Stop overeacting about Charlie Rengel - he's only one house member, every caucus has their nuts

[Herman Munster]

NOBODY will support him on this and worst come to worst, the moderate blug dogs democrats will vote with the republicans to destroy the legislation.

So chill out. I think he's a jackass and idiot for even mentioning this, but it has NO CHANCE of passing.

[ClassWarrior]

1. Thank you for your concern.

But he's not a nut, nor a jackass, nor an idiot.

NGU.

[Herman Munster]

4. any person that advocates sending MY children to Iraq

is a nut, jackass, and idiot and many other expletives. It won't happen. America won't let it happen.

[wryter2000]

6. Don't you think he knows that it won't pass? n/t

n/t

[Herman Munster]

7. I have no idea what he thinks

has he ever publicly said he thinks it won't pass?

[ClassWarrior]

9. Obviously.

But I'd love to play poker with you.

NGU.

[HamdenRice]

14. First correct thing you've said

that you have no idea what Charlie Rangel is actually saying.

[acmejack]

2. Rangel is neither.

It may have no chance of passing but if you honestly think Congressman Rangel is fits the description you gave above there is no question as to who the jackass actually is.

[wryter2000]

3. Are we talking about the draft?

I don't think Charlie expects it to pass. I don't think he wants it to pass. I think he'd like to bring the troops home. I do think this is the way to get the attention of the types who think it's fine and dandy for other people and other people's children to serve when they're safe at home.

Charlie Rangle is no nut, and he's no jackass.

[davidinalameda]

12. he's been calling for the draft for the past few years

it's an attempt to bring to light the number of poor kids versus the number of rich and middle class kids who serve in the military and who are being killed in Iraq

poor kids are being used as fodder in this war as opposed to rich and middle class kids who don't serve

[bluestateguy]

5. True, but now he's a committee chair

Granted the bill probably won't get two dozen votes, but when you are in the majority it is time to govern, not pull stupid stunts to make a point.

I don't know if he's on Armed Services (he Chairs Ways and Means) or not, but he has more of an ability to get this bill a committee hearing now that Democrats are in the majority.

[napi21]

8. I think you're all misunderstanding what Charlie said.

He said IF we continue to demand 20,000 more troops in Iraq, and also want to be able to be a threat to Iran & North Korea, then we will have to reinstitute the draft.

Read that carefully! He's right you know. Our current millitary is streached very thin already, and there are troops that have servedin Iraq 2, 3, and even4 tours already. Just where do you think they're going to find another 20,000 troops that the Pubs are calling for? I can only assume they're going to ask those same overstressed people to serve yet ANOTHER tour!

I think Charlie is just trying to bring everyone into the world of reality and say, I think you're wrong to want more troops in Iraq, but if that's what you decide to vote for, this is what you're going to have to do.

[txindy]

10. I can't believe so many are missing that point, either.

But there it is.

Rangel is calling the wingnuts out and making them put up (draft) or shut up (withdrawal). They're content to throw money at every problem and that's not working with Iraq. We need public hearings (led by Democrats this time) to determine what our military needs in Iraq and Afghanistan. If they don't have enough troops (and they don't) and the wingnuts won't support a draft (and they won't, particularly Rangel's egalitarian version), then withdrawal is the only answer.

I think Rangel is very clever in the way he's framing this.

[Minnesota_Lib]

18. Spot on

[nealmhughes]

11. Charlie is right on this, IF conditions continue as they are now and an

Iranian and North Korean Adventure are in the works...

Charlie got wounded in Korea, by the way....he probably knows how it felt to be under fire more than almost anyone else in the stinking Congress.

I think he was making a rhetorical point by the way...zapping the Republicans where it hurts: You want to pretend we are in a war? Then why are you out campaigning and on vacation? You want us to bend our ancient rights and liberties to your admin because of your war? Then let's go whole hog: no exemptions, no deferrments, bring it on.

He also on MTP made allusion to the fact that so few in Congress were ever in uniform, and the dearth of their kids' presence, so it seemed that they might have second thoughts about committing us to a war if they knew that their country club friends' kids were liable to go...

What Charlie did was expose hypocricy.

[HamdenRice]

13. Wow, you're totally ignorant about Charlie Rangel

Rangel is one of the best people in Congress and you are completely missing his point.

Rangel is a veterant of the Korean War, and was opposed to the Iraq War. His point is the theoretical point that if there is a draft and everyone has family members at risk, the politicians in Washington won't start stupid unnecessary wars. Moreover, the current military commitments are unsustainable.

I don't think Rangel thinks the draft can be instituted. It's a way of drawing attention to his anti-war position.

Keep in mind that the reason this country extricated itself from Vietnam was that the draft was extended to middle class white kids in college, which caused support for the war to plummet.

[JerseygirlCT]

16. I'm just not willing to risk my child to make his point

Selfish? Perhaps. But they can't have him.

[JerseygirlCT]

15. I do hope you're right.

Because this is an awful idea.

[vanlassie]

17. He specifically stated:

"I don't see how you can be FOR this war and against a draft. That is hypocritical."

He is not a nut- no way.

[etherealtruth]

19. No, he is not a nut

Raising an issue (of great importance) that points out hypocrisy is NOT insane.

Welcome to DU