This guy just can’t stop sticking his foot in his mouth, can he?:
I want to make it abundantly clear: if there’s anyone who believes that these youngsters want to fight, as the Pentagon and some generals have said, you can just forget about it. No young, bright individual wants to fight just because of a bonus and just because of educational benefits. And most all of them come from communities of very, very high unemployment. If a young fella has an option of having a decent career or joining the army to fight in Iraq, you can bet your life that he would not be in Iraq.
One wonders if Rep. Rangel has seen Heritage’s study on “who bears the burden” in the military? Not only that, but I watched a little bit of Hannity and Colmes not long after Rangel re-introduced the idea of a draft, where Fox News had gone out and interviewed several constituents from Rangel’s own district who were not in favor of the idea and who essentially said that Rangel is not representing them on this bill – yet he still wants to introduce it.
Keep in mind one thing, though: the rationale behind Rangel’s desire to reinstate the draft isn’t just insulting to our men and women currently serving, but it’s also a direct slam from Rangel to the President and VP. Rangel – and other Democrats who won’t openly admit it – believe that “rich” “chickenhawks” like Bush and Cheney don’t have any concept of what war is like because they didn’t stand on the front lines in a war, and their kids haven’t either. Rangel’s statement from earlier this month:
“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.”
Allah’s got an alternative suggestion for Rangel:
If Rangel’s serious about addressing economic inequality in the military, there’s an easy way to do it without imposing a draft. Simply repeal all major economic incentives to enlistment. Per RangelLogic, let the morality of every war be judged by the number of patriots willing to volunteer for it. “Bad” wars will attract few enlistees and end quickly in defeat as we run out of troops; “good” wars, just the opposite. He’d never accept that proposal, of course, because it could conceivably require him to admit that certain wars he opposes are “good” and, worse, that the troops who signed up for them are morally culpable in their execution.
And while we’re on the topic of Rangel, our troops, and the Iraq war, here’s a reminder of what our upcoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee had to say a little over a month before the election on funding for the Iraq war:
“I can’t stop this war” a frustrated Rangel said in a recent interview, reiterating his vow to retire from Congress if Democrats fall short of a majority in the House.
But when pressed on how he could stop the war even if Democrats control the House during the last years of President Bush’s second term, Rangel paused before saying, “You’ve got to be able to pay for the war, don’t you?”
- Pelosi says leadership will not support Rangel’s draft measure
- Rangel again calls for reinstituting the draft
- Rangel said he meant “no offense” by “who the hell wants to live in Mississippi?” remark
- Rangel loses control – again, and calls VP “SOB”
- Rangel condemned Chavez? BFD.
- Charlie Rangel: Moral relativist extraordinaire
- Race-baiting Democrats and the media’s complicity
- State rep gets more coverage than Rangel
- More nonsense from Charlie Rangel
- How to support the troops: by Charlie Rangel