Wednesday, October 06, 2004
House Opposes Military Draft Bill.
WASHINGTON — The House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly Tuesday against a bill to reinstate the military draft, a tool that had been used by Democrats to point out the inherent inequality of volunteer service.Everyone in Congress might know it but the Los Angeles Times doesn't. Check out this Orwellian headline from the Los Angeles Times that looks as though it were written for the Oceania Times by Big Brother himself: Republicans Glad to Lose on Bill to Start New Draft. Glad to lose? Who writes this stuff?
The House voted 2-402 against suspending the debate and moving toward passage, meaning that the bill could be debated in perpetuity. The procedural motion is an action that prompts the sponsor of the legislation to pull it out of consideration.
Rep. Charles B. Rangel, D-N.Y., introduced the legislation in January 2003 in an effort to highlight what he saw as an ill-prepared and ill-advised Iraq policy. Sen. Ernest "Fritz" Hollings, D-S.C., pushed a similar bill in the Senate.
The legislation in both chambers declares that it is the obligation of every U.S. citizen and resident between the ages of 18 and 26 to perform a two-year period of national service.
GOP leaders said that Rangel and Hollings introduced the bills with the sole intent of scaring people in an election season.
"This campaign is a baseless and malevolent concoction of the Democrat Party, and everyone in this chamber knows it. It has one purpose — to spread fear. To spread fear among an unsuspecting public, to undermine the War on Terror, to undermine our troops, to undermine our cause, and most of all, to undermine our commander in chief in an election year," said House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas.
WASHINGTON — Seeking to dispel suggestions that the war in Iraq could lead to reinstatement of the draft, House Republicans on Tuesday hastily brought the idea to a vote — with the express intent of shooting it down.The draft bill was sponsored by Democrat Charles Rangel but the Los Angeles Times doesn't mention this until the 16th paragraph.
The vote, launched with only hours of notice and no public hearings, was designed to put an end to talk that President Bush’s foreign policy could overtax the all-volunteer Army that has been national policy since the end of the Vietnam War.
“It’s putting a rumor to rest,” John Feehery, a spokesman for House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), said even before the 402-2 vote to reject the bill that would have mandated two years of military or civilian service for all men and women 18 to 26 years old.
But congressional Democrats and activists elsewhere denounced the vote as an empty exercise that trivialized what many Americans believe is a real possibility.