Video: Rangel says men join the army only if they can’t have “a decent career”
posted at 5:07 pm on November 26, 2006 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
Hence his support for the draft. If even our volunteers are there involuntarily, why shouldn’t everyone be?
I want to make it abundantly clear: if there’s anyone who believes that these youngsters want to fight, as the Pentagon and some generals have said, you can just forget about it. No young, bright individual wants to fight just because of a bonus and just because of educational benefits. And most all of them come from communities of very, very high unemployment. If a young fella has an option of having a decent career or joining the army to fight in Iraq, you can bet your life that he would not be in Iraq.
This won’t get as much attention as what Lurch said (or was understood to have said) a few weeks ago. Rangel’s neither as prominent nor as unlikeable as Kerry, nor do vets bear him a grudge the way they do Waffles for his Winter Soldier testimony. But they’re both talking out of the same ass. In the Kerry/Rangel worldview, American troops aren’t the guy who crawls into a lion’s cage to rescue the kid inside; they’re the guy who’s forced into the cage at gunpoint by the gangster who wants something valuable that’s in there. Both are sympathetic, but only one’s a hero. Since they’ve already decided that Bush is a gangster and the Iraq war a criminal enterprise, they have to find a way to exculpate our all-volunteer military for their role in it; blaming them, however obliquely, is politically unviable, which is why even Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore insist they support the troops. Solution: deny their autonomy. Pretend that they’re either too stupid or too lazy or too poor to do anything but enlist. Harsh, but better to be called that than a neocon, right?
If Rangel’s serious about addressing economic inequality in the military, there’s an easy way to do it without imposing a draft. Simply repeal all major economic incentives to enlistment. Per RangelLogic, let the morality of every war be judged by the number of patriots willing to volunteer for it. “Bad” wars will attract few enlistees and end quickly in defeat as we run out of troops; “good” wars, just the opposite. He’d never accept that proposal, of course, because it could conceivably require him to admit that certain wars he opposes are “good” and, worse, that the troops who signed up for them are morally culpable in their execution.
Exit question: does being a trader at Goldman Sachs qualify as “a decent career”?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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
Comment pages: « 1 [2] 3 »
Jailbones, I see your point but I went, my husband is in, family members, & there are so many others here who have or are in the service that I just can’t believe he gets away with this stuff. I guess it does further his credentials with the anti-war crowd. We were last stationed at Fort Lee, VA, before we came out here and I generally read the Richmond Times-Dispatch online almost daily. Well they were interviewing some college kids at the various schools around Richmond and there was one “winner” who said he would go to Canada if there was a draft & others who weren’t quite sure how they felt about it. I remember sometime this past summer Michelle posted a piece from Fort Benning of a speech from an AIT Infantry Course where the LTC was comparing those young men to the one’s who sit around and drink lattes all day and protest the war. I wish Rangel would have been there to have heard that speech. I guess I just don’t get (like so many others have said) how he gets away with it.
Catie.
Catie96706 on November 26, 2006 at 11:44 PM
billy, that was C.S. Lewis’ friend and fellow Oxford don, Tolkien. But here’s what C.S. Lewis said, in “Why I am not a pacifist” which is an essay in his book The Weight of Glory:
(Okay, I just love that quote and use it at every opportunity. But, come on! Do you blame me? It’s great.)
Laura on November 27, 2006 at 12:13 AM
I think Rangel should check out Military Channel - My War Diary before he spouts off about how much he knows about our Troops.
About the show…
In some of those videos I’ve seen these people who “Don’t want to fight” whoop and holler like they are having the time of their lives right after they rip off a burst from their hummvee mounted .50 cal at the bad guys, or after a M1A2 blows the hell outta a bunch of holed up terrorists.
If you folks want to see the faces and hear the stories of our Heros and what’s REALLY going on in The War On Terror without a bullshit MSM filter, catch the show on Fridays at 2100 ET, and for those of you who don’t get The Military Channel, check out the link and you’ll find some clips from the show that you can watch over the intertubes.
And I’d bet that Rangel was one of those Cat. 4’s with a comic book.
MOMinuteman on November 27, 2006 at 12:30 AM
True marxism at work here. this man is a moron.
Metro on November 27, 2006 at 12:32 AM
Clearly, the extremely stupid are in power.
We get what we deserve.
Rangel is a crackhead.
Kini on November 27, 2006 at 12:36 AM
I want to make sure I just understood Rangel: In light of Chris Wallace’s stats about just who joins the military, the congressman maintains his beliefs and clings to them like a frightened child holds a blanket and continues to make a class warfare issue out of the war?
To what end? Does he truly believe what he says?
Idiot.
Black Adam on November 27, 2006 at 12:46 AM
This person is the greatest threat to our country and our way of life.
Kini on November 27, 2006 at 12:47 AM
What a turd brain. Only the really dumb become politicians from New York City, though.
marianpaul on November 27, 2006 at 1:00 AM
Rangel is but one Dem leader blowing smoke around. They are almost funny in their calls, if they weren’t serious.
Democrats Setting the Stage, déjà vu all over again?
However, maybe in one case, Rangel is right. In the case of Lieutenant Ehren Watada and him now claiming it was his “duty” to refuse the illegal order to go to Iraq, maybe Rangel got one right, for a change.
LewWaters on November 27, 2006 at 2:31 AM
“Exit question: does being a trader at Goldman Sachs qualify as “a decent career”?”
Answer: Hell’s Kitchen rat attends one of the top prep schools in the nation, Horace Mann, on scholarship then enlists in the Marines after he graduates. “Educational benefits?” Yeah, right.
ganeshpuri89 on November 27, 2006 at 2:51 AM
I don’t think Rangel is stupid, it’s just that he can’t imagine what it is to be willing to fight for something, probably because he has never felt it.
He can’t wrap his brain around the fact that people value freedom and this country, and are brave enough to risk their lives to defend it. This is why moonbats laugh at patriotism; they value nothing.
His statement says more about his own shallowness, self-centeredness, and lack of concern about his fellow man and the future of the US than it does about people who volunteer for the military.
sbvft, if you hit the escape key, the McCain ad will stop blinking.
Bad Penny on November 27, 2006 at 3:13 AM
This man intends to hijack the effort over in the middle east and discredit the president all for a 2008 Democrat win for the White House.
Judas.
Black Adam on November 27, 2006 at 5:00 AM
He’s only doing what the nutroots have been demanding for so long. The trouble is: 1. It won’t work, and 2. The party leaders are already bailing out on the idea of bailing out of Iraq. They’re not as interested in cutting and running once they’re going to be held responsible for the consequences.
For those who seek a spell checker, the new Firefox 2.0 build has an inline spell check (similar to MS Word) built in. It’s very cool.
Pablo on November 27, 2006 at 6:05 AM
I wonder how ol’ Chuck Rangel would explain all of the US Contractors in both Iraq and Afghanistan. All of us who did the work that the Army had eliminated the MOS for.
E L Frederick (Sniper One) on November 27, 2006 at 6:51 AM
Suppose that Charlie Rangel is right, for argument’s sake. That the only reason to join the military is the lack of any other promising career path to a better life.
What would he propose that we do for the poor, unfortunate people who are left with nothing because their “way out”, their only hope for a decent future because Charlie’s draft filled available military slots with others?
Obvious answer for a Democrat: Social safety net, in other words welfare and more government programs.
NOW I get it.
hillbillyjim on November 27, 2006 at 7:38 AM
there just aren’t words to express how upset Rangel makes me.
pullingmyhairout on November 27, 2006 at 8:35 AM
I live in San Antonio, Texas, home of Lackland Air Force Base, the Air Force’s basic training facility.
Somewhere on Lackland, right now, a little girl, barely 18 years old, is shivering, standing in her first formation, and wondering if she made a mistake by enlisting.
She is already a better man than Charlie Rangel will ever be.
Rusty Bill on November 27, 2006 at 8:42 AM
This man is on glue.
He’s right though he doesn’t know it; they didn’t go fight for bonuses and benefits… they go fight for their country.
Cary on November 27, 2006 at 10:22 AM
Are his comments really that far off the mark? What percentage of enlistees would have enlisted had they had other alternatives? Legitimate alternatives. I have to belive that the vast majority of enlistees would choose a cushy job or 4 year enrollment at some private college rather than a stint in Iraq, if they had a viable alternative.
GregH on November 27, 2006 at 10:50 AM
Rangel’s entire career is based on pandering to the lowest common denominator. He can only see things as black or white. This was fine in the early 60’s when civil rights WAS the most important issue of the times.
BohicaTwentyTwo on November 27, 2006 at 11:00 AM
Greg H,
A cushy job? 4 years of private college? Why not a CEO spot? Or porn star?
Absolutely no one would enlist to go fight in Iraq, if only they had an offer to be CEO of a Fortune 500 company.
Very, very few people have that sort of option, and when they do they’re more likely to become officers. There are plenty of opportunities in America that pay better than military service.
Pablo on November 27, 2006 at 11:01 AM
Yes, in spite of all the testimonies and objective evidence that has been presented on this topic, you DO have to believe that. Or you might just realize that your entire world view is equally inaccurate. Scary stuff, huh?
Laura on November 27, 2006 at 11:14 AM
so…why does one become a politician mr rangel…???…exactly what skills do you have…???…you moron…!!!
areseaoh on November 27, 2006 at 11:24 AM
I dare you to tell that to my wife, who enlisted at 29, despite the fact that I had a good job, a comfortable life, and three kids.
…and for her, I say, “Kilo Mike Alpha”.
E L Frederick (Sniper One) on November 27, 2006 at 12:11 PM
“If a young fella has an option of having a decent career or joining the army to fight in Iraq, you can bet your life that he would not be in Iraq.” - article.
I wonder if Rangel considers his many years in Congress as “a decent career”?
I can’t think of anything more indecent.
Rangel and Susan Estrich sound so much alike. They make fingernails on a chalkboard sound like a lullaby.
doingwhatican on November 27, 2006 at 12:26 PM
There’s always a fundamental disconnect when you try to explain patriotism, service, and love of country to liberals. They just don’t get it, because they persist in projecting their own motivations onto those who serve in the military. Part of me feels sorry for people who can’t wrap their brains around concepts like duty, honor, and country, not to mention the idea of giving something back to the nation that’s given so much to every one of us. But mostly I just feel contempt.
9/11 tended to weed out a lot of the people that only joined for the educational benefits–sure, plenty of people are happy to take advantage of them, but that’s not the main reason they enlisted. The same thing goes for bonuses. People who only cared about money would be in the wrong line of work if they joined the military. And how does Rangel explain the fact that lots of people, many of whom were well-educated, left good secure civilian jobs to join up after 9/11? And not just young people, either, but all the way up to people in their 30s. I ought to know, because I was one of them, and there were plenty more who joined for the same reasons I did.
JasonG, thanks for your service, and thanks even more for reenlisting today. That earns you a salute and a loud and thunderous “HOOAH!” from me.
ReubenJCogburn on November 27, 2006 at 12:32 PM
.. just ask President Bush?
cue laughtrack
gekkobear on November 27, 2006 at 12:35 PM
Kilo…Mike…Alpha…well said!…perfect for rangel…what a moron…who votes for people like him…???
areseaoh on November 27, 2006 at 12:53 PM
I know why he wants to bring back the draft and he said it right at the end of the clip.
“Those that have the least amount of opportunities find themselves in the military like I did.”
He’s still bitter that he was drafted and so he would feel better if everyone had to feel the pain he did when they get drafted and are forced to waist 2 years of their lives in the military.
ic1redeye on November 27, 2006 at 12:57 PM
I thought that the only word missing from the Dimocrats dictionary was “Victory”. I was wrong.
They also missing the word “Patriotism”.
If Chucky used the GI Bill for his education can we get a refund.
The Republicans should put together a campaign film of Kerry, Chucky, and Turbin Durbin with their comments on the military.
Wil on November 27, 2006 at 1:52 PM
giving specific examples doesn’t exactly counter GregH’s point…he said the “vast majority” would choose a lucrative civilian career…not every single soldier in the military, so saying “tell that to my aunt lucy who etc..” is kind of a moot point…
crr6 on November 27, 2006 at 2:49 PM
At least here in the US we have choices and options. And there are still great Americans fighting by choice. They are the good guys. Evil people intentionaly kill the innocent. Insane people murder in the name of God.
infidel on November 27, 2006 at 3:48 PM
Can someone PLEASE get these people to shut up? We already know how the liberal feel about our armed forces.The more they talk the dumber they sound.
nascardad45 on November 27, 2006 at 4:28 PM
So Rangel thinks your stupid or a loser if you join, but a winner if you let him choose who goes in the service. And if we accept the government to choose the right people than we are smart? So if 13% of the population is black, than 13% of the service will be black. If you draft from California than 40% of the draftees will be hispanic. And of course 51% will be women. That makes sense.
I love this guy Rangel, give him more time, the more he and his cronies explain what values and priorties they have the better conservatives look.
I love Charlie!!
right2bright on November 27, 2006 at 4:32 PM
crr6 -
As a group, the military is better educated than the rest of the population. This was established quite some time ago, and has been reported on not just by the blogs but by the MSM. Since Rangel’s point seems to be that only the desperate dregs enlist, I guess he, and by extension Gregh, are way off base.
Laura on November 27, 2006 at 4:35 PM
It has been a while, but back in my day, most of the volunteers were there because they believed in what they were doing, felt it was their duty to their country, not because they had no alternative.
Many of the enlisted people I directly served with had at least a little college; (all were bright and capable), I had a corporal that had a freaking Phd. and could have been a college professor, but he couldn’t stand most of the people who would have been his peers.
Most of those that didn’t make a career out of the military went on to be successful in just about every job and profession you can name:
Our company medic became a brilliant surgeon. Our company armourer was a police chief in a major metropolitan area last I heard of him after a few years as a Secret Service Agent. A few other doctors and several lawyers out of the bunch. Business owners. High level managers of other peoples business. Research scientists. One was, until he retired recently, an FBI SAC, and now is seen on TV news programs all over the dial as their ‘crime go-to-guy’ and runs his own big time consulting buisness.
Admittedly a few of them wouldn’t be where they are now if they had only the resources that they were born to. A lot used educational benefits of active service and the G.I. Bill, plus leadership and motivational skills that they learned in the military to get where they are today.
You people who have never been closer than spitting distance of a real Soldier, Sailor or Airman would be wise to either just shut up, ignore idiots like Rangle (And Kerry)…. or better yet, make an effort to learn the truth.
LegendHasIt on November 27, 2006 at 5:16 PM
Take DemiFlu.
The Nazi,
Pol Pot,
Forces of Stalin,
Terrorist,
Cold-Blooded Killer way to wake up refreshed to slander the military and have a good morning medicine!
Opinionnation on November 27, 2006 at 6:29 PM
Hey, maybe a draft isn’t such a bad idea, just draft from San Francisco, Boston, Seattle, New York City, L.A. and all the other most liberal cities. Then send them all to some place nobody cares about, like Guam or something for Man Training.
We have enough people from the red states to fill the ranks of the real military, send the draftees of the Blue City Brigades to Butch Camp and turn ‘em into men. Put them in re-education schools, Teach them about history, geography, human nature, sociology, warfare and geopolitics. The opposite of what they learn in college, un-indrocrinate them from the crap they learn on tv and in public school. It just might save our country.
Tony737 on November 27, 2006 at 6:44 PM
i see your point laura, but i feel like those studies shouldn’t be taken without question. has anyone pointed out that the heritage foundation is basically a conservative think tank? that may mean something.
i think this is a basic sociological misunderstanding…bith sides are wrong. Many conservatives live are higher income, so the people they know who join are doing it out of patriotism, many liberals live in the city or lower-income areas and see a great number of enlistees join because they have no other option, i can vouch for that, at my high school about 20 out of the 100 people graduating class joined the military just for the educational and financial benefits, most were low-income minorities…so both sides have a warped perspective and both sides demonize the other unneccesarily.
crr6 on November 27, 2006 at 6:50 PM
wow lots of typos…should my mistake…
crr6 on November 27, 2006 at 6:51 PM
cr, earlier in this thread mesablue provided this link.
Both sides are not wrong. While it’s true that the Heritage Foundation is conservative, if you read the report, their sources are clearly cited - the D.O.D. and the Census Bureau. No enlistee anywhere or at any income level has “no other option” because if they are good enough for the Army (diploma, etc.) then they are good enough for any entry level job. Joining because one finds the benefits desirable is NOT equivalent to having no other option. In that case, people join because they consider it the best option, which is entirely different.
Laura on November 27, 2006 at 9:32 PM
a highschool diploma may make them qualified for an entry level job, but unless you’re a pro-sports player, inventor or movie star to have a shot at a decent career they need to go to college…which many need the army to do.I think it seems much more unlikely that the majority of recruits join because they want to go fight a war with an abysmal approval rating…
crr6 on November 27, 2006 at 10:22 PM
it just seems suspect that the heritage foundation’s site has an article directly responding to Rangel calling him incorrect here …if it were an academic organization or an academic study why would there be political articles on it supporting the conservative side on the same site? I’ve seen other data which is nearly as recent with drastically different results.
crr6 on November 27, 2006 at 10:25 PM
No one EVER needs to go into the military in order to go to college. My husband put himself through college as an adult, while supporting a family. He did so by going to night school, working his way through on scholarships and getting student loans when necessary. Anyone who thinks they can’t get to college on their own is a spoiled brat who is unwilling to do what it takes. With regard to your 6:50 PM comment, as for conservatives being wealthy - as it happens I know a great deal about poverty, having been on welfare myself. And before I actually got on welfare, I was hungry, cold, very nearly homeless, and dependent on New Orleans’ charity hospital for prenatal care. I’ve lived in neighborhoods that most people would be frightened in after dark.
I repeat - no one NEEDS the army to get to college. It is one way, and there are many other viable alternatives. If 20 people in your class joined up, it was because they perceived it was the best option. It was not their only option.
Additionally, there are many, many jobs with good pay that can be had without a college diploma. Ever heard of electricians, plumbers, or construction workers? That’s just to name a few. They believe they have decent careers - who are you to judge otherwise? College is one option - not a requirement to live a productive and happy life.
The Heritage Foundation seems suspect, but you link to antiwar.com? Interesting. What’s becoming clear here is that you personally think the military is a poor option. That’s fine - nobody wants to make you join except maybe Charlie Rangel, you can take it up with him.
Laura on November 27, 2006 at 11:29 PM
it’s nice you finally admitted that the Heritage Foundation is suspect, and yes as is that anti-war.com link, I put it in there by accident. Anyway, I don’t think joining the military is a poor option, I think it is an excellent option and there certainly are many patriots in the military, i just think its unfortunate that many people join for the educational benefits, when as you said there are other options available, I didn’t say the 20 or so kid who joined did so because it was their “only” option, but because it was the only option they were educated on, which is a whole different issue. You do make some very good points, but I ask that you not misrepresent my position, I do not think college is the only option to a better life, just a very good one, and I don’t think the military is the only option to get into college, but many percieve it to be and the end result is the same.
crr6 on November 28, 2006 at 12:48 AM
Comment pages: « 1 [2] 3 »