We all know that Kerry is trying to scare the American people into thinking that Bush wants to re-institute the draft. He has become adamant about it.
Here are the ABC Headlines:
Kerry: Draft Likely to Return Under Bush (1)
Here's the comment Kerry made in the above article:
"If George Bush were to be re-elected, given the way he has gone about this war and given his avoidance of responsibility in North Korea and Iran and other places, is it possible? I can't tell you."
He believes that if things continue the way they are going he's not sure if Bush would re-institute a draft. Is that it? Is this what all the fuss is about? That's a pretty inflammatory title for such a weak quote. It's too bad there weren't any more quotes in the article. That's okay, ABC put out another one with better quotes and a slightly less panicky title:
Kerry Warns Draft Possible if Bush Wins
"With George Bush, the plan for Iraq is more of the same and the great potential of a draft. Because if we go it alone, I don't know how you do it with the current overextension"
That's better. Now we have all we need. If Kerry is elected he will re-institute the draft. Bush will not re-institute the draft. He has said so on several occasions. Let me say this again for all of the tin-foil hat wearing fools that missed this the first time: THERE WILL BE NO DRAFT UNDER BUSH!
Here comes the science of how Kerry will institute the draft:
Kerry's perceived key to enhancing our forces abroad is tied into the UN forces and the powers of France, China, Russia and Germany. These nations have nothing to gain by joining with a Kerry America. Many of them have stated that they will not join after the elections no matter who is president. Recent documents have even stated contractual obligations between some of them and the former Iraqi administration above and beyond the oil for food program/scandal. They will not commit forces to Iraq.
Kerry has stated that he will deploy more American forces in Iraq. He believes that we need to put more American forces on the ground to win the peace. He has harped on Bush several times for his "under manning" of the Iraqi forces. Of course, Bush went with the number of forces the military requested; silly him for believing what his Generals tell him. That must be another one of his character flaws.
Kerry has also made reference to beliefs that the real threat is with North Korea...or was that Iran? In reality he has stated we should be putting troops on the ground in both places. If Kerry had his way the "tough on nukes" policy mixed with his Bilateral stance on DPRK would land us squarely in a war with North Korea with no support from anyone except South Korea, who would have no choice. Iran, on the other hand, would hold a large number of our forces for an extended period of time as a deterrent. We may have the help of Great Britain and others in Iran but peace talks and posturing through the UN take time, over twelve years to be precise and they would still have waited. So how long do you think it would have taken them to depose the Iranian leadership?
The facts are clear. Kerry has made all of the aforementioned plans quite clear in his jockeying for the presidency. If we were doing all of the things that he has stated he would do we would have no choice but to re-institute the draft. Kerry has already stated in his second statement "I don't know how you would do it with the current overextension". With this, I'm sure he doesn't even consider the 183,746 reservists (as of Dec 2003) that are standing by. He didn't consider Bush's reserve time, why would he consider anyone else's?
(1) This comment is no longer available on the ABCNews site. A google cached page was used.
2 hours ago