Democrats can often be heard saying that President Bush is toying with lives, in a political sense. That sending our troops to Iraq was and is an unnecessary political game in which peopleÃ‚Â are needlessly and senselessly dying. So, in the name of equalizing the playing field,Ã‚Â one Democrat plans to fight this byÃ‚Â — you guessed itÃ‚Â — playing games with peoples’ lives.
Could we have a military draft again? Rep. Charles Rangel of New York saysÃ‚Â “yes,” which instinctively sent Bill Clinton to the tool shed to grab a sledgehammer and pound his feet flat.
Rangel,Ã‚Â a Korean War veteran who apparently had his scruples shot off at the Battle of Kapyong,Ã‚Â wants toÃ‚Â introduce a bill requiring military service for men and women, 18-26, with no exceptions for college or the fact that they’re too busy playing “Grand Theft Auto” on Playstation 3.
This is, of course, being done not in the interest of the country, but as yet another move in a political chess game.Ã‚Â RangelÃ‚Â doesn’t think you hold the lives of others in high regard, and if members of your own family were at risk of going into battle, youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢d rethink your pro-war stance — if youÃ‚Â have one. If you’re against the war, so what, your kid’s going too.
Ã¢â‚¬Å“ThereÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harmÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s way,Ã¢â‚¬Â Rangel said.
It’s not like the good old days when there was a draft, such as during Vietnam and Korea. It was nice and fair then, with rich and poor gallantly fighting side by side. Oh, wait…
It’s said that any “fair” draft wouldn’t have an out for the “privileged,” but as long as they remain politicians with outstretched hands, otherwise known as “loopholes,” there can be no such thing as a fair draft, taxation, or anything else. When you put hucksters in charge of fairness, you’re ensuring that there will be none of it.
In the early ’90s, the U.S. military was much larger, and no draft was in effect. That meant that there was an ample amount of people willing to voluntarily serve their countryÃ‚Â — and did so honorably. They weren’t forced to join, and they did so for their own reasons.
RangelÃ‚Â must also think that all these new soldiers to be drafted are going to work for free.Ã‚Â RangelÃ‚Â voted “no” on 1999’s $266 billion defense appropriation bill and SDI.Ã‚Â
If that’s not bad enough, Rangel also feels the need to remind us of what heartless, inhumane jerks we are. When he first started talking aboutÃ‚Â a military draft in late 2002, Rangel said,Ã‚Â “I believe that if those calling for war knew that their children were likely to be required to serveÃ‚Â — and to be placed in harm’s wayÃ‚Â — there would be more caution and greater willingness to work with the international community in dealing with Iraq.”
Rangel voted “no” on more prosecution and sentencing for juvenile crime. “No” on banning physician-assisted suicide (getting killed in the back of a rusty VW van may be “death with dignity,” but only if you’re Cheech and Chong). “No” on reducing the marriage tax. “No” on banning partial birth abortions. “No” on banning human cloning even for medical research reasons.Ã‚Â “No” on barring the transportation of minors to get an abortion. And we’re the ones who don’t value the lives of others?
Let’s first draft some new politicians, then we’ll talk.
Note: If you’re seeing only this post, the entire blog can be accessed at DougPowers.com