Interesting take on Rangel and the draft

[KennedyGuy]

Via http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/

Charlie Rangel's call for a draft has had people flipping out. Not that even his own constituents are for conscription, they are emphatically are not.

But there is one reason to let him bring his legislation up

Hearings.

For three years, we have been lied to about recriuting, stop-loss and basically every personnel issue with the armed forces.

"Once Rangel is allowed to get people under oath on the Hill, we could get some very interesting answers, like what recruiters do to fill their quotas, why gays are still being expelled from the military, the abuse of IRR and stop loss.

Oh, the questions which would flow from a hearing on the draft would be amusing and place any talk of a longer stay in Iraq on the table.

The Pentagon would swear everything is fine, but then we get the ex-recruiters, the academic experts. Oh, it would be a cavalcade of fun calling the Pentagon on their bullshit.

What happened in 2003 is that the GOP brought the bill to a vote without hearings. Hearings changes the whole game. The testimony would be out in the open and the bullshit would stop. Rangel and the Congress would have the evidence of the obvious, as long as the war in Iraq continues, recruiting will be a problem".

[ClassWarrior]

1. Good point.

I don't want a draft, but I welcome the debate Rangel's proposal generates. If that debate can take place officially, under oath and accountable under the law, all the better.

NGU.

[Phredicles]

2. That is indeed an interesting point, but surely

those valuable hearings could be held without resorting to this foolhardy draft gamesmanship.

[KennedyGuy]

4. Perhaps..

But he HAS succeeded in bringing the issue front and center already. Thats for sure.

[pnwmom]

5. And he's succeeded in linking the phrase "top democrat"

to "calls for a draft."

That's also for sure.

[ClassWarrior]

6. I don't know if the public will see that as a bad thing.

It'll be interesting to learn.

NGU.

[pnwmom]

9. The public strongly opposes a draft,

according to the polls anyway.

[Virginia Dare]

14. Then the public needs to understand the dichotomy...

of what they believe. The Republicans convinced the American public that 9/11 was our Pearl Harbor. They convinced the public that we are waging a broad based protracted ideological war against muslim "terrorists". The public needs to understand if we continue to wage war, then we will have to pass a draft, we have no choice.

[Buzz Clik]

16. Last time I checked, the public strongly favors ending the war.

A draft would merely help prolong it.

[Virginia Dare]

17. The war in Iraq....

not the "war on terror", at least not any polls I've seen.

edit:

what people here and elsewhere need to understand is, "they" are not going to bring the troops back home, they will merely shift them into other surrounding areas. This is all about protecting the oil reserves, the pipelines and other natural resources.

[Buzz Clik]

19. War on terror? There is no such thing.

It ranks up there with the war on drugs, war on Christmas, and the war on obesity.

We don't need troops or a draft for any of these "wars".

[Virginia Dare]

20. But most of the American public thinks there is...n/t

[enough already]

18. He's also succeeded in getting the top House Dem to call it a bad idea

And so now we're in-fighting while the pukes stand on the sidelines laughing at us. Any more brilliant plans?

[Buzz Clik]

15. Exactly. You don't need a ridiculous proposal to have hearings.

[pnwmom]

3. Why can't they just hold hearings on the general topic

of the readiness of the armed forces?

Why do they need to have it focused on a bill?

[greenbriar]

7. he says this

"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 said.

[LRSU_Ghost]

8. Hmm, very interesting that he would say that in-light of a

little thing called 'History'.

I wonder if the "Gulf of Tonkin Resolution" means anything to Rangel? I seem to remember a draft being around back then. Rangel is using the same arguments for a Draft now that many used to oppose the Draft during the Vietnam conflict.

[The Count]

10. Dems are a majority, they don't need tricks & stunts for hearings. Waxman

can start his investigations in the lies to war, etc. Why the posturing? You want to grand stand?

IMPEACH!

[tex-wyo-dem]

11. Interesting point, and could very well be what's in play...

But I still contend that Rangel's point is mearly pure symbolism meant to emphasize that, although this country is supposedly at war, few of us have been asked to sacrifice. As a result many people don't feel the need or inclination to pay attention; the "war" is a very distant thing to most. Rangel wants people to realize that the neo-con's plan for endless war could vey well land on their doorstep one day.

Raising the level of debate is always a good thing.

[Ninja Jordan]

12. *Yawn* the complex justifications for Rangel's political buffoonery continue (nm)

[Virginia Dare]

13. It's political grandstanding...

something the GOP has been masters at. Time the Democrats learned to play the game better. This is a start.