ryan is the supernicety wrote:
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...
