November 20, 2006
Charlie Rangel's Botched Joke
The furor and continued non-apology over John Kerry's "stuck in Iraq" comment have just subsided, and now New York Democrat Charles Rangel attempts to leverage an equally insulting draft recommendation in an attempt to raise an anti-war cry, using a call for compulsory service in the U.S. military as a wedge issue:
Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) has long advocated returning to the draft, but his efforts drew little attention during the 12 years that House Democrats were in the minority. Starting in January, however, he will chair the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee. Yesterday he said "you bet your life" he will renew his drive for a draft."I will be introducing that bill as soon as we start the new session," Rangel said on CBS's "Face the Nation." He portrayed the draft, suspended since 1973, as a means of spreading military obligations more equitably and prompting political leaders to think twice before starting wars.
"There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way," said Rangel, a Korean War veteran. "If we're going to challenge Iran and challenge North Korea and then, as some people have asked, to send more troops to Iraq, we can't do that without a draft."
Lets be very, very clear: Charles Rangel doesn't give a damn about the "equitably" of service in our nation's military, which to date, is over-represented by soldiers who are more rural, wealthy, and better educated than their peers. He instead clings to often disproven lies that the military is disproportionately made up of minorities and the poor.
Rangel willingly lies, but lies with a purpose.
What doubtlessly disappoints Mr. Rangel is that though Americans do not support the direction of the War in Iraq (as was evidenced in the recent election), they have refused to engage in the massive protests and demonstrations that were key to the anti-war campaign during the Vietnam era. Rangel's primary goal in his call to reinstate the draft is to gin up protests like those of 30 years ago.
Rangel's tactics are particularly loathsome in that he seeks to use our all-volunteer military as the whipping boy for his anti-war politics. He would attempt to pit draft-age Americans and their family members against those who honorably joined the military of their own volition.
I have nothing but contempt for Rangel's transparent demagoguery. He does not wish to strengthen America's proud all-volunteer military, but instead seeks to lessen its will, against its wishes, and against its needs.
Rangel's call to reinstate the draft is cynical, unwanted, and like Kerry's comments before, a back-handed slap at those who serve our nation of their own free will.
Don't question the ability of conscripted soldiers to serve their country in front of Charlie. He was drafted to fight in Korea and, therefore, has ABSOLUTE MORAL AUTHORITY. It scares me to no end that this man will soon hold the purse strings to operational funding for our troops in Iraq and Afganistan. Would someone this cynical and self-serving cut off funding to our troops in battle, just to forward his political agenda? You bet he would.
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at November 20, 2006 01:03 PMBend over here it comes again? You mean the mischaracterizations?
Posted by: Fred at November 20, 2006 02:06 PMIt's a characteristic of the left everywhere to bend everything to their use and abandon these things when they are of no use to anyone.
This is an attempt to bend the military to their political goals no matter what the damage to the military.
I was in the Army in the mid seventies when the transition was being made to an all volunteer force. This was a Good Thing. We have a much better Army today.
Posted by: Lee at November 20, 2006 03:02 PMFred, we can hope for the best out of Congress for the next two years, but its the troops on the ground who are really going to get it in the end. (pun intended)
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at November 20, 2006 03:25 PM"This is an attempt to bend the military to their political goals no matter what the damage to the military."
Funny I thought you were talking about St. McCain there...where are those 20,000 troops going to come from again?
Posted by: Fred at November 20, 2006 04:28 PMIs there an MRI on file somewhere that proves Charlie Rangel has a brain?
There is no doubt in anyone's mind who has served in the Army that included conscripts and the Army of volunteers that the all volunteer force is head and shoulders above in professionalism and lethality. That is not to say that many conscripts were great soldiers, but far too many were not. Let the days of the conscripted Army remain in the past so long as volunteers continue to step forward.
Rangel says he doubts there would be war if "members of Congress and the administration thought their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way." Did that stop Truman from sending Charlie? Don't the representatives and senators represent the kids from their districts/states whether or not they are kin?
Give me a break, Charlie... I was born at night, but not last night!
Posted by: Old Soldier at November 20, 2006 05:34 PMOk the Democrats are fast on there way to defining Moonbat to everyone in the country.
Last time Rangel tried this he got 2 votes but this time
he'll get 4. And in doing so further fragment the Democratic party.
Ok Dems you won now lets see your hand.
Wake up 'Fred', the military has more than the 150,000 troops in Iraq. If they don't then you had better bend over for real. Some banana republic will attack and take over the United States.
The Militay is streatched too thin was only a campaign rant by the Anti-American left (aka Democrats), and no where close to the truth. Haven't you figured out yet that you were lied to by the dim's?
Anyone with half a brain (which is more than Rangel) has figured this out in two weeks of watching the 'winners' that someone screwed up big time by electing the unqualified to lead. So far it's been real good for the comedian's, but bad for everyone else.
It's been more than a laugh a day and i'm looking forward to two years of comedy. It does make a person feel good to laugh at the stupidity displayed so far by the dim's.
Posted by: Scrapiron at November 20, 2006 06:25 PM"The Militay[sic] is streatched [sic] too thin was only a campaign rant by the Anti-American left (aka Democrats)"
Posted by: Fred at November 20, 2006 08:00 PMThen explain McCain's Statement.
From where I sit I know the component of the military I serve in is stretched thinner than ever. Me, I'm with Rangle; maybe or maybe not for the same reasons. I just think it's ever able body persons obligation to serve, especially if they want to claim Government benefits like Pell Grants and the like.
If you think this last two weeks has been a disaster for the Democratic Party, you need to go back and examine what happened when the Republicans took over in the mid-90's. They too had a leadership battle in which Newt Gingrich, as Speaker of the House, backed a losing candidate for Majority Leader. As for Rangle bringing up a Bill he knows has no chance of passing, see Republican Flag Burning and Gay Marriage Amendments.
P.S. Commenting has been hell today, CY.
Posted by: Fred at November 20, 2006 08:22 PMGood Job CY. Needed to be said.
Posted by: brando at November 20, 2006 10:21 PMThe pinko hate-America-first cabal has penetrated the upper echelons of the military:
Retired General Barry McCaffrey:
“The country is not at war. The United States armed forces and the CIA are at war. So we are asking our military to sustain a level of effort that we have not resourced,” he told Army Times.
“That’s how to break the Army is to keep it deployed above the rate at which it can be sustained,” he said. “There’s no free lunch here. The Army and the Marine Corps and Special Operations Command are too small and badly resourced to carry out this national security strategy.”
Retired General William Odom:
"Our leaders do not act because their reputations are at stake. The public does not force them to act because it is blinded by the president's conjured set of illusions: that we are reducing terrorism by fighting in Iraq, creating democracy there, preventing the spread of nuclear weapons, making Israel more secure, not allowing our fallen soldiers to have died in vain, and others.
"But reality no longer can be avoided. It is beyond U.S. power to prevent sectarian violence in Iraq, the growing influence of Iran throughout the region, the probable spread of Sunni-Shiite strife to neighboring Arab states, the eventual rise to power of the anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr or some other anti-American leader in Baghdad, and the spread of instability beyond Iraq.
"These realities get worse every day that our forces remain in Iraq. They can't be wished away by clever diplomacy or by leaving our forces in Iraq for several more years.
=========================
I for one will shake your hand sincerely when you leave Clown World. It's not so hard as you think.
Posted by: Earl at November 21, 2006 12:43 AMBrando! We meet again. I have a sort of riddle for you:
If you volunteer to ride in a PT boat while Viet Cong are firing at you, and come home decorated and lauded, you have not acted dishonorably.
If you come to believe that a war is unjust, you owe it to your country to speak out. Further points if history exonerates your belief, eg Viet Nam is a vibrant capitalist state and never imposed a communist threat to anyone, thereby demonstrating that our soldiers did in fact die in vain.
If someone then accuses you of "hating our troops" -- well, what would you call such a person?
Don't give me any "oh he didn't actually go to Cambodia" crap, whatever the minutia, this story is true. Honestly I don't much want Kerry as my president. Nevertheless it is treacherous and supremely unpatriotic to smear his name in this way.
I just think it's ever able body persons obligation to serve, especially if they want to claim Government benefits like Pell Grants and the like.
Or voice an opinion that has "moral authority"?
Two years swabbing latrines will certainly make most potheads military experts ;->
Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 21, 2006 02:42 AMPosted by Earl at November 21, 2006 12:56 AM
Hmm, riddle huh?
If you come home and call all your compatriots 'Baby Killers' and 'Murderers' saying they were incompetent (not the leaders, the men on the ground).
If years later you say almost the same thing and then say the men and women who fail to get educated go to iraq,
THEN you have acted dishonorably.
His service did not disqualify him, his actions after did.
Posted by: Retired Navy at November 21, 2006 06:13 AMI just think it's ever able body persons obligation to serve, especially if they want to claim Government benefits like Pell Grants and the like
Posted by Fred at November 20, 2006 08:22 PM
At what cost Fred? Lets be generous and say 10% of the people graduating every year join the military. What is the budget for the payroll alone?
Now multiply that by a factor of 10. Throw in the cost of buildings and housing, medical, dental, transportation, increased heating, electric, gas, supplies, etc...
Then take a look at how many loosers will be coming in, what it will take to discharge them, bogging down the system and giving a whole lot of people that just weren't cut out for military life a black mark by giving them the 'Big Chicken Dinner' (bad conduct discharge) they would not have otherwise have gotten.
It didn't work then and it won't work now.
Posted by: Retired Navy at November 21, 2006 06:18 AMRetired Navy,
I can see your points, and I respect your opinion. It's kinda funny we're arguing over a bill that's never going to be passed anyways. It be nice if there was some way we could get more young people to serve. Maybe a saner foreign policy would be a start.
Purple Avenger,
Two years swabbing latrines will certainly make most potheads military experts ;->
Actually I'm half way to retirement and the task force I serve on in the Guard deals more with the War on Terrorism in real life than any of the chatterers 'round here. Nice "pothead" zing, be sure to rotate in there pinko/commie/fag/hippie, let us all know how series a thinker you are.
Retired Navy:
Can you cite me where he said "baby killers"? Don't give me the 'well known' answer, it's well known only in your echo chamber.
Anyway, be that as it may, actions speak louder than words, and thus his actions were honorable.
It's just ridiculous that you would think Kerry dislikes the troops, and made a joke at their expense recently. You know perfectly well he meant Bush is bogged down in Iraq.
You're delousional.
Posted by: Earl at November 21, 2006 11:37 AMIt's just ridiculous that you would think Kerry dislikes the troops, and made a joke at their expense recently. You know perfectly well he meant Bush is bogged down in Iraq.
Really? Is that why Kerry said in 1972:
They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.
He directly accused U.S. soldiers of being rapists, mutilators, torturers, sadists and murderers (did I miss anything?) based upon the false testimony of men who, in some cases, were never in the military.
More recently, he issues a "I'm sorry you are too stupid to understand what I meant" non-apology, and to add insult to injury, had the unmitigated gall to run on his web site an editorial about the comment that said "Kerry's Remark: Right either way."
Right either way. Yeah. He's real sorry.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at November 21, 2006 12:02 PMdeals more with the War on Terrorism in real life than any of the chatterers 'round here.
Sorry I was mundane 70's Carter era Cold War RA Fred. I wasn't aware cold war "doesn't count" anymore in the eyes of the left.
Thanks for the crypto-PC update on our status.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 21, 2006 12:22 PMYou're delousional.
Posted by Earl at November 21, 2006 11:37 AM
Ok, I'll agree he didn't say "Baby Killers".
But look at CY's post above.
You are the one who is delusional. He has hated the military since he was in it.
Posted by: Retired Navy at November 21, 2006 01:12 PMCY: those are atrocious acts, and he would be immoral not to cover them up. "Supporting the troops" does not equal allowing crime. I guess you saw different when you were there? Oh sorry, you have soccer injuries and you can't serve.
Oh look at this:
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/275.php?nid=&id=&pnt=275&lb=hmpg1
74% of Shiites and 91% of Sunnis want us to leave Iraq within a year. All we need to do is stay the course and everything will come out right. Right?
How's the weather there in Clown World?
The jig's up CY. You're either going to suck it up and leave Clown World or spend the rest of your life lying to yourself pretending like the pinko Democrats spoiled your perfect war, just like 'Nam.
Say, what was the point of Nam by the way? To prevent communism from spreading like wildfire, was it not?
Posted by: Earl at November 21, 2006 05:07 PMBah. I meant immoral TO cover them up.
Posted by: Earl at November 21, 2006 05:08 PMSay, what was the point of Nam by the way?
At the end it was to prevent the impending slaughter of millions. Alas, the democrats sealed their fate and ~3 million died as a result.
Makes you proud doesn't it Earl. I imagine that 3M figure could easily be topped in Iraq.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 22, 2006 12:34 AMNo, the point of VietNam was to prevent the spread of communism throughout Asia. Perhaps you should read Wikipedia or some place about the Gulf on Tonkin. The perpetrators instigated a war they couldn't finish on a bogus pretext. Hey, that sounds familiar doesn't it? But of course, your view is that we just didn't stay in VietNam long enough, the same way you'll feel when we leave Iraq humiliated. In Clown World, everything bad is Carter or Clinton or Kerry or the Democrat's fault, whereas all things good emanate from the GOP. It must be nice to give that brain a nice long vacation...
Posted by: Earl at November 22, 2006 01:55 AM3,000,000 dead Earl. Their blood is all over democrat hands.
Spin all you want, but the body count was real and directly attributable to a feckless democrat congress in 1975.
Even Carter had to recognize the gruesome result and start admitting the boat people.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 22, 2006 02:16 AMAnd Earl is proven wrong once again. Take Monty Python's advice from the Holy Grail Earl - Run away! Run Away!
Oh - of course you are speaking of the Domino Theory? Or maybe it was the theory that Viet Nam was a testing ground for both Soviet and American military tactics. Or maybe we were there because the French (who RAN AWAY) asked us for help. Don't rely too much on Wiki Earl - lots of bad stuff there - make sure you corroborate Crusty-the-Earl.
BTW Earl - be sure to go back to the other thread - I tore you a new one again.
Posted by: Specter at November 22, 2006 05:51 PMAnd Earl - the reason we didn't win in Viet Nam - Could it have anything to do with the fact that MacNamara tied the hands of the troops - would not let them do anything without DC's permission? Got another Crusty-the-Earl theory on that? This is such good entertainment....
Posted by: Specter at November 22, 2006 05:53 PMYou boneheads. Both cases: war foisted on false premises, then spins out of control, the leaders propose plan after plan which fall flat, yet until the end you are waving your pompoms and talking about how even though the war is not at all what it was started for, we have to win. Another poll showed that Shia and Sunni alike want us out, and by great margins.
Then because almost everybody believes Nam and Iraq to be disasters, you retreat into your yurts of delusion where the the media et al is feeding disinformation. Nobody believes anymore that we should have stayed in Nam except you fringe elements in Clown World who don't matter much anymore anyway. Similarly, even the architects of Iraq like Perle and Adelman are in CYA mode, and yet you think "oh if only we'd support the troops and make one more bombing sortie we will emerge victorious and the sunni and shias will kiss and form a vibrant democracy".
Really, try stepping out of Clown World. It's not too bad.
What Earl, no facts again? just empty rhetoric based on your POV. Good....Where's the Dems plan man? LOL. You voted 'em in. Good luck with that. They are just like you - lots of talk and no action. Lots of talk and no balls - just like your Crusty-the-Earl. You get shot down every time you post and you keep coming back for more. You sure fit the definition of troll though. LOL.
Posted by: Specter at November 23, 2006 04:49 PMwar foisted on false premises
Are you on drugs?
Vietnam went down, Cambodia followed (3M dead total), the Soviet saw its opportunity and moved on Afghanistan, then we went on to have a decade of problems in central America because the Soviet knew it was OK to push harder now and the Americans wouldn't resist too hard.
The domino theory was real. If their economic basis wasn't so screwed propelling the collapse we'd really be in deep do-do right now. We got lucky.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 24, 2006 01:16 AM
