BlackRain
09-30-2004, 09:23 AM
DAN DOES IT AGAIN
Dan Rather (and CBS News) got snookered by political malcontents with an ax to grind.
Again.
Consider: Both President Bush and Sen. John Kerry say they adamantly oppose reinstitution of the military draft, which was ended in 1973. The Pentagon also says it is vehemently opposed to giving up the all-volunteer army.
But that didn't stop "The CBS Evening News with Dan Rather" and reporter Richard Schlesinger from airing a story Tuesday about a Pennsylvania woman's fears that her sons will be drafted.
"I think there's a good possibility," said Beverly Cocco, ID'd only as an average voter, and a Bush supporter to boot — yet with only one issue on her mind.
But there was more to her than that.
What Rather & Co. did not tell their viewers is that she is an activist — the head of the Pennsylvania chapter of People Against the Draft, an allegedly bipartisan group that opposes not only the draft but also the war in Iraq, arguing for a "peaceful, rational foreign policy."
CBS also didn't tell us that Cocco's self-styled crusade was prompted, as she has publicly admitted, by a widely discredited e-mail campaign.
Talk about resuming a draft was begun in January, 2003, by Rep. Charles Rangel — in a move disingenuous even by the Harlem Democrat's low rhetorical standards.
He didn't want to help win a war; he wanted to undermine the nation's confidence in the integrity of its armed forces.
Rangel essentially made two claims:
* That members of Congress would not have approved using force against Saddam Hussein if they knew their children would be required to serve.
* That the "children" who do serve are disproportionately black and Hispanic.
In the event, the Rangel draft-reinstatement bill attracted only 14 co-sponsors. And, like its Senate counterpart, it's dead.
More to the point, Rangel's arguments don't hold water. The combat arms are not disproportionately minority. If anything, the opposite is true.
And, in any event, America's high-tech military trains its recruits for many months — sometimes for years — before assigning them to combat units.
There's simply no time to train draftees for the traditional two years of service (assuming that they met minimum intelligence and education standards to begin with).
None of this is a secret — except perhaps to Dan Rather's producers.
So why the hyper-emotional report on Dan Rather's show when the draft is in no danger of returning?
Could it be because charges of a secret plan to reinstate the draft just happen to be a key talking point of the Kerry-Edwards campaign?
Former presidential candidate Howard Dean charged that "George Bush is certainly going to have a draft if he goes into a second term."
And ex-Sen. Max Cleland, who has campaigned by John Kerry's side, also said flatly that "America will reinstate the draft" if President Bush is re-elected.
Meanwhile, Kerry himself suggested it is "possible" that Bush will back a draft.
But, again, there isn't the faintest hint of evidence to support such claims.
So, if there is any legitimate story here, it is that Kerry & Co. are blowing smoke.
Instead, Dan Rather runs with what amounts to an unpaid ad for the Kerry-Edwards ticket.
Is he a moron, incapable of learning anything from the forged-memo fiasco?
Or just a Democratic shill?
On reflection, what difference does it make?
Source: http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/editorial/19816.htm
Dan Rather (and CBS News) got snookered by political malcontents with an ax to grind.
Again.
Consider: Both President Bush and Sen. John Kerry say they adamantly oppose reinstitution of the military draft, which was ended in 1973. The Pentagon also says it is vehemently opposed to giving up the all-volunteer army.
But that didn't stop "The CBS Evening News with Dan Rather" and reporter Richard Schlesinger from airing a story Tuesday about a Pennsylvania woman's fears that her sons will be drafted.
"I think there's a good possibility," said Beverly Cocco, ID'd only as an average voter, and a Bush supporter to boot — yet with only one issue on her mind.
But there was more to her than that.
What Rather & Co. did not tell their viewers is that she is an activist — the head of the Pennsylvania chapter of People Against the Draft, an allegedly bipartisan group that opposes not only the draft but also the war in Iraq, arguing for a "peaceful, rational foreign policy."
CBS also didn't tell us that Cocco's self-styled crusade was prompted, as she has publicly admitted, by a widely discredited e-mail campaign.
Talk about resuming a draft was begun in January, 2003, by Rep. Charles Rangel — in a move disingenuous even by the Harlem Democrat's low rhetorical standards.
He didn't want to help win a war; he wanted to undermine the nation's confidence in the integrity of its armed forces.
Rangel essentially made two claims:
* That members of Congress would not have approved using force against Saddam Hussein if they knew their children would be required to serve.
* That the "children" who do serve are disproportionately black and Hispanic.
In the event, the Rangel draft-reinstatement bill attracted only 14 co-sponsors. And, like its Senate counterpart, it's dead.
More to the point, Rangel's arguments don't hold water. The combat arms are not disproportionately minority. If anything, the opposite is true.
And, in any event, America's high-tech military trains its recruits for many months — sometimes for years — before assigning them to combat units.
There's simply no time to train draftees for the traditional two years of service (assuming that they met minimum intelligence and education standards to begin with).
None of this is a secret — except perhaps to Dan Rather's producers.
So why the hyper-emotional report on Dan Rather's show when the draft is in no danger of returning?
Could it be because charges of a secret plan to reinstate the draft just happen to be a key talking point of the Kerry-Edwards campaign?
Former presidential candidate Howard Dean charged that "George Bush is certainly going to have a draft if he goes into a second term."
And ex-Sen. Max Cleland, who has campaigned by John Kerry's side, also said flatly that "America will reinstate the draft" if President Bush is re-elected.
Meanwhile, Kerry himself suggested it is "possible" that Bush will back a draft.
But, again, there isn't the faintest hint of evidence to support such claims.
So, if there is any legitimate story here, it is that Kerry & Co. are blowing smoke.
Instead, Dan Rather runs with what amounts to an unpaid ad for the Kerry-Edwards ticket.
Is he a moron, incapable of learning anything from the forged-memo fiasco?
Or just a Democratic shill?
On reflection, what difference does it make?
Source: http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/editorial/19816.htm