'A proper timetable' for Iraq withdrawal

While all of the rhetoric about Bush and the war, it did not take a DEmocrat long to shirk his responsibility onto others.

"Americans would have to sign up for a new military draft after turning 18 under a bill the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee says he will introduce next year.

Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., said Sunday he sees his idea as a way to deter politicians from launching wars."

Use our countries youth to hide behind. Use our coountries youth to ensure you do not have to do your job. Chapter ONE on the Dem's book on how to be as stupid and corrupt as those you opposed and accused. Stay tuned, this is only the beginning of the stupidity.

This is the view of Chief Chickenhawk Wm Kristol.
And on MSNBC,another Neo Con Chickenhawk Kenneth Adelman,was telling Tim Russert,that Cheney and Bush screwed the whole war up.

What say you,Bill,RRD,Little Johnny,Paulo,stay the course?

Kristol: I Fear Political Support For Iraq ‘Will Crumble…Among Republicans’ In Next 3 Months
This morning on Fox New Sunday, Bill Kristol said that that the current Iraq strategy of “Iraqification” is “failing” and has been “discredited.” Noting that CentCom commander Gen. John Abizaid said he finds “despair” about Iraq when he comes to Washington, Kristol said he was “very worried” that if conditions in Iraq did not improve within 2 to 3 months, “political support will crumble not among Democrats, but among Republicans. Gone.” Watch it:

The fact is that it was much easier for the Congress to send soldiers from predominately poorer backgrounds and areas then it would have been to send kids from all levels of society.
A draft would automatically raise the cost of going to war and increase value of the life of a avg. solider.
How dare you speak of Democratic corruption or ineptness, what has gone on for the last 8 years under the Republican leadership? Look at the state of this country. Debt up eyes, involved in a war we cannot win, ruined international reputation, and worst of all the loss of some of our valued fundamental basic rights.

Stay tuned, this is only the beginning of the stupidity.

Posted by: marty | Nov 20, 2006 8:29:16 AM

May I remind you that the stupidity began when we were mislead into this debacle of Iraq. This is one mans proposal, not legislation. So don't spend too much time jumping up and down like you found the Holy Grail.

What is said on some of these comment boards makes more sense when one becomes familiar with the concept of a sock puppet.

Loon - I don't care. I suspect that will be the response from the rest of us. Kristol is a private citizen with opinions of his own, speaking on a talking heads program where, as often as not, the primary purpose of participating is to sell a book, increase subscriptions, achieve notoriety, etc. You know I am a conservative and generally an informed participant – I had to look up Kristol to remember who the heck he is, so that probably means he is on the talking head circuit to gain public attention (and he apparently succeeded with you).

“The fact is that it was much easier for the Congress to send soldiers from predominately poorer backgrounds and areas then it would have been to send kids from all levels of society. A draft would automatically raise the cost of going to war and increase value of the life of a avg. solider.” Dave, this quote is so full of ignorance, its shocking even for a dem.

American military personnel predominantly come from higher than average income communities and have a significantly higher educational level than their peers in the general population. They come from all strata of the American culture – people like the sons of John McCain, Mayor Daley, and Uwe Reinhardt are common in the Armed forces. (Uwe is a Princeton professor of recent fame for an article that suggests something like your statement – people found his article less useful when they discovered that his son joined the Marines upon graduation from Princeton against Uwe’s wishes).

A draft, particularly if similar to the one in the Viet Nam era would probably have the opposite effect of your claim. It would encompass more people from poorer backgrounds because they would have fewer options for deferment and avoidance. Regardless, I doubt that it would “increase the value of the life of a avg. soldier.” - think about that statement for a moment and realize what a repulsive suggestion you are making – that the life of an average soldier is worth less than an average citizen.

RRD

hey Marty-

get a clue buddy. Rangel has had some kind of draft bill introduced for the past several years. It's a dead bill because it has no support, Republican or Democrat.

If you could disengage your partisan brain from attack mode and switch it to thought mode, you'd realize that what Rangel's actually doing is trying to force the hand of the war supporters.

In his view, you can't both support the war and oppose a draft, and anyone doing that is a hypocrite, including you. It's hard to argue against that.

You think the democrats are hiding behind our country's youth? That's been the Republican MO the past 6 years. Send our troops to IRaq ill-equipped and without a plan, and then when they fail, blame them and shirk your responsibility. That's essentially what Rummy and Bush have been doing when they blame the generals in Iraq for not saying they needed more troops, even though the generals did tell them that, all the while Bush behind his podium lying "I listen to my generals on the ground...if they said they need more troops, we'll send more troops..." Yeah, more troops without body armor or green ones fresh out of basic.

Bush's negligence of his responsibility to our military and to us is criminal, and he's one of many in the White House. He should be impeached, convicted and imprisoned, it would only be fair and justice would be acheived. How great would it be if he could be tried by one of his own special tribunals in some secret CIA prison?

Bring Back The Draft!!! It's about time some of the poor little rich kids got up close and personal in uncle George's little shindig in Iraq. Let's triple our troop level with draftees and put another 300,000 boots on the ground in Iraq. That would be the fastest way to meet Dubya's demand that we don't quit until we win! And I hope both of his daughters are conscripted before it's over!

Hey Dave, I think marty is one of those neo con plants on this blog, like John D and Bruce. No one could see the world through the blinders these guys see it through, except maybe Paulo. I see where Sen. Rangel is trying to go with this, if the administration and Republican leaders in Congress had to send their kids and the kids of their corporate backers into harms way they wouldn’t be so fast to go to war or keep us in one. This is not the first time Sen. Rangel has tried to introduce legislation for a draft, and I’m sure he doesn’t expect to get anywhere with it, except maybe to point out a good reason to get us out of Iraq.

RRD is less than half right: officers and the enlisted and NCOs who make a career out of the military are well educated. It's the kids plucked out of the countryside or the 'hood who join because they have few or no alternatives to the armed forces.

A draft is a gut check, a chance to put the flower of American youth where our mouths are: a war that has lasted as long as our involvement in Vietnam requires full mobilization. If instead of being told to "go shopping" we are told we need to sacrifice, we will either decide to finish the job in Iraq (whatever that is) or declare victory and get out.

It's not enough to just draft everyone: think of the shot in the arm to Detroit if we use our over-capacity in factories to make tanks, bombers, even HMMWVs. Instead of new couterie, uniforms and parachutes! Dead shopping malls? Empty office buildings we can't rent? New military facilities! What do you say?

Oh, I guess not. Forget I said anything!

I would not be opposed to a draft so long as there were only exemptions based on physical/mental disability.

To all detracters, find any post I have made where I excuse the Rep's for their stupidity or stand behind the war decisions. WHen you reply to anything with a "... yea, but the Rep's..." nothing else needs to be said. People would rather bash the "other Side", then committ to any action. Read the blogs. There are so many bashes of the rep's, but then emptiness.
Mr. Norris, as I stated above, find any blog of mine that is partisan. I am an equal opportunity critic. I do not vote straight part on anything. To do so is a sure way to ensure idiocy in government. I look at each person as an individual, and base my decisions on each person individually. AS for your draft comments, anybody can interpret or understand anything the way they want. To say that supporting a draft as a way to "force the hand of war supporters" is exactly what I said, Hiding behind youth. I do not care wjhat anybody wants to write, a new draft would target the same kids as always. The next generation of "George W's" will find ways to defer, while kids from Cabrini will lead the way.
Because I choose to bash a Dem, or disagree with you in no way demonstrates any partisanship. I am not a Lemming that follows a party into the sea.

I find it interesting that the so called "Conservatives" now don't even know who Wm Kristol is!

One of the main architects of the Iraq war.

Kristol first made his mark as leader of the Project for the Republican Future, a conservative think tank.

William Kristol is editor of the influential Washington-based political magazine, The Weekly Standard. Widely recognized as one of the nation's leading political analysts and commentators, Mr. Kristol regularly appears on Fox News Sunday and on the Fox News Channel.

It is widely acknowledged that military drafts make wars of choice less likely, as the burden of fighting the war falls beyond those who have chosen military duty consciously.

Mr. Norris is exactly right: "you can't both support the war and oppose a draft, and anyone doing that is a hypocrite." In the NeoCon world everything is hunky-dory in Iraq and it was a wise mission undertaken by great heroes who understood the ambiguities of war and the value of human life (such as decorated war heroes Richard Cheney, George Bush, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Dennis Hastert, Tom Delay, Mitch McConnell etc., none of whom served)

As also mentioned, Mr. Rangel has brought this bill up year after year as a symbolic "truth to power" moment to expose the aforementioned hypocrisy. By the way, Charles Rangel earned a Purple Heart and a Bronze Star during the Korean War.

Finally, from Marty: "Use our coountries youth to ensure you do not have to do your job." It is clear that the Chickenhawks who for the last six years have shamelessly wrapped themselves in the flag as they send our children to die in an unnecessary war hold the lion's share of responsibility for the crime you mentioned.

To add insult to injury, the Adminstration has hidden the true costs of the war through supplemental appropriations, all the while cutting taxes drastically at home, leaving the entire financial burden of the war to future generations by borrowing to pay for it AND not including it in budget estimates. Personally, I think the money put into the Iraq war would have been better spent on a Manhattan Project to take a bite out of our nation's addiction to fossil fuels.

Rangel's position is unpopular but he is doing the absolute right thing by forcing the conversation, and hopefully in so doing helping to bring about a change in policy to make the best of the impossibly bad situation we have created in Iraq.

I listen to W.,and all I hear is the usual "blah,blah,stay the course,blah,blah."

W. knows that any major change in Iraq policy will cement his place in history as the worst President ever.

The Whitehouse has it's own study group(not the Baker report) looking into changes in the Iraq policy.

I can hear their response to the outside studies right now,"we've listened to all the different suggestions on Iraq,and we've decided that the best answer is to "stay the course" in Iraq."

RRD,

You're twisting what Loon is saying to fit your Republican agenda.
You can find examples of politicians sons who have enlisted,but overall Iraq is just like Nam.

I suggest that you google the lyrics of "Fortunate Son" by CCR,and then think about the Bush's and the Cheney's of the world that dominate politics.

RRD,

You're twisting what Loon is saying to fit your Republican agenda.
You can find examples of politicians sons who have enlisted,but overall Iraq is just like Nam.

I suggest that you google the lyrics of "Fortunate Son" by CCR,and then think about the Bush's and the Cheney's of the world that dominate politics.

The draft doesn't work the way that congressman and several posters think. Look at the draft for Viet Nam. Where were the draftable middle and upper class? Sitting on their college deferred butts in the classroom or getting Daddy, like some president we all know and love, to get them in the National Guard where they can sit on their butts in the state side barracks one weekend a month then tell everyone how patriotic they are. The ones that went to war, the ones that got their butts shot off, were the poor, predominantly black.

A draft would be a great idea if Bush's daughters were the first two soldiers inducted.

"I thought I'd enlist before I got drafted"
"Son, there ain't no draft"
"Uh, there was one?"

I would recommend Farenheit 911 for anyone that thinks the military is out recruiting rich white kids from the suburbs. Watching Michael Moore trying to recruit the children of congressmen is priceless.

OK nutcakes, follow the pattern now: Discredit Michael Moore, tell us how dems are supporting terrorists and find a way to blame Bill Clinton for something.......

JB - your ignorance is showing. According to the Congressional Budget Office (http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5108&sequence=1), 74% of the ENLISTED ranks have some college. That is compared to 53% of the general population 25 and up. If we could reconcile the age factor, the disparity would be even stronger in favor of the education levels of the military. Also, as this chart shows http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/images/table1_large.gif recruits are disproportionately higher from higher income groups while the poorer population is underrepresented. This is a pattern that has risen during the course of the war in Iraq http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/images/chart3_large.gif in complete contrast to the indefensible assumptions of the political left.

As for "you can't both support the war and oppose a draft, and anyone doing that is a hypocrite." Hmmm, therefore anyone in favor of the draft must be in favor of the war, therefore Rangel is in favor of the war. (I am so disappointed that I have to do this but on this board, I probably have to point out that my sentence after the quote is a sarcastic way of pointing out both the illogic and hypocrisy of the original quote.)

Anyone who wants the war in Iraq to come to the swiftest possible successful conclusion would object to anything that would dilute the quality of our military. The men and women who serve currently have no use for the unwilling in their ranks and a draft that truly represents the 18-25 population as a whole would lower the educational levels of the military and fitness levels would have to be reduced. Valuable resources would be wasted on draftees who would almost universally depart after their hitch versus volunteers who re-enlist at high levels. The experience levels of the armed forces would decline and virtually every analysis of wartime casualties confirms that the greatest loss of life correlates to the least amount of experience.

In other words, Rangel has found a way to be absolutely 180 degrees away from reality.

RRD

Loon – One reason I did not recall Kristol is because I don’t watch television news, but I find it interesting that a so-called liberal knows the Fox News line up so well.

If it gets more four-monthers like John Kerry into the military than I'm all for it. Interesting that that poorer, less-intelligent argument is still being used on this blog.

Great point, Arrallen. I'd suspect that the rich, influential and powerful would get cushy assignments like Teddy Kennedy received in Paris, France when he enlisted in the Army after getting booted out of Yale for academic dishonesty back in the '50s. Mind you, this was while the Korean war was being waged and other less-connected men of military age were putting their lives on the line. Somehow that famous last name kept him out of active duty (and some people still have the nerve to claim that Kennedy served and is a "veteran" of that war) and I have little doubt that the children of privilege would get similar treatment in the military today.

Arrallen I was in Nam and from the middle class. I joined but there where lot drafted that were middle class. What I never saw where people like Clinton, Bush, Cheney and Hastert

Good point, Arrallen. Remember that the rich and powerful have always somehow found their way out of active duty while other less fortunate people waged war. As far back as the early '50s now U.S. Senator Ted Kennnedy enlisted in the U.S. Army while the Korean War was still hot and was assigned to a cushy reconstruction post in Paris, France. Never mind that the only reason he enlisted was because he got kicked out of his family-held slot at Yake for cheating on a final exam.

What makes anyone think the children of the well-to-do would be assigned combat duty just because of a draft? If George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Teddy Kennedy could all avoid active duty what makes you think today's politically-connected could not?

Hey Dale, did you see Bill Clinton there? I suspect you didn't see McCain there. He was taking a beating for three years in a POW camp so that 40 years later one of Hillary Clinton's stooges could accuse him of giving up U.S. secrets under interrogation. McCain never broke, unless you consider telling the Vietnamese the Green Bay Packers starting lineup a military secret. Sure glad we have Hillary and her minions to set us straight.

RRD,
The top range in Household Income goes from $52,071 to $200,000. Thats a pretty big range considering the others range w/in $6000 except for the first group.

Jethro, I agree with you that the top range is ridiculously big, but do you REALLY believe that the rich and powerful, no matter what political party they belong to, would be given combat duty or even get drafted under any potential draft? In every war in recent memory that hasn't been the case. Heck, Jack Kemp got an exemption from Vietnam for having a bad knee but still played professional football for eight years after that diagnosis.

I think the detractors main question here is what makes you think a draft would be any more fair now than it was the last 5 or 6 times?

Yes Bill,and according to Bush and Rove, McCain went a little cuckoo over there.

Give it up on McCain, Billy,he's to old to be Prez.What will he be in 08,77?

We had one old dude as Prez and look what he did,fall asleep at Global summits!!!

I don't plan on giving up on McCain. He never gave up on us when he was in that pit of hell and I'll never give up on him. I'll campaign for him just like I did in 2000 (check out the exploratory committee site).

You're never too old to be President, Loon. McCain will be about the same age as Reagan when he was inaugurated. Was FDR "too old" when he died in office?

It was sad watching Sen. McCain move to the right this last cycle.

However; I respect and like the man. A worthy opponent, but too conservative for me. Won't vote for the man.

I probably would have voted for McCain over Bush or Gore in 2000, but I wouldn't vote for him now. Won't it be ironic if selling his credibility to Bush and Rove for an '08 presidential bid costs McCain any chance he might have had to win?

jethro and Bill,

I understand the confusion about the quintiles there but it actually is an accurate representation of the median household income levels for the 18-24 AGE GROUP. While many in that age group still live with parents, many do not. Entry level workers (i.e. typically 18-24 year olds) who are living on their own skew this downward. The top quintile for the OVERALL population starts around $88,000 vs. the $52,000 on this chart

The top quintile is always going to have a wider spread than the rest because it actually has no ceiling and the number of families in the highest income brackets is extremely low. Only about 2% of the population has an income of $200,000 and above and a limited number of them will have 18-24 year olds at home. Around 10% of the population is in that age category (probably clustered in families), plus higher income tends to come with greater age (thus kids out of the house) so my guess is that we are looking at no more than 2-3% of the households in that $200,000 and up income category with recruit age youths. That comes out to .005% of total households – so they aren’t going to really show up on a chart like this.

The age group skew tends to reinforce the point about the poorest being under represented and the upper classes being over represented. A couple of 19 year olds making $10 or $12 bucks an hour, sharing an apartment just a short drive from supportive parents are not exactly poor but they would show up in the bottom quintile if they enlisted.

RRD

PS Bill, I would like to see that site. Not sure why it did not show up but please post it again

RRD wrote, "Anyone who wants the war in Iraq to come to the swiftest possible successful conclusion would object to anything that would dilute the quality of our military. The men and women who serve currently have no use for the unwilling in their ranks and a draft that truly represents the 18-25 population as a whole would lower the educational levels of the military and fitness levels would have to be reduced. Valuable resources would be wasted on draftees who would almost universally depart after their hitch versus volunteers who re-enlist at high levels. The experience levels of the armed forces would decline and virtually every analysis of wartime casualties confirms that the greatest loss of life correlates to the least amount of experience."

What is diluting the quality of our military is an impossible war with no exit strategy. And exactly where are we to find more soldiers? That explains stop-loss: we use them until we use them up.

Charlie Rangel has painted a master stroke: to repeat, if the children of the rich and powerful have to go, we will all think harder about wars of choice.

As for Bill: no, Reagan was 69 at his first inauguration, and thus 73 at his second. McCain was robbed of his shot by the dirty tricks in South Carolina in 2000. If McCain is any good (and in my opinion, he isn't), we can blame the Bushinistas for denying us his leadership. I hope the money was worth it, boys.

I liked McCain until he sold out to the Evangelical,Bush loving wingnut crowd.

He's going to kick the bucket before he becomes President more than likely anyway.

Unlike the NeoCons who have been swiftboating John Kerry for three years now,I respect McCain's military service,and I would never think of doing the same thing to him that the Wingnut party did to John Kerry.

So, I'd argue that there's not much difference between 69 and 73. Especially when someone's in good shape and seems in complete command of his mental faculties like McCain is. I'll ask it again, was FDR "too old" when he died in office? He'll be the same age as Bob Dole and many other candidates when they ran.

RRD, you've convinced me. I agree now, I hadn't looked at the data in depth.

Here's McCain's site: http://www.exploremccain.com/

Bubba, we don't have to discredit Michael Moore, the great unwashed one does a good enough job of that himself. Har. Thanks for the laugh, I needed that today.

JB

IF we need more soldiers, the all volunteer military has successfully recruited far more than our current forces. There were 500,000 more men and women in uniform at the start of the Clinton era and even more at the start of Bush 1's.

Never underestimate the capacity of the American military. They are meeting all recruiting goals and exceeding re-enlistment goals. By the way, you will find that they do not agree with your "impossible" assessment.

If Rangel's strategy is a harbinger to the next two years of a Dem Congress, the Rs should start working out their committee chairmanships for 2008.

RRD

I think McCain did spend to much time in the hole!!HOW LOW CAN YOU GO MCNUT!!

McCain Hires Key Falwell Staffer For Presidential Campaign

McCain was a member of the Keating Five wasn't he? Help me out, was that good company to be in?

P.S. I see he's flip-flopped on Roe v. Wade

If Rangel's strategy is a harbinger to the next two years of a Dem Congress, the Rs should start working out their committee chairmanships for 2008.

RRD

Posted by: RRD | Nov 20, 2006 11:37:21 PM

I wouldn't dance in the end zone yet. There isn't any real support for this but go ahead if you need something to look forward too.