"...Regarding Kerry's scare tactic of saying Bush will bring back the draft, it strikes me as being rather unusual considering Kerry is the one who has been promising to increase active duty troops by 40,000. How does he expect to do that?..." ...It seems like 40,000 just became the magic number for the Democrats. Richard Holbrooke, Clinton's ambassador to the UN, just told O'Reilly that at least 40,000 more troops are needed in Iraq and that "means a call-up." Where are the Democrats getting this number? It's not based on a military analysis or facts on the ground at all. Instead, the campaign chose a number that sounded large enough to demand a draft. Now, it's altogether possible that Holbrooke meant a call up of the reservists or guard, but the implication was a call-up of the draft...
(Keep an eye on who else repeats the "40,000" meme.) This implies the following democrat campaign slant: "If the US remains in Iraq, it will require a military draft that Bush will want, but we don't. However, if we *must* (the people demand it or something) remain in Iraq, then we *must* have a draft, even though Kerry promised that we wouldn't. It would be the 'leadership' thing for him to do." |