Rangel's Draft for Peace

[Autonomy]

It made sense. When Charlie Rangel proposed a draft before the Iraq War, it seemed like a great idea to circumvent the bloodlust the country was experiencing in the few years after 9/11. The proposal got nowhere, and we went to war anyway.

Rangel's stated reason for instituting the draft is that poor and minorities are disproportionately represented in the military. I'm not so sure that's true. In fact, on examination, I would bet his rationale comes up quite short. But his UNSTATED rationale makes a WHOLE lotta sense.

Just because the Democrats won Congress, it's still not a sure thing that we will get out quickly. Other than approprations, Congress does not have much say after troops are in action, and the Democratic majority would NEVER threaten to withhold funding the troops. So what's Charlie's plan?

He gets on the news and talks about a draft. All the parents around the country are now crapping their pants. Do they blame the Democrats, or Rangel himself, for the debacle in Iraq? No, they point squarely at Bush, and with a nervous tremble in their stomachs, start screaming for the US to get out of Iraq NOW. And it will work.

Rangel is fast tracking the process of withdraw from Iraq. It's smart, even devious. It's not too late to put the war into every house across the country. If this draft idea keeps getting coverage, expect the troops home within a year.

Also, the Dems get to position themselves for 2008 as the party of nationl security, while relieving the Dem presidential candidates of the burden of having to come up with a plan for so-called "victory". It will all be on the Republicans, as it should be.

edit to add: some are responding with assumptions that the draft will pass. It will not. Most Dems (and Repugs) distance themselves from it. It will never even be officially proposed. This is just something for public media consumption. And it will work if it stays in the news long enough.

[Mr_Spock]

1. Another pragmatic view of Rangel's proposal

It's good to see that many folks "get it" on this topic and can get beyond the initial "what???" reaction and THINK about what Charlie is trying to accomplish here. This man is the most anti-war Democrat out there.

[Cascadian]

2. This is going to backfire.

Doesn't anybody get this. We will be playing right into the Neocon's hands with this one. Bush and his cohorts will look for an excuse...JUST ONE EXCUSE to use those conscripts for another war. I know if I were of draft age, I would do anything to dodge the draft.


Forget it! It is doomed to fail!


John

[Autonomy]

3. That's the point; it WILL fail

the public won't support the draft, but they WILL demand the troops come home out of fear it will pass.

[LynneSin]

45. If I could recommend a post I would recommend yours!

Great retort!

[bananas]

14. It's working perfectly so far

He's got people talking about it.
Back in 2004, the Republicans did everything they could to prevent debate on the issue.
Now a lot of DINO's and DLC'ers don't want to talk about it.
They want to "stay the course" or have a "phased withdrawal starting by adding 20,000 more troops".

[formercia]

23. I agree

Without the draft, Fearless Leader could not invade Iran. Give him the Draft and he will have an endless supply of cannon fodder.

The Elite will always find a way to keep their children from going.

[MrCoffee]

44. Just like it failed in 2003, the FIRST time Rangel introduced the draft bill

it's supposed to fail. Rangel worked damn hard to make sure his OWN BILL failed. it's not a legitimate attempt at getting a law passed, it's a talking point.

[rollin74]

4. If the Democrats become known

as the party that wants to bring back the draft, we will get crushed in 2008 and well beyond.
This political stunt will backfire and (in the eyes of most Americans) make the GOP look reasonable by comparison.

The draft is a terrible idea whether Rangel is serious or not.

[David Dunham]

5. Rangel forgets that the Vietnam War killed 50,000 draftees.

The draft will not deter wars. Proposing it will only piss off young voters and convince them to vote Republican.

[Mythsaje]

6. No, don't you know that the Draft is the magic pill

that will make people realize that war is WRONG?

It's not as though they can use something like 9/11 to ramp up support for another war, if they had the troops.

So let's give 'em the troops!

:sarcasm:

Oooh, boy.

[Autonomy]

7. They won't get the troops

but they will get on the news. The Dems don't plan on passing this, and Rangel won't lose his Harlem-based seat for proposing it, but just the appearance of the possibility will pressure Bush to start bringing them home.

[Erika]

9. Rangel is a Korean Vet

He knows this is a different age with different circumstances. Go Rangel.

When the "comfortable" faces their kids going off to war, things will change.

[USA_1]

20. EXACTLY!

This is precisely what they are saying on right wing radio as the reichsters are gloating over Rangel's idiotic proposal.

[Autonomy]

8. Two reasons why you're wrong

1. They will be the party who "came up with a plan" and

2. They will be the party that is pro-national-security.

Bush won't touch this. It's a third rail; he will be forced to pull away from the whole matter.

[Erika]

10. Yep. The Dems request a build up of military forces shared

by all. Brought up by a Korean vet.

[KingFlorez]

16. Thanks for your concern

But I fail to see how Rangel's bill could make the GOP look reasonable.

[The Count]

18. It'll make W's war, "the Democrats's war" MSM can hardly wait to shift

the blame. As Colbert - more presciently than Rangel predicted: "It's two minutes since they are in power and they already dragged us in a disastruous war"

[paulk]

49. It didn't hurt us in 2004

this isn't the first time Rangel has introduced this legislation, you know.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/07/rangel.draft/

In 2003, Rangel's bill was met with the same wailing and gnashing of teeth it's being greeted with now, and by the same people.



ed for spelling

[The Count]

11. He'll help W escalate, then Dems will be blamed for the dead

You don't make points at the expense of people's lives.

[Autonomy]

12. It's not a rhetorical point

it's a way to bring the war home to every family in America, and it will SAVE lives. American lives, anyway. Not much we can do about the poor Iraqis BECAUSE OF BUSH.

[The Count]

26. It's a stunt. It's immoral. It will backfire.

[Autonomy]

31. Don't *count* on it

[bananas]

13. Exactly - "Rangel is fast tracking the process of withdraw from Iraq"

McCain, Lieberman, and a bunch of DINO's and DLCers are calling for a "phased withdrawal" over many years starting with an increase of 20,000 troops.

[loyalsister]

22. At the end of the day

The above position is impossible to hold consitently without supporting a draft.
That is unless they completely disregard the well being of the service members who have been so over extended.
We all know that increasing by 20,000 means that they go back and get some who have been discharged.

[Tom Joad]

15. Appropiations is everything. If the dems want to end the war, they can end it.

But the Hillary's the Joe's and many of the others (including many of the freshman house reps recruited by Rahm Emanuel (many of whom were pro-war) the others will be screaming about "premature withdrawal" So it is likely to continue for at least a year or so.
The Iraqi people will finally force the US out.

[Autonomy]

17. OMG NO!

If the Dems try to end this war by cutting funding they are DONE. They will be unelectable for 20 years at least.

[Tom Joad]

32. OMG, we got to stop Funding this illegal, immoral, insane war from hell

Not only that, do you think taxpayers are praying to spend billions and billions more on a lost cause? Funding should only be provided for getting the troops safely home.

If you knew US history, you would know that Ford would have continued in Vietnam if it weren't for the fact that congress was ending the funding of the War.

If they listned to hysteria from people who said we must continue the appropiations, the war would have continued.

How many more tens of thousands of Vietnamese would have died under US bombs? And for what noble cause?

[Autonomy]

38. Vietnam was winding down for years

and the draft stopped at least two years before the withdraw, and that in a case where there was a draft all along. Vietnam ended because the people realized it failed, and it still took YEARS to bring them home.

[Tom Joad]

34. For what noble cause do you wish to continue this illegal occupation?

Politics?

Yes, voters will love idealism like that! :sarcasm:

[Autonomy]

40. Continue? Are you listening?

The draft proposal would END the occupation, and without the threat of there being an ACTUAL draft. Why would you be against that?

I understand that the point is now moot, since the Dem leaders already came out against it. I figured they would. I just hoped they would let it go a few weeks.

[The Count]

19. And "endanger the troops?" Noo...better send in some more - as a bluff....

:sarcasm:
Playing politics with people's lives - is what got W where he is now.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

21. I don't agree about "parents crapping their pants".

I think that what parents will be thinking is not "oh my god, if the war continues there will be a draft" but "here is a Democrat politically grandstanding to try and make me think that if the war continues there will be a draft, which clearly there won't be".

I can understand what Rangel is trying to do, but I think it's severely misjudged.

[YOY]

24. It makes about as much sense as Paris Hilton's justification for being a celebrity

Hypothetically suppose a draft is brought back: the war begets protests and soon the whole things shuts down as folks and their kids suddenly realize that this is a real war and real folks have a chance of dying. In the meantime the Dems are also blamed for bringing back the draft and the blood is now on our hands...non-volunteer blood. We become the hawks are hated more than ever before and Fox News has a new 'pro-peace' spin. Sooner than we know it a whole new takeover of House and Congress by Republicans happens

So the Republicans repeal it once peace settles in and look like heroes to Johnny Six-pack. They get another W elected because he's "looking out for the little man...cos he's just a 'regular guy' they can drink a beer with."

and we're fucked just like we were 6 years ago.

Yeah...makes sense.

[The Count]

25. Yup. Or F*ing for virginity.

But hey, DU-ers are ready to get their kids killed for Charlie's stunt, so it must be good.

[YOY]

28. Some folks here will support anything anyone says as long as they have a 'D' after their name

I usually call them "Hillary supporters", but this has brough some real wacky support out of the woodwork...

[Autonomy]

29. THE DRAFT IS NOT BEING BROUGHT BACK

But it's necessary to continue the war. So the war will end.

[YOY]

35. I'm aware of that...but even bringing it up is idiotic.

[Autonomy]

37. What's idiotic is making a point based on a hypothetical

that we both agree will not happen and basing your argument on that.

[YOY]

42. But newswatchers and folks who buy everything they see on TV

Will be really disgusted by the sheer bringing up of the topic. The negative PR by the statement brings a steaming crapload of negative views of the folks who are supposed to be saving us from this kind of thing: The Democratic Party.


It should never have even been mentioned...that is what is being argued.

[Autonomy]

43. I disagree, in the big picture

but at least that is an honest and rational argument.

It's a moot point now, though.

[The Backlash Cometh]

27. Rangel to America; "Look at me, I'm putting a noose around the necks

of your children. Stop me, stop me, if you can. I'm the injury man."

[Autonomy]

30. Bush already put that noose around ALL our necks

[The Backlash Cometh]

33. And the people spoke loudly this last election by giving the Dems

power. Are the Dems acting like they have that power? Nope. Rangel is still using the methods of a minority party. He needs to find a more direct way, instead of confusing people.

[The Count]

36. Well said. Impeach. Defund. Legislate (criminalize war profiteering).Don't draft

When he brought it up before, I wasn't half as angry as I knew dems can't bring any bills to the floor - so it clearly was just a talking point.
Now that they can do stuff, they should do the right stuff.
let Jr self destroy as he escalates the war and starts new wars and has no armies. Don't help.

[Autonomy]

39. The fact that they are the majority

is what gives Rangel teeth in this proposal. The majority is still realistically powerless, though, in that the military is under the control of the executive branch. The dems can't stop funding, so they have to try a more "convincing" way to fast track the end of this war.

[goddess40]

41. Write a letter to the editor to explain this

not just to local papers but to the major papers in your state and to magazines such as Time, Newsweek...

Instead of complaining do something positive! Explain Rangel's position and why the media's spinning it to the republican's favor

[Autonomy]

46. You're kidding?

Do something positive? I just logged over 150 hours on various Dem campaigns and GOTV... without pay.

Also, I am not the one complaining. I am explaining.

[goddess40]

47. I meant others joining this thread to complain

sorry about the mix up but it seems we (the Dem's) get a little ahead and then we self destruct. I just want people instead of throwing up their hands and saying that Rangel is wrong because the right's going to spin this to their advantage to be proactive and spin it back where it belongs.

BTW, thanks for all your work.

[Autonomy]

48. Oh, ok

Thanks, goddess. :)