Why no Outrage over the Democrat Plan?

Remember during the 2004 presidential election when every news outlet was had reporters asking if Kerry was right that President Bush had a "secret plan"? Yea, I know that John Kerry intentionally accused President Bush of having secret plans involving everything up to and including milk prices, but I'm talking about a supposed plan to bring back the draft. Remember that? Remember the outrage?

Every media outlet was doing a story, or an opinion poll, or both on whether or not this was believable. There was so much talk about this untrue rumor that it allowed the Democrats to scare a number of college students and their parents (many who remember vividly the draft protest era) into voting for Kerry, Kind, and the rest of the Dem ticket. On June 4, 2004 NSNBC, talking about what Newsweek found out, lead off a story with these words:

"It's one of the Internet's most persistent rumors: The Pentagon and the White House are quietly laying plans to reinstate the military draft—as soon as the 2004 presidential election is over."

- Could the Draft Come Back?

Well, it didn't happen. There was no secret plan. Surprise! We wonder how that rumor got started.

But, where are those same media outlets now that a Democrat, U.S. Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., in the new majority of the US House is serious about bringing back the draft? He has a real plan. Well, it was a one day story and then you don't hear about it again, right? No news story here.

Where are the students who are outraged? In 2004 on the college campuses, including ones I'm familiar with in Western Wisconsin, students were putting up posters and forwarding emails spreading these artfully-placed rumors telling of the evils of Bush's secret. Ask any college student from that time and you will be told that the secret Bush draft plans were widely discussed, believed, and was a big reason for students to vote against the President.

So, what do we hear from students on the Democrat's real plan to reinstate the draft? Nothing. Well, almost nothing. I did read in a Madison student newspaper the following:

"U.S. Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., is not insane. His proposal to reinstate the draft has been met with a virulent response from the left and the right, and the outrage is understandable. However, most bewildered critics and Americans hearing about it on the news don’t have any more than an elementary understanding of Rangel’s proposal. Offering an idea this controversial is meant to trigger a larger debate: How can we sustain our military in a long-term struggle against pseudo-Islamic extremism and the philosophy of terror?"

- Rangel's draft idea spurs vital debate

Unbelievable. So let me get this straight... if someone accuses the President of having a "secret plan" to reinstitute the draft when that is not even true, then it’s a major reason why students should vote against him... but, if someone in the new majority of Congress has an actual plan to reinstitute the draft, then we should applaud his good idea because it "spurs vital debate"? Give me a break! I hope this is not how all students are reacting. But their silence is deafening.

What message is being sent? I believe the message is that it is okay to lie or at least spread unsubstantiated accusations in an attempt to sway crucial numbers of gullible voters in close elections when it serves the politicians or the political party supported by the students and the media. And, of course, when the truth comes out that it was the very politicians they support who actually have these bad, evil ideas, well then I guess that the idea is no longer a bad one. It must be kind of situational thing you see, it's only a bad idea if the person is a member of the party you disagree with. Do I have the rules right? Did you learn this in college?