Charlie Rangle: Same Old Tune, Still Clueless

You really have to enjoy politics. Dems take back the legislature and they start talking about pushing stupidity that has been discredited repeatedly.

A senior House Democrat said yesterday that he will introduce legislation to reinstate the military draft, asserting that current troop levels are insufficient to cover possible future missions in Iran, North Korea, and Iraq.

Representative Charles Rangel of New York, the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, said his proposal would deter politicians from launching wars while bolstering US forces.

"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.

Rangel, a veteran of the Korean War who has unsuccessfully sponsored legislation on conscription in the past, said on CBS's "Face the Nation" that he will propose a measure early next year. Under the plan, some of the troops would be assigned to community service in the states.

Do we really need to discuss this again? Starting with the reasons why the volunteer army is highly effective and that forcing the unwilling into the military will just make it ineffective and in fact more dangerous for those that show the willingness to defend the country?

And what about his "community service" decision? Who will be the ones that get to rake leaves while others are forced to serve in combat? Is this really what he considers a fair solution? Or is he just being the usual ass-hat that he is?

Seeing that this is a BoGlobe story, they completely meet my expectations by posturing calls from Republicans for more troops in Iraq against Rangle's idiocy.

Senator John McCain of Arizona, a leading Republican presidential contender for 2008, said yesterday that the United States must send an overwhelming number of troops to stabilize Iraq or face the possibility of more attacks in the region and on US soil.

"I believe the consequences of failure are catastrophic. It will spread to the region. You will see Iran more emboldened. Eventually, you could see Iran pose a greater threat to the state of Israel," McCain said on ABC's "This Week."

Another debate entirely, and the fact that even if the government could restart the active draft, the first troops wouldn't be seen for at least two years. But let's not throw in any inconvenient facts.

Rangel said he worries the military is being strained by its overseas commitments. "If we're going to challenge Iran and challenge North Korea and then, as some people have asked, to send more troops to Iraq, we can't do that without a draft," he said.

Rangel said having a draft would not necessarily mean everyone called to duty would have to serve. Instead, "young people [would] commit themselves to a couple of years in service to this great republic, whether it's our seaports, our airports, in schools, in hospitals," with a promise of educational benefits at the end of service.

So the draftees would have a choice of combat duty, being a longshoreman, a baggage handler, a janitor or cleaning bedpans. Seeing as none of them will have professional experience I find it dubious that they will be given much by way of training, especially considering that they won't be given a choice either. I can't wait to hear how the Unions like this idea. No doubt the Teamsters and the Hospital Workers unions will love having their members pay slashed due to the dearth of labor.

Or maybe Rangle believes that these draftees will be taking on professional duties. Wouldn't you just love to have to go through airport security with a draftee viewing your luggage. I certainly know I'd feel so much safer. Or that draftee helping you out in the hospital emergency room. Or how about them doing security container checks in a port?

This isn't a solution, this is a punishment for those who have to try and do the right thing in a world that is plagued with fanaticism and terrorism. Rangle's argument still is off tune, those that need to make the hard decisions don't need any further distractions in getting the job done. And after looking at the way the politically in-touch, like Bush and Clinton, there is little doubt in my mind that those with political clout still would not see their kids in combat.