I dont think I am suppossed to reprint this in its entirety, but since Laura digs me it should be ok.
Laura's E-Blast
http://www.LauraIngraham.com
November 21, 2006
IT'S GETTING DRAFTY IN HERE!
Less than two weeks after the Democrats won both houses of Congress,Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) went on a Sunday talk show to push for a military draft. What's going on here? One of two things-- First, he knows that a draft--even as just one option in compulsory national service--would never be approved. So this move is not a serious effort to strengthen the U.S. military but merely another attack on Bush--a cynical ploy to frighten Americans and erode support for the war. The commanders I have interviewed bristle at the idea of messing with the all-volunteer force. Leading reluctant soldiers into battle is the last thing they need.
And let's not forget, Rangel is using the tired old left-wing tactic of class warfare, based on the faulty premise that the military is only comprised of poor people who have no other options. But this is nonsense. As we saw with the blowback from Sen. Kerry's "botchedjoke"--our military is diverse, professional, and better educated than the civilian population!
But there is always the possibility that Rangel could be totally serious. And heck, in theory, the idea of national service seems attractive--a great way to encourage patriotism, sacrifice and an appreciation of our military. But in practice, any compulsory service program would become one more bloated, unrestrained government bureaucracy.
Rangel's plan would require you either to join the military or go to work for some "government-approved" organization. Oh, like what? The separation-of-church-and-state-mafia would never stand for church work as "national service." The PC police would wail if anyone suggested that the Boy Scouts get government service approval. However, I am guessing that in Rangel's perfect world, joining an anti-global warming coalition, Planned Parenthood, or moveon.org would be ideal ways to fulfill a "national service" requirement. Plus, let's not forget that our most recent experience with a draft (which ended in 1973) failed to foster a greater affection and respect for our armed forces among members of the '60s generation.
This draft or national service talk is probably a lot of hot air, andeven the Democratic leadership is shooting down the Rangel proposal.They know that pushing this would create a huge backlash from moderates,libertarians, and many conservatives who want less government intrusioninto their lives, not more. And it probably wouldn't be too popular withmost Democratic voters either.
Let's remember--we don't serve the government. The government is supposed to serve us.
I love this woman. Smart broad.
37 comments:
I dont think Im legally allowed to reprint this in its entirety, but since Lawrence O'Donnell digs me it should be ok.
Lawrence O'Donnell
in Huffington Post
------------------------
Charlie Rangel is angry about the Iraq war, the one that Henry Kissinger has told us we can't win. Thanks, Henry, but most Americans figured that out before you did. Rangel saw combat in Korea. Kissinger has only seen combat on TV. That might have something to do with why Kissinger thinks our troops should stay in Iraq even though we can't win.
Kissinger says that if we leave now, all hell will break loose and Iraq will never achieve stability. Never mind that all hell has already broken loose. Never mind that Kissinger said the same thing would happen if we left Vietnam--all hell would break loose and Vietnam would never achieve stability. Vietnam has become so stable that Presidents Clinton and Bush, both combat cowards during the Vietnam war, have made well publicized, utterly safe visits to the country Kissinger used to think didn't have a chance without us.
In my one conversation with Kissinger, which occurred on TV, I asked him if he knew anyone who got killed in Vietnam. He was completely thrown. He doesn't go on TV to be asked such small-minded questions, he goes on TV to pontificate and TV interviewers are happy to let him do it. Kissinger sputtered and ran away from the question, leaving the distinct impression that he did not know anyone who was killed in the war he managed. His memoir of the period does not mention a single casualty. If you have ever stood at the Vietnam Memorial and run your hand over the name of a relative on the wall, as my mother and I did last month, you can get as angry as Charlie Rangel does about people like Kissinger deciding how long our soldiers should be exposed to enemy fire in a war we know we can't win.
Rangel announced on Sunday that he wants to reinstate the draft. He said the same thing a few years ago but quickly let on that he wasn't serious. He's playing it straight this time and has already introduced a bill. Local New York TV news has given Rangel saturation coverage. You can see his anger and frustration building each time he answers another reporter's question about the draft. The point he keeps repeating is: "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."
Rangel could never get such attention to that message without introducing his bill. Nancy Pelosi should let it come to a vote. She should let the House debate the draft. Let the Republicans give speeches listing all the good reasons why we should have a volunteer Army. But let's hear Rangel's speech about how the burden of war is not fairly shared in this country. Let's get America thinking about exactly who is being left in the line of fire in the war Americans have turned against and know we can't win. Let's get America thinking about John Kerry's line about Vietnam--who is going to be the last soldier to die for a mistake? A real debate on the draft will do that. Don't worry, the bill has no chance of passing.
Well over 95% of Americans, including Congress and White House staff, have no personal connection to this war--no relative or friend serving in Iraq. Over 99% of us have made no sacrifice for this war--we have not paid one more penny of taxes nor shed a drop of family blood. One of my military relatives thinks of it this way: "The American military is at war, but America is not at war."
Advocating war is easier when you and your family are not endangered by it. I've reached a Rangel-like breaking point with my TV pundit colleagues who championed the Iraq war and now say we can't leave even if we went there for the wrong reasons. For every one of them, I have a simple question: Why aren't you in Iraq? Or why did you avoid combat in your generation's war? The one unifying characteristic that all of us men in make-up on political chat shows share is fear of combat. Every one of us has done everything we can to avoid combat or even being fitted for a military uniform. Just like George Bush, Bill Clinton, and Dick Cheney, we are all combat cowards. It takes a very special kind of combat coward to advocate combat for others. It's the kind of thing that can get you as angry as Charlie Rangel.
Lawrence O'Donnell and Rangel are both idiots.
I didn't read the whole comment because it starts with the newfound respect that the libs have for military service which is bullshit at best.
what's the difference between rangel and al sharpton????
Yeah i don't know either.
you don't read anything through that may upset your equilibrium, do you rhino? this is the second (or maybe third) time i've posted something and you've said, 'it's too long' ...
sad, that.
and your insinuation that liberals do not respect military service is just ridiculous.
you and the donkey seem to be becoming awfully self-righteous these days.
Liberals HATE the military. That's not ridiculous, that's fact. I'm not saying ALL liberals, like for example Joe Lieberman doesn't hate them, but then again he couldn't win his party's nomination because the liberals didn't want him. I'm not saying Jane Harmon hates them, but then again her party leader would rather have a disgraced former federal judge who she once voted to impeach instead of Harmon who supports the military.
I'm not saying Bill Clinton hates them, but....... HE DID
sad that?
Is that the cool way to write "that's sad"?
Anyway, the reason i don't finish reading is because i can't learn anything from that guy. I'm smarter than he is.
Lifes too short to dance with ugly women!
it's sad that you actually take people like laura ingraham seriously.
becoming self-righteous?
No reason to take her seriously, except that she graduated from dartmouth, then got her law degree from virginia.
Clerked for supreme court justices and became a criminal defense attorney at one of the most prestigious law firms in the country.
AND she was a speech writer for the great Ronald Reagan.
woo hoo ... who is the elitist now?
Newfound respect? The article starts by noting Rangel's military service. I am getting really tired of Rhino's "liberals hate the military crap." Which is all it is--stupid, ignorant crap.
Ok you win Gary. Rangel was in the military so I will concede the moral high ground to you. He loves the military and that is why he is using them to make a political point.
Did I ever mention that Im a former Teamster? Yeah well if I didnt, I was...I also despise unions. Despise. If I had my way Id bust every god damn last one of them. But using your logic as a former union member I must loooovoe the unions.;
Wrong jackass!
Now lets put emotions aside for a moment. Look at two hard facts.
1) Dems cut military spending every chance they get
2) There is currently a liberal movement to keep army recruiters off college campuses because the military are big meanies.
Fuckin pussies!
1)The post-Cold War military cuts were bipartisan and began during Reagan's second term and the first Bush administration, and into the Clinton administration, during which the Republicans controlled Congress most of the time.
2) Anyone who wants to join the military can find a recruiting office. The recruiters pattern of lying to potential recruits, even to the point of telling them the war is over, is well documented. I support efforts aimed at keeping recruiters off high-school and college campuses as part of the movement against the illegal and immoral war in Iraq.
1) I dont recall saying that Republicans never cut military spending, my point is that the Democrats always do.
2) Of course you do, because you hate the military.
Thank you donkey. Also in the most liberal city (san francisco) they just shut down the ROTC Program in one (or maybe all) highschools.
Thank you for making my point for me gary. You are a liberal, and you hate the military.
BTW, lets not forget the liberal standard bearer john kerry.
He has been making "botched jokes" about the military for decades already.
Of course he can't explain the book he wrote, but then he doesn't have to because the liberal media won't ask him about it.
1) But that's not true.
2) No, I don't. I hate stupid and ill-conceived policies that are detrimental to the interests of America.
A young man of my acquaintance was considering joining the military a while back. Not so much out of patriotism; just not sure what he wants to do with his life. I advised against it, basically on the grounds that he might die in a pointless and stupid war and that would be a tragedy. Were he to join anyway I would support him in any way possible, and honor his service to this country,even as I do what I can to hasten the end of this insane war.
Saying that liberals hate the military is just part of the rightwing liberal=treason theme, promulgated by Michael Savage ("The Enemy Within" and David Horowitz ("Deadly Alliance") and Ann Coulter ("Treason"). These people are not principled conservatives. Proto-fascist might be a better term. Al Qaeda might be a threat to my life but these people are a threat to my liberty.
Gary, you should take a look at my comments. I didn't say ALL liberals hate the military, i said in general they hate the military.
You don't agree with the war in Iraq, that's fine but you expose you're own bias by claiming the military recruiters are lying to ADULT COLLEGE AGE young Americans who can READ A NEWSPAPER OR WATCH THE NEWS, OR HEAR FROM THEIR FRIENDS, OR LISTEN TO THE RADIO AND KNOW THE WAR IS NOT OVER.
How can you think the recruiters would show up with all this evidence in PLAIN SIGHT and flat out lie to these people? Get a grip.
1) what's not true?
Rhino, as to the recruiters lying to potential recruits, even to the point of telling them the war is basically over and they probably won't be sent to Iraq, I guess you missed that story.
What's not true is the statement that:
"Republicans never cut military spending, my point is that the Democrats always do."
I also don't agree that liberals hate the military "in general."
1.He didn't say "republicans never cut military spending"
Read it again.
2. agree or not the facts are on my side.
1. You're right that I misread it, although I don't agree that Democrats always cut military spending. We'll see if they cut it in the next two years.
2. I know a lot of liberals and none of them hate the military. I don't hate the military.
Hey, you should read this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-hayden/us-retreat-from-iraq-t_b_34675.html
R U serious with this? Tom Hayden is a known traitor and scumbag. why would anyone want to read anything that he's writing?
OK, apart from the fact that he's a traitor, your words--that doesn't mean his information from Iraqi contacts is wrong. Read it and let me know what you think.
Also, December 22 is fast approaching and I don't have a date for Global Orgasm Day. San Jose area-female only, must be within the range of very attractive to six-pack ugly.
Well Gary its hard to look past yet another liberal revealing secret American plans.
That is what hes doing right? Look at the title "U.S. Retreat from Iraq? The Secret Story". It says it all. If in fact all he says is true and they are viable options, then isnt he in fact trying to sabatoge said plans as opposed to endorsing them.
Not to mention that he is citing Code Pink as an influential organization in any plan for peace. Credibility lost.
Donkeyhue, you say you "despise" unions. Do you despise the fact that they have served quite well over the decades to enforce and provide safe working conditions, living wages and health benefits to many working families thus creating a more vibrant middle class? What you hate is the corruption that has infiltrated it and will probably always be there. Just as there is corruption and greed in corporate America.
I can tell you from experience that military recruiters have their own share of pretty despicable characters among their ranks. In a sense, they constantly trying to make sale, or rather, a commission. On the head of every kid they can wrangle up. Just like any other salesperson, they have a quota and get bonuses for meeting and exceeding it. Are they all despicable? Probably not. Just as not all union people are corrupt.
Unions have ruined more companies and forced more people out of jobs than even Democrat's ordered regulation. As for who is a threat to your liberty Gary, it sounds like your man Charles Rangel is. Its not Bush calling for your compulsory military service.
Why should you object to having recruiters on college campuses? I totally understand why you would not want them on High School campuses, but aren't college students old enough and wise enough to make their own decisions? Why should you choose for them? Do you follow them around all day to make sure they make other wise, life style choices?
Oh I forget, you"re a leftist and the left always knows what's best for everyone else. You tell us what to eat, what to read, don't want us to watch too much TV and especially want to prevent anyone from having the freedom of choice to serve in the military.
You probably don't care if we run off to join Bin Ladin because that's just so kewl!
Miss Carnivorous,
You work at a library, right? Do you have health care? Then thank the union movement. Do you have paid vacation? Well then thank the union movement. Are you paid overtime when you work over and above your 8:30 to 5:00 and do you take a paid lunch hour? Then thank the union movement. Do you have disability and/or life insurance? Then thank the union movement. Do you have a retirement plan and/or 401K? Then thank the union movement.
What a lot of people don't realize is that much of what they take for granted in their jobs today was gained as result of the hard work of labor advocates over the past century.
There is the argument that labor unions have done their work and are no longer needed (as evidenced by a great deal of labor law that has been enacted over the years to make sure that you have your two weeks vacation and can't get fired because you won't sleep with your boss), but the unions have been corrupted both internally by their own greed as well as by the power of the corporations who have the big $$$ to break them. But to deny the good they have accomplished is short-sighted, wrong, and indicate that you do not know from whence your own job security (or lack thereof) lies.
Yes I do work at the library where 2 years ago librarians received a whopping 27% raise. Where the union members vote for more and more raises and do less and less work for the money they steal from the tax payers.
Our union reps go on retreats and last year could barely muster enough energy to save the job of a much maligned co-worker with Lupus. We had to do it ourselves. I despise Unions and Union people in general. I would leave the Union in an instant if given the chance to vote. I always vote the exact opposite of how the Union tells me to and will continue to do so. Unions are evil. The very fact that they send us emails that always end in the words, "In solidarity" speaks of their communistic agenda. It shows how dangerously out of synch they are with reality. The are still stuck in revolutionary Russia.
The world can not be employed only by governments. The type of Union culture you espouse has been tried and is failing, all over The former soviet countires and now in Europe and even the Unionized companies in the US are failing. Look at the airlines and the car companies.
Donkey, what do we have to do to get the leftists posting here to actually address a point? We refute their points and they throw up smokescreens.
Anita spent every post telling us how great the Unions are, and demanding that we admit just how great they are, despite our verifiably awful experiences with Unions. You just can confuse them with the facts.
maybe you should learn to read miss carnivorous (are you sure you work in a library?). and didn't you post on your own blog that you are for increasing the minimum wage?
i never once said how great unions ARE, i was speaking more generally, stating that the union movement, over the past century, has accomplished a great deal for the average american worker.
i also acknowledged that many have become corrupt, bloated and are not serving in the best interests of their constituencies. they've also been beaten down by corporate interests who don't give a shit about the working person, which is evident by the fact that SO MANY decent jobs are being sent overseas. GO CORPORATE AMERICA !!! Yeah right.
I'm certainly not speaking as a tree-hugging liberal here. I have a small business and an MBA.
the fact is that you people on the *right* only listen to and read what you agree with. You also don't have the courage to challenge yourself to step out of your vitriolic, hate-filled wind tunnels to realize that the world isn't made up of just two big, monolithic chunks: The Evil Left and Righteous Right. Most people actually fit somewhere in the middle and it would do you some good to spend more time perking up your ears and listening to other points of view, to people other than yourselves.
the world would be an infinitely better place if you did.
Can I not leave this place for a few days without a catfight breaking out? At least have the decency to wait until Im around.
Now get over my knees the both of you.
why is it that when women disagree, it's always considered 'a cat fight' and you guys want to spank one or both of the combatants?
i don't hear that when rhino-nothing-at-all and zontar-the-good have it out.
by the way, i think there is a potential seinfeld episode here ...
oh, never mind. kramer's currently out of commission ... gettin' bizy with the reverend jesse j.
never mind.
Anita, maybe you are unaware that I live in an extremely liberal part of the US. I was raised and schooled in your liberal values and have first hand experience of the left's total failure at every thing it has put its hand to. The American system of education being the primary example.
As for reading only material by right wing pundits, the left constantly repeats itself over and over. The minute the left has something new to say, I'll gladly read it. The left is constantly holding up some piece of crap, revisionist history book and saying, "If you only read this great book by Noam Chomsky, the truth will become clear." Well I have read Noam and he is a full of shit and as boring as the next leftist.
As for your statement about me being unable to read, you resort to personal attacks, as liberals do. You show the elitism characteristic of all leftists. If you think I am unable to read, you have only the California teacher's unions to blame. Or perhaps it was my drug addicted, welfare collecting mother's fault.
I do see the left as a force for evil. Unintentional evil, but evil just the same. You and your ilk have destroyed every decent aspect of American culture. You have torn down the work ethic and replaced it with victim mentality. In doing so you have ruined the lives of thousands of inner city children. Feeling sorry for poor children has placed the left in the same position as Christian missionaries of old. You anihilated decent American culture and replaced it with an inferior culture. New Age missionary liberal do goodism. You have torn down the stigma of illegitimacy and the consequences of that are to have doomed thousands of children to poverty and illegitimacy.
The left's anti authoritarian policies have caused death and destruction accross the inner cities of America and hampered our ability to act to prevent it. liberals have killed more blacks than lynching did in the south.
Yes, I despise liberals and that is because I know them intimately.
Post a Comment