Breaking: Rangel to reintroduce notrious draft bill

[tomkertes]

From People Against the Draft http://www.nodraft.info
Story posted: http://nyc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/138944/index.php

According to a report from People Against the Draft Rep. Rangel plans to reintroduce HR 163 - the draft bill that voted soundly defeated in the last session.

Rep. Charles Rangel intends to reintroduce legislation calling for resumption of the draft during the current Congressional term, according to a memo circulated by Bill Galvin of the Center on Conscience and War.

Rangel, it will be recalled, was the author of the notorious HR 163, the "universal" conscription bill that became a political football during the 2004 Presidential campaign. When charges that Bush would reinstate the draft emerged as a red-hot election issue last October, HR 163 became a liability for the Kerry campaign -- whereupon Rangel's bill was rushed to the floor and summarily voted down by a huge majority. For tactical reasons even the bill's sponsors, including Rangel, voted against it.

Please contact Rangel's office as soon as possible and let him know that we will not tolerate reintroduction of the draft:


Washington DC Office
2354 Rayburn House
Washington, DC 20515
[phone]

New York Office
163 W. 125th Street #737
New York, NY 10027
[phone]

http://rangel.house.gov/contact.shtml

http://DailyDraftDispatch.org

[atreides1]

1. Let's See if the Repigs vote in favor this time

Now is the time to see what the Repigs do with this bill. Remember they have the majority in both houses of Congress, let's see if the Repigs in the House do the same thing they did the last time this bill came up for a vote.

[Philly Buster]

6. Even Rangel voted against it last time

Did anybody vote for it?

[HootieMcBoob]

38. I think the reason he voted against it was..

because there was never any debate allowed on it before the vote. One of the main reasons Rangel introduced the bill was to have a real discussion of the draft and more broadly of what's going on in Iraq. The Republicans allowed a vote but only without debate.

Personally, I think I support Representative Rangel on this as long as there is no exception for anyone, including the children of rich Republicans. An alternative to military service should be included but there should be no exemptions whatsoever.

It would make it less likely for our politicians and the media and xenophobic citizens to so cavalierly push for unnecessary war in the future.

[Blue_In_AK]

62. Right. I saw Rangel on Bill Maher, I think

before the election discussing what his motivation was in introducing this bill. I'm assuming his motivation hasn't changed. It's meant to force discussion of the war.

[BBradley]

2. I am 18 years old. I will not be used as a pawn in power politics.

Fuck Rangel, and fuck the Democratic Party if they're going to use me as leverage in some stupid fucking political power play. I will not kill or die for either party in this war, under any circumstances. I am not their tool.

[leesa]

27. Yes you are.

[Lostnote03]

44. "ouch"...lol

[oneighty]

3. Wait

I think this is the bill which is an equal opportunity call up. No outs no deferments.

Everybody must go? Nobody escapes the cold winds.

It will never pass. It is a put up or shut up call to the CHICKEN HAWKS.

I think.

180

[tk2kewl]

7. Yep. Rich kids should die too if rich men want war.

That is the point.

On edit: no one should die PERIOD. But we all know that many porr kids see the military as their only way to get an education or to get out of poverty.

[oneighty]

12. Poor kids

Yes I went of to Korea in 1952 at seventeen years old. What seventeen? Yes.

People that sponsor wars should put their own babies in harm's way. For God and Country.

God tell me so.

180

[pbartch]

41. so.........that that mean that Bush's 2 STUPID will get drafted???

how would daddy and grand daddy keep them out?

[napi21]

4. Why is Charlie doing this? I like him, and he always makes sense.

I understood last year why he was talking Draft, because he wanted to show the prople our military couldn't continue on it's current path. I know it's still very over streched, but I'm missing what he's trying to accomplish now.

[Pirate Smile]

11. Me too. Any draft needs to come from the Repugs. Please, Charlie stop!

[mulethree]

15. Raise the cost?

Congress won't pass fair, equal-opportunity draft.

This includes girls, rich kids, students. There's no way out, so it won't be passed.

If/When a more typical draft comes up later, how can you vote for it when you voted against this one, when the only significant differences are favoritisms?

So essentially, you vote a fair, universal draft, or you eliminate the feasibility of a draft. Which means addressing manpower requirements some other way.

So absent 'free labor', how do you increase recruitment?

You could make the contracts more 'fair'
You could raise pay for the military
You could improve benefits - educational, VA Loans, disability pay, family services, etc.
Improve career advancement opportunities.

Basically make service more attractive as a career, by improving circumstances for servicemen.

[HootieMcBoob]

39. yup you got it

bring up a FAIR draft now. There's no way the Republicans vote for it - they don't support anything that will affect their rich constituents adversely. Then there's no way they can later support a bill that is any less fair and the Democrats can vote against it then.

[John_H]

60. I thought the bill said that IF there were a draft

The first hundred thousand or so kids to go would be from wealthy households.

[John_H]

61. I love this bill.

Might make a certain group f people take time out from the kegger to go vote for once.

[Ian David]

5. The bio on his page won't open

Which branches of the military did this guy once serve in?

[Philly Buster]

8. Rangel served in Korea

Army I think. Highly decorated but I don't remember the details.

[Karmadillo]

9. Would Rangel's bill be better than the Poverty Draft?

http://makhno.nefac.net/node/313

The Poverty Draft: Recruiting The Working Class To The Frontlines
Submitted by NEFAC on Fri, 03/28/2003 - 23:43.

Recruiters are relentlessly using marketing strategies to woo low income youths with little prospects for education and good jobs into the armed forces. Painting the Army as a kind of job training and vocational school, and simultaneously as a financial aid institution, recruiters get youths in high school to sign up to the DEP (Deferred Enlistment Program). When young people try and back out of enlisting, recruiters often lie and tell them it is impossible or illegal to drop out.

In fact, the military isn't a generous financial aid institution, and it isn't concerned with helping pay for school. Two-thirds of all recruits never get any college funding from the military. Only 15% graduated with a four year degree. 65% of recruits who pay the required $1200 into the Montgomery GI Bill never get a dime in return.

In terms of job opportunities, to join the army is actually more detrimental to job prospects. Veterans actually earn less than non-veterans: the average post-Vietnam War-era veteran will earn between 11% and 19% less than non-veterans from comparable class backgrounds. Over 50,000 unemployed veterans are on the waiting list for the military's "retraining" program. The Veterans Administration estimates that 1/3 of homeless people are vets.

The evidence on rates of return to training and the probability of finding a job in one's chosen occupation, strongly suggests that, all else being equal, young people should look to sources of training other than the military if they wish to optimize their careers.

YOUTH OF COLOR

The military uses economic discrimination (i.e. economic conscription or an economic draft), that forces lower income people into the military in order to earn a living, try to learn a trade or get money for their education. Not surprisingly, the "poverty draft" primarily targets youth of color from low-income areas, both urban and rural. Military recruiters prey upon the working classes in Black, Latino, Native American, Asian, Arab, and Pacific Islander communities. Quite simply, the armed forces target people of color for recruitment disproportionately, and thus die in war disproportionately. During Operation Desert Storm over 50% of the front-line troops were people of color, largely Latino.

Desperate to meet recruiting goals, the military has undertaken another mass expansion of its Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps (JROTC) program. These programs traditionally target communities of color, especially areas of Latino concentration. The prior JROTC expansion took place in 1992 in the aftermath of the Gulf War and the L.A. uprising. Writes Shelly Reese, for American Demographics Magazine, "The riots underscored the lack of opportunities for teenagers in economically disadvantaged areas. That led General Colin Powell to lobby for expanded JROTC."

more...

[FrenchieCat]

32. Thank you....

for those who took the time to read Karmadillo's relevant post....Rangel is ensuring two things:

1. That the Repubs will vote this draft bill down, and therefore will not be able to bring up "THEIR" version of a draft.

2. Right now, with Pell grants being cut and jobs hard to find, and more poverty programs slated to be cut.....guess who's gonna be "set-up" to join the army?

I think that he's got vision and guts....unlike so many others sitting on the hands "hoping" nothing bad happens, and that the Republicans play "nice".

He is instigating this issue and putting it to the Republicans....who are just about to become the "scared" sissies that they really are.

Go Rangel!

[shleonny]

10. won't be drafted

how can he do this?

[robcon]

13. This is aggressively stupid legislation.

It is even stupider to bring this bill up again.

[Gay Ranger]

14. Kinda Takes the Wind of the Sails...

of our argument that the Repugs are calling for implementation of the draft when a Democrat introduces a draft bill twice. The draft, if it happens, will happen in it's own good time and need to be laid squarely at the feet of Bush.

What I fear is this, what if the Democratic members vote for it and a handful of Republicans push it through. It lands on Bush's desk and he vetos it. That would bode ill for us because the Bushies would be point to the Democrats and saying, "THEY wanted the draft and WE stopped them."

It would be kinda hard to dispute that one.

[tomkertes]

16. What is considered breaking news at DU?

This post was moved from breaking news to here. Just curious since I am new to DU, what is considered "news" and what is not. Does it need to be published in MSM, or can something that is more a scoop and not yet reported by MSM newsworthy in the eyes of DU moderators?

[DieboldMustDie]

37. Read the LBN rules @

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x87249

[DemBones DemBones]

47. It needs to be in a "more reputable" source. I'm not sure that's the

best way to say it, but can't think of another way. Sometimes you can do a search and find a "more reputable" source for your story.

[Sparkly]

49. But not for this one, apparently

as I tried to say in another thread, as well.

[tomkertes]

80. Text of the memo:

Here's the text of the memo:

http://nyc.indymedia.org/newswire/display_any/138983


Judge for yourself.

[fujiyama]

17. I understand Rangel's intentions

but his introduction of the draft bill made it difficult for Dems to make an issue out of the draft because a Dem was the one introducing it.

Not only has it not been good politically but it is just plain wrong and stupid. I feel it's making a mockery out of a potentially serious issue.

[FormerDittoHead]

18. Stupid, Stupid, Stupid, Stupid, Stupid. LOSE-LOSE.

So, let me get this.

The democrats want to WIN the next election?????

This bill will be shot down quicker than a lame duck AND WHAT'S WORSE, you've opened the door for the Republicans to ACTUALLY have a draft, complete with all of the "outs"!

That's right! They can NOW have their cake and eat it too, because the Dem's won't be able to criticize them, and in fact, the Republicans can say their bill was more "lenient" by exempting existing gov't employees (ever here of political patronage?), college students, etc. etc. which the Rangle bill does NOT allow for.

What the hell are these guys doing???

[leesa]

28. The Republicans WILL have a draft anyway. How do you carry on 30 years

of war without one. This will ensure that Bush's daughters go as well.

I don't agree with any draft, but Bush plans one anyway.

[Cats Against Frist]

83. There's no reason for the Democrats to vote for it

and they probably wouldn't. The point is to get the Republicans on record for having voted against a fair draft, so if they bring up ones that exempt certain people from draft, later, they can point out how hypocritical and terrible they are.

I do agree with you that it could be a problem for two reasons:

1. What the hell makes Rangel, or anyone, think that the Republican consitutency gives a fuck if they send the poor, minority kids off to die? Rangel is assuming that GOP consitutent will find this to be a moral outrage -- and since the only thing that they find to be morally outrageous is gay marriage and prohibition of state-led Christianity, and they have endorsed torture, mass murder, corpo-fascism, empire, imperialism, theft, secret government and the gutting of the Bill of Rights -- uh, what makes anyone think they'd care? Half their brains have been eaten by Rush Limbaugh. I'm sure you know this.

2. If the media doesn't do its job (which is a given), and the right-wing noise machine goes into totalitarian brainwashing mode (which is a 24/7 given), the whole point of this might not even make it into the ears of the people its supposed to inform.

So, it's a great strategy, but in GOP propaganda America, they've already killed truth so many times, this is just as likely to fall, as well.

[Stinky The Clown]

19. I'm with Rangel on this

If we have to have a draft, it needs to be fully fair ..... not one that takes the poor all out of proportion to the priveledged.

First, make no mistake. I am vehemently opposed to a draft and I am vehemently opposed to the War in Iraq(tm).

But if we leave draft legislation to the Repubs, it will be a draft of inner city youth and the poor - just as it has always been since Vietnam. Right now we have only two choices - a draft or a precipitous exit from Iraq. There really is no viable middle ground. This bill could force Chimpus Khan's hand. The choice would have to be made.

Or

The bill will fail and the Repubs will, in their own time, put up their own draft, with all its discrimination. Then the contrast will be drawn. The country will be even more divided. Those who favor the war but don't want their spawn over there vs those who want no draft and no war, but see the Repubs for what they are .... sufferers from the fever of self-delusioned entitlement.

This bill, in many ways, can be the knife thrust into the table. Put up or shut up and get out.

[dbeach]

20. Rangel US Army Korea Purple Heart and

has been knocking bushfraud since 2000.
Draft may be coming regardless of Rangel.The empire wants oil and needs bodies.
I am Against Iraq and most wars cept the struggle between the fascist view of amerika and the Freedom lovers view of America.

O peration
I raqi
L iberation

[H2O Man]

21. While I strongly disagree

with his tactic, I understand why he has introduced the bill again. The new TIME magazine (1-17) has an article "Where Are The New Recruits?" (pages 36-41). The truth is that military leaders have informed the administration and congress that our troops are "rapidly degenerating into a broken force." The current military will not be able to sustain the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq past the end of 2005, and there are not enough new recruits to mend the damage that Iraq is doing daily.

If you believe that Bush & Cheney are going to cut and run, and leave all their "investment" in occupying Iraq in order to secure an oil supply, then tighten your seat belt. Rangel has reintroduced this bill, because he is aware of the current administration plan for a military draft. It will not call upon the children of the wealthy to serve on the front lines. That will be left for the lower- and middle-income families' children.

Up until WW2, there were soldiers of all economic classes serving in combat units. Think of the Kennedys in WW2. But by VietNam, a kid like John Kerry fighting was the exception, and a George W. or a Dick Cheney was the rule.

For more information on the draft and Consciencious Objection, read:
http://h2oman.blogspot.com

[David Zephyr]

22. I love Charlie Rangel and agree with his point, but not his pushing this.

We should let the Republicans and the White House call for the draft because they created the mess that now will require it.

[trezic]

23. Some days I just love Rangel

This is a brilliant idea. Yes, brilliant. Conscription should never have been ended. I have a couple of reasons why I like it.

1. A no-exemption draft would force the word duty back into the public arena. America has become far too rights-obsessed over the last 50 years or so. The pendulum needs to correct a bit and reintroduce the other side of the coin, duty. Oh, let me correct this: no exemptions other than physical or mental disability. No more conscientious objecter status, with the exception of those whose faith is expressly pacifistic (ie Quakers).

2. The all-volunteer army (when I say army, read military) is more likely to lead to aggressiveness on the part of the political leadership. This is opinion derived from observations. In the first half of the 20th century, with the exception of general wars, American forces were deployed (primarily in Latin America and the Caribbean) about 20 times. The rise of the all-volunteer army saw all the services being deployed a similar number of times over the last 20 years of the century. The Marines were deployed because they were always all-volunteer. It's a lot easier to justify cutting diplomacy short because you have an immediate military option.

3. This one is seriously fuzzy. If you deny people their chance to participate in history, you create tension. I have felt that Bush's 'call to shop' was a goddamn disgrace from the moment he said it. The underlying premise of America is that people have control of their own destiny. In effect, Bush told us that we need not be bothered with worrying about that at all. This is in direct contrast to FDR, Bush's belated hero, who actively sought to draw people in during the New Deal. In a country where the people are supposed to be the sovereign, you can't leave them on the sideline while you run foreign policy like an 18 year old virgin in his first strip club.

[Geek_Girl]

52. I agree with your points

I think Americans have been living in a bubble for far too long and maybe this will wake them up to the realities of what is happening in our country.

[stray cat]

24. Congress will never pass a fair draft

Republicans also know they would never stay in power if they re-instated an unfair draft.

I think the attention in and of itself to the situation Bush has gotten our armed forces into can only be good.

[dbeach]

25. Draft worked for me

or is that I worked for the draft.If ya survive the war zone...empire does extend benefits which then repeukes like cheney vote against.
Draft would wake up the sheeple "big time".
It would put the middle class back on the inside.When things go wrong ..call your congressmen.
Draft would build Awareness and people would appreciate their freedoms which the busheviks are removing.
Would be nice to train lots of folks on how to use those neat weapons that the taxpayer paid for...

[The Backlash Cometh]

26. What an asshole. Playing games in Washington just distances him

further from the real people.

[Adelante]

72. The "real people" of Harlem

have elected Charlie Rangel 17 times to Congress. They know who is going to war and who is not, so does he. This is no game to Charlie Rangel or his constituents.

[The Backlash Cometh]

82. Rangel is gambling that people will recognize the gimmick.

But that is a gamble that his own constituents can't afford if he's wrong. Rangel is using this ploy like a game of chicken. He expects that the Republicans will choke for fear that their precious children will get drawn into a no-exempt draft.

For Christ's sake. The Dems just lost TWO presidential elections because they didn't have the smarts to figure out where the Republicans would steal the votes. HOW IN THE H*** DO YOU EXPECT ME TO HAVE ANY CONFIDENCE THAT THEY WOULD BE SMART ENOUGH TO FIGURE OUT HOW THE REPUB ELITE ARE GOING TO RIG A DRAFT?

[Adelante]

87. There IS going to be a draft

I would like to see a fair one since it is going to happen anyway. People can choose to go to Canada or march on Washington or serve, if they want. As things stand, the volunteer army is in effect a draft of the poor and working class. I see that and Rangel sees that. Somebody's got to call the Repubs on it and he's the one doing it. Whether they cave once their kids are being called up remains to be seen. But even if they don't, if we keep sending cannon fodder let it be bipartisan cannon fodder from every class in the nation. I don't have a lot of confidence in the Dems anymore, either, but I do trust Charlie. He hasn't lied to me yet.

[The Backlash Cometh]

89. He may not have lied, but he hasn't convinced me that

he's done his homework. For instance:

The real right-wing military go for the Air Force, which will never be requested to fight on the frontlines, mano a mano. They have an arrogant, snobbish perception of the other branches. Expect the children of the elite to be funneled to the Air Force where they will enjoy the best privileges the military has to offer. Since Rangel is so concerned about minorities, maybe he can also look into WHY the children of Air Force personnel are getting full scholarships to colleges without being required to serve ANY time in the military; while poor grunts are being slaughtered on the frontlines and getting only the promise of partial scholarship, if they survive.

Do you think that the minority-intensive army of the Iraq War were applauded by conservatives for their sacrifices? Nope, they weren't. Under their breath, they were wondering why the REAL marines weren't sent in to do the job, and why the fighting was left in the hands of "flunky" minority based units. I called their bluff and agreed with them. Why, I asked, weren't career soldiers fighting the first stage of this war, when the fear of WMD meant that the first wave of soldiers would have most assuredly been hit with bio-weapons that would have resulted in high casualties. Of course, that never happened because, hey, there WERE NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION! But, back then, that wasn't the conventional wisdom, was it? The ugly reality is, that high casualties WERE expected if Saddam unleashed bio-weapons and that's why the inexperienced, minority-intensive Army were assigned the first strike.

So you can tell Rangel to stick it where the sun don't shine because there are a number of ways to continue discriminatory practices in the military and he isn't smart enough to figure them all out. So maybe he would do better to address the inequities in the military before he supports a bluff-tactic that will backfire on him and end up killing more of his own people.

[qanda]

29. Stop it Charlie

We get your point and you're getting on my nerves!

[spirok]

30. This kind of thing

is typical of all Republicans! Rangel certainly serves his party and his primate boss very well!

[DemBones DemBones]

46. Rangel's a Democrat. nt

[Adelante]

73. OMG

:7

[DrWeird]

31. You can't support the war and not support the draft.

He has a great point.

[Sparkly]

33. Beyond People Against the Draft, who is the source of this story??

That's what I want to know, first of all.

[tomkertes]

34. All I know is what is in the links n/t

[forgethell]

35. Rangel is

an asshole. Being black himself why is he so anxious to re-introduce slavery into the United States. A draft is acceptable only if needed for defensive war, when the survival of the state is at stake.

Especially universal service. The military cannot absorb that number of people. So they will form various ill-planned projects for them, no doubt.

x(

[roguevalley]

36. no one is going to vote for it. its about shoving the war up bush's

butt. no one is going to vote for it. its worse than social security and medicare. no one will vote for it. he's making a point. He could kill the chance of foreign interventions down the road when they vote to kill this legislation. it will prevent wars if you don't have the manpower.

[Wrinkle_In_Time]

40. Why can others not see this?

Charles Rangel is a very smart man. He is obviously against the draft, which is why he is rubbing this in the Sissyhawks' faces. If the draft issue isn't continuously given a big, bright spotlight then it will sneak through and become law before you know it.

The next thing you known, some of you detractors will be knocking on my door in Toronto asking for asylum.

PS: I'm saddened that I am using this topic to pop my DU posting cherry, but I can only tolerate so much stupidity before I am forced to act.

Wrinkle in Time... don't we all

[FrenchieCat]

42. That's about how I see it...

Amazing how little time and energy peeps us to think about why Rangel would bring this up.

They hear "draft"....and they all start shivering and hiding under their desk and denouncing Charlie.

Those that are so "panicky" don't know anything about political gamesmanship when it's slapping them in the face. Maybe that's why Democrats keep getting their ass beat at the polls...they are sure a "scary" lot....just like most of the Democratic politicians!

CHARLIE RANGEL IS A FRONTLINE SOLDIER who knows how to fight fire with fire. Let the pink tu-tu Democrats denounce him and let them get scary and irritated. They only know how to be gamed....not how to take the lead and make the Repubs scared. :shrug:

[Lostnote03]

ha ha....chicken at wrinkles on Wedsdays for all ex-pats..lol

[Lostnote03]

45. ha ha....chicken at wrinkles on Wednesdays for all ex-pats..lol

[fortyfeetunder]

92. Testing the idiocy

Rangel knows what he is doing, and I understand his logic.

He wants to see how many idiots he can get to buy into his draft logic...no exceptions. Considering only a couple at most of the 435 Congress members have an immediate family member on active duty.

I'd say he's got them by the shorthairs.

[FrenchieCat]

43. Damn!

Read your own dogone Avatar and get a clue. :shrug:

[Catherine Vincent]

51. Your signature pics are awesome.

[FrenchieCat]

53. Based on the fact that

it appears that everything is staying the same.....and with MLK's B-day coming up.....This is about as appropriate as I could find!

[Sparkly]

54. It's powerful, Frenchie

:thumbsup:

[robbedvoter]

81. I'm with her!

[neverforget]

48. Dems can say about the repubs: they voted against it (twice) before

they voted for it.

[Sparkly]

50. Who's seen Bill Galvin's memo?

Besides the guy at People Against the Draft?

Can't find it on Galvin's site:
http://www.nisbco.org/

Can't find it on People Against the Draft's site:
http://www.nodraft.info/

[Sparkly]

55. Is Galvin clairvoyant?

How does he know what Charlie Rangel "intends" to do? Magic 8 ball, maybe?

Seriously, I'm still not clear on the source. :shrug:

Maybe it's not worth arguing about until or unless we get some verification, let alone details.

[tomkertes]

56. More info for researching the source

Here is the author of the original story:

Jacob Levich
[e-mail]

Here is the link that sources the memo:
http://nyc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/138944/index.php

Here are some other articles by Levich:

http://www.counterpunch.org/levich06012004.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/levich02082003.html

[Sparkly]

70. I'm just cautioning not to jump on this without a real source

Indymedia says Jacob Levich says Bill Gavin says Charlie Rangel intends to do this.

I'd think this would be big enough news that Gavin's memo would be posted on the websites. If there's a source for the memo, I'd think it'd be all over the place -- but searching Google News turns up nothing. It's either a great scoop, or nonsense. I just think we should find out which before getting all worked up about it.

[tomkertes]

77. Here is what I got from Levich

http://nyc.indymedia.org/newswire/display_any/138983

He says that he has actually seen the memo but has talked to Bill Gavin about it.

You can source back to all the names as well.

[Sparkly]

84. Thank you!!

That gives me more to go on. I wrote to Emile Milne. In any case, if "a final decision has not been made" as the memo says, I think it was misleading for Levich and Indymedia to use the headline "Rangel to reintroduce notorious draft bill."

So now we have: Indymedia says Levich says Galvin says Milne says Rangel says he hasn't decided yet. "Probably" is the only level of confirmation.

[tomkertes]

93. let me know what you can confirm n/t

[Sparkly]

94. Sure will

Thanks, tom. I'm just a born skeptic, I guess. :hi:

[Blue_State_Elitist]

57. Why not introduce a draft?

The anti-war kids will refuse to go and the Bush tools will be forced to either spend some time cheating death in Iraq, or come to realize that this entire war is illegitimate.


Just a thought.

[FrenchieCat]

58. It should certainly make the sheeples think....

after all, they voted Bush because they were worried about National Security. Now they can start worrying for real about their personal security!

I would love to see them scratching their own asses!

[Blue_State_Elitist]

59. That's the general feeling I now have after the election

You want this, fight with your own damn fists, and don't come crying to me when you find out it wasn't all it was meant to be.

[bluestateguy]

63. God damn him. That pile of shit (Rangel)!

Does he want the Democrats to be blamed for the draft coming back?! You and I know that the draft will only come back when Bush says he wants it back, but as long as windbagged, self-righteous demagogues like Rangel keep introducing what he freely admits is a political bill, then he is giving Bush and the Republicans the ability to cast bipartisan responsibility for the draft's return. I understand what kind of a debate Rangel wants to generate with this bill (which he himself voted against last year). But I'm a little old-fashioned. I believe you should only introduce a bill if you think it should actually become law. Furthermore, why would he want to put that kind of power into the hands of this dictatorial president.

I will never support Rangel again. He's an arrogant blowhard who is trying to make a political statement with young people's lives. Oh, and some of you should know, that he is much cozier with the power brokers than you all realize. He actually gets a good chunk of campaign change from Wall Street and corporate executives. Bring back Adam Clayton Powell.

[FrenchieCat]

64. Can you give me some links.....

to support your denegration and demonizing of Charlie Rangel?

I resent your tone, your lack of analysis, and in particular the vague accusations and the name calling.

I'm not going to take this kind of type of character assasination on a stand up person like Charlie Rangel from the likes of you.

Demonizing the black man who was the founding father of the Congressional Black caucus is extremely low....and let's me know that you have absolutely no political insight.....NONE!

and if you are so "Old Fashioned"....then a little respect for your elders would illustrate that virtue you claim to possess for those who fought the good fight as front line soldiers in the war for civil rights.

Rangel ain't no pink tu-tu Democrat. He's one of the most vocal and one of the best. The Republicans hate him with a passion. Google his name, and check out what the right says about him.

You need to check yourself......

[bluestateguy]

65. Here. Good night.

to support your denegration and demonizing of Charlie Rangel?

For starters, here is a link to Rangel's campaign money from the last 3 election cycles. Or at least the first 1000. There is a lot of corporate money there:

http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?NumOfThou=0&txtName=&txtState=%28all+states%29&txtZip=&txtEmploy=&txtCand=rangel&txt2004=Y&txt2002=Y&txt2000=Y&Order=N

I resent your tone, your lack of analysis, and in particular the vague accusations and the name calling.

I'm not going to take this kind of type of character assasination on a stand up person like Charlie Rangel from the likes of you.

Tough. I speak my mind.

Demonizing the black man who was the founding father of the Congressional Black caucus is extremely low....and let's me know that you have absolutely no political insight.....NONE!

Him being the "black man who was the founding father of the Congressional Black Caucus" is not relevant to this debate. No, actually, I take that back. It is. Because if a draft is implemented, even if it's Rangel's bill, it will result in thousands upon thousands of young black men and women being sent off to George W. Bush's war machine to be killed or maimed. Is Rangel really so delusional as to think that he can devise a bill that will prevent rich white kids from avoiding service?

and if you are so "Old Fashioned"....then a little respect for your elders would illustrate that virtue you claim to possess for those who fought the good fight as front line soldiers in the war for civil rights.

Again, Rangel's draft bill, even if well intentioned, will compromise civil rights for non-whites, not advance them. It will only provide the military with more warm bodies (most of whom will be poor or non-white) for more wars to be conducted for the benefit of the wealthy elite.

Rangel ain't no pink tu-tu Democrat. He's one of the most vocal and one of the best. The Republicans hate him with a passion. Google his name, and check out what the right says about him.

On other issues that may well be true. But here we are talking about the draft. The draft is wrong whether it's Rangel that proposes it, or some red-necked, red-state Republican who proposes it. I will oppose the draft with equal ferocity no matter who proposes it. Rangel may not believe it, but he is playing right into the hands of Karl Rove, for when the time comes to bring back the draft, Republicans will now have the ability to claim that the draft has bipartisan support, thus spreading the blame to both parties.

You need to check yourself......

I speak my mind. I say what I mean and mean what I say. I do not apologize for statements I make.

[trezic]

66. Conscription and political games

When he introduced the draft bill a couple of years ago, Charlie seemed quite serious. His express interest was adding another mixer to the melting pot. Not a bad goal, really.

A previous poster stated that the draft in Vietnam was mostly comprised of urban youth, meaning black, I guess. This is wrong. The two demographic groups most represented in Vietnam were Catholics and Southerners. In fact, Catholics made up 30% of battle deaths, while accounting for 24% of the population at the time.

[orleans]

67. in charlie's first bill

i think he also said the females should be drafted along with everyone between the ages of 18-25.
no deferments.
it was meant as an attention getter to how fu*ked up a draft is.
and how we won't let the rich get away with it this time.
he never had any intention of voting on his own bill.

he wanted to have the war discussion and beat the repukes to the punch; it they want a draft...then draft this! (it was his little way of saying bush can just pack up little barbara and jenna and kiss them goodbye!)

and it was, from what i remember, a call wake-up call to the country. (well, i guess that last part didn't work. hello...? wake up country!)

but see? no one voted for it. not even charlie.

[sadiesworld]

68. Terrible idea.

I understand Rangel's point, but you KNOW the media will spin this to paint dems in the worst possible light.

We're in the middle of a battle (SS) WE CAN WIN...and Rangel wants to muddy the water with THIS?????

There are SO many ways this can backfire.

I hope I'm dead wrong on this one.

[Q]

69. Good for Rangel...

It's time for all Americans to share the sacrifice of this government's decision to take this nation to (unnecessary) war. Perhaps this will bring them a little closer to the realities and begin a process that will end this war for profit and empire.

[The Flaming Red Head]

71. I have a son and I'll never forgive the Dems if this passes

Last one out of the Democratic Party, please leave the lights on, so the bastards can see how lonely their little party about nothing is becoming.

[Q]

You've nicely defined the problem:

That is...most Americans are willing to 'stay the course' in Iraq as long as it's not their son or daughter that has to join the killing fields.

I'm not suggesting that you don't have the right to be concerned. But until more Americans recognize and protest this illegal, aggressive war based on lies...it will end up like Vietnam where no one wants to be the 'last to die for a mistake (lie).

[The Flaming Red Head]

91. I never supported this war or said stay the course

I knew when we went in that we were making a mistake and I don't think my only son or his cousins or any of our other kids (who are all close to draft age) should have to have pay for * hubris.

[Mitt Chovick]

74. Don't Worry Red Head

This is just a self-defeating stunt.

I wish my fellow Democrats wouldn't pull stunts like this. Now that jackass Delay will let it come up for a vote and it might get 5 or so Dem votes again. Then the Repthuglicans will laugh their butts off again, and the swing voters will scratch their heads wondering why the Dems are again pro-draft.

We've already stuck our hand in this light socket, why do it again.

As the great one Bill Clinton once said "insanity is doing the same thing over and over and hoping for a different result"

[Adelante]

85. The great Benjamin Franklin

Clinton was quoting him.

[Mitt Chovick]

86. Thanks (nt)

[GarySeven]

75. "notrious"? Oh my God ...

There are a lot of people on this board who post good ideas and have valuable things to say, such as this post. But is it just me who cannot bear to read things with misspellings? No matter how worthwhile the post is, I can't get past such errors and pass a pre-judgment on the posters' perspicacity.

Anyway, Rangel's draft proposal is a good one. If we need a draft to fight a common enemy, then the danger should be shared in common among rich and poor folk - and that includes the sons of the military contractors who encourage and abet wars for economic gain.

[berni_mccoy]

78. Grammatic error

"No matter how worthwhile the post is, I can't get past such errors and pass a pre-judgment on the posters' perspicacity."

should be

"No matter how worthwhile the post is, I can't get past such errors and pass a pre-judgment on the poster's perspicacity."

Mixed plurality: "the post" can only be posted by a single "poster"

Sorry, couldn't resist.


}(

[GarySeven]

88. Yes, I saw that when I hit the "post message" button

I could have edited it, but because I am so great I thought I would let you "little people" have some fun.

BTW, shouldn't that be either "grammar error" or "grammatical error?"

[berni_mccoy]

90. Excellent response my linguistically peevish friend!

The answer to your question is that grammatic and grammatical are synonyms. These two words may be used interchangeably (per writer's preference of course).

Thank you, kindly, for the fun and laughter.

[tomkertes]

79. I posted it on breaking news

and on breaking news it says to use the title in the original source

but this news was too breaking (since not YET covered by MSM) to be in that section

so that's the source of the misspelling

[berni_mccoy]

76. Like many, I was confused when this was re-introduced as well

But thanks to Karmadillo (post #9 above at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1495231#1495240) and FrenchieCat (post #32 above at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1495231#1495775), I think I see why he's doing this.

I don't want a draft either (I have two boys), *BUT* if there is one, I want it to be fair and equal. Rangel is right on with this, and his kind of political play with this is EXACTLY what the Democrats need right now. Some hard ball politics.

If these RW Chicken-hawks are going to push this war, they better start making sacrifices for it. They won't if they get their way and introduce their own bill. Rangel's bill will make it very difficult for them to do so now.

Think about how they use voting records of congressmen against them during elections. If we don't do this bill now, then when the repugs introduce *THEIR* draft, you know dems will vote against it (and lose). Then they will be vulnerable to political attacks like "didn't congressmen X vote against the draft to support America in her time of need" and that kind of bull.

Face it, we *NEED* to beef up the military and there is only one person responsible for that need: Bush. No one is happy with the mistakes that have brought us to this point. Nevertheless, we are here. If we are going to have a draft (and it must be imminent if Rangel is introducing this bill), let the people who instigated the war make equal sacrifices with those who have no choice (the poor and those who voted against Bush and his war).

[kypper]

95. Democrats are responsible either way

If this is passed, the RW will originally take the credit for it, stating that it is for America. Later, once it becomes flagrantly unpopular, they will blame the Democrats for putting the idea forth, claiming that even if they all voted for it, it was never their idea.

If it's rejected, they will pass their own and pull the same old bullshit.

You can't blame them... the majority of Americans are stupid enough to buy the story.

[trezic]

96. The necessity of conscription

If you want to encourage aggression, please, by all means, continue opposing a draft.

The draft was originally abolished as a political maneuver by Nixon to lessen opposition to Vietnam. It was a mistake then and it is a mistake now to oppose it. Conscription is the unacknowledged father of the civil rights movement. It may have also contributed to the legitimacy of the New Deal by virtue of MacArthur's slaughter of the Bonus Army.

There was a comment that Dean Acheson made, I don't have the source with me at the moment, of the recognition that duties were older and were as fundamental than rights. Requiring Americans to fairly serve their country in uniform is not evil, it is fundamental to the protection of rights.

One little benefit that conscription could allow is expanded peacekeeping operations. Perhaps there could be specific police-type units formed of conscripts for this purpose. This is just an idea, so obviously it's not meant to be definitive.

[rfkrfk]

97. Rangel will need to flip about 280 House votes

The draft bill faces an uncertain future.
Last time, the vote was about, 10 yes,, 400 no.
Looks tough.

[ComerPerro]

98. Great. That way we can be blamed

Perfect.

I understand why Rangel is doing this, just as I understood why he introduced it the first time.

But the public is too fucking stupid and uninterested to grasp any of this.

All the right needs is Rush screaming "Its the Democrats who want the draft."

Hey, maybe they can blame the war and WMD lies on us too...