Charlie Rangel's political cojones
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."
What do I think about Rangel's move? It takes balls.
Big.
HUGE.
GINORMOUS
COJONES,
to try to push this on Congress, needless to say, the American public.
My first reaction is, "Yes!" I absolutely think this makes sense. Then --and this is why I am not a quick to bash all men kind of feminist-- I think about my two boys. There is no way in fucking hell I will allow my kids to join the US Army.
So now, I have to not just think about retirement but about moving to a whole different country before they turn 18.
Lovely.
Which, by the way, takes me to this : The proposal better include both men and women.
Can you imagine the shitstorm?
Because, you know what? He wants to extend the draft to the age of 42. That's insane!
And yet.
And yet.
BRILLIANT!
Bookmark/Search this post with:
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Class Privilege | Draft | Entitlement | Ethnicity | Military | Poverty | Race | War | Charles Rangel | US Congress | Ways and Means Committee
Funny how...
Submitted by Soylent Puce (not verified) on 20 November 2006 - 5:36pm.
...the left and right have switched positions on this since the 1960s.
Rock The Vote warned kids all through 2004 that Republicans would bring back the draft, all the while Rangel was the only elected official talking up the idea.
So you support the draft, but would leave the U.S. because of it? Isn't that just a bit hypocritical? Or at least confused?
Why would it be hypocritical if I am against the war
Submitted by liza on 20 November 2006 - 6:05pm.
Any wars, btw.
I think that if most Republicans are happy about the US Army killing innocent people in Iraq yet expect "other people" to figh their wars, then you know, make it mandatory for ALL AMERICANS to serve in the military.
Would I be happy about having to serve in the military? Of course not. I wouldn't my children either. But I am not a hypocrite ---I am the last person to call myself a US Patriot.
People like Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter? If not Rush Limbaugh, then send his kids. Hannity is still of age, he can go. Have them serve. Have them fight. If they want war, then they should get it. In uniform. In Iraq
Too subtle for you?
Submitted by mole333 on 20 November 2006 - 7:20pm.
Ummm...I guess the point Rangel is making is too subtle for you. Or at least you are confused. His point is this: if America is going to insist on war, let's make everyone's life be on the line. If we aren't willing to do that, then let's not be in this war. Why should we let chickenhawks like Bush and Cheney decide to be at war while their staunchest supporters largely keep their little boys out of the line of fire.
Rangel is basically saying, put up or shut up. The rightwing chickenhawks seem awfully willing to sacrifice poor minorities, but how willing are they to sacrifice all Americans across the board?
All right, fine. Not
Submitted by Soylent Puce (not verified) on 20 November 2006 - 7:50pm.
All right, fine. Not hypocritical. Still confused. "Any wars"? Does this apply to Afghanistan? Would it include WWII as well?
Also, I question this assumption:
"Republicans are happy about the US Army killing innocent people in Iraq."
If characterizing all Republicans as being "happy" about war wasn't enough, it's also phrased as if the purpose of the war was to kill innocent people. You know who's killing most of the innocent people in Iraq? Iraqis and foreign terrorists. I have no problem with your opposition to the war, especially at this point. But you don't sound like a "support the troops" type.
Also, 1995 called -- it wants its flashing text back.
Oh course I get that, Mole.
Submitted by Soylent Puce (not verified) on 20 November 2006 - 7:55pm.
Oh course I get that, Mole. But isn't it at least ironic that in order to make this point, Rangel would be asking the state to essentially enslave people (as Milton Friedman described it)?
Not to mention, conveniently forgotten the compelling arguments against the draft made by the left during the last unpopular war? If there's a principled reason for rejecting them now, I haven't heard it.
Obviously I think reviving the draft would be a bad idea. But you don't have to take my word for it -- ask Bush critic and war opponent Fred Kaplan.
I think you are playing dumb
Submitted by mole333 on 21 November 2006 - 11:38am.
Well, let's discuss a draft. My gut reaction is to oppose it, whoever recommends it. But that is a gut reaction. Was a draft reasonable during WW II? My gut reaction is to say "of course it was!" Why? Because of the direct attack on the US and the stakes of the war against fascism.
So that is one case where I would indeed support a draft.
I would not support a draft in the case of a war, like in Iraq, that was based on lies and addresses no real threat to the US. But, I also have to admit that Rangel has a very valid point which I cannot contradict: if America is engaged in a war of any sort for any length of time, we are in essence sending primarily poor minorities to die for the self interest of rich whites. That is, in essence, what the war in Iraq is all about: poor minorities dying for Halliburton profits and Republican victories (oops! that isn't working anymore!). It is a valid point Rangel is making even if I am uncomfortable with it.
Now...what about the REAL war, the one against those who attacked us. The war against al-Qaeda as opposed to the war of lies in Iraq. We were directly attacked by al-Qaeda. Does that justify a draft? Again, my gut reaction is that it does not...but I would be far more accepting of it if that was the war the US was focused on. Bush has distracted the world from the real war and focused it on his pet war for Halliburton and Exxon's profits.
I guess my point is that there are two arguements for the draft and they do not necessarily agree on when a draft is appropriate. One is based on the need of the nation to mobilize against a direct and major threat to the United States itself. That was the reasoning behind the draft in WW II. The other is Rangel's arguement that if the US is willing to go to war for a protracted period, the responsibility should be shouldered by the entire population, not just poor minorities.
If you understand that, address those two reasons, don't pretend that somehow the Democrats are in some unified way contradicting themselves, which is how I interpreted your remarks. Rangel, largely on his own, is addressing a very real issue and it does deserve to be discussed.
42 years old?
Submitted by Nance Confer (not verified) on 21 November 2006 - 12:10pm.
Why 42??
Nance
Dem Draft
The democarctic party has stopped the House Weighs and Means Democrat from starting a draft that no dem would start.