Powerhouse Rep. Charles Rangel (D-Harlem) says he wants to bring back the military draft to counter widening threats and keep politicians from starting wars.”I don’t see how anyone can support the war and not support the draft,” he said. “I think to do so is hypocritical.”
Asked on CBS’s “Face the Nation” whether he was serious about his proposal, Rangel replied bluntly, “You bet your life. Underscore ‘serious.’ “
Rangel said if there had been a draft in 2003, the U.S. never would have gone to war because politicians wouldn’t want to put their own sons and daughters in harm’s way.
“There’s no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq . . . if indeed we’d had a draft,” he said.
Yes, this doesn’t stand the chance of the proverbial snowball — for the reasons outlined by Rangel — a Korean War vet, btw. Last check, there were only 2 members of Congress who had kids serving in Iraq.
The streets of America would be filled with protesters if every family had to assume the risk of politicians sending their kids off to war.
The stage is set for the Dems to destroy themselves before 2008. There is nothing that will piss off the 18-25 year olds more than anybody that votes to bring back the draft.
Eideard, why didn’t you spot this as an atempt for Rangel to show we don’t have enough troops in Iraq?
I’m confused as to why this is getting reported as straight news when he’s done this before and admitted what it’s all about.
Ok so now they are saying he only said this to make a point. Which makes sense because, i think the point is that more poor people join the army then rich. So he is trying to make a social injustice point. Ok he should have just said that. Well Pelosi just slapped this down.
Skimming through these comments, it just occurred to me another significant difference between traditional American conservatives and neocons — is that the traditional sort honestly knew something about logic and cared for facts.
Most of the Defenders of the Faith wandering through here, today, accept the slogans and Talking Points of neocon priests and bishops — and know little of how Congress functions, how bills are voted up and down — amended beyond acceptability to anyone of reason — and perhaps even that we have a bicameral federal legislature.
I guess to be a “good” Republikan, one need only to be an “obedient” Republikan. Gates, Baker, et al, could introduce the same bill in January citing patriotism and the War on Terror and this lot would trot right up and shout, “Yes sir, yes sir!”
33: it’s easier to be told what to think than to actually think.
#23
Here is a link from a very anti-Bush website:
http://uggabugga.blogspot.com/2003_01_12_uggabugga_archive.html
Look under Jul ’70
Even the anti-Bush people say he volunteered.
I’ll await your apology, or you can just apologize to President Bush for calling a Yale and Harvard (with a higher GPA then John Kerry) stupid. He outsmarted Al Gore (flunked out of Divinity School and law school) and John Kerry didn’t he?
i would like to live past 19
One aspect of this which no one has touched on is the effect of draftees on the military. I’ve been a USAF officer for 12 years and the thought of commanding draftees makes me queasy. While I definitely understand and agree with the basic principle of spreading the risks and costs of war to the society-at-large, I can’t get over the practical implications. A principal lever I have over airmen who misbehave is to threaten their future prospects in the service. Many want to continue on to full careers, or at a minimum leave with a clean record and an honorable discharge. That just won’t work with draftees. I’m afraid that disciplinary problems will increase alarmingly and I’ll have to resort to much blunter disciplinary measures.
Just my $.02.
Ron- Thats the best you’ve got. After I cleaned up my desk from juice squirting from my nose, I reread it. At what point does it mention he rode the short bus to grade school. This is how you’d like to defend his record!
Oh and the best part:
“”We are not familiar with military procedures or Bush’s record and cannot vouch for the accuracy of this table”
Methinks your research method flawed.
No apolgy for you!
The Apolgy Nazi.
People – it’s not about sending “their kids”… Do you really want a military of conscripts? Don’t you think those that volunteer would do a better or worse job then those that are forced? If I thought a better military would result from a draft, I’d be all for it. But I’d rather the brave and noble few that commit to the job of protecting this country for no more than the pride in know they did so watch our borders…
So, let me see if I have this straight, putting more military resources at the government’s disposal will lessen the odds that our government would use those resources in a war?! Am I the only one who sees a major flaw in that theory? Is that like saying if we give a corrupt politician more money, we’ll lessen the odds they’ll be corrupt?
I can see the logic in instituting a draft to end this Iraq situation and to send a message to Iran that they are next and while I do not believe it is yet necessary it is at least consistent with the notion that we are really at war and we’ll lose more lives by taking longer to finish. However, to institute a draft in order to make politicians think twice about going to war is ludicrous.
39. Let me butt in here. There are few things that bring me more pleasure in life than a squirming liberal. And I’m generally a pretty happy guy.
“Ok, I think you made that up. I want to see you back that one up. If you can, then I will apologize.”
So Ron didn’t make that up. And he did back that one up with something other than his own imagination.
Seems liberal sites sure want to believe that event chronology. Or shall we just forget about any further talk re Bush’s military record?
RBG
RGB- First, I am not a liberal. And believe me, I am not squirming. Secondly did you look at the link? And the disclaimer?
RGB- I cite W’s statement:
“Bush explicitly checked the box marked ‘Do Not Volunteer For Overseas’ on his ‘Application for Extended Duty with the United States Air Force’ (scroll to page 22 of the document). In his not-so-memorable interview on Meet The Press with Tim Russert on February 8, 2004, Russert stated the facts: “. . . you didn’t volunteer or enlist to go [to Vietnam]”, to which Bush replied “No, I didn’t. You’re right.” In fact, The Nation reports that Bush’s primary motivation for entering the Guard was to avoid a trip to Vietnam. “
A lot of talk about the draft but we all know it won’t go anywhere.
But just in case here are some tidbits about today’s draft and selective service.
If you’re a male you have until your 26th birthday to sign up. It doesn’t matter if you do not have a green card or are not a US citizen.
What happens when you don’t sign up by your 26th birthday? You may not receive Social Security benefits if you do not meet one of the exceptions. You also may not receive federal financial aid for college. What’s that? You went to college and didn’t register. Well chances are the financial office of your college enrolled you to make you eligible for financial aid. If you went to one of these colleges then you signed paperwork allowing them to do so.
Your number gets rolled up in a lottery. Congrats you won!
Going to college to skip the draft? That doesn’t work anymore. You get to finish your semester before shipping off. If you’re a senior they will let you finish before shipping. There is one college exception; that is if you’re going to seminary school.
There is still the conscientious objector status but you will still have some form of compulsorily service that will be assigned to you.
So lets go, let the good times roll.
Rangel’s draft proposal not only includes military service, but NATIONAL service which would require most young men and women to serve a couple of years of foreign or domestic service. This idea is similar to Hitler’s national youth programs.
I find it repugnant that people should be forced to serve the State before he or she pursues their OWN goals and interests.
This bill should be rejected!
It surprises me a Dem would come up with this in the first place. Most of the posters here are pretty coinfident that it will be turned down but none the less another step has been taken forward (I.E a senator or congressman actually writing a bill for this which is the first in my lifetime I can remember)
While I agree Bush and the yes men really fucked us over putting us into Iraq when people have been calling for Iran and Syria to be dealt with since the early part of the century (Pre 9-11) And now look who is the threat now.
Its not so much that there is no clear agenda in Iraq nor terms for the supposed “Victory” not only in Iraq but with the war on terror (Which will fail like the war on drugs)
All we’re doing is inflaming an ancient civilzation. They’re not families like we have here, they’re clans. Osama said it himself
“You Americans are cowards who are afraid to lose the lifes of your children in this war. We are proud to lose sons and daughters to you in the war”
That mentality can’t be beaten the way we’re fighting them now. You will have to literally take over their countries and or annilate them. Neither of which we’re willing to do until provoked.
And keep in mind when we do kill say 100 terrorists for every 1 soldier we lose those terrorists had family clans members, friends, and collegues, and if they were on the fence as far as supporting the Jihad, seeing their family and friends killed by us is essentially recruiting them into the war. Many many more.
And it won’t stop until we take out 1/6 the world population cause thats how many they have.
#17, Bush volunteered for Viet Nam knowing full well that he was not qualified and would be turned down. Of course he also checked off that he wasn’t volunteering when he first joined.
Hey, I think I’m going to volunteer for Viet Nam service tomorrow. So what if I’m over 50, at least I can say I volunteered for ‘Nam.
Actually, compulsory military service is mandated by the military structure set forth in the US Constitution. Many of the Founders–especially the Anti-Federalists–were leery of standing armies like the one that exists in modern America. They envisioned a militia of citizen-soldiers trained to arms (part of why the 2nd Amendment was adopted) to handle most emergencies, with “regular troops” raised for major crises or foreign involvements.
A draft into the federal army? No. Obligatory service in the National Guard or one of the State Defense Forces? Perfectly kosher according to the principles of the republic. Part-time military service is theoretically a civic duty for every citizen
44. That George, he’s so modest.
Well, you did squirm out of that one pretty good, I’d have to say. Good rebuttal.
Let me now fall back on an old trick called a technicality, then.
“Ok, I think you made that up. I want to see you back that one up. If you can, then I will apologize.”
He didn’t make that up. You’ll agree with that. And he did back it up with a liberal anti-Bush source… And, I do believe he did “back that one up” on his hard drive…
Except…
I couldn’t help but wonder where that pinko site got the info that Bush “Applied for a voluntary three month Vietnam tour, and was turned down? Why would they, after reaching so far to show everything Bush did in the military in a very bad light, why would they do that?
“Secondly did you look at the link? And the disclaimer?”
Yes, and at the end of the disclaimer they write: “All we did was take the elements in the piece, and organize it so that the time line may be better understood. (A critical review of some elements is available here.)”
The piece referred to and the “here” link is Salon.com. “founded in 1995 by editor-in-chief David Talbot and several other colleagues from the San Francisco Examiner.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salon.com
“I cite W’s statement:”
I’m so very glad you put so much stock in what W. has to say. That will make things much easier when you read this from the Washington Post:
http://tinyurl.com/792u
“”Had my unit been called up, I’d have gone . . . to Vietnam,” Bush said. “I was prepared to go.”
But there was no chance Bush’s unit would be ordered overseas. Bush says that toward the end of his training in 1970, he tried to volunteer for overseas duty, asking a commander to put his name on the list for a “Palace Alert” program, which dispatched qualified F-102 pilots in the Guard to the Europe and the Far East, occasionally to Vietnam, on three- to six-month assignments.
He was turned down on the spot. “I did [ask] – and I was told, ‘You’re not going,’ ” Bush said.
Only pilots with extensive flying time – at the outset, 1,000 hours were required – were sent overseas under the voluntary program. The Air Force, moreover, was retiring the aging F-102s and had ordered all overseas F-102 units closed down as of June 30, 1970.”
But I have an even more impeccable source to indicate that he did volunteer for Vietnam. Post #48 above, Mr. Fusion.
RBG
Oh, and a liberal is anyone I disagree with, btw.
44. And if that isn’t enough…
No joke. I’ll bet you a beer that I can prove to your satisfaction that Bush not only volunteered to go to Vietnam, he actually served in Vietnam.
RBG
I’ve got an idea. Leave the people in Iraq alone! Leave the people in Iran alone! Leave the people in Europe, Africa, Asia, Australia, South America, Canada, Mexico and Antarctica alone!
Then stop telling me what to do and I’ll be happy.
The old “Hear no evil, see no evil,” stratagey, hey The other Tom? Yeah, that worked really really well in the past… Do you wanna give Poland to Germany while your at it?