On this, Rangel and I agree...
...if not for the same reasons.
But there are questions in my mind. Is Mr. Rangel so naive as to believe the War on Terror would have confined itself to Afghanistan alone? Especially after President Bush clearly said it wouldn't?
Rangel and other Democrats want to believe the Terrorists were confined to Afghanistan alone. He and other Democrats-- to say nothing of the Media --would have us believe the war would have ended had Bin Laden been captured or killed. But only a fool would say that, and expect others to believe it. Not when the president, in the very same speech, said the following...
A reinstitution of the draft is becoming, with each passing month, increasingly necessary. Rangel's reasoning is steeped in partisan jingoisms, while mine is purely pragmatic.
"There'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 harm's way"
--Rep Charles Rangel
November 19, 2006
But there are questions in my mind. Is Mr. Rangel so naive as to believe the War on Terror would have confined itself to Afghanistan alone? Especially after President Bush clearly said it wouldn't?
"Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated."
--President George W. Bush
September 21, 2001 Address to the Nation
Rangel and other Democrats want to believe the Terrorists were confined to Afghanistan alone. He and other Democrats-- to say nothing of the Media --would have us believe the war would have ended had Bin Laden been captured or killed. But only a fool would say that, and expect others to believe it. Not when the president, in the very same speech, said the following...
"We will direct every resource at our command -- every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war -- to the destruction and to the defeat of the global terror network.
"Now, this war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion. It will not look like the air war above Kosovo two years ago, where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat.
"Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes visible on TV and covert operations secret even in success.
"We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place until there is no refuge or no rest.
"And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.
"From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."
A reinstitution of the draft is becoming, with each passing month, increasingly necessary. Rangel's reasoning is steeped in partisan jingoisms, while mine is purely pragmatic.
----
I've posted the President's entire September 21, 2001 address to the nation here
from the mind of... Eric | 12:52 AM
3 Comments:
Rangel's cynical proposal if it weren't just intentional provocation, would be very pragmatic: holding leaders' children hostage against hostilities. Yours, not so much.
In any case, give it up: actually instituting the draft would be political suicide, at least absent some new, huge and successful attack on US soil. between Amendment XXVI and the increasingly self-centered nature of American society (and skepticism about fairness), the prospect of losing 2 years of one's life (or, of course, one's life period), isn't going to play wel except with the people who would be wiulling to colunteer to begin with.
Reminds me, patriot - you ever serve in the armed forces? Are you beyond the age where you could enlist? If not, why aren't you enlisting, rather than advocating that other people be compelled to do so? If you are beyond that age, I suppose that means this draft of yours would be for other people - what a convenience!
"Political Suicide"
Agreed... for both parties.
And yes, I enlisted in 1981-- Navy. I am 46 now, and beyond re-enlistment age, and even if I weren't i'm in poor physical shape these days.
My ideal system would be very much like Israel's. I'd like to see a mandatory two years of military service straight out of High School BEFORE college. It would alleviate many problems beyond that our current thinly stretched military.... not the least of which, getting a lot of hoodlums off the street
You paid your dues. I respect that.
But boy I never dreamed you were that old.
Post a Comment
<< Home