::: A Sure Fire Way To Defeat Bush :::

OK ... all we have to do is make sure this news is reported by ALL media
outlets. Email all your friends and tell them to tell everyone they know. If
people realize Bush is holding a Military Draft Bill until after the election
... probably in January ... well, I do not think Americans would like it.

[..]
There's a sign on the horizon, no bigger than a man's hand, that there's a military draft in the works. The Defense Department has announced that Selective Service is making preparations for an other draft, "in case one is needed." The New York Times in an inane editorial pleads with the president to articulate a goal for the war that if it "was clear and comprehensive and people understood how to reach it, then Mr. Bush could . . . even bolster the desperately straitened military with a draft if Americans understood the need to sacrifice."

If the editorial writers of the New York Times are talking about a new draft that would send young men and women to die in the deserts of Iraq fighting crazy religious fanatics, then the idea is certainly being whispered about in the upper echelons of American society. A draft would not be proposed before the election -- if it were, Bush would be wiped out in a landslide. But a wise person would not bet against the draft being proposed next January.

What in the world is the Times talking about? Why should Americans sacrifice for the Iraq War? Not by the wildest stretch of the imagination can one seriously argue that the war in Iraq is to defend vital American interests. We found that there were no weapons of mass destruction there and no connection with al-Qaida or the Sept. 11 attack. The only issue seems to be whether we can impose democracy on Iraqis who don't seem seriously to want it or to prevent a civil war that will happen anyway as soon as our army leaves. Americans are supposed to accept the need to sacrifice their unwilling sons and daughters to fight for such absurd goals?
[..]

*** Granny's biggest fear is there WILL be another terror attack ...
*** once again to be used against the American people for continued war,
*** war profiteering, enrichment of cronies at the expense of our children.

[..]
Bush has made "the war on terrorism" a mantra to cover everything his administration has done. But the Iraq war has nothing to do with the war on terrorism, as we now know. It was a plan of Cheney and Rumsfeld and their coterie of "neo-conservative" intellectuals (like Paul Wolfowitz) long before they came to power. It was supposed to make the United States a major power in the Middle East; to provide a democratic alternative to the typical Arab autocracy; to give the United States control of major oil fields; to take pressure off Israel, and to establish that the United States was a superpower that could go anywhere in the world and do anything it wanted. The "war on terror" was only a pretext to implement this plan, as accounts of the early White House reaction to the Sept. 11 attack seem to indicate.
[..]

Now Gran is really depressed, but am firing up emails to spread the news.
- posted by JT @ 6:32 PM |