NADER now LYING about KERRY wanting the DRAFT!!

[Dems Will Win]

Nader is saying the DRAFT is going to be reinstated (he's right about that) but then he says Kerry's proposed addition of 40,000 troops will require a DRAFT.

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_draft_041704,00.html

ANOTHER LIE FROM THE MAN IN 2000 WHO SAID THERE WAS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS!!

Kerry's plan actually will avoid reinstatement of the DRAFT as it gives more flexibility to the Prez and the troops will NOT be drafted!

Here are the facts. The DRAFT is coming but it's the Republicans who are currently quietly activating the Selective Service System NOT THE DEMOCRATS.

BUSH, NOT KERRY, is spending $28 million to reduce the DRAFT ACTIVATION TIME from the current 8 months to 75 days by March 31, 2005, conveniently after the election. They are also filling the 10,000 empty DRAFT BOARD seats and gearing up the Alternative Service for the very first time in decades so that it is ready to go within 96 days of March 31, 2005. BUSH is conducting NATIONWIDE training exercises of the ENTIRE SSS process, and will even be lining up guys in their underwear this summer to ready the Medical Exam system. They are also moving from "planning" to "groundwork" in the creation of a new SPECIAL SKILLS DRAFT that will DRAFT tens of thousands of programmers to develop software for STAR WARS and thousands of linguists and engineers to help conquer CENTRAL ASIA (2006 - 2008).

NADER IS A LIAR ONCE AGAIN. THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BUSH AND KERRY. KERRY HAS A PLAN TO AVOID EVER HAVING TO DRAFT (outside of a Chinese invasion), WHILE BUSH IS ACTIVELY SPENDING $28 MILLION TO HAVE THE FIRST LOTTERY OF 20 YEAR-OLDS BY JUNE 15, 2005.

THIS HAS BEEN AN OFFICIAL MESSAGE FROM DEMS WILL WIN, DU'S DRAFT EXPERT.

BUSH '04 = DRAFT '05

[Dookus]

1. Nader lies

all the time. Nothing surprising here.

[G_j]

2. I thought Rangell (sp?) was calling for a draft?

I am very interested in how Kerry can avoid one with the military stretched so thin, though I'm well aware that he hasn't called for one.

[Dems Will Win]

3. Rangel proposed a bill on women that he said he wouldn't even vote for

It was a ploy (stupid) to call attention to the DRAFT. Kerry adding 40k active troops and bringing in NATO to Iraq and THEN NOT INVADING THE REST OF THE MIDEAST AND CENTRAL ASIA FOR OIL makes a huge difference between him and BUSH--that NADER OF COURSE IS IGNORING.

OMISSION ACCOMPLISHED, RALPH!

[Dems Will Win]

4. Kerry's Troop Plan

Through restructuring, Kerry adds extra troops by coverting paper-pushers into combat soldiers. There are 1.6 million under arms but only 480,000 are active-duty troops. The rest of the 40k comes from increasing benes and pay so that more re-up and more enlist voluntarily.

Plus Kerry brings in NATO and foreign troops to Iraq and never invades the rest of the Mideast as BUSH obviously plans to, under Cheney and PNAC's instructions.

KERRY HATES THE DRAFT AFTER BEING IN VIETNAM!!

[AntiCoup2K4]

8. Shouldn't Kerry also hate stupid, useless wars after being in Vietnam?

Yet he voted to enable this one. And now he's openly siding with the Neocon agenda. That agenda will require the invasion of more countries and as such, more troops. Where do you suppose those troops will come from?

Or should I say - how many more voluntary enlistments are there going to be for this imperialistic fascist bullshit, especially when the fucking guard and reserves who should have never been there in the first fucking place don't even come home, let alone the regular active duty forces.

Plus Kerry brings in NATO and foreign troops to Iraq and never invades the rest of the Mideast as BUSH obviously plans to, under Cheney and PNAC's instructions.

NATO and foreign troops may or may not be involved, but I wouldn't count on the rest of your statement. PPI is PNAC in a shiny new wrapper and since their position on Iraq and Israel are identical to Bush's, the other invasions will likely proceed on schedule.

[IndianaGreen]

9. Kerry doesn't know shit about the military of today!

We don't have that many military "paper pushers," and I don't know why Kerry is babbling something that would have been true back in 1980s, but it is no longer true today (and hasn't been true since Cheney was Secretary of Defense).

Why do you think we have so many contractors today doing the work that the military used to do?

Kerry is being disingenuous about how he is going to get 40,000 more combat troops out of today's force structure. This bullshit reminds me of the old GOP election slogan of realizing savings by getting rid of "waste, fraud, abuse."

[sangha]

12. You don't seem to know much either

1) In every military around the world, including ours, there are between 4-10+ non-combat troops for every combat trooper. Many of them are "pencil-pushers". They work in logistics, supply, transport, the mess, etc

2) Kerry isn't calling "to get 40,000 more combat troops out of today's force structure" He's calling for adding 40,000 troops to tomorrows force structure.

It's also odd that you won't defend Nader's lie, and only post to attack Kerry.

[IndianaGreen]

13. You have never been in the military or worked for Dept of Defense

The only way Kerry can, in your words:

(Kerry) calling for adding 40,000 troops to tomorrows force structure.

is either through increased recruitment levels (highly unlikely to reach when there is an unpopular war), or through conscription.

Of course, we could wave the age limit for military service in which case older people like you could join the occupation force in Iraq or some other country.

Kerry could also do away with the stupid don't ask, don't tell, but he still won't get that many new GLBTs to join the military while it is waging a criminal war overseas.

On edit to your edit:

You added this:

It's also odd that you won't defend Nader's lie, and only post to attack Kerry.

My reply:

I support Dennis Kucinich, not Nader.

[sangha]

10. Very specious reasoning

1) Rangel isn't Kerry. Never has been. What Rangel does proves nothing about hwat Kerry wants or will do

2) Since recruitment offices turn volunteers away, there's no need for a draft to increase the size of the military

[JohnKleeb]

11. If Rangel was a key Kerry supporter, I would give it clearance

but hes not, he endorsed Kerry yes but he was a big time booster of Clark not Kerry. I personally dont think Kerry believes in a draft.

[kalian]

5. We'll see what happens....

I'd really hate to see Kerry not STOP the draft after he becomes
prez. Then again, he did state that he would provide the army with
40,000 "fresh troops".

[checks-n-balances]

6. Bush, Nader: What's the dif?

Yeah, Nader is trying to bolster that stupid "no difference" argument. Hope he's exposed big time.

We could probably say that it's beginning to look like:

WHEN IT COMES TO LYING, THERE'S NOT MUCH DIFFERENCE BETWEEN *NADER* AND BUSH!

[DeaconBlues]

7. Actually if it wasn't for our imperial adventure in Iraq

and the fact that Bush is commander and chief, I would lean toward having some sort of draft.

Perhaps having young adults take part in some sort of service to their country (with an option between military and civilian service with no type of deferment for the wealthy) would be a good thing. It would ensure that the poor and minorities are not the only individuals who serve. And it would be a way to make sure that everyone is engaged in our democracy, as people would be forced to see how invested they are in the course the country takes.

Flame away.

I bet you one thing, though. If there was a draft, there would be no way that Bush would win in November. How many people would trust this idiot to keep their children out of harm's way?

[Cuban_Liberal]

14. That isn't what Nader said, although it makes for a sexy subject line...

Nader nowhere says that Kerry 'wants a draft'. Your initial post is a gross mischaracterization of what Nader said:

Nader Claims A Draft Is Imminent
United Press International
April 17, 2004,


WASHINGTON - Ralph Nader's independent presidential campaign sent an Internet "Message to America's Students" warning that a draft may take place if the war goes on.

"The Pentagon is quietly recruiting new members to fill local draft boards, as the machinery for drafting a new generation of young Americans is being quietly put into place," Nader said. "Young Americans need to know that a train is coming, and it could run over their generation."

Nader spokesman Kevin Zeese said the warning is based on the U.S. Selective Service System's recent call for draft board volunteers, an extended U.S. military and calls by Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry and Congress to expand the military, the Boston Herald reported Friday.

However, the government firmly denies a draft is anywhere in the near future. "We're not going to re-implement a draft. There's no need for it at all," said Pentagon spokeswoman Lt. Cmdr. Jane Campbell....

[Dems Will Win]

15. Have to strongly disagree, what Nader is doing is a typical low political

trick.

Nader let his surrogates do the real dirty work in this paragraph:

"Nader spokesman Kevin Zeese said the warning is based on the U.S. Selective Service System's recent call for draft board volunteers, an extended U.S. military and calls by Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry and Congress to expand the military, the Boston Herald reported Friday."

This is lying by conflation (saying 2 things together so they seem as one) and gross omission of facts. Kerry's plan to add 40,000 additional active-duty troops actually helps the nation avoid a draft, as does his call for NATO in Iraq and his plan to increase pay and benes to keep up the enlistment and re-up rates.

Mr. Zeese's statement is an attempt to tie Kerry and Bush together and say there in no difference, as Nader did between Gore and Bush. Yet the opposite is true. Kerry is actively planning to restructure, etc. to have NO DRAFT, while Bush is RIGHT NOW spending $28 million for a full readiness exercise of the entire SSS, even down to having guys in their underwear be examined in nationwide "exercises" during this summer, and sample lottery balls be drawn out of the jar and assigned to YOUR BIRTHDAY!

Most ominously, the SSS is making ready the Alternative Service, which has lain dormant for decades, and is actually identifying the employers needed for those who win non-military CO status. The first induction of COs right now looks like July 6, 2005, once the GOP Congress approves on April 1, 2005.

BUSH '04 = DRAFT '05
KERRY 'O4 = PNAC OUT THE DOOR!

[IndianaGreen]

16. Looks like you did a Faux-style: "We report it, you decide"

Shame on you for injecting your own political views in lieu of the actual headline which deals with Bush.

[Dems Will Win]

17. HOW THE DRAFT HAS CHANGED SINCE VIETNAM

From SSS site:

If a draft were held today, it would be dramatically different from the one held during the Vietnam War. A series of reforms during the latter part of the Vietnam conflict changed the way the draft operated to make it more fair and equitable. If a draft were held today, there would be fewer reasons to excuse a man from service.

Before Congress made improvements to the draft in 1971, a man could qualify for a student deferment if he could show he was a full-time student making satisfactory progress toward a degree.


Under the current draft law, a college student can have his induction postponed only until the end of the current semester. A senior can be postponed until the end of the academic year.

If a draft were held today, local boards would better represent the communities they serve.
The changes in the new draft law made in 1971 included the provision that membership on the boards was required to be as representative as possible of the racial and national origin of registrants in the area served by the board.

A draft held today would use a lottery to determine the order of call.
Before the lottery was implemented in the latter part of the Vietnam conflict, Local Boards called men classified 1-A, 18 1/2 through 25 years old, oldest first. This resulted in uncertainty for the potential draftees during the entire time they were within the draft-eligible age group. A draft held today would use a lottery system under which a man would spend only one year in first priority for the draft - either the calendar year he turned 20 or the year his deferment ended. Each year after that, he would be placed in a succeedingly lower priority group and his liability for the draft would lessen accordingly. In this way, he would be spared the uncertainty of waiting until his 26th birthday to be certain he would not be drafted.