Photoshop via Stubborn Facts

If Kerry and his botched joke was not bad enough, now Rep Rangel has upped the ante a notch.

First, he has once again called for a resumption of the draft.

Video: Rangel says he’ll introduce a bill to bring back the draft

Now I find it odd that so many liberals pointed fingers at Bush claiming a draft was imminent, like during Vietnam, and yet the only two people to suggest on are Rangel and Sen Hollings, both Democrats.

As Allah notes above:

He floats this idea periodically when his side needs a little boost. The last time he really pushed it was before the election in 2004, when the left tried to scare voters into Waffles’s camp by whispering about a secret Republican plan to restart the draft after Bush won. The GOP called his bluff by bringing the bill to the House floor for a vote, where it failed, 402-2. Among the nays? Charlie Rangel. (Among the yeas: Jack Murtha.)

But Rangel has not stopped with the draft, he also has made some fairly serious accusations about the integrity of the military, claiming they are not patriotic, they are essentially in it for the money.

Also via Hot Air:

Video: Rangel says Iraq volunteers are in it for the money, or something

I’ve watched this five times and I’m still not sure what he’s saying. I think he’s trying to argue that there’s no legitimate national security interest to our being in Iraq because, if there were, we wouldn’t have to recruit the poor by running ads and offering financial incentives. Patriotism would be incentive enough and would cut across classes. But since patriotism apparently isn’t enough, that proves the war is illegitimate which means the poor end up bearing a disproportionate share of the burden which in turn means we should either limit our strategic options by eschewing war entirely to prevent this inequity or reinstate the draft so that the sacrifice is shared equitably among people who didn’t enlist and don’t want to be there. Which I guess means the war in Afghanistan is illegitimate too.

My take on it was this:

In essence he is saying that this:

If you want to say that you do not need conscription, then you have show that you are already gaining enough recruits on a volunteer basis. Which we are.

But he then discounts the validity of those recruits because they are not (as he sees it) joining out of a sense of Patriotism (ala WW2), they are joining for college money and benefits. Bush, as he says is not making daily appeals to people’s sense of nationalism, he is appealing to their pocket book by dangling bonuses.

I recall many complaining however that Bush was pushing too hard on the nationalism issue.

So he is claiming there is an artificial enticement to join that directly impacts low income people more the the wealthy (as in who needs the college tuition). That is a typical democratic mantra.  Our troops are not only stupid, they are mercenary.

So his bottom line is, that if the war is in our best national interest, then everyone should be serving just the people who are sucked in by the financial gains and benefits.

And if you don’t agree that all should fight equally if it is in our national interest, then he is also claiming (falsely) that it is either not a fight in our national interest because patriotism is not enough to support it, or that fighting is wrong and we should resort to diplomacy.

I think.  He was rambling and stuttering so hard it is hard to say.  I mean I can understand the varied points he is skirting, but he is trying so hard to make a profound case that he is tripping over his concepts and getting himself confused.

And while I am sure that for many people serving he is dead wrong.  Oh sure, the military does pay bonuses and offer education benefits.  But a lot of people have joined and given up much more lucrative careers out of loyalty and patriotism, and Rangal dishonors them.

Interestingly Pelosi has flatly said she opposes a draft, which Allah notes places them on a  collision course.  Her majority is a bit divided.  As Allah noted:

He also gently reminds Pelosi that the new Democratic Congress is supposed to be about hearings, fact-finding, deliberation. So why the rush to get this issue off the table?

Clearly he is showboating and she is fighting to save face after the slapping she took on the House Majority Leader vote.  They haven’t even taken over yet, and already they are looking ineffective.

All I can say is that my initial assessment of the coming years is looking fairly likely:  This is going to be fun to blog.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS