“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.”
– Rep Charles Rangel, (D-NY)
Oh really? Facts.
I guess when John Kerry ran his mouth off before the midterm election, he wasn’t quite clear enough on how he felt about the military.
It looks like Charlie Rangel just articulated exactly how most Democrats seem to be feeling about the troops. This man should be ashamed of himself, but as we all know, no man can be ashamed of himself if he completely lacks humility or shame to begin with.
What I really don’t get is why people who support the Democrat Party actually think that Democrats actually support the “little people.” You know, the “working class” of this country.
They don’t. They despise you, and this is proof. They think the average American is an ignorant, helpless swaddled baby which has been left of the doorstep of the Democrat Caucus, and you simply cannot survive without their help. You don’t know what you’re doing. You’re a victim.
I’d like somebody to tell me *anything* that Charlie Rangel has done that is worthwhile. Can anybody come up with anything? I’m starting the clock now. As far as I can tell, his only claim to fame is that he sounds an awful lot like Elmer Fudd. Charlie Rangel is much worse than that, however. He’s Elmer Fudd with a soapbox.
The question I have for him is, since when is joining the military a bad career choice? I think Charlie gets confused. You see, he *wants* a draft very badly. The trouble is, we don’t have one. But in Charlie’s mind, those two things are apparently the same, and he thinks we have a bunch of poor, uneducated slobs, who are fighting against their own will.
This is clearly not the case, and more than that, it’s slanderous.
I know people in the military. Smart people. They could go do other things if they wanted, but they chose to serve. No one drafted them. In fact, one of my friends just returned from Afghanistan recently. He does have a lot of horror stories to tell, but every time I talk to him about it, he has this underlying tone which make his emotions very clear:
He loves his job.
Even if what congressman Rangel said was true, what does it matter? Why impugn somebody for doing anything they can to better themselves? These fine young men and women went out and got themselves *jobs*. And not just *any* jobs, mind you. These jobs have security if you wish to stay, and you get to travel the world and *help* people. What is more noble than that? It’s better than being on a welfare roll, which of course, I’m sure Congressman Rangel and his Democrat cohorts would prefer. Again, we must forget about that precious “victim” voting block of theirs.
I wonder if Congressman Rangel can remember how military recruitment shot up after the 9/11 attacks? Does he think those people were interested in free schoolbooks at the time, and the fact that we had just suffered the largest attack on American soil in history?
Wait. I’m sure he does think that, and that is exactly why I don’t trust Democrats with our national security. As I stated earlier, Charlie Rangel is pushing very hard for a military draft. I don’t think he’ll get what he wants, but I’ve got an idea of his underlying agenda.
You see, he contends that the military is made up of poor people who don’t want to be there. This, of course, if false. (I can guarantee you there are some wealthy fighters over there, and I’m *not* talking about the deceased Pat Tillman.) Anyway, if the draft is reinstated, Rangel will get exactly what he wants. A discontented force who doesn’t want to fight. This, will “prove” his contention, and will help to facilitate the Democrats larger agenda, in that we are “losing” the war and must abandon Iraq, Afghanistan, and their respective peoples.
That’s what he really wants.
Oh, and people of Mississippi? He hates *you* the most.
Popularity: 16% [?]
Is there some rule I don’t know about that if a person serves in the military, fights in a war and then as a civilian becomes a democrat, then he hates the military. There seem to be a lot of people who are characterized this way. I myself have been characterized as a pacifist, anti-military,and an america hater for my opinions about when and how to apply military force. The opposite is true however. To accuse Democrats and liberals of hating the military and hating “the little people” is just as wrong as accusing Conservatives and republicans of hating black people and hating poor people. If I wanted I could build a pretty compelling case to support such a claim and convince lots of people,Hell a lot of people already believe this, when I was growing up in the inner-city I believed it to. But no matter how compelling a case I made I would be still be wrong. People that claim that Democrats want the US to “lose in Iraq” are playing a rhetorical game. Nobody wants us to lose. I certainly don’t. It is however hard to look for victory when I have no clue what it’s supposed to look like. Let’s pose the question: is military victory possible in Iraq. Actually we’ve had numerous military victories in Iraq.As someone pointed out, from a military combat perspective this has been the most successful in our history. We can continue to win military victory after victory and it won’t get Iraq one inch closer to solving it’s current dilemna because the problem is not military it’s political and cultural. Whether we win “militarily” in Iraq is irrelevant to solving the current crisis that is. For the sake of argument I would like anyone to tell me which of Our current objectives in Iraq can be achieved militarily as opposed to diplomatically.
An aside that just popped into my head. The reckless and irresponsible way we’ve been applying the terms “winning” or “losing”.If we don’t achieve all of our objectives in Iraq it does not mean Our military did not perform admirably, it just means that that method of engagement wasn’t an effective method to achieve our goal. Simply put: If I beat a guy up to change his behavior and he doesn’t change does that mean I lost. No I won the fight I just didn’t get the result I was looking for and probably need to try another method of getting him to change.