The email says the Bush administration "is quietly trying to get these bills passed now, while the public's attention is on the elections."
In fact, the bill in question - HR 163 - was introduced by liberal New York Democrat Rep. Charles Rangel on Jan. 7, 2003 - almost two years ago -- and it does not have administration backing.
The companion Senate bill is S. 89, was introduced by Democrat Ernest Hollings of South Carolina, also on Jan. 7, 2003.
The legislation was introduced by lawmakers who oppose the war in Iraq. The bill, according to Rep. Pete Stark, (D-Calif.), "will ensure all Americans share in the cost and sacrifice of war."
Anti-war Democrats introduced the legislation, knowing it would be unpopular. They wanted to make the point that the burden of fighting the war in Iraq would fall disproportionately to poor and minority populations unless a mandatory draft is imposed.
According to the alarmist, pre-election email now circulating, the mandatory draft bill "eliminates higher education as a shelter and includes women in the draft" It says "crossing into Canada" as a means of avoiding the draft has been "made very difficult."
Readers of the email are urged to send it to "all the parents and teachers you know, and all the aunts and uncles, grandparents, godparents. . . And let your children know -- it's their future, and they can be a powerful voice for change!"
The email urges readers to "write to your representative and ask them why they aren't telling their constituents about these bills, and write to newspapers and other media outlets to ask them why they're not covering this important story."
It also warns readers, "The Pentagon has quietly begun a public campaign to fill all 10,350 draft board positions and 11,070 appeals board slots nationwide. Though this is an unpopular election year topic, military experts and influential members of Congress are suggesting that if Rumsfeld's prediction of a "long, hard slog" in Iraq and Afghanistan (and permanent state of war on terrorism) proves accurate, the US may have no choice but to draft."
It concludes, "We must voice our concerns and create the world we want for our children and grandchildren."
Last week, at a campaign stop in West Palm Beach, Sen. John F. Kerry said in response to a question:"If George Bush were to be re-elected, given the way he has gone about this war and given his avoidance of responsibility in North Korea and Iran and other places, it is possible" that he would support a mandatory draft.
The Bush campaign called Kerry's statement "irresponsible."
According to recent press reports, members of Congress are trying to debunk rumors that the draft will be reinstated.
Even the Selective Service website has posted a statement, saying it is not getting ready to conduct a draft. The Selective Service statement reads as follows:
"Notwithstanding recent stories in the news media and on the Internet, Selective Service is not getting ready to conduct a draft for the U.S. Armed Forces -- either with a special skills or regular draft. Rather, the Agency remains prepared to manage a draft if and when the President and the Congress so direct. This responsibility has been ongoing since 1980 and is nothing new. Further, both the President and the Secretary of Defense have stated on more than one occasion that there is no need for a draft for the War on Terrorism or any likely contingency, such as Iraq. Additionally, the Congress has not acted on any proposed legislation to reinstate a draft. Therefore, Selective Service continues to refine its plans to be prepared as is required by law, and to register young men who are ages 18 through 25."
