shotbanner.jpeg

October 20, 2004

In Your Heart...

Carl Albing - local blog fan and an author you should support if you're a programmer - is dabbling in campaign art:

AuH2O.jpg

Posted by Mitch at October 20, 2004 09:21 AM | TrackBack
Comments

But if a lefty makes a poster claiming Bush will reinstate the draft... it would be propaganda, rather that "campaign art."

Speaking of the draft...

"In your heart" you know Bush might.

Posted by: Carson at October 20, 2004 06:09 PM

Poppycock, Carson.

Satire is one thing - and Kerry's record on kowtowing to the UN and the French is long, black and white.

Show me where Bush, or ANYONE involved with the military (by which I mean a responsible officer, not some MoveOn moonbat), has even said a draft would be militarily desirable, much less an option?

Losing his mind; in my mind, I know Kerry has.

Posted by: mitch at October 20, 2004 06:47 PM

Carson,

In my head, where logic and facts make decisions, I know that only Democrats have proposed reinstating the draft.

In my head, where research and facts lead to conclusions I know that Kerry has proposed that it is OK for our troops to die for the UN, but not without a UN sanction for our actions.

The joke is funny because it is based on Kerry's record.

Your draft idea has no basis in fact.

Posted by: Trudger at October 20, 2004 07:19 PM

Mitch- I think Colonel David Hackworth's response to your question is the best I have yet heard on this issue. Why should we believe Bush or Rumsfeld when they say there will be no draft when everything else they have told us has turned out to be false?

Hackworth believes their will be a draft due to the current circumstances our country is facing. Read it here- (http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=Hacks%20Target.db&command=viewone&op=t&id=92&rnd=443.8523666634293)

And I think that is just as black and white as whatever you may say about Kerry's record of "kowtowing to the UN and France."

By

Posted by: Carson at October 20, 2004 07:37 PM

..."In your gut, he'll kick their butt."

AuH20 Circle? Squared.

Posted by: Jeff Fecke at October 21, 2004 12:19 AM

Carson writes: "Why should we believe Bush ... when everything else they have told us has turned out to be false?"

Tautology: "if A lies, then what A says is a lie"
Duuuhhhh.
Of course, in reality everything that
Bush et al. have told us has NOT turned out to be false, like: a tax cut will restart the economy (it did!) or the war on terror will not be easy (it isn't! and JK isn't helping) and Sadam was part of the axis of evil (he WAS!) and I could go on. What did you have in mind that turned out to be false? Didn't find as many missles as you'd hoped? Too bad; like that really would have made it alright? You'd have complained that they weren't the right kind, or they weren't pointed directly at the US, or ...

Posted by: AlrightAlready at October 21, 2004 12:24 AM

AA: Well played.

Carson: Huge difference; Hackworth is a contrarian, a consummate outsider, and has made much more a name for himself as a pundit than as a soldier (and he was quite a soldier). He's had no - ZERO - influence on military policy in decades, and even then only at an operational level. Virtually nobody actually IN the military wants the draft at all; fact is, we don't need it. Twenty years ago, our military had nearly double the combat units it has today: The Army had 20 divisions (12 today), the Navy had many more surface ships and twice as many submarines as today; the Air Force had many more fighter wings (Fingers?), and that with a population smaller than today's. It was precisely the same volunteer system we have today. Manpower is no problem; given the technology and training available today, we could have double the military we have today without the devastating loss of motivation and morale you get with conscript forces. I maintain that Hackworth is wrong, although I'll defer to the professional military on that (Fingers?)

Kerry, on the other hand, has been in a position of policy-making power for two decades. And he's been a consistent panderer to the internationalists, as we heard yesterday with the release of the 1994 interview where Kerry referred to US combat deaths under UN command as justifiable, but under US command as wrong.

So to sum up your comparison:

Hackworth: A powerless contrarian opinion. And wrong.

Kerry: A policymaker with a four decade record of smooching up to the UN.

Posted by: mitch at October 21, 2004 09:00 AM

Just got back into town.

In a word "Amen."

Posted by: fingers at October 21, 2004 09:24 PM
hi