John McCain Mentions the “Draft” Word

Speaking in Pensacola, John McCain spoke out about the need for ROTC programs on college campuses, the need to expand the military, and the need to have more Americans to enlist in the military. He actually mentioned the “draft” word. Although doing so with a smile, the idea that he would even mention that word is of great concern. There is little doubt that if he were elected the issue of draft would not be far behind. Perhaps the number of individuals enlisting has more to do with their opposition to the occupation of Iraq. Certainly polls show the magnitude of this nation’s poor opinion of the Iraq war.

As mentioned in a previous post, McCain appears overly focused on war and more wars. His aggressive stance toward other nations, not to mention aggression toward citizens meeting with him on domestic issues is of great concern is quite evident. With his admitted ignorance of economics, his awkward incongruent speaking on Martin Luther King Jr. (his apology acknowledged, how could he ever have considered voting against a day honoring King and why does he finally feel the need to apologize during his run for the presidency when he already had many years to do so), what does he promise this nation? It has gotten to the point that viewing McCain is as looking into a future of needless war.

Clearly Bush’s endorsement and McCain pandering to Bush’s base indicates a third term of Bush. This has even driven McCain to flip flop on his opposition to the issue of torture. After years of opposing torture, McCain now votes allow it.

Locally, with Elton Gallegly fully supporting Republican agendas, it appears that with both Gallegly and McCain in office, we can look toward another term of Bush agendas. Clearly Democrats and Independents won’t stand for this and it is hoped that Republicans disgruntled with the Bush administration, of which there are many, will vote their conscience.

McCain should have the intelligence to realize that if this nation is truly attacked on our soil by another, folks would likely turn out in droves to defend it. The draft word would be the last one needed. But the occupation of another nation, without having been attacked by them and purely in the pursuit of oil, does not inspire patriotism or selfless service.

McCain is so out of touch with this nation and the world, he might as well be living on another planet.
Fed up with Republican support for Bush’s war, Republican politicians are leaving the party. Those that remain in the party will face tough campaign races.

7 Responses

  1. So, So, True !!!
    What this protest needs is to go back to the 60’s when EVERYONE had a vested interest in the war.

    “The times, they are a change-ing”
    – Peter, Paul, and Mary

  2. I agree 100%.

    I also wrote about this on posterspost.com. Check it out.

  3. First, when talking of the draft, remember the only ACTION that has been taken associated with that subject recently was taken by DEMOCRATS not Republicans!! House Resolution 393 as a national service bill. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) co-sponsored the bill with fellow veteran Congressman Charles Rangel (D-NY). McDermott said he supports the idea of having a draft because if everybody is affected by the war, everybody will begin to care. Did the draft during the Vietnam war cause everyone to care enough to stop the war? No, it simply made our military softer because of those who were serving, yet justifiably didn’t believe in the war they were involved in.
    I hate war, but I don’t believe a draft that will cause people to fear war because of their possible involvement is going to help the situation.

  4. And as for the us being in Iraq for the oil – YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING!!! After seeing what has happened with oil prices and supply, you really think we are there for oil. Personally, I believe we SHOULD be repaid in oil for the billions we have spent freeing that country from a murderous dictator, but obviously that isn’t happening.
    But to a bigger point, I believe in reducing our dependence on Middle East oil (and Venezuela’s oil too). But Liberals aren’t letting that happen either because they don’t want to disturb the environment by drilling domestically for oil.
    Well, give me some better solutions!

  5. Mike:

    Thanks for stopping by. I appreciate your point of view, however misguided.

    The bill you are referring to is HR 163. As you well remember, perhaps you don’t even know, Bush was dishonest in his “Selling” of the Iraq War. He tried to suggest that Iraq was a threat to us nationally. I’m sure you are aware that that point has long been proven incorrect and that the talking points used to bring us to war were all lies.

    The bill you are referring to was most likely drafted as a patriotic response by overly influenced Congressional folk that wanted to make sure we were protected based on Bush’s dishonesty. McDermott was one of them, you are correct in that matter. He was moving on the misinformation that was provided by the failed Bush administration.

    http://www.house.gov/mcdermott/pr_draft.shtml

    That was written before we began the Iraq war in January of 2003.

    Currently we are finding more ethnic minorities serving in our military. Are you suggesting that adding a draft, meaning demanding all serve, which would include a more representative population of the US, would make the military “softer”. You appear to be using racist remarks.

  6. Hello again Mike:

    I am going to paste your “oil” remark to address it fully:

    “And as for the us being in Iraq for the oil – YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING!!! After seeing what has happened with oil prices and supply, you really think we are there for oil. Personally, I believe we SHOULD be repaid in oil for the billions we have spent freeing that country from a murderous dictator, but obviously that isn’t happening.
    But to a bigger point, I believe in reducing our dependence on Middle East oil (and Venezuela’s oil too). But Liberals aren’t letting that happen either because they don’t want to disturb the environment by drilling domestically for oil.
    Well, give me some better solutions!”

    First, did someone tell you that there was a shortage? There isn’t Mike. There is speculation however. The Saudi’s were in Washington testifying to this point which could be viewed on C-Span (perhaps a better source of news for you than FOX). The Saudi’s have already agreed to pump EXTRA oil, with a stated caveat that it likely help little due to the financial markets in the US and speculation. The bottom line is the big oil companies are again playing games with us as they did in the 70’s. You can easily google the Saudi information so I won’t reference a particular article here as I think it would be good for you to look for information beyond whatever faux news media you must be watching.

    On another note, when watching C-Span cover Congress you can easily see that their are certain members of Congress that always cite off shore drilling as the answer to ALL of our economic woes. They infiltrate every discussion in Congress, no matter the focused topic, with reference to the need for off shore drilling. This is clearly a “talking point” that they have been told to use, as clearly off shore drilling isn’t the answer for every woe in this nation’s economy. We would certainly have to include NAFTA agreements as a large factor in the loss of jobs.

    As far as drilling in ANWR, it would be TEN YEARS before any oil could be produced from that effort and the amount would be of little significance. This information is clearly available on the internet.

    As far as the Iraqis being grateful, another C-Span hearing in Washington including Iraqi Council members would have shown you just how grateful the Iraqis are to have our assistance. They want us out. They report that sure we’ve gotten rid of a tyrant, however we’ve replaced him with hundreds of others. The activities of Black Water are not being scrutinized by US government and they’ve had enough of that. Mercenaries are killing civilian families having nothing to do with “terrorism” (I hate to even use that ridiculous word at this point). They report that the folks we are fighting are actually the folks that we created by being there. To solve the problem, the council members said we have to leave and the militia groups we’ve created will go away.

    As far as being there for oil, have you noticed that part of the Security Agreement that Bush wants the Iraqis to sign indicates that only our oil companies will have the right to oversee the oil production? Hmmmmm. The Iraqis are refusing to sign at this time, despite Bush’s strong tactics. Can you take the cognitive leap why such a measure would be in the agreement?

    I don’t think the Iraqi government wants to pay us anything. I would say from watching hours of C-Span and listening to these folks talk, which appears you haven’t, these folks want us out of there quite badly.

    Finally, the oil nonsense started in the 70’s. We’ve had mostly Republican rule since that time. Isn’t it interesting that with over thirty years we still can’t nationally produce a gas efficient car?

    Here’s a very simplistic example:

    If you had an old fridge that was using way too much in electricity to run, a reason many folks replace them, what would you do? I’m wondering just who was behind the big car companies decision to keep building ineffective gas guzzling cars?

    I hope you are thinking.

  7. For Mike, the oil expert:

    BUSH IRAQ OIL POLICY “CRONY CAPITALISM” AT ITS WORST
    Submitted by davidswanson on Sun, 2008-07-06 00:09.

    * Media

    By Sherwood Ross

    Eight universities were in the running to get the Bush Presidential Library but Hunt Oil Co. head Ray Hunt, of Dallas, an economics major from Southern Methodist University, co-chaired the SMU search effort and came out on top. His long time pals-ship with “The Decider” may have had more than a bit to do with it.

    Hunt has done a lot for Bush and vice-versa. Bush named Hunt in 2001 to his President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, and reappointed him five years later. Hunt also sits on the National Petroleum Council that gives industry advice to Bush’s Energy Secretary.

    (An oilman’s oilman, Hunt is a member of the board of the American Petroleum Institute and has been showered with awards from the petroleum sector, including “All-American Wildcatter.” Success in Oilsville doesn’t get any headier than that.)

    Now it turns out Hunt Oil clinched a separate deal last September with Iraq province Kurdistan he might not have won if he were not Bush’s Good Buddy. Some folks think, according to a front page New York Times report July 3, the deal “runs counter to American policy and undercut Iraq’s central government.” Baghdad reportedly is furious over it.

    Hunt got this free pass to explore Kurdistan’s oil riches last September 8 when he inked an exploration pact, one likely to give him a share of the boodle of any future gushers. “Hunt would be the first U.S. company to sign such a deal,” a State Department official told the Times. And according to reporter Jay Price of McClatchy News Service, the Iraqi oil minister, speaking for Baghdad, “called the Hunt deal illegal.”

    The Hunt deal, though, may resemble the national oil law Bush seeks to push through Parliament. This law, writes Antonia Juhasz, an analyst for watchdog Oil Change International, would “allow much (if not most) of Iraq’s oil revenues to flow out of the country and into the pockets of international companies.”

    In an Op-Ed of March 13 last year in The New York Times, Juhasz wrote if the Bush-backed bill became law the Iraq National Oil Company would have exclusive control of just 17 of Iraq’s 80 known oil fields, “leaving two-thirds of known—and all of its as yet undiscovered-fields open to foreign control.”

    By contrast, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, “maintain nationalized oil systems and have outlawed foreign control over oil development,” Juhasz said.

    Allowing the separate Hunt Oil deal—whose details Hunt and the Kurds will not divulge—will surely benefit the Kurds but fleece most Iraqis, hence the anger in Baghdad. This gives the lie to Bush’s statement of March 16, 2003, that “We will make sure that Iraq’s natural resources are used for the benefit of their owners, the Iraqi people.” If you count hundreds of thousands of labor union members as people, which Bush may not, there is a loud outcry in the streets against Bush’s oil policy.

    Meanwhile, the Times reports, the Administration is defending help the U.S. provided in drawing up no-bid contracts between Iraq’s Oil Ministry and five western oil firms to operate in other Iraqi oil patches. The U.S. said it provided purely technical help writing the contracts and played no role in choosing the winners. Believe that one, if you can. But why no bids again? Whatever happened to free enterprise?

    This is the same crony capitalism that gave Halliburton, formerly headed by Good Buddy Vice President Cheney, a controversial, multi-billion no-bid contract to truck oil into Iraq. Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown & Root(KBR) also got named sole source contractor to douse any oil well fires that might break out in Iraq.

    KBR landed that no-bid plum even though Army Corps of Engineers contract chief Bunnatine Greenhouse found there were other qualified bidders. She was demoted for not signing off on it.

    The Hunt and Halliburton deals offer vivid proof that “crony capitalism,” not the free market brand, is being practiced divvying up Iraq’s oil resources and the other spoils of war. This has long been Bush’s modus vivendi. The Wall Street Journal once noted his Harken Energy Co. acquired exclusive offshore drilling rights from Bahrain in 1990 even though it had never drilled a single well. How did Harken get it? Well, Bush’s father at the time occupied the White House.

    you can read more here: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/34558

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: