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

posted at 7:50 pm on November 20, 2006 by Allahpundit

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.

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?

I’m going to get some dinner. Someone figure out what he’s saying and explain it in the comments.

Update (Bryan): Let me take a stab at this. The fact that the military keeps meeting its recruiting goals, even in the middle of this “illegitimate” war in Iraq, is a real problem for demagogues like Rangel. Liberals like Rangel (and John Kerry, and, well, most liberals actually) really do believe their own propaganda about the military–that it’s disproportionately poor, uneducated, and attracts only those with few or no other options in life(like, er, Norman Schwartzkopf, Richard Meyers and John Abizaid…?). When Rangel was in the military that may even have been true to an extent–the rich always had an easier time avoiding the draft than the poor do. But it’s not true now. The only strata of American societ that is participating less in the military than it once did is the poor. The middle and upper classes are still kicking in their proportionate share.

Now we don’t have a draft, and we have this “illegitimate” war, and still have young Americans voting with their lives to support, fight in and if necessary die in this war. For Rangel, that’s a real problem, and one for which he has no answer. He can cite poll after poll showing broad discontent with the war, but he can’t say that Americans aren’t supporting it–they stubbornly keep enlisting, re-enlisting and volunteering to go to Iraq time and time again. Some Americans, those most closely in touch with today’s military, support the mission.

Like most secularists of the left, Rangel only understands material motivations to personal action–money, prestige, position, that sort of thing. It’s completely alien to him that young Americans could actually volunteer to join the military in the middle of what is to him an obviously “illegitimate” war. He just doesn’t understand it, and never will. Hence, his incoherence on the subject. For him, re-instating the draft would reset the world to the way he understands it, with the poor again actually shouldering more of the burden of national defense, and giving him his precious class warfare angle of attack against the war. And against America itself, which is usually the end game of any liberal political gambit.

At least, that’s how I see it.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

What’s he in it for? Money, fame, power? Or is he the true patriot? I don’t think so.

Scotsman on November 20, 2006 at 7:57 PM

It’s beyond ass-hats like this to wrap their heads around true patriotism. He’s a sad man.

x95b10 on November 20, 2006 at 7:59 PM

I think you’ve got it right.

Other wars that required a draft: WWII, Civil War, the war Rangel served in, Korea (perhaps he thinks he participated in a pointless and/or crimina war, I don’t know; South Koreans might feels otherwise). All unwarranted, I guess.

Alex K on November 20, 2006 at 8:00 PM

“Abundantly clear”? My ears are bleeding.

Valiant on November 20, 2006 at 8:01 PM

Totally incomprehensible. Considering how much the military is being paid for their work, there needs to be incentives to recruit people. I find it odd how recuiting levels are low but the retention levels are very high. Is it because the potential recruit is getting a different perspective from those that are currently doing the job. I wonder how that can be?

DAT60A3 on November 20, 2006 at 8:02 PM

2 years of this turkey? Wow…this may have turned out better than we anticipated.

SouthernGent on November 20, 2006 at 8:03 PM

You know, most highly-educated people shun dangerous jobs like police officer or fireman; and those that take those jobs do so contingent on being remunerated as well as possible. You know what this means? Not enough people care about fighting crime and fires to do it without being forced by economic necessity, therefore there’s no legitimacy to crimefighting for firefighting.

Let everyone be cops and firemen, or let’s negotiate with crime and fire.

Alex K on November 20, 2006 at 8:03 PM

All I understood is that he thinks President Bush is the Comandi-in-chief

Opinionnation on November 20, 2006 at 8:06 PM

Translation: Hillary Rodham Clinton still wants to draft men and women. Any mushy-mouth blatherings are aimed at continuing the Left meme that Iraq is a war in itself, not part of the global war on terror and that our military is broken and must accept a draft. Rangel is just doing his duty to the Party by being the front man.
They haven’t given up on this. Wait till they take the gavel in January. They plan to hammer the GOP so hard, it’ll be reeling, and in a weak position to block any Democratic bill.

naliaka on November 20, 2006 at 8:10 PM

Before long, it will be Bush’s fault.

JammieWearingFool on November 20, 2006 at 8:11 PM

What the ?!?! Blame it on bad drugs, or BDS, or untreated PEST.

Until we hear a lot more House Democrats blast the idea, the Democrat Draft Bill will remain relevant.

DannoJyd on November 20, 2006 at 8:13 PM

Isn’t it “abundantly clear,” guys? Every single person in the US needs to want to fight in a particular war and want to have their children fight in a particular war before we actually get involved in that particular war.

Greg Tinti on November 20, 2006 at 8:13 PM

Charlie is the King of the convoluted rant. It was something about we don’t have enough patriotism in this country to go to war and not have the poor go to war also. I think his scheme is to present such a twisted stream of words that your not able to gather the information needed to ask a question. Hey… it’s Charlie, it works for him.

Maxx on November 20, 2006 at 8:13 PM

Listening to Rangel blather on will only kill your brain cells. I urge you all to tune him out!

Checkpoint Charlie on November 20, 2006 at 8:20 PM

This is a perfectly clear reason to limit the age of politicians holding office. He is just the absolute picture of a snoot!

BTW his ignorance is pure: the Commander in Chief is the President. See? Age. He needs to go.

Ideologues simply cannot see the danger facing this country. He should read Horrorism by Martin Amis, as should you all to get a gist of what is truly out there and why!! It’s up at the Observer, UK. Ignore the securlarist slant…there’s meat in them bones.

sharinlite on November 20, 2006 at 8:21 PM

I think it is that we are not allowed to question his patriotism and if you do all you will get is more of his gobbledgook talk,it’s sort of like Bluto’s rant in “Animal House”. he’s on a roll,just let him go till he runs out of steam.It makes no sense at all to me either.

bbz123 on November 20, 2006 at 8:21 PM

With this Democrat Party logic, everyone who supports medicine and uses medical services, should be doctors. But, the reality is, some people are naturally good at being a doctor, others don’t like it and would be terrible at it, and sensible patients would refuse to be treated by them. Same with a carpenter. People who are good at it, make a living at it. Some people are naturally talented at soldiering, so they sign up. To forcibly dump people into a military if they aren’t good at it and don’t like it, is stupid. It’s worse than being forced to do carpentry – with that profession, they’d just make a lousy table, with the military, they’d have a higher risk of being killed, wounded or contributing inadvertently to the death of fellow soldiers.

naliaka on November 20, 2006 at 8:24 PM

Moonbat is not an easly language to pick up. Have to be nutured from cradel to grave and feel that everyone victimizes everyone else to even begin to understand it.

So will just say vote for the most obnoxious democrats. Its easy and fun !

http://anklebiting.web1.ttlc.net/abp_forum/viewtopic.php?p=14542#14542

William Amos on November 20, 2006 at 8:28 PM

You know, most highly-educated people shun dangerous jobs like police officer or fireman; and those that take those jobs do so contingent on being remunerated as well as possible. You know what this means? Not enough people care

about fighting crime and fires to do it without being forced by economic necessity, therefore there’s no legitimacy to crimefighting for firefighting.

Let everyone be cops and firemen, or let’s negotiate with crime and fire.

Alex K on November 20, 2006 at 8:03 PM

That’s a great comment Alex K!

Translation of Rangel’s Rant: “I’m totally against the war, so therefore, let’s force Men and Women not interested in the military to join the military, and let them be at risk for losing their lives. If that happened, then more people would be against all wars, so we wouldn’t commit our troops to fighting unless there was an overwhelming national consensus.”

Hey, I’m not saying it’s correct or logical, or good policy. Disagree, disagree, and disagree.

But Charlie can’t say the above, because that transparency would show how incredibly short-sighted he is, especially when we are hit by another terrorist attack.

asc85 on November 20, 2006 at 8:29 PM

“There is not enough patriotism in America to warrent us going into Iraq and staying in Iraq.”

He just said it, his own lips, his own tounge. The left is not patriotic! Now I understand why we can’t question if they are patriots, because to question it would allow for the fact that they may actually be patriots. Ladies and Gentlemen, the question has been answered.

- The Cat

MirCat on November 20, 2006 at 8:33 PM

Yea I got it.

In essence 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 joing 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.

So he is claiming there is an artificial inticement 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.

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 dont 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.

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.

Karl on November 20, 2006 at 8:33 PM

Well, it’s very clear. Just as the man says, “it’s hypocwitical”. If he thinks only the poor serve in the military then perhaps he should take a page from the Bush tax cut plan and only draft the top 10% of wealth-makers in the country. Anyway, no sense trying to understand his rant.

thedecider on November 20, 2006 at 8:42 PM

Allah, you’re too kind to Rangel. The entire elctrate deserves better for his 35 years of public service. He’s Murtha on meds.

Jeremayakovka on November 20, 2006 at 8:50 PM

My take on this crackhead.

He thinks like this is still Vietnam and he got his head stuck up his a$$ in the 1960′s.

Maybe someone should tell him about a real hero, Pat Tillman.

High and mighty windbag is a antiwar kook. He’s pulled this draft stunt before, and I don’t think he’s serious. There’s no logic to his argument, just the ramblings of an ol’fart whos been drinking from the Hudson river.

Kini on November 20, 2006 at 8:59 PM

I understand what he’s trying to say but he is having a very hard time expressing it clearly.

His contention is that an all-voluntary military, which offers incentives to potential recruits to join, makes it too easy for the US to get into wars. Since a volunteer, by definition, signed up and knew, or should’ve known, that combat was a real possibility they are less likely to protest or resist (a la 60s) deployment.

He thinks that war is a major burden to place on anyone, even volunteers, and that a draft would do one thing: make the country’s leaders consider more carefully before committing to war. I guess the reasoning is that drafted people will be less inclined to be gung ho.

A drafted soldier is considered in against his or her will but will have family and friends who can put pressure on Congress and the President. The professional soldier is less likely to have that sort of backup, according to Rangel, because his family and friends know he (or she) went into the military voluntarily and possibly for a career.

Forget his garbage about “poor people” and all that; statistics will beat him black and blue if he presses it. But facts are not important to ol’ Charlie when it comes to making points. He is having some trouble with the “nuance” of this thing.

Draft = reluctant recruits = concerned family and friends = less likelihood of going to war and more likelihood of diplomacy.

He’s also trying to say that wars should be fought based on popularity although he uses the term “patriotism”.

In a full scale, battle-for-survival, war an all-volunteer army will probably not be enough in terms of manpower — and I do not think the Pentagon nor most Congressmen ever believed that. A draft would be necessary. That is why the nation still requires men reaching their 18th birthday to register. If there is a real national emergency requiring more “boots on the ground” than the professional army can provide then a draft would be initiated.

There are many reasons, I think, for having a professional army. Some of them are:

1. Save money on training costs — many entering the US military will attempt to make it a career. Thus, that expensive training doesn’t just walk away. With a draft, soldiers serve their time and then (often) leave the service, having fulfilled their obligation. But with them walks a lot of training and knowledge. A volunteer military cuts down on that sort of loss.

2. Maintain a core group of soldiers well-trained and ready to take on combat at a moment’s notice. This will be sufficient to take care of most needs if not the worst needs. Soldiers often serve with the same unit for extended periods of time and grow to know the others’ strengths and weaknesses, something that cannot be taught in class but must be learned through experience. They train together and get graded together. That sort of team play is highly effective.

3. The core group also serves as the trainers for any drafted personnel that may be required due to the scale of the conflict.

I’m sure there are many others.

Rangel has done this sort of thing several times since 9/11 and you can expect to see him tote this old garbage out again in the future (he holds Adam Clayton Powell’s old Harlem seat and is about as safe in that seat as can be) but a cup of cold lemonade in Hell has a better chance.

Arnold

prairiemain@yahoo.com
Tarheel Redneck

prairiemain on November 20, 2006 at 9:07 PM

I like a legislator who’s not ashamed of his drug use. Whatever he’s on, I think I’d like some too. I haven’t been that stoned since the tenth grade, but watching him spout that nonsensical righteous outrage, I can almost hear “We’re not gonna take it” in the background.

Kini, I remember reading in Sports Illustrated a long article about Tillman that said he actually became quite anti-war; that he’d joined to promote a future political career, because he was a bit of a thrill-seeker, and apparently became quite anti-war.

Laura on November 20, 2006 at 9:14 PM

Charlie Rangle is the master of the Harlem shuffle.he’s throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks. He should be ignored, but he won’t be. Did he call the active duty military personel hypocrites? He fails to state that the present cash and education incentives were designed to attract quality candidates in the competitive job market before we went to war. What does a welfare social worker or clerk at the food stamp office get paid. Charlie is in the cat bird seat as head of the ways and means committee. Check out his little grin there. He’s lovin it. He can’t wait to bring down all that loot to his folks. Never mind about the war or national security.

sonnyspats1 on November 20, 2006 at 9:15 PM

Laura, I don’t read SI, except when the swimsuit issue comes out and even then, I don’t read it.

Unfortunately, Pat’s not here to comment for himself, so I won’t. Either way, Rangels logic is flawed.

He, like other leftist dems, just want the camara in his face just to hear himself talk.

Kini on November 20, 2006 at 9:27 PM

I think we need one of the resident libs give us an accurate translation of this dribble. Any takers? Constantine? Grebrook? Anyone?

Troy Rasmussen on November 20, 2006 at 9:30 PM

Another attempt at getting more women and homosexuals into combat positions?

infidel on November 20, 2006 at 9:31 PM

He reminds me of that double-speak guy they sometimes have on “Live with Regis and Kelly”. He can get people to agree with his incoherent nonsense, for fear of looking the fool otherwise, which is exactly why it’s funny.

It’s not as funny when the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee does it.

Im_no_dhimmi on November 20, 2006 at 9:58 PM

Sounds like a botched joke to me. Now it’s just poor unpatriotic people joining the military to make a quick buck, after the evil military tricks them in to it? Is that what he just said? I mean, we know he and all Democrats think that, but didn’t he just cop to it? ‘Don’t send the Republican attack machine, it was just a botched joke, and the President knows it!’

By the way, didn’t we recently learn, during the Kerry botched joke situation, that for every two lower income military recruits there are 3 higher income recruits? Anyone have the link on that?

Oh yeah, and fu** you Rangel.

RightWinged on November 20, 2006 at 9:59 PM

“Moonbat is not an easy language”, how very true, thank you William Amos, I will commit that to memory for future use. I think I’ve read all the comments that have attempted a translation, and it’s an impressive collection. They all seem to be marching around the same poll, just some a little farther from center than others. I don’t disagree with any of them and I’m not even in the running for best translation because I couldn’t figure out what the flock he was trying to say. But if conciseness counts, and I think it should, then one translation stands out for getting right to the heart of the matter. This really pulls the curtain back on Charlie.

Translation of Rangel’s Rant: “I’m totally against the war, so therefore, let’s force Men and Women not interested in the military to join the military, and let them be at risk for losing their lives. If that happened, then more people would be against all wars, so we wouldn’t commit our troops to fighting unless there was an overwhelming national consensus.”

asc85 on November 20, 2006 at 8:29 PM

Now there’s some real moonbat comprehension skills ! Charlie would be abhorred to know someone understood him so clearly.

Maxx on November 20, 2006 at 10:02 PM

Oh, and his accusation that Bush has never appealed to enlist because it’s patriot… Bullshit! I’ve heard Bush ask people to serve their country in various ways, including military, on at least half a dozen occassions. It’s not an “eventful” or shocking thing so I don’t have a specific link, but he’s repeatedly discussed it and you can take that to the bank.

RightWinged on November 20, 2006 at 10:02 PM

RightWinged,,a little of topic but where did the CAMEL go?

rocked on November 20, 2006 at 10:05 PM

I guess Charlie forgot that the military FOLLOWS orders and they dont act on their own whims.

So his argument is that we ought to have a draft so that if the US gets into a war the military can FLEE when it doesnt want to fight ?

Does he want to turn the best military in the world into the FRENCH military ?

THESE ARE NOT PEACEKEEPERS DIPOCRATS THESE ARE SERVICE MEN AND WOMEN AND WE ASK THEM TO PROTECT US ! WE DONT PAY THEM ENOUGH AND WE CERTAINLY DONT NEED SOME NUTCASE SENILE OLD FOOL TO DICTATE AN ARMY OF SURRENDER TO THEM !

William Amos on November 20, 2006 at 10:11 PM

Will ad this is the same group of people that CHERISH draft dodgers and elect them president. SO I shouldnt be shocked.

William Amos on November 20, 2006 at 10:12 PM

Not much more I can add to any of the comments. Rangel never ceases to amaze me though. Sometimes I think he can’t possibly top the stupid things he’s said in the past but then he never lets me down on that score as he always seems to come up with something even more profoundly strange.

Catie96706 on November 20, 2006 at 10:20 PM

Kini, I remember reading in Sports Illustrated a long article about Tillman that said he actually became quite anti-war; that he’d joined to promote a future political career, because he was a bit of a thrill-seeker, and apparently became quite anti-war.

Laura on November 20, 2006 at 9:14 PM

Laura, I read that article, and I don’t seem to remember that he was anti-war, and I especially don’t remember him talking about doing it for a future political career.

I remember the part about being a thrill-seeker, and constantly needing to prove things to himself.

asc85 on November 20, 2006 at 10:22 PM

OK, rocked, I’ll bite.

you think i actually was going to put a leopold on him? Not now.

What does that last bit, “Not now” mean? I’m a simple sorta guy, so nuance isn’t really the best approach here.

EFG on November 20, 2006 at 10:23 PM

Translation of Rangel’s wrangles:

“I’m an asshole, and I approved this message.”

JeffH on November 20, 2006 at 10:32 PM

RightWinged,,a little of topic but where did the CAMEL go?

rocked on November 20, 2006 at 10:05 PM

You talking about that girl in the t-shirt ads? Don’t know, lately I’ve been seeing some old ladies in Google ads.

RightWinged on November 20, 2006 at 10:34 PM

You talking about that girl in the t-shirt ads? Don’t know, lately I’ve been seeing some old ladies in Google ads.

RightWinged on November 20, 2006 at 10:34 PM

RightWinged…anytime i mention camel you know what i am talking about.

duh with the little old ladies

rocked on November 20, 2006 at 10:37 PM

asc, here are some quotes –

You didn’t talk politics over there, not while you were still in the sandbox. But that night, as Pat watched another orange and white flash-bang shudder the distant town, he shook his head and said, “This war is so f—— illegal.” Russ, for the first time, realized how wobbly a tightrope Pat was walking between his integrity and his duty. Even later in their 3 1/2-month deployment in Iraq, as it began to appear that they’d been sent on a nukes-and-biochemical-weapons wild-goose chase, Russ never heard Pat go further than, “This is all bulls—.” But surely Pat’s fame and fierce independence had unsettled higher-ups from the day he enlisted. They had tried to persuade him to be a recruiting poster boy in Washington rather than a Ranger. Surely, one family member was convinced, once the Army got its first glimpse of Pat’s psychological profile — he was the one who stood outside the Cardinals’ team prayer circle, the one who couldn’t wait to have a mutual friend arrange a meeting with renowned anti-war leftist Noam Chomsky after his discharge — it never would have allowed him to become a Ranger if it hadn’t had to because he was Pat Tillman.

This is what made me conclude he’d had a political career in mind –

He yearned to have a voice one day that would carry, possibly in politics, and he was far from the sort of man who could send others into a fire that he had skirted.

It’s a long article, and I don’t mean to imply Tillman was your typical anti-war leftist. I consider him a hero – he gave his word, and kept it even up to his death. But there was a lot more to the story, apparently, than is widely known, and I can think of many stories of heroes in this war who better represent conservative political views.

Laura on November 20, 2006 at 10:39 PM

Is Rangle hanging out with Kerry again?

LewWaters on November 20, 2006 at 10:44 PM

In other words, Charlie: We shouldn’t encourage more people to teach our school-children with more pay, bonuses, or benefits. If teaching our children is important enough, then more people would go into the teaching field out of a sense of duty.

Damn. Incomprehensible.

hillbillyjim on November 20, 2006 at 10:59 PM

I just saw him on CNN, why can’t they tell him that the number of minorities in the military is about the same, percentage wise, as the nation as a whole? Oh yeah, it was on CNN, nevermind, I just anwered my own question.

Tony737 on November 20, 2006 at 11:01 PM

The Draft is a bad idea all the way around, especially if the Dems have the reins.

Those in uniform are they because they chose to be. Which is a huige difference than those who would be dragged in kicking and screaming.

Having grown up through Vietnam and “McNamara’s 100,000″, I’ve no doubt that the Dem sponsored “Draft” would be riddled with so many loopholes, that there would be more Deferrments than Inductees!

Returning the Military to Category 4 personnel and the need for dumbed down comic books instead of Technical Data.

Jack.

Jack Deth on November 20, 2006 at 11:03 PM

Oh, another quick comment… judging by Rangels recent comments, he sounds he’s saying military service is a bad thing, and thus a draft would be used as a form of punishment almost.

RightWinged on November 20, 2006 at 11:06 PM

Maybe our elected officials should work for minimum wage. That way they wouldn’t be accused of being mercenaries. I always felt that the congressional pay raises should be given only when after the military got theirs and then the pay hike percentage should be the same. Give the military 2%, give congress 2%. Afterall, the military works more than 3 days a week.

DAT60A3 on November 20, 2006 at 11:13 PM

Wait a second. I swear I remember one of the arguments for having a volunteer military is that a volunteer military makes it harder to wage unjust wars. People won’t enlist and those in will get out. That’s one of the arguments I remember from the early ’70s when they were talking about doing away with the draft. Rangle has turned everything on it’s head.

Kevin R on November 20, 2006 at 11:15 PM

Old Man Rangel has finally gone round the bend. At least last time he proposed the draft there was a kind of political horse sense to it. You know, 2004 elections coming up, increasingly unpopular war, Dems screaming “FEAR MONGERING!” at their opponents while engaging in a little draft-mongering of their own…

But why now? Must be senility.

Kadnine on November 20, 2006 at 11:46 PM

Leftists always want to hamstring our police and our military.

Our Armed Forces finally figured out that the draft was a failed system.

So they did away with it.

And in doing so created a much better operating fighting force.

Never lose track of the left’s prime objective: they wish to bring this great nation down.

.

The Machine on November 20, 2006 at 11:49 PM

I love Theatre of the Absurd–starromg Botox Pelosi, Impeached Hastings, Asshat Wrangle, Frenchman Kerry, Abscan Murtha . This is much more interesting that anything the Repubs could come up with

If these asses keep making asses of themselves, any Repub candidate ) for pres or senate or house ) should have plenty to run against. And make no mistake, having a gang of worthless turds like these to run against is PRICELESS

Janos Hunyadi on November 20, 2006 at 11:51 PM

rocked… your way out of line, you know better than to post that kind of crap on this blog ! I just ask Allahpundit to delete your post.

Maxx on November 21, 2006 at 12:15 AM

Here is what he was trying to say (at least in part): If the enemy in Iraq was really a threat to the United States of America’s existence as a free nation:
(1) Appeals to patriotism, not finances, would be sufficient to flood the military with recruits;
(2) The burden of saving the United States should fall on everyone, not just those who choose the military;
(3) Everyone, including him, would be asked to, and would make, sacrifices for the cause of saving the United States.

My father, who is 100 times brighter and more articulate than this incoherent boob, makes the same argument. They are both wrong, but at least I understand the argument.

The response: A threat can be both existential and able to be handled by a small group of volunteers. If a meteor were streaking towards the planet, I doubt that many of us would be able to help build the superlaser, or whatever, necessary to destroy it. But, destroying it would still be absolutely necessary.

I do think that the country should be offered more opportunities to help the cause against Islamofascism than just paying taxes and sending a relatively few brave soldiers into harm’s way. Specifically: a massive energy tax to make us energy independent. Build nuclear reactors in kindergartens. Use sharpened baby seals to drill for oil in the Arctic. Strip mine all of West Virginia and Kentucky for coal. Build non-breeding nuclear reactors in all energy-poor countries. In other words, make Saudi oil not worth pumping out of the ground and cut off the source of the funds for radical Islam.

Watergate on November 21, 2006 at 12:16 AM

All I understood is that he thinks President Bush is the Comandi-in-chief

Opinionnation on November 20, 2006 at 8:06 PM

Killer. Had me in stitches!

Rep. Rangel is as incoherent as usual. He’s actually pretty entertaining, would he not have the potential to be so harmful.

Have you noticed the absence of trolls from threads which don’t make their side look so good? Oh, the elites…

Entelechy on November 21, 2006 at 12:21 AM

It’s a long article, and I don’t mean to imply Tillman was your typical anti-war leftist. I consider him a hero – he gave his word, and kept it even up to his death. But there was a lot more to the story, apparently, than is widely known, and I can think of many stories of heroes in this war who better represent conservative political views.

Laura on November 20, 2006 at 10:39 PM

Hi Laura,

Thanks for your clarification and follow-up documentation. I thought it was an excellent article when I read it as well.

asc85 on November 21, 2006 at 12:21 AM

I think you cut off the video just as he referred to himself in the 3rd person. He said something like, “They don’t do that to Charlie (table his bill)”. What I heard was, “Charlie don’t placate”.

MayBee on November 21, 2006 at 12:26 AM

The end statement is a logical puzzler:

There is not enough patriotism in this country to warrant going to Iraq and staying in Iraq

Is going to war a matter of patiotism only? Maybe the U.S. then needs to attack just about every other country because our patriotism is one of the highest in the world, still.

Also, it is ironic to hear Mr. Rangel say that there isn’t enough patriotism in this country, after the Left spewed all the anti-Americanism they possibly could, via all media, in the last 5 years and belittled the right for being patriotic and flag-waving.

Entelechy on November 21, 2006 at 12:33 AM

Sounds to me like James Brown channeling John Kerry.

NightmareOnKStreet on November 21, 2006 at 1:08 AM

Charlie Rangel, champion of the feckless, grasping poor.

He’s right on one thing: Mr. Bush hasn’t done much to stand up for the war. He’s mouthed a few platitudes, but hasn’t gone on the offensive for this offensive.

It’s just that Rangel’s *WRONG* on just about *EVERYTHING* else…in life…in what he says…*EVERYTHING*….

If there’s not enough patriotism in this country to warrant going to Iraq and staying in Iraq…because of moral vacuums like Charlie Rangel.

Maybe there’s an untapped well of patriotism down in Mississippi, eh Charlie? You’ll never know…beneath you, ain’t it Charlie….

…a snob, fighting for the downtrodden…spare us….

Puritan1648 on November 21, 2006 at 1:10 AM

Sounds to me like James Brown channeling John Kerry. — NightmareOnKStreet

…go you one better: sounded like Iceberg Slim channeling Lenin.

Puritan1648 on November 21, 2006 at 1:41 AM

Have you noticed the absence of trolls from threads which don’t make their side look so good? Oh, the elites…

Entelechy on November 21, 2006 at 12:21 AM

Amen my friend, amen.

It’s hard to open ones mouth wider when ones foot is already in.

After all, he speaks for so many….

Kini on November 21, 2006 at 4:53 AM

Rightwinged, you ask, you receive…

Who are the Recruits?

A very thorough demographic study of military recruitment covering 2003-2005.

Rangel has been heard to say many times that a draft would put even the children of politicians in play, which would turn them all anti-war, even the chicken-hawk Republicans.

So, in the socialist, politics-of-pull worldview, CYA comes before anything else. Since it’s impossible for them to think that another human being might operate on higher moral principles (or any at all), it must apply universally, and no politician would ever support a war that his child might have to be involved in.

How does this square with his parallel comment that there isn’t enough patriotism in the nation to support a war? Here’s a man who has, for 35 years, sworn to uphold and defend a document which I daresay he hasn’t the slightest understanding of. It only requires that our government believe in a compelling interest to support a war, patriotism or not. And just for Charlie’s information, a significant majority of Americans are plenty patriotic, thank you very much, in spite of the self-loathing efforts of his kind.

Check his comments thoroughly. Without saying it directly, the implication is clear that he takes the same position as Jon Carry. It’s only the poor, lazy and uneducated being suckered into military service, the people who don’t know better than to be anti-war.

For anybody who isn’t already clear on the concept, there isn’t a civilian on earth who detests armed combat more than those who serve in uniform. We don’t/didn’t serve out of a morbid thrill for the death and destruction of others, but from a sense of duty to an honorable nation. Perhaps the only honorable nation left in the world. Freedom is not free.

Freelancer on November 21, 2006 at 6:57 AM

I think he is trying to say something like Patriotism ain’t nothing but a trick on Negroes.

h/t Flannery O’Connor

B Moe on November 21, 2006 at 7:32 AM

Hmm…I can just feel all the Rangelesque patriotism as a huge sucking sound coming from my wallet. Support the troops by cutting their pay, Charlie? Oh, wait. I get it now. If we had that Democratic utopian socialist society, financial incentives aren’t needed because everyone gets a living wage and people only do harder jobs out of the goodness of their hearts.

But back to what he actually said. Can we assume, since Rangel was drafted, that he didn’t have the patriotism required to voluntarily serve during his war?

James on November 21, 2006 at 8:21 AM

I think he’s saying that it’s wrong of the government to offer the poor a respectable way out of poverty by requiring service of them. They should just be handed the welfare check instead of receiving productive training. Don’t let little facts get in the way Charlie. We don’t want America to realize that the military already cuts across most of the economic “classes”.

conservativecaveman on November 21, 2006 at 8:41 AM

Let’s draft Rangel to Okinawa

Ropera on November 21, 2006 at 9:50 AM

rangelmoron….you are right in there with kerrymoron…GOD BLESS OUR TROOPS…GOD BLESS GW…GOD BLESS AMERICA…

areseaoh on November 21, 2006 at 9:56 AM

Charlie Rangel. A true sombrero in the democrat collective of asshats. I put him up there on my poster with KKK Byrd and the swimmer as perfect examples for term limits in both houses.

thebookkeeper on November 21, 2006 at 10:08 AM

My take is Rangel wants the draft so that rich Democrats can get deferments and have an excuse for not serving. Having an all-Volunteer Army simply points out that conservatives volunteer more than liberals–whether it’s the military or charity.

Faith1 on November 21, 2006 at 10:34 AM

Did he take some shrapnel in the melon while he was in Korea? Something isn’t working up there.

As a veteran, I’m astounded how out of touch the Rangel’s and Kerry’s are with their former comrades. How can they not “get it”?

Call me a brainwashed fascist but I enlisted because I love my country, not the paycheck. If I were a few years younger I’d take the pay cut re-enlist today.

irishsquid on November 21, 2006 at 11:13 AM

Soldiers are in it for the money? Has he even seen what a soldier makes? Let me tell you that since getting out in March on medical disability I am now making 2 times the money I made in Iraq and I do not have to deal with the mortars, IED’s, VBID’s, etc.

TrueSoldier on November 21, 2006 at 12:22 PM

Forget about trying to reason out what Rangel is saying. Most liberal propositions are lacking in “cold” reason, relying instead on emotions and feelings; and if the emotions/feelings are highly negatively charged (as liberal emotional states often are), then what they express in debate isn’t so much an “argument” as much as a display of symptoms.

Case in point: Rangel sounds like he’s suffering from a cocktail of Bush Derangement Syndrome, malignant narcissism (e.g., think Andrew Sullivan) and an unhealthy dose of transferance/projection.

Although someone like Rangel may well be patriotic in some ways – I’m sure, for example, that he’d rather live in this country than anywhere else – he’s devoid of that form of patriotism shown by those who are not just capable of enjoying their liberties, but are willing to volunteer to fight for them too.

Seeing this void in himself makes someone like Rangel quite uncomfortable, because he can’t comprehend why and how people not only don’t despise George Bush like he does, but even further would be willing to fight in a conflict in which George Bush is commander-in-chief.

But rather than engage in an honest self-examination of why he feels the way he does, the malignant narcissist chooses to distort reality so that the outside world conforms to him. After all, he’s the “normal” one, so if anyone behaves in a way he finds disagreeable then it’s the other guy who must be “abnormal.”

Ergo, if if Rangel can’t feel patriotic in the way that a volunteer soldier does, why then nobody else can, either. Thus, he ends up projecting onto others his own rationalizations for this lack in himself.

It may not make any logical sense; but it lets Charlie feel good about himself without having to let go of his hatred for others, and that’s what being a liberal demagogue is all about in the end.

Spurius Ligustinus on November 21, 2006 at 2:39 PM

Heh – Tommy Franks is on Neil Cavuto, and just politely slammed Rangel, adding, “I think at all costs, we need to not get lost in the sixties.”

Laura on November 21, 2006 at 4:18 PM

Charlie is right, all of the low-income kids,joining the military, receiving discipline, getting credit for education, receiving credits and future discount for further education, learning a trade, leaving their “homies” behind, opening their eyes to other cultures, occupations, lifestyles, is a disgrace. I can imagine everytime he sees a black officer, or a black warrior, a black hero, he is ashamed…they could be back home voting for him. Why have a volunteer service, when we can drag them off the streets and force him to be what Charlie wants him to be.
That is how he wants the democratic party (and the U.S.) to be, draft the voters, don’t let them choose. Force them to do what is right (his right). Keep the blacks on the plantation, and when they do good (his good) let them in the house to serve. He sees the U.S. as masters and servents, he is a master. When will the minorties wake up and see how racists these people are?

right2bright on November 21, 2006 at 4:22 PM

Test

;-)

Deety on February 16, 2008 at 8:52 AM

:idea: = :idea:
:oops: = :oops:
:razz: = :razz:
:roll: = :roll:
:wink: = :wink:
:cry: = :cry:
:eek: = :eek:
:lol: = :lol:
:mad: = :mad:
:sad: = :sad:
:!: = :!:
:?:

Deety on February 16, 2008 at 8:53 AM