WOLFOWITZ on REINSTATING DRAFT: "We need this and we are going to get it"!

[Dems Will Win]

Wolfowitz on Reinstating Draft: "We need this and we are going to get it"

TBR News

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/121103wolfowitzdraft.html

(October 28, 2003) The White House advisors have been making discreet inquiries on the Hill about the Bush plan to reinstitute a universal draft in America…this in spite of the potentially deadly reactions that could blast the President out of the White House. Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld are pushing this in spite of repeated warnings, even from inside the Pentagon, that this would be political suicide. “We need this and we are going to get it” Wolfowitz said to one of our senior editors on Monday.

see also Draft Lottery ready for action by June 15, 2005:

http://www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html

[MattNC]

1. interesting

but why should i trust something coming from a site called propagandamatrix.com

[GreenArrow]

18. Why should you trust something coming from

CNN, Faux, or Wall Street Journal?

[slaveplanet]

29. Uhm- that's a TBR article

http://tbrnews.org/Archives/a709.htm#002
http://tbrnews.org/

and Brit Paul Joseph Watson is the webmaster for Alex Jones(Bev Harris appears on his show about once a month) as well as propmatrix. Propmatrix nomer is probably meant to expose the matrix, not supply it. Jones is somewhat Liberatarian. so alot of what's posted is both anti-left and anti-neocon...mostly anti-neocon as of late. But that can change from day to day. Both are definite MIHOP theorists.

[Fleshdancer]

2. The only kids that need to be drafted

are the kids of the politicians who make the decision whether we go to war or not. Only then will they not take the issue of war so lightly.

3. this is such a shock

:evilgrin:

[pmbryant]

4. Doesn't pass the smell test

Wolfowitz really said this to one of the "Senior editors" of some obscure site called propagandamatrix.com?

For some reason, I don't believe this one bit.

--Peter

[Minstrel Boy]

11. have to agree

At the very least we should be wary of spreading this story until it's confirmed.

[Mountainman]

5. PNAC needs this and PNAC is going to get it

Ours sons and daughters are only good for cannon fodder to these creeps.

God I despise the right! Words can not describe how I feel about them!

America the new third world nation brought to you by Bush & Co.

The plan is to make a military that they can use when it is time for marshal law in this country. Service men and women will be forced to turn their bayonets on their own families to keep them in line.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

6. Can you get comfirmation from a more mainstream source?

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. It is comming we all know it

and it will catch people by surprise, because most have not read
enogh to pick on the subtle hints, and not so sublte hints
such as "we are nto planing to go there." As we all have learned
any denial means yes, we are going to do it

Now we need confirmation from a mainstream source

Somehow that is why this is a tad out there

[GainesT1958]

8. Every Dem. presidential candidate...

Needs to publicize this on EVERY college campus in the U.S....to heck with fighting over who's more "outraged" at Howard Dean's courting the "Confederate-flag-on-their-pickup's-back-bumper crowd"; if true, THIS is what's going to cause the vote to be "rocked" next year...just let students think they're going to be drafted--with, as the law's now written, NO possibility of a college deferrment. THAT will get 18-25-year-olds to vote--and not for Dub!:eyes:

So much for Grumpy Rummy pounding his fist at the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing and saying adamantly "NO! We DON'T need a draft for ANY reason." Chalk up one more big, fat one for the Rumster! :eyes:

B-)

[Dems Will Win]

9. They are talking about it in DC, not surprised Wolfee reported as saying

that by anyone.

Here's this fairly complete article from Salon:

http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news1/salon1.html

Local draft board volunteers, meanwhile, report that at training sessions last summer, they were unexpectedly asked to recommend people to fill some of the estimated 16 percent of board seats that are vacant nationwide.

Especially for those who were of age to fight in the Vietnam War, it is an ominous flashback of a message. Divisive military actions are ongoing in Iraq and Afghanistan. News accounts daily detail how the U.S. is stretched too thin there to be effective. And tensions are high with Syria and Iran and on the Korean Peninsula, with some in or close to the Bush White House suggesting that military action may someday be necessary in those spots, too.

Not since the early days of the Reagan administration in 1981 has the Defense Department made a push to fill all 10,350 draft board positions and 11,070 appeals board slots. Recognizing that even the mention of a draft in the months before an election might be politically explosive, the Pentagon last week was adamant that the drive to staff up the draft boards is not a portent of things to come. There is "no contingency plan" to ask Congress to reinstate the draft, John Winkler, the Pentagon's deputy assistant secretary for reserve affairs, told Salon last week.

Increasingly, however, military experts and even some influential members of Congress are suggesting that if Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's prediction of a "long, hard slog" in Iraq and Afghanistan proves accurate, the U.S. may have no choice but to consider a draft to fully staff the nation's military in a time of global instability.

EDITED BY ADMIN: COPYRIGHT

[Cocoa]

19. thats credible

the one in your original post seems like disinformation to me.

[Fovea]

22. Meeting strategic goals with our current tactical mindset

is difficult, if not impossible.

First, we have the freepers, who are not volunteering in record numbers.
Sure, they can do the rebel yell (or at least the rebel honk), but they drive right past the enlistment office.

Second, we have a lack of motivation -- we do not sufficiently believe our own goals are worthy and honest. We are not fighting for freedom, democracy, or any of the noble lies of the Bush administration. We are sending our kids to die for cheap gas and the money to make a two tiered society of the faithful 1 percent, and the peons.

Third, we are inferior to any enemy that understands us, because for certain we will not understand them. We listen to their glib liars make it all so simple for us. Then we do their bidding. We as a nation do that willingly because we have been listening to glib, reductionist crap since 1980. We think in simple patterns and primary colors. Most Americans could not point out Iraq on a map with the word Iraq on it in Arabic.


Fourth, the lack of an actual, statable objective. The current renewed pounding of Iraqi civilians is everything the resistance wants. Every bomb we drop creates a hundred resistance fighters. We are bombing our way to defeat. But since we cannot simply declare to the UN that we are there to rescue an oil grab that went sour in 91 and dominate the world's oil markets through superior firepower, we have to lie like a rug, and everyone, from a dog ass grunt to Colin Powell knows that to be true.

It is very hard for a large organization to pursure unstated, or contra stated goals. What works for the Friday night boys club called PNAC does not work when you invite the Pentagon and the CIA to the table. A simple "Screw the Iraqis, guard the oil." statement would have reduced the number and the rate of casualties dramatically. Saddam was left alive for the threat against instability and protest.
It did not work. Every time you hear about another chopper down, or convoy bombed, remember the words Shock and Awe.

The Germans used shock and awe against the Soviets. The Germans recieved it back at the hands of the Soviets for the next 40 years.

[caledesi]

12. You are so right GT1958!! This will definitely "rock" the vote.

[FARAFIELD]

10. HERES A QUESTION

I know this probably a violation of posting rules but why the hell (substitute another explative) doesnt someone just come right out and ask Bush if he plans on reviving the draft. Seems like his answer (likely not to be a definitive NO) would burn up the News cycles. Seems pretty stratightforward to me.

[truthspeaker]

15. who would ask and when?

He rarely holds news conferences, and when he does he only calls on reporters who submitted their questions in advance.

I suppose a reporter could ask his spokesweasel, though.

[Beetwasher]

17. Yeah, good idea

Now when would they get the chance to do that? At one of his many press conferences? Oh and I suppose if someone ever did get the opportunity to ask that he would tell them the truth? Or better yet, would he even know the answer without being coached? Do you honestly believe it would be his decision? Try again...

[spindoctor]

21. Unfortunately NO will not necesarily mean no.

He can only be re-elected once. His second term he can basically do whatever he pleases, including breaking his word. If you thought it was bad the first time around, brace yourself for what a second term might be like.

[Cocoa]

13. concern about the draft is valid

It's obvious that our forces are stretched thin, and that some elements no doubt would love to reinstate the draft.

Some of these posts of yours, however, are questionable and make me wonder what you're trying to achieve.

[MattNC]

16. ditto n/t

[Dems Will Win]

23. Do you deny that this Web page says they are reducing the time

needed to activate the draft from 8 months to 75 days? That is the main thrust of all my points but no one has refuted that yet. That should be the headline on Page 1 of every newspaper but everyone seems to have missed it except me. So I am bringing to the world all the news on the draft, including blogs, and all can decide for themselves what is true on thei life and death issue.

This one is too important to leave to CNNAOLTIMEFOXNEWSMSNBCABCCBS, they are obviously too intimidated to report anything on this. We here at DU have to look at all the info. Yes, the Wolfee quote I almost didn't post

EXCEPT it sounded so much like him, I thought everyone should at least know of it PLUS it fits right in with his PNAC Plan and this page that I found:

http://www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html

So please go ahead and tell me that on April 1, 2005, George W. Bush would not have prepared the activation of the draft to be ready on June 15, 2005 and that he cannot ask the Congress on that date for activation on June 15, 2005 because everyone knows it takes 8 months to activate the Selective Service.

In other words, Did Bush reduce the time needed to activate from 8 months to 75 days by March 31, 2005? Did I add up the number of days wrong?

And then there's Rummy's memo on "the long, hard slog". They leaked that on purpose to prepare everyone for all the bad news that's coming. And don't forget we won't see the dropoof in re-enlistment for several more months to more than a year.

Please attack me on my main points and stop nipping at my heels. I know you believe Bush when he says he will pull out of Iraq and promises not to invade anyone else but what else do you really have?

[Cocoa]

24. that page is not a smoking gun

I think some talk about the draft is well-founded, fits the undisputed facts that we are bogged down in Iraq, we're not done in Afghanistan, there's speculation about Iran, Syria, N. Korea, etc.

But mixed in there's some questionable stuff like dubious quotes and smoking guns that aren't really smoking guns, and if you don't think carefully about it, it makes it look like ALL talk of a draft is tinfoil-hat stuff, which it's not.

[Dems Will Win]

27. All I'm asking is do you agree that Bush is spending $28 million to reduce

the activation time to start up the lottery from 8 months to 75 days. Because that has not been reported by the press, it changes the entire political ball game for the Republicans and it clearly is a smoking gun if true. This is new and changes the dynamics considerably.

So! Is it true or not? 8 months or 75 days by March 31, 2005?

Because if it is 75 days, the Dems can say they would not activate as they will bring in foreign troops and Iraqis and not invade willy-nilly and no one will trust Bush and this will put Bush on the defensive big-time.

[MattNC]

31. that doesn't make it a smoking gun

simply making the SS system more efficient doesn't equal a smoking gun.

9/11 illustrated to me that we can face a scenario (god forbid) in which we need to suddenly bring back the draft and waiting 8 months to do simply wouldn't be sufficient.

i'm not disagreeing at all that this should be given more attention and that DOD officials (or whomever) should be asked to clarify why these moves were made, but i don't think it automatically means Bush has decided to re-constitute the draft after March 31, 2005.

[Dems Will Win]

38. I hope you're right! But why did they scrub the Draft Board ad if they

were not trying to keep something below the radar. That was just the tip of the iceberg. The $28 million is the iceberg itself and it's headed for us. Whether its actually activated or not is of course a question--and one they are hoping no one starts asking. That's why they pulled the Draft Board ad down right away. They are scared to death of this!

The activation is not automatic, Congress has to vote, but my experience of Bush the Elder and W has been that they almost always make the exact opposite of the correct decision. Every morning I wake up to watch the news and see what new piece of the old peaceful world Bush has destroyed. There's three possible scenarios:

1. For many reasons, troop strength will not be enough by 2006 to maintain what is actually needed in Iraq and Afghanistan, assuming that PNAC is just a fantasy of mine and Rumsfeld and Cheney are never going to want to take down Syria and/or Iran. Bush will then ask the Congress and they will agree to a draft despite the political risk, because he will address a Joint Session on April 1, 2005 and declare: "The terrorists and those that support them want us to cut and run from Iraq and Afghanistan, but we'll never cut and run. That's why I'm asking Congress tonight to activate the Selective Service System."

2. For many reasons, troop strength will not be enough by 2006 to maintain what is actually needed in Iraq and Afghanistan. PNAC is NOT just a fantasy of mine and Rumsfeld and Cheney secretly plan to take down Syria and/or Iran and continue on to central Asia because they know Peak Oil is coming in only 8 to 10 years as the world burns a billion barrels of oil every 10 days. In a second term far more horrendous than the first, Bush will then ask the Congress for the draft and they will agree despite the risk, because he will address a Joint Session on April 1, 2005 and declare: "The terrorists and those that support them want us to cut and run from Iraq and Afghanistan, but we'll never cut and run. That's why I'm asking Congress tonight to activate the Selective Service System."

3. Re-enlistment never drops, things get better in Iraq, Iraqization works, Omar's insurgency is put down in Afghanistan, and recruitment soars enough to not have to send troops back for a second deployment, so that troop strength IS enough by 2006 to maintain what is actually needed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and PNAC and Peak Oil are just fantasies of mine. Bush spent the $28 million just to make the SSS more efficient in case we need it and his second term is pretty much like the first. He really was just trying to defend us from the terrorists.

If enough swing voters, parents and young people believe #1 or #2 in 2004, Bush has a serious political problem, and the Dems will say we said no unilateral. If #3 is believed, then Bush has no draft problem and the Dems don't get to say now we are going to have a draft because of our unilateral actions.

I think it comes down to whether you trust Bush to govern in his second term no worse than his first; or whether you fear a second Bush term will set the neo-cons loose upon the world, powered by high-tech weapons--including the new Airborne 2Mw Laser--and the literally millions of men they could safely induct after the election in a massive draft.

Seeing that the very author of PNAC himself is in charge of that big five-sided building in Virginia, I'm very worried it is the latter. Unless Rummy suddenly stopped believing in the reasons for his own plan (the world is running out of cheap oil and whoever controls the remaining sources rules the century).

But if a Dem doesn' win it, I sure hope you're right that this is not a smoking gun and the draft does not return. I think where there's smoke there's fire, there are not enought troops in the forecast and they have decided to quietly pull the trigger. That's why the Draft Boards were "unexpectedly" told to fill their vacancies over the summer. That's why the Draft Board ad, and why they pulled when the press caught on and the media might find out their new decision. Due to secret Iraq troop forecasts for 2006, it's suddenly URGENT it looks like to me.

[Cocoa]

32. the significance doesn't make sense to me

that's a big red flag for me, when I'm asked to be alarmed by something that I can't figure out why it's alarming, or what it has to do with the dems.

[oasis]

14. If Bush wins in 2004 you can count on a draft. Wolfie/PNAC will prevail.

[DoYouEverWonder]

26. They have no intention of losing in 2004

and they will do anything they have to, to assure that outcome.

Then the PNAC needs another war in order to keep the beast fed, so my guess is that the draft notices will go out in time for Christmas 2004. Once W is reselected, the mask will come off completely and America will turn into hell. W will revel openly in the pain that he inflicts on humanity.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

20. the press

has already asked Rumsfeld if there was going to be a draft. In fact, this question was asked numerously prior to Afghanistan and Iraq. Every time both he and Meyers said no, absolutely no draft.

So Rummy's already been asked and the position has already been clearly spelled out. If they order a draft at any time they will be seen as A) wrong, or B) liars. Both of which they are, certainly, but they dont like to be seen as such - especially with the stakes so high.

[el_gato]

25. but that was before the invasion and occupation that has gone sour

[MattNC]

34. no

the Pentagon has faced questions about it after draft board posting on the sss.gov web site a few weeks ago

[alfredo]

28. google did not bring up any main stream media links to this quote

that doesn't mean that it is not valid, but I would hold off passing it around until we can find the source.

That is your mission!!!

que Mission Impossible music.

[hlthe2b]

30. What is TBR news?

eom

[Dems Will Win]

36. They get secret memos on how the admin is controlling the news

Controlling the News. Part 23

In-House Memos on Television And Print Media News Presentations

To see prior Installments of "Controlling the News" click here

During the middle of March, 2003, tbrnews received an email from a man who claimed to be a mid-level executive with a major American television network. He stated in this, and subsequent, emails that he was in possession of “thousands” of pages of in-house memos sent from his corporate headquarters in New York City to the head of the network’s television news department. He went on to say that these memos set forth directives about what material was, and was not, to be aired on the various outlets of the network.

This individual claimed he was developing serious doubts about the strict control of media events and decided that he would pass this material along to someone who might make use of it.

There was the question of his job security. If someone published his name, it would be certain he was not only fired but blackballed throughout his profession.

If tbrnews.org would agree to protect his identity, he would send us these alleged thousands of pages of notes, going back to 2001.

EDITED BY ADMIN: COPYRIGHT

Walter Storch
http://www.tbrnews.org/Archives/a708.htm

[slaveplanet]

37. This one is interesting

(November 1) Our private polls indicate that if the elections were held today, ‘Vietnam George’ would have his sorry ass kicked by Dr. Dean. Kerry has the Vietnam killings dragging him down, no one is going to support Lieberman because he can’t do business on Saturdays and the rest of the Demo pack are sorry losers…

[ShaneGR]

33. Not a real quote

I checked and this is nothing more than propaganda, he never said it. Granted, he might actually want it, but he never said it.

[proud patriot]

35. hmmmmmmmmm...

:think: