The Command Post
2004 US Presidential Election
« The Toast is Back in Town | Main | Early Voting Problems for GOP in Florida? »
October 21, 2004
Bush | A debate on a draft

In a contentious debate on today’s PBS NewsHour, two retired generals squared off on the possibility of a draft. The segment was too short to arrive at much of a conclusion, but it’s interesting nonetheless.

…Brigadier General David McGinnis (Ret.), U.S. Army National Guard [and Kerry campaign advisor]: If we continue to proceed the way we are proceeding with the current strategy, there’s going to become a point in time where the draft could be very necessary…

General P.X. Kelley (Ret.), Former Marine Corps Commandant [and Bush campaign advisor]: No, I don’t see it at all. As a matter of fact the president said it; the secretary of defense said it. The joint chiefs of staff have said it. The service secretaries have said it. How many other people have to say it?…

Complete transcript here.



Posted by Lonewacko at October 21, 2004 11:34 PM | TrackBack
Comments

“the draft could be very necessary” is a odd set of words that hold little basis. Sure, COULD is always a POSSIBILITY, but to throw “very” in there is just evidence of trying to pump up the emotion.

I’m of the mind that if things get sticky and we need it, the draft should be resumed, but if we can be successful without it, then we won’t have one.

We all know that it was Rangle (Democrat) that submitted the Bill for reinstating the draft and that it was for this political purpose. I guess it is one more piece of “fear mongering” in a scrappy election.

Posted by: Max Darkside [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 22, 2004 11:16 AM

You’re correct Max. The bill was introduced by two Democrats and was shot down 402 to 2. Even the Democrats wouldn’t vote for it. Yep, scare tactics.

Posted by: BH57 [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 22, 2004 11:34 AM

I suspect that Rangle is a closet Republican. If he proposed it knowing it would be shot down and voted against it himself, what other conclusion is there? He even laughed about it on Hannity and Colmes last night.

Posted by: Oyster [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 22, 2004 11:50 AM

dear Oyster, is there a point to your post? How does Rangel’s action qualify him as a republican?

Posted by: skip [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 22, 2004 02:31 PM

“I suspect that Rangle is a closet Republican.”

AHAHAHAAAH.,…. oh dang, broke my chair. HOHOOHOHOHOOoooo. And my dog is really a “closet cat” heheheheheeee. And birds are really “closet fish” [snickering off into the distance]

Posted by: Max Darkside [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 22, 2004 02:40 PM

There might have been other reasons, but the main reason I’ve seen for Rangel’s bill was race-baiting. According to him - and I believe it’s false - a disporportionate number of those dying in Iraq are Of Color.

Posted by: Lonewacko [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 22, 2004 04:17 PM

interesting Lonewacko.

I was looking at the photo of my son’s marine boot camp company. Mostly White guys. Some black guys, a couple of guys with names that sounded spanish, even one guy that looked like he might be of asian descent.

But the facial expression on each of these guys was the same: serious and strong. And frankly I doubt that any of these guys give two shits about anybody’s color.

Posted by: skip [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 22, 2004 04:50 PM

Having served with what I’ll call a ‘mixed bag’ that even included some DRAFTED Marines, I’d have to call crap on Rangle. And his tactics. The same argument was used 35 years ago, and it was as bogus then as it is now.

Posted by: Cap'n DOC [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 22, 2004 07:41 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (Click here should you choose to sign out.)

As you post your comment, please mind our simple comment policy: we welcome all perspectives, but require that comments be both civil and respectful. We also ask that you avoid the extensive use of profanity, racist terms (neither of which we consider civil or respectful), and other boorish language.

We reserve the right to delete any comment, and to prohibit you from commenting on this site, if we feel you have broached this policy. As a courtesy, we will first send you an email noting a violation so you understand the boundaries. This will occur only once, however, and should we ban you from our comment forums we expect that ban to be permanent.

We also will frown upon those who suggest that we ban other individuals for voicing unpopular opinions, should those opinions be voiced in a civil and respectful manner. The point of our comment threads is to provide a forum for spirited though civil and respectful discourse … it is not to provide a forum in which everyone will agree with your point of view.

If you can live by these rules, welcome aboard. If not, then we’re sorry it didn’t work out, and thanks for visiting The Command Post.


Remember me?

(You may use HTML tags for style)