PDA

View Full Version : Charles Rangel (Dem-NY) to introduce bill to reinstate military draft



Elduardo
01-18-2009, 02:22 PM
Rangel to reintroduce military draft measure
By Susan Crabtree
Posted: 01/14/09 07:24 PM [ET]
Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) likely will introduce his controversial legislation to reinstate the draft again this year, but he will wait until after the economic stimulus package is passed.


Asked if he plans to introduce the legislation again in 2009, Rangel last week said, “Probably … yes. I don’t want to do anything this early to distract from the issue of the economic stimulus.”



Rangel’s military draft bill did create a distraction for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) soon after Democrats won control of Congress after the 2006 election.


In the wake of that historic victory, Pelosi said publicly that she did not support the draft and that the Democratic leadership would not back Rangel’s legislation. She also said Rangel’s legislation was not about reinstating the draft but was instead “a way to make a point” about social inequality.


Reintroducing the military draft bill, which would attract media attention, will be trickier for Rangel in 2009 than it was a couple years ago because the Ways and Means Committee chairman is now under investigation by the House ethics committee.


Democratic leaders have given Rangel a leading role in helping craft the new economic stimulus bill despite an array of ethics allegations that have surfaced over the last several months. The charges have ranged from failing to report rental income on a villa in the Dominican Republic to an alleged quid pro quo involving a legislative favor for a donor to an education center bearing Rangel’s name.


Always eager to be at the heart of the action, Rangel clearly is relishing discussing the high-profile stimulus package. During the first days of the 111th Congress — and for the first time in months — reporters have been swarming around Rangel to discuss policy matters rather than ethics.


Republicans are likely to seize on the reintroduction of Rangel’s unpopular military draft bill. When they controlled the House in 2004, Republicans scheduled a vote on the Rangel measure, which was defeated 402-2. Reps. John Murtha (D-Pa.) and Pete Stark (D-Calif.) supported it, while Rangel voted against his own bill, claiming the GOP was playing political games.


But Rangel told The Hill that he recently heard talk about rewarding mandatory service with two years of college credit.


“That doesn’t make sense,” he said. “People shouldn’t have to join the military to get an education.”


A decorated Korean War veteran and a member of the Out of Iraq Caucus, Rangel argues that the burden of fighting wars falls disproportionately on low-income people and that cost should be borne more broadly.


If a draft had been in place in 2002 when members were making the decision on whether to support the war in Iraq, Rangel has said, Congress never would have approved the war resolution, because the pressure from constituents would have been too great.


With the Iraq war off the front page and the economic crisis taking center stage, nerves are not as raw on the topic of strain on the military as they were a few years ago, so Rangel’s legislation may not make as many waves this time around.


But some Democrats — even one who supported Rangel’s efforts in the past — are a little perplexed about his plans to reintroduce the legislation, especially now that President-elect Obama is poised to take over the White House.


“That was really a political statement at the beginning of the war that we continued,” said Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.), one of only two co-sponsors of Rangel’s draft bill. “I’m not sure we’re going to do that this time.”


Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y) was the only other co-sponsor during the 110th Congress. She could not be reached for comment for this article.


So much theatre here it's difficult to know where to begin. The far-left rhetoric duing the 2004 election was that if Bush was re-elected then the draft would be reinstated, we would be at war with Iran, etc. Obviously neither happened.

Rangel accused the GOP of playing political games in 2004 by forcing a vote on the bill? He voted against his own bill. That's playing political games.

Rangel is engaging in the lowest form of politics and overall human behavior, trying to manipulate public policy/opinion by using human lives as pawns.

It's a disgrace.

Luris Blear
01-18-2009, 02:35 PM
Again?

Elduardo
01-18-2009, 02:41 PM
Guess the 402-2 vote in 2004 wasn't decisive enough.

But his vote against it showed he wasn't serious, just playing games and wasting everyone's time.

H78
01-18-2009, 03:05 PM
Let's not confuse this one Democrat as someone who's representative of the whole party. Clearly he's an idiot and fortunately his colleagues have proven that with their votes.

cmurdur
01-18-2009, 04:24 PM
Looks like I should start getting ready for war. Just in case.

Luris Blear
01-18-2009, 05:37 PM
Rangel does this every year or two because he feels lonely if his name isn't in the newspaper. You shouldn't worry cmurder.

H78
01-18-2009, 05:43 PM
^--- Would dodge a draft.

I give back to my country every time I give up 100% of my time 9-5 but only get paid for about 80% of it.

Elduardo
01-18-2009, 06:17 PM
^--- Would dodge a draft.

I give back to my country every time I give up 100% of my time 9-5 but only get paid for about 80% of it.

Shocker.

H78
01-18-2009, 06:55 PM
:flowers:

I'd never hold a gun to any man, unless the action was out of complete necessity.

Wars for oil, control in the middle east, and Halliburton financial gains don't strike me as necessary.

lunatic
01-19-2009, 04:42 PM
Draft as social justice? Wait, it can't be during Democrats in the White House and parliament because there's no more internal enemy running the show. Some games can't be played permanently.
Army better be professional; otherwise it could be as horrible as the Russian Army now.

Misfit
01-19-2009, 04:50 PM
:smokin2: i gots some extra space for UHM squatters...................

Searcher
01-20-2009, 04:22 PM
:flowers:

I'd never hold a gun to any man, unless the action was out of complete necessity.

Wars for oil, control in the middle east, and Halliburton financial gains don't strike me as necessary.

Hear hear. But I also wouldn't dodge the draft by joining a branch of the military that seems less likely to make cannon fodder out of me, or go Canada, or college, I'd go to Washington and burn that draft card in front of the White House. Let 'em arrest me.

Elduardo
01-20-2009, 06:59 PM
Haven't seen any serious politician or military leader support a draft.

Luris Blear
01-20-2009, 07:26 PM
Haven't seen any serious politician or military leader support a draft.

:lol2:

Much agreed. Any official who needs to pull Shock Rocker antics for his policies to be heard more than likely just has bad policies.

Grendel
01-20-2009, 07:44 PM
Be interested to see the actual exchange with the reporter who got that quote.

The way it reads, Rangel wasn't beating any drums about the measure; someone just asked him about this years-old initiative and he said "probably" but maintained that the focus was on the economy.

For that to then be trumpeted as "Rangel's going to do this" or "Rangel's going to do that," sounds like someone just wanted to gin up a juicy story that doesn't actually exist, yet.

Luris Blear
01-20-2009, 07:46 PM
I actually had that same feeling, Grendel.

I want to think that Rengel has tried it at least twice in the past, however. This time around he at least had enough class to admit he would be wasting time and money needed for other things.

Just the same, we can't put it past him once things get too calm.

Elduardo
01-20-2009, 08:12 PM
Grendel were you giving the same benefit of the doubt when the far left was saying that Bush would reinstate the draft if re-elected in 2004?

Rangel was asked a question and answered it. If someone asks me a question and I mean no I don't say probably.

Grendel
01-20-2009, 09:30 PM
Thoe claims had no creedence whatsoever. I gave them nothing, not even a second thought.

"Probably" isn't "no" but it also doesn't seem to be justification to push a headline like this reporter did.

As has been noted, this was a big thing for Rangel--years ago. He was quite adamant about his feelings regarding the demographics of who does and doesn't serve. After all that sound and fury, if someone brings it up again, there was probably very little chance he'd just say, "oh that? Well, nevermind." That's a pretty common thing with people in general, not just politicians.

All in all, the impression remains that "Susan Crabtree" is jumping the gun more than a little bit.

toxicangel19
01-21-2009, 01:21 PM
Hear hear. But I also wouldn't dodge the draft by joining a branch of the military that seems less likely to make cannon fodder out of me, or go Canada, or college, I'd go to Washington and burn that draft card in front of the White House. Let 'em arrest me.

We all deploy including the Navy but Yeoman is the job you are looking for in the NAVY if you wanna have a less of chance of going to Iraq or Afghnistan, or maybe even a Supply or Air traffic control. Im a corpsman and don't get deployed but thats because IM not 8404 which is what they send all the male corpsman too, I can still go on 3 month short deployments to Afghanistan or Iraq but I can't go on the yr long ones since i have not trained with the marines. They may change that policy later but whatever Im not scared.

BTW I don't think Obama woudl allow a draft to occur so don't worry.

levil666
01-21-2009, 01:58 PM
Rangel is engaging in the lowest form of politics and overall human behavior, trying to manipulate public policy/opinion by using human lives as pawns. It's a disgrace.
Of course it's a disgrace, what can you expect from someone undergoing an ethics investigation? They are no more Republicans or Democrats, but just power numgry wolves dressed in the skins of the party they represent for their own betterment.


Draft as social justice? Wait, it can't be during Democrats in the White House and parliament because there's no more internal enemy running the show. Some games can't be played permanently.
Army better be professional; otherwise it could be as horrible as the Russian Army now.

First, last time I checked, we don't run on a parliamentary system.

Second, this game you speak of will probably not brought to light. Representatives at this point are more concerned with holding their seats, rather than support such a controversial bill.

Third, out of curiosity, what do you mean by "professional"? Last I checked, it was our troops that were participating in controversies such as Abu Gharib. The Russians have actually been becoming increasingly more professional since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

*edit* I mean no offense with the example of Abu Gharib. It is what it is, and it should not represent the brave men and women we have representing our nations armed forces, but it has been quite a tarnish as other skirmishes and such have been.

Searcher
01-21-2009, 05:04 PM
We all deploy including the Navy but Yeoman is the job you are looking for in the NAVY if you wanna have a less of chance of going to Iraq or Afghnistan, or maybe even a Supply or Air traffic control. Im a corpsman and don't get deployed but thats because IM not 8404 which is what they send all the male corpsman too, I can still go on 3 month short deployments to Afghanistan or Iraq but I can't go on the yr long ones since i have not trained with the marines. They may change that policy later but whatever Im not scared.

BTW I don't think Obama woudl allow a draft to occur so don't worry.

I'm a bit puzzled, maybe you misunderstood my comment? I never said I was worried, I said I wouldn't dodge the draft like so many others. I would face the problem head on instead of joining a branch less likely to go to war. I know quite a few people who enlisted in the airforce befor the draft could get to them so they wouldn't end up on the ground in Vietnam. Ironiclly some of those same draft dodgers are pro-war when dealing with the subject of our involvement in Vietnam.

Elduardo
01-21-2009, 06:22 PM
Thoe claims had no creedence whatsoever. I gave them nothing, not even a second thought.

"Probably" isn't "no" but it also doesn't seem to be justification to push a headline like this reporter did.

As has been noted, this was a big thing for Rangel--years ago. He was quite adamant about his feelings regarding the demographics of who does and doesn't serve. After all that sound and fury, if someone brings it up again, there was probably very little chance he'd just say, "oh that? Well, nevermind." That's a pretty common thing with people in general, not just politicians.

All in all, the impression remains that "Susan Crabtree" is jumping the gun more than a little bit.

It's not just the demographics, he wants to use the draft to influence policy decisions.

Grendel
01-21-2009, 11:38 PM
It's not just the demographics, he wants to use the draft to influence policy decisions.

Yes, and the demographics are the root of his proposition: if Congresspeople must face a wider and, comparatively, more influential, portion of their constituency who will be directly affected by their decision to employ military means, perhaps they will apply more consideration.

It's difficult to argue against the observation that, at the time, America was embroiled in a major conflict that, compared to others, meant some of the least sacrifice from the citizenry as a whole.

Regardless, the point remains that, if asked, he was unlikely to simply back away--even years later--hence the questionable judgment in promoting a story that morphs a "possibly" into declarations about what Rangel is going to do.

Elduardo
01-22-2009, 08:18 PM
Well the point here is discussion, there is all sorts of fear mongering on the left about the draft when in reality no one supports bringing it back. Not the military, not the republicans, not most dems.

We have an all volunteer military, it's something to be proud of but we can't be afraid to use it when necessary.

You can make the arguement that the Iraq war was not necessary but there is no evidence that it had anything to do with the demographics of who is in the armed forces.

Grendel
01-22-2009, 10:02 PM
You can make the arguement that the Iraq war was not necessary but there is no evidence that it had anything to do with the demographics of who is in the armed forces.No, there's no way to study what was honestly going through our representatives minds when they cast their votes to send our servicepeople into Iraq.

That said, it's a valid question to wonder whether or not those officials would've been a bit more discerning about what they were being told if they knew the sacrifice they were offering was going to be borne more uniformly across their various constituencies.

Elduardo
01-22-2009, 10:26 PM
Even so, I can't say that is a valid reason for a draft.

Regardless of how you feel about the military action, one thing we don't have is people put in the armed forces against their will.

The only way I could support that is if there were a extremely serious situation in which the existence of the US was at risk. And in that case, I don't think a draft would even be needed because people would step up.

3/6
01-22-2009, 10:29 PM
:hmmm: i thought this thread was about Charles ROGERS...the ex MI St. star wide out..and Detroit Lions bust...

:dsp:

Elduardo
01-22-2009, 10:31 PM
You've made an excellent contribution to the discussion.

3/6
01-22-2009, 10:36 PM
:lol: right on

:coolbeer: