Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Bush reducing DRAFT activation time from 8 months to 75 days by 03/31/05!!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 11:10 PM
Original message
Bush reducing DRAFT activation time from 8 months to 75 days by 03/31/05!!
Edited on Mon Dec-22-03 11:13 PM by Dems Will Win
http://www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html

<snip>
Strategic Goal 1: Increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the Manpower Delivery Systems (Projected allocation for FY 2004 – $7,942,000)

Strategic Goal 2: Improve overall Registration Compliance and Service to the Public (Projected allocation FY 2004 – $8,769,000)

Strategic Goal 3: Enhance external and internal customer service
(Projected allocation for FY 2004 – $10,624,000)

Strategic Goal 4: Enhance the system which guarantees that each conscientious objector is properly classified, placed, and monitored.(Projected allocation for FY 2004 – $955,000)

Total=$28,290,000



An annual report providing the results of the implementation of these performance
measures will be submitted by March 31, 2005. This report will address attained versus
planned levels of performance, explain unattained target levels, and identify where and
how strategies, performance goals, and performance indicators should be changed to
ensure that the SSS reaches its strategic and annual goals and objectives.

<snip>

tie that paragraph to this one:

<snip>

Strategic Objective 1.2: Ensure a mobilization infrastructure of 56 State Headquarters,
442 Area Offices and 1,980 Local Boards are operational within 75 days of an authorized
return to conscription
.

<snip>

They are reducing draft activation time to 75 days from the current 7-8 months. The first draft lottery according to this official document could be June 15, 2005.

Question: why does a dormant agency need to be ready to answer all correspondence in 10 days?

They said "no plans" yet they are conducting nation-wide exercises far beyond what is needed for a dormant agency. This is really a plan to get the whole system ready for activation within the 75 days proscribed, although Congress must authorize the actual activation. They are trying to stop this discussion by saying "no plans", making everybody think it's off the table. They just mean Bush has "no plans" to ask Congress at this time. Yet on April 1, 2005, according to this he could ask for activation and have it in 75 days.

Also draft boards reported being "unexpectedly" asked during summer training sessions to fill the Board vacancies (salon.com from a Philly draft Board member)

Also Rumsfeld's leaked memo said "long hard slog" and "we have not made any truly bold moves yet"--and that was after Iraq and Afghanistan.

They are even making sure the Alternative Service is all exercised and ready to go within 75 days of March 31, 2005.

This is called Performance improvement but it looks exactly like a readiness action. They are bringing the whole system up to 90% + operational capability after 30 years of dormancy. Obviously, with a war on terror this could be considered prudent (although you don't need a draft to catch Osama Bin Laden and several thousand al-Queadas). Then why did they scrub the Draft Board notice? Why not come say out front we are filling the Draft Boards and gearing up the system in case the President needs it to fight the war on terror?

Congress would of course have to approve, supposedly after a Joint Session by the President where he could easily say "we are not going to cut and run" (same was said in Vietnam). By March 31, 2005, the draft may only be 75 days away.

This change the dynamics of this issue, because people will say OK, Bush is getting the first draft lottery ready by June 15, 2005 if we need it. Now do I trust him or the Democrat more to not reinstate, given Iraq and PNAC?

In addition, Brodsky, the head of SSS, says a priority will be drafting Special Skills Personnel: 20 to 45 year-old computer experts, linguists (especially Islamic languages), and engineers. All 3.4 million doctors and nurses under 45 will have to register in a MEDICAL DRAFT (HCPDS) at their local Post Office in 2005 if the DRAFT is activated. All signs are they will ask for the draft at that earliest possible moment and will probably establish the Special Skills Personnel Delivery System (like the HCPDS) even sooner, as soon as the election is over in November, 2004, although these computer programmers and engineers would not have to register until the draft was activated (like the doctors and nurses). AND NO MEDICAL DEFERMENTS FOR SSPDS OR HCPDS, OTHER THAN TOTAL DISABLILITY!!

YOU'RE IN THE ARMY NOW, BUDDY!

NOTE: This extra paragraph was just added to this page after the Senate voted down the extra $2 million for the APP and means they'll jigger the funds and get the DRAFT ready anyway under the "Performance Plan" Lottery and Medical Exam Exercises.

WHO DO YOU KNOW WHO WOULD BE DRAFTED UNDER THE REGULAR DRAFT (men up to 26, especially those who turn 20 in 2005), THE MEDICAL DRAFT (men and women under age 45 in ANY medical profession) or the SPECIAL SKILLS DRAFT (men and women under age 45 in ANY profession the DoD asks for, starting with LINGUISTS first, then COMPUTER EXPERTS, then ENGINEERS)???

HMMM? KNOW ANYBODY??? HMMM?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
revcarol Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 11:15 PM
Response to Original message
1. A budget for MONITORING conscientious objectors.....
to assure they don't talk to anyone else?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 11:23 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. That's to monitor their attendance on the Alternative Service government
job if they are inducted as a non-military CO, that's all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemBones DemBones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 11:33 PM
Response to Reply #1
7. I think it means making sure they perform

their alternative service properly -- personnel would be needed to go around to worksites where CO's are amployed and check on their attendance, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnorman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 11:47 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Yeah, like they checked up on Dubya,
during HIS "lost months".

pnorman
STAND UP, KEEP FIGHTING http://shows.implex.tv/wellstone/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MattNC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 11:15 PM
Response to Original message
2. my man!
have a great christmas :) (if that's what you celebrate)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 11:22 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Yo, Matt! Merry Christmas!!
We celebrate anything up here. Any excuse will do!

Hey look what went back up on the SSS.gov home page and look at the 2 sentences they added:

http://www.sss.gov/

<snip>

Selective Service continues to invite interested citizens to volunteer for service on its local boards that would decide claims from men if a draft were reestablished. This invitation for board members has been ongoing over the past 23 years, although there has not been a military draft in over 30 years. There is NO connection between this ongoing, routine public outreach to compensate for natural board attrition and current international events. Both the President and the Secretary of Defense have stated on several occasions that a draft is not needed for the war on terrorism, including Iraq. People seeking further information about Selective Service's standby boards or application should consult "Fast Facts" on this site.

<snip>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jonoboy Donating Member (759 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 11:19 PM
Response to Original message
3. how about drafting pro-war activist first..they should be
happy to go if they are true patriots
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gemini Cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 11:52 PM
Response to Reply #3
11. But they are true patriots!
It's just they will have other priorities. Then there are the others who will love to go, even want to go, but with the poor or minorities getting drafted, there will be no room for them.
So you see they really really would love the opportunity to go off and get drafted and fight in bushwanker's wars for oil, but they won't be able to. Those poor poor patriots!


:dem:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blade Donating Member (624 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 11:26 PM
Response to Original message
6. I'll be damned...
Edited on Mon Dec-22-03 11:27 PM by Blade
if me or my family were drafted by this son-of-a-bitch.

And what's the deal with monitoring conscientious objectiors? Do they think we're terrorists or some stupid shit like that?????

Jesus Christ...help us all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemBones DemBones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 11:35 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. See posts above about this. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jokerman93 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-03 11:49 PM
Response to Original message
10. So THIS is the "millions of jobs" Bush was promising
Yep. That'll fix the unemployment problem just fine.

The next boom industry of America is coming folks -- and it is War.

Jobs! Jobs! Jobs!
(as seen flashing oxymoronically across the bottom of the screen recently on Fox News.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PaDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-23-03 12:27 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. Of course..
as he says, leave no child behind...Wonder how fast the candidates are going to start dishing this out on the campaign trail..Wonder why the senators who are running haven't discussed this, is it they haven't the foggiest??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dusty64 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-23-03 08:02 AM
Response to Original message
13. Kick!
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ishoutandscream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-23-03 09:59 AM
Response to Original message
14. Hmm, those 63% who support Bush (according to Gallup)
I wonder if they have any inkling of this. Yeah, right.

I tell my young men friends at work that a vote for Bush in 04 is a vote for the draft (thanks to what I've read here at DU). They simply laugh at me. It won't be so funny when they start getting called up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-23-03 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Kick!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bandit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-23-03 12:22 PM
Response to Original message
16. Would Title 9 play any part here?
Is this a men only draft or does the equal protection act come into play?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-23-03 07:56 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. Men only 20 to 26 for the regular DRAFT but women up to 45 (!) in the
Health Care and Special Skills DRAFT (computer people and linguists and any other job DoD asks for)--men and women.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 05th 2024, 06:54 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC