Sunday, September 26, 2004


I appreciate the fine work that everyone put into moving ASZ's "draft letter" into the mainstream. There's a lot more cars yet to be papered, and emails to be sent though, so no time to rest - we can do that after the election. Actually, we can all mentally collapse after the election, whatever the outcome. Then we get up, and get going again. :-) Because the hard work starts in January after inauguration day...

Anyway, I pointed out a few postings back that the VRWC and SCLM have picked up on the draft campaign - as we knew they would - and are spinning away. The talking points:

  • The bills to reinstate the draft were introduced by Democrats.

    How true, how true. But the bills still sit and live in committee. The Democrats gave the Republicans a sword. The GOP had two choices - use the sword to kill the bills in committee (they didn't), or use the sword to slay their Democrat colleagues (which they haven't done either). Yep, the Dems created a 'poison pill' for the GOP. Either way the bill is exercised, it will be the fault of the GOP. It may not be pretty, but that's politics, folks.

  • George Bush has never said he'd reinstate the draft.

    How true, how true. But this is just the 'nuance' that Dubya disdains. Yet he's using it to nice advantage. As recently as this morning on ABC's This Week, Colin Powell, when asked about a draft, said (exact remarks) "There are no plans for a least President Bush has no plans for a draft." As Brad Friedman of BradBlog points out, George Bush stated three times leading up to the illegitimate invasion of Iraq that he had "no plans for war on his desk". Apparently, nobody bothered to ask Bush if such plans were in a file cabinet under his desk.
Let's quit playing the word game with this volatile issue. How can they say there are "no plans" for a draft, when indeed there are - the Selective Service was fired up again this past year (after nearly 30 years in cold storage), and local Selective Service Boards have been actively seeking members.

John Kerry and John Edwards have both stated, unequivocally, that they will not reinstitute a draft. The Bush administration continues to use weasel words and non-denial denials when questioned about the topic. Demand a yes or no answer to the question: "If you are re-selected, Mr. Bush, are you prepared to state that under no circumstances will your administration reinstitute a draft of any sort? And that you will veto any such legislation that comes to your desk?"

Until Bush gives an unambiguous answer to the draft question, it's a very legitimate campaign issue - and given the Bush administration's history of playing fast and loose with the truth, we must operate on the assumption that there will, indeed, be a draft.

Keep papering cars and sending those emails.