criminals or not by having to avoid the draft they absolutely expect if he is reelected. The good thing is I've seen the emergence of three very politically active youngsters, committed to the democratic process as I've never seen.

Appalled Moderate

Cecil Turner:

You deserve a better response than I have the time to give right now. One of these days I'll learn not to start a fight I can't finish.

But, I think the crux of this comes down to this: You feel that based on his policy proposals, John Kerry, like you, believes there are sufficient troops in Iraq. Accordingly, assertions to the contrary are likely to be dishonest arguments. I take your point, with regard to Kerry and his acolytes. I do not, when it comes to people like http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20040901faessay83505/larry-diamond/what-went-wrong-in-iraq.html> Larry Diamond and http://mccain.senate.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=Newscenter.ViewOpEd&Content_id=1176> John McCain . The feeling there's a problem with Iraq troop levels is not just a function of Johen Kerry's campaign.

So where does this leave us with the draft? Well, there's a feeling that maybe we didn't send enough folks into Iraq. I think you argue fairly persuasively that there are enough US troops to send. The problem is that it's not me you have to convince -- its folks who are a little paranoid about having their life plans drafted out from under them. And I do not see the President making persuasive arguments that he has enough troops in Iraq, and that commanders can have all they need without upping enlistments.

Until that's done, the draft rumors will not go away. And that's true even if Kerry is being intellectually dishonest about the exercise.

TM

Well, rumors that Elvis lives and that Kennedy was the victim of a conspiracy won't go away either.

Whether the draft rumors are taken seriously, or remain on the fringes, depends in part on how our politicalleaders discuss or exploit them.

Would you describe Kerry's behavior here as an example of responsible leadership?

Appalled Moderate

TM:

Fair question. Kerry said this:

"With George Bush, the plan for Iraq is more of the same and the great potential of the draft. Because if we go it alone, I don't know how you do it with the current overextension"

The way to prove Kerry is alarming our youth unecessarily is demonstrate there is no overextension of troops, or, if there is such overextension, more troops are readily available. (I would suggest W hire Cecil Turner...)

Frankly, I don't believe Bush would propose (or Congress enact) a renewed draft. It's political suicide.

But Bush has a history of underestimating the costs of the adventures he undertakes. The draft is an issue because Bush could lead us into a situation where the draft becomes necessary.

So, I think it's a fair issue to raise, if it is raised in the way that keryy has raised it. It's considerably more fair than the Social Security bs he's moved on to.

Cecil Turner

"Can you explain how Bush's constant fear mongering regarding terror is both realistic and honest? "

So far in the War on Terror, we've lost about 4000 people . . . and none of them were draftees. (Though the majority were innocent civilians.) So yes, that fear is a bit more realistic.

Cecil Turner

"I do not, when it comes to people like Larry Diamond and John McCain . The feeling there's a problem with Iraq troop levels is not just a function of Johen Kerry's campaign."

There may have been a legitimate argument about troop levels a year ago (more troops by their presence deter violence; though they cause other problems)--I don't think they were persuasive. Now, however, those arguments are no longer legitimate. The need is for Iraqi troops, not more Americans, and the theater commanders are on record several times to that effect.

"So where does this leave us with the draft?"

The well-publicized argument in Washington was whether or not to recruit more. The administration position has been that an increase is not necessary (and in any event, increasing recruits initially decreases troops available for deployment). The decision, so far, has been not to incraease "end strength." A draft isn't even under consideration--and claiming it is, again, is dishonest.

Appalled Moderate

Neither Kerry nor I claimed a draft was under consideration. Kerry claimed he "did not know" how Bush was going to carry out his objectives in Iraq without a draft. I think that's a fair debating point.

Bush, or his people, should respond. Not with a symbolic vote in the House, but an actual response on the issue that says "We have enough people because [insert wonkery here]."

TM

In two of the debates Bush has said there won't be a draft. The Pentagon, the SecDef, and all Congressional leaders are against a draft. We had a much larger military under Reagan without a draft. How much wonkery does he need to debunk this?

As a scare tactic, Kerry's draft talk may be effective (and setting aside Kerry, Max Cleland, Howard Dean, and Terry McAuliffe are much more explicit). But he knows it is not on the table.

Cecil Turner

"Kerry claimed he "did not know" how Bush was going to carry out his objectives in Iraq without a draft. I think that's a fair debating point. "

Since Kerry claims to have the same objectives in Iraq, but sees no need for a draft, I don't think it is.

It's not a sensible position--we have more people deployed in Europe and Asia than in Iraq--clearly it isn't the main determinant of troop requirements. The Administration has consistently argued against increasing enlistments. How we get from there to a draft is beyond me.

At this point I think TM's Elvis rumor analogy is apt. I don't really feel the need to prove he isn't orbiting in a UFO . . .

Brian

"And if the similarly veridically-challenged Kerry is indeed thinking about a huge government-run health program, I cannot blame him for not wanting to talk about that."

The problem with your claim is that Kerry's health care plans are out in the open.

And it's quite clear that you haven't read them, because if you had, you would know that Bush's claims are nonsense. They are outright lies, not mere distortions.

"So what reason, other than the obvious, do you have for treating the one as a lie and the other as 'legitimate issue'?"

I wouldn't use health care as a point of comparison, but since you appear to want to do that, I will go along. As I said above, Kerry's health care plan is out in the open. You can read about it at his site or in more unbiased sources, like newspapers and certain universities or think tanks. You can read this good, short summary of his plan by Dr. Kenneth Rhopre of Emory. (He also shows why the numbers by AEI and the Lewin Group are bogus.)

If Bush has any plans for a draft, he hasn't put them made them clear. We should take him at his word (to an extent) if he says he's not going to have one, but if he's planning on more military operations, then we have to ask, how can that happen if some things don't change? It's speculation, sure, but it's not unreasonable to do such a thing in this case.

Brian

"Assuming you're talking about WMDs, why should we trust Kerry/Edwards (since they were pushing the same line)?"

They weren't in Bush's position.

Paul Zrimsek

Bush's refusal to countentance a draft is out in the open too. Everything beyond that is ill-informed speculation. If that's good enough for you, why should I be left out of the fun?

Appalled Moderate

TM --

Bush has been wrong enough about military issues (WMD) and budgetary issues (deficits! deficits! deficits!), that he needs an awful lot of wonkery. The old setting of the jaw, steadfast routine does not work to hide Bush's propensity for simple factual error.

Cecil Taylor:

Of coure, you're providing the wonkery Bush needs as well as the deft comparison of Kerry and Bush's positions. I think when you talk about the fear of draft crowd, though, you are talking about a group who believes that Kerry's commitment to Iraq is pretty minimal.

Both of you:

As much as you want to consign the draft to a seriousness equal to sightings of Elvis at the Krispy Kreme, a large part of the electorate doesn't view it that way. Whatever they feel about Elvis or the death of JFK is not going to influence their votes. The draft might.

So, I think this is an issue worth discussing in the election. because it is important to a lot of the electorate. Others may disagree.

Paul Zrimsek
I think when you talk about the fear of draft crowd, though, you are talking about a group who believes that Kerry's commitment to Iraq is pretty minimal.

Yep. Iraq is an issue-- like gay marriage, taxes, and possibly health care-- where the core of Kerry's support comes from people who are convinced he's lying.

Cecil Turner

"As much as you want to consign the draft to a seriousness equal to sightings of Elvis at the Krispy Kreme, a large part of the electorate doesn't view it that way."

If you're saying it could work because many people are ignorant of the facts, I agree. But I think it's unlikely it will, because faulty arguments tend to blow themselves up (along with their proponents' credibility). The timing is also critical: early enough to reach a critical mass; late enough to avoid debunking prior to the election. The timing actually looks pretty good. Taranto claims it's one of several "Hail Mary passes" and smacks of desperation.

In the past 10 days or so, the Kedwards campaign has:
  • Accused the Bush administration of planning to reinstitute a military draft.
  • Recycled the "no blood for oil" canard of the looney left.
  • Alleged that the Bush administration is somehow in the pocket of the Saudi royal family . . .
  • Paul Zrimsek

    Still and all, Cecil, in these namby-pamby days isn't it bracing to see someone embrace the cause of pure, shameless demagoguery so enthusiastically?

    Cecil Turner

    Yes, from the naked thirst for power perspective, it's probably the most honest thing about this whole campaign. Refreshing!

    Whoever

    It must suck for you that the Dems aren't taking it lying down this year. Rove doesn't have the only game in town anymore. Four years of cloaking an amoral foreign and domestic policy in the rhetoric of maudlin religiosity and all for naught. Incredible that people don't believe an administration that created a monstrous deficit and an unnecessary war out of whole cloth. Incredible that they now think their social security and their children might be the next things to go. Why can't they trust these Republicans who hold all their meetings in secret and have repeatedly lied to the country?

    You know what's really going to be fun? Election day, when the Republicans find out that the Democrats have learned all their games. It's going to be so much harder to steal this election. In fact, it's going to be damn well impossible. I can already hear the crying and whining that you were forced to play fair this time.

    Cecil Turner

    "It's going to be so much harder to steal this election. In fact, it's going to be damn well impossible."

    You're probably right. Though I expect your boys will try, even so.

    SaveFarris

    Brian,
    they're applying for Bush's position. Ergo, their "lies" on the subject are extremely relevant.

    "As much as you want to consign the draft to a seriousness equal to sightings of Elvis at the Krispy Kreme, a large part of the electorate doesn't view it that way."

    So because the electorate is ignorant (and the MSM won't do their job in dispelling the rumor), it's on Bush to prove a false negative?

    The comments to this entry are closed.

    Wilson/Plame