Monday, November 20, 2006

Return of the draft

Enjoying your Democratic Congress yet?

11 comments:

Big Daddy Jeff said...

Actually, I happen to think this would be a great idea. I think one of the fabrics lost in modern American society that held past generations together was the idea of military service. I know it won't happen anytime soon. But I give this guy credit for suggesting it. Rangel is smart to tie the issue to Iraq too. Because if you're of the mindset of supporting Iraq and want more of that in the future, we may need a draft very soon.

Francase said...

Let's also blissfully ignore the fact that Dems scared people into thinking that it would be proposed by the White House.

Then, after getting elected, they propose it themselves.

Mmm-hmm.

Big Daddy Jeff said...

Pelosi isn't proposing this. Rangel threw it out there and he's actually publically supported this notion for years. Can't accuse him of being two faced on this particular issue. And as someone who was drafted into the Army during the Korean War, he's actually got credibility.

Francase said...

I think you need to double-check your facts again.

Nope, Pelosi has never favored it, mentioned it, nope, never happened.

Big Daddy Jeff said...

I don't understand your criticism of this. Here's a fact: top Pentagon brass have stated at hearings that we don't have the active forces to rapidly put 400,000 troops in Iraq in the near future as some (like McCain) mention. Here's another fact: the boys from Ft Stewart in Georgia are getting ready to go back for their 3rd tour of duty in Iraq! Here's another fact that I got from the inside: word is starting to build that the Georgia National Guard may be asked to do a 2nd tour of duty in Iraq in the near future. All the above is not good news.

Now you may not like Rangel's or Pelosi's ideology and that's fine. But Rangel does have a point here. The neo cons in the Bush administration wanted Iraq. And there are many that want another crack at it in terms of Iran. I've heard you yourself describe a scenario where America puts a large amount of troops into the Middle East. I think you actually predicted this when Israel invaded Lebanon this summer if my memory serves me.

Rangel's point is -- where are these troops going to come from? Good question. The follow up point being since the military is so poorly compensated, why is it only the lower or lower middle class who is asked to make this sacrifice? Another good point.

There are no easy answers. But it is certainly worth posing the questions. That's why I am fine with Rangel's idea of putting a bill forward to institute a draft even if he himself intends to vote against it.

Francase said...

So it's not hypocritical, then, to criticize Bush for wanting this policy (which was false) and then push it yourself?

That's the point of the post.

Big Daddy Jeff said...

From that standpoint, perhaps. But the post and linked article only reported on the news of this bill. I think it's an idea that sgould be debated, given the failures of Iraq. So I'm less concerned with the "he said, she said" than you may be. I hate the hypocrisy of both parties. So I'll ride whatever horse will run.

Francase said...

It is still hypocritical. That's not a point up for debate. If the concept of a draft is going to be discussed, fine. But it's still hypocritical to slam the president for a policy which he didn't propose, then back or propose it yourself. That part isn't debatable, no matter how far you stick your head in the sand.

Big Daddy Jeff said...

I agree. But find me one person in Washington who's not a hyprocrite? Tom Coburn may be real close, but I still say that person doesn't exist. If Bush was bashed on that basis, sure. But, in fairness, that he may re-start the draft amounts to about .000001% of the criticism leveled at Bush by any Democrat or any American, for that matter. If Rangel wants to propose something that would be good for America, I don't care if it goes back on things he said in the past. Like I said, ride the horse who will run. And the GOP is still in the stable!

paul zummo said...

So you're defense is, "they all do it," a position that no doubt you'd immediately castigate anyone but you for taking. It's good to see though, that while you criticize others for spinning (ie., they actually have facts on their side), you've got the spin machine running for your new pals Charlie and Nancy.

Enjoy your new pals.

Big Daddy Jeff said...

Like DiG would say, you just don't get it! ;-) My point is I don't care about the whole "hypocrisy" argument. If you without a party yourself, then you'd understand where I'm coming from here. For example, if Hillary Clinton comes out as pro-life tomorrow in order to gain politcal capital for the 2008 election, I ain't gonna complain that she's a hypocrite for doing so after compliling a 30 yr record of being pro-choice. I'm gonna be happy that she's now in my camp.

In this case, I happen to think Rangel's bill is good idea. I would vote to reinstate a draft myself (as did Jack Murtha in 2004, by the way). So I don't care about Rangel's supposed hidden agenda or sneaky motives -- I like the bill and would like to see it become law. I don't expect it to happen, but good for him for pushing the issue to the forefront.