Talk:Universal National Service Act

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Republican bias in this article

Rangel has said in several interviews that he introduced HR 163 because he believed minorities were being disproportionately affected by the war in Iraq, and that he believed that the current volunteer system encourages a rush to war by people whose loved ones are not put at risk (the "send Barbara and Jenna argument"). In my opinion, this article is rather one-sided, as only referencing the conspiracy theories of Republican columnists. I have made a start on balancing the article, by adding a quote from Rangel. However, I don't have the time at the moment to find all the sources to support this, but I will try to do so (and would appreciate help on the matter). Mateo SA | talk 05:36, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

I removed:

Some commentators opined that the bill figured in a “scare campaign” to convince US voters that Republicans (or specifically the White House) had secret plans to re-institute conscription after the Nov. 2 elections. For example, John Sutherland, a columnist for The Guardian, claimed on May 31, 2004 that the bill is “currently approved and sitting in the Committee for Armed Services”. William Hawkins, a columnist for The Washington Times, denies that the bill was ever approved and claims that when Republicans brought it to the floor on October 5, it was for the express purpose of killing it.

We cannot just say "some commentators opined", specific references are necessary. - SimonP 16:37, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)