Rangel doesn't want a draft-- Dems so-called "fear mongering" is related to the fact that Bush's idiodic war has put us in a position where we might need one. THUS, the reality of the situation may require a draft. But this reality did not occur passively. It was CAUSED.

http://www.thepoorman.net/2006/11/21/king-solomon-pro-infant-vivisection/

Oy. Charlie Rangel is not really advocating a draft. Also, Swift was not seriously advocating that the Irish eat their own children. Rangel is advocating a public debate about the costs of the war, with testimony from Administration officials, and he is advocating that war supporters in Congress make a choice between ending the war and commiting political suicide. As he explained after voting against a similar bill he sponsored in 2004:

Rangel accused Republicans of using his bill to assuage fears that President Bush had plans to reinstate the draft, stating, “The Republican leadership decision to place the draft legislation on the suspension Calendar is a political maneuver to kill rumors of the President’s intention to reinstate the draft after the November election.”

He went on to urge Democrats running for reelection to vote no.

“I am voting no, because my bill deserves serious consideration,” his statement continued.

“It should be subject to hearings and to expert testimony. The administration should come and tell us about our manpower needs, about recruitment and retention, about the extent to which out troops are overextended. And they should give us their views about shared sacrifice. If they did all of those things in a serious way, they would have to admit that my bill is an option.”

Decius wrote:

Americans would have to sign up for a new military draft after turning 18 if the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee has his way.

Remember when Democrats were fearmongering that Bush would enstate a draft if reelected... Um...

King Solomon: Pro-Infant Vivisection

Wow. The Washington Post puts up a website which lists each and every casualty in Iraq, in order, with their photos, personal info, etc....

Wow.

washingtonpost.com: Faces of the Fallen

George W. Bush :

"We are in a war on global terror, and because of you, we're winning the war on global terror."

"I don’t think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world"

"We will tear down the apparatus of terror, and we will help build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free."

"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called 'nation building.'"

"America and the world are safer because Saddam Hussein sits in a prison cell"

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."

"I'm a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign-policy matters with war on my mind."

"Nobody wants to be the war president. I want to be the peace president."

Flip Flop yourself.

Elonka wrote:
] ] John Kerry: "It was the right decision to disarm Saddam
] ] Hussein, and when the President made the decision I
] ] supported him."
] ]
] ] John Kerry: "I don't believe the President took us to war
] ] as he should have."
] ]
] ] John Kerry: "The winning of the war was brilliant."
] ]
] ] John Kerry: "It's the wrong war, in the wrong place, at
] ] the wrong time."
] ]
] ] John Kerry: "I have always said we may yet even find
] ] weapons of mass destruction."
] ]
] ] John Kerry: "I actually did vote for the 87 billion
] ] dollars before I voted against it."
]
] A collection of "flip flop" quotes from Kerry, and the press
] release from the Kerry campaign where they try to explain
] context.

RE: Kerry: Misleader-in-Chief?

] One friend I know describes working in the media as
] shoveling coal for Satan. That's about right. A worker in
] a tampon factory has dignity: He just uses his sweat to
] make a product, a useful product at that, and doesn't lie
] to himself about what he does. In this business we make
] commodities for sale and, for the benefit of our
] consciences and our egos, we call them ideas and truth.
] And then we go on the lecture circuit. But in 99 cases
] out of 100, the public has more to learn about humanity
] from the guy who makes tampons.
]
] I'm off on this tangent because I'm enraged by the
] numerous attempts at verbose, pseudoliterary, "nuanced"
] criticism of Moore this week by the learned priests of
] our business. (And no, I'm not overlooking this
] newspaper.) Michael Moore may be an ass, and impossible
] to like as a public figure, and a little loose with the
] facts, and greedy, and a shameless panderer. But he
] wouldn't be necessary if even one percent of the rest of
] us had any balls at all.
]
] If even one reporter had stood up during a pre-Iraq Bush
] press conference last year and shouted, "Bullshit!" it
] might have made a difference.

Wow, this is the kind of media rant I have been wanting to write for quite some time now. Please go and read it.

NYPress: SHOVELING COAL FOR SATAN: Christopher Hitchens collects check from Microsoft, calls Moore a coward.

] France has bestowed its most prestigious honor on 99
] American veterans, thanking them at a pomp-filled
] military ceremony for helping to free Europe from Nazism
] 60 years ago.
]
]
] Officers pinned the Legion d'Honneur (Legion of Honor)
] medal on the former soldiers' chests Saturday as their
] children and grandchildren watched proudly, many shooting
] pictures and videos.

Ryan: what a wonderful gesture given the idiotic social/political situation in the US these days.... cheers.

CNN.com - France honors 99 brave Americans - Jun 5, 2004

Decius wrote:
] ryan is the supernicety wrote:
] ] Ryan -- Tom, also from the article posted, you learn that
] the
] ] production of uranium also requires -- surprise, surprise, a
]
] ] great deal of petroleum. Everything we do requires it.
]
] For what? Transportation? What do you mean by "REQUIRE." Do
] you mean that the actual chemical is literally required, or do
] you mean that we typically employ it because its the cheapest
] option right now.

Well, from what (little, admittedly) i have read, it is the only means by which to produce the uranium to be used. you MUST, currently, have petrol to refine the uranium (and hydrogen, for that matter). I don't know if there is a POTENTIAL to not use it, but that has yet to be seen. And with 40 years left, how quickly do you think it can be rolled out...

RE: Observations and the State of Affairs - Peak Oil

Ryan-- this is really important. I really would like to learn more on this. Are there any good studies or academic papers anyone knows about? This could be the defining point for our generation.

This is an issue I've tracked for a couple of years. The voices are growing. It's kind of like when one person says something contrary to popular opinion, you just laugh it off. Then more people start saying, "Hmm, well you know they might be on to something," Those that choose to ignore it will plug their ears as the voices grow.

The truth is, we are going to run out of cheap fossil fuels in our lifetimes. Our way of life is going to change dramatically very soon, within decades. Once oil production peaks, it's all downhill, literally, as we ride the downslope of the bell curve.

This page has a really good collection of starting points and quotes. I'm reading one of the books that is quoted here, "The Party's Over." It's doesn't paint a pretty picture of things to come.

Understanding how oil production affects what we have all come to accept as our way of industrial life, it underscores every war we are going to be fighting in the Middle East from here on out.

I'm curious to know, how many of you think this is even an issue? Is the talk of "peak oil" just Bravo Sierra or is it prophecy? It makes sense to me. I'm not in the camp that thinks it is just going to work itself out, not without readjusting to pre-industrial population size.

Observations and the State of Affairs - Peak Oil

Dude, there is a general policy of the American press to not show people being KILLED versus simply fucked with. And I don't care to argue the level of abuse. It was abuse. It was not right under international law. But it was not mutilation nor murder.

Decius wrote:
] ] It's time to put up or shut up. Last week I wrote a column
] ] saying that CBS should have thought twice before showing
] ] the photos from Abu Ghraib prison. The response from
] ] readers and even some journalists was like I'd proposed
] ] banning the printing press. Numerous e-mailers said I'm
] ] no different than a Holocaust-denier who'd ban photos
] ] from Auschwitz.
] ]
] ] Well, now we have the horrible news that Nick Berg, an
] ] American contractor, was beheaded by an
] ] al-Qaeda-affiliated group explicitly in response to the
] ] release of the Abu Ghraib photos.
]
] There has been an ongoing discussion on MemeStreams for over a
] year about the ethics of publishing raw war footage. Here is
] an right wing view. I think it sheds some light on the
] subject. Be sure to follow the link through to the column he
] references and read it as well.
]
] Despite rambling off into crypto racist commentary about the
] literacy rate in Iraq, this article does make a valid
] observation. Why do we show pictures of prison abuses but we
] don't show the beheading video? Because the press uses its
] position to exhert greater pressure on those in power to be
] responsible then it does on those who are already assumed to
] be monsters. In general, there is no problem there. The abuse
] photos have certainly cost us a lot of ground in Iraq, and an
] arguement can be made that they should have been supressed,
] but honestly, if our political institutions are as strong as
] we beleive they are they ought to be able to weather such
] scrutiny, and communicate effectively about how we're handling
] it with the Arab public.
]
] The issue at hand is that clearly the press does not make
] choices about what footage to air and what footage not to air
] on the basis of the nature of the footage alone. The press
] makes these decisions on a political basis. While this
] author's reference to footage of "partial birth abortions" is
] partisan and oversimplified, the general point must be
] considered. The press makes political decisions about what to
] air. In that sense they cannot be seen as objective. Once
] we've reached that conclusion we must ask what the political
] motives of the press actually are, and whether we feel like
] those motives are in line with our interests.

RE: Jonah Goldberg on Abu Ghraib on National Review Online

] When President Bush mentioned steroids in his State of
] the Union earlier this year, some people wondered why the
] president seemed interested in an unfolding criminal case
] involving a Bay Area drug lab and some of the country's
] best-known athletes.
]
] Now, J. Tony Serra, who's defending San Francisco Giants
] slugger Barry Bonds' personal trainer, says he's figured
] it out.
]
]Serra said the government is rushing to trial and wants to get ]convictions so Bush can use the case to help win re-election.

law.com - Article

] I write to strongly protest your decision to instruct
] Sinclair's ABC affiliates to preempt this
] evening's Nightline program. I find deeply offensive
] Sinclair's objection to Nightline's intention
] to broadcast the names and photographs of Americans who
] gave their lives in service to our country in Iraq.
]
] I supported the President's decision to go to war in
] Iraq, and remain a strong supporter of that decision. But
] every American has a responsibility to understand fully
] the terrible costs of war and the extraordinary
] sacrifices it requires of those brave men and women who
] volunteer to defend the rest of us; lest we ever forget
] or grow insensitive to how grave a decision it is for our
] government to order Americans into combat. It is a solemn
] responsibility of elected officials to accept
] responsibility for our decision and its consequences,
] and, with those who disseminate the news, to ensure that
] Americans are fully informed of those consequences.
]
] There is no valid reason for Sinclair to shirk its
] responsibility in what I assume is a very misguided
] attempt to prevent your viewers from completely
] appreciating the extraordinary sacrifices made on their
] behalf by Americans serving in Iraq. War is an awful, but
] sometimes necessary business. Your decision to deny your
] viewers an opportunity to be reminded of war%u2019s
] terrible costs, in all their heartbreaking detail, is a
] gross disservice to the public, and to the men and women
] of the United States Armed Forces. It is, in short, sir,
] unpatriotic. I hope it meets with the public opprobrium
] it most certainly deserves.

[ John McCain proves again that you can garner respect and admiration without pandering. I disagree with damn near all his political stances, but I absolutely respect the honesty and commitment to *public service* with which he approaches his job. I'm glad someone with a little clout is responding to this situation -- my rant earlier, while genuine, isn't likely to go far. -k]

U.S. Senator John McCain -- Letter to Sinclair