Should we reinstitute the draft?
Rangel has promised to reintroduce his bill calling for a national draft, a bill previously soundly defeated in the House. The bill would also allow non-military fulfillment of service requirements. Some perceive his call for national service as an anti-war statement rather than a genuine legislative proposal, and Rangel himself hopes that his bill would make going to war a more difficult and solemn decision.
"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," said Rangel, a Korean War veteran. "If we're going to challenge Iran and challenge North Korea and then, as some people have asked, to send more troops to Iraq, we can't do that without a draft."
Harsh rhetoric, to be sure. And yet there is some surprising common ground between Rangel and those on the right. For example, McCain recently said the troops are "fighting and dying for a failed policy" and stated that "we have to have additional forces, or we will be playing whack-a-mole." The need for more troops in Iraq has long been obvious, and Rumsfeld's inability to adapt beyond his vision of a high-tech, fast and mobile quick-strike military despite the failure of such tactics to contain the insurgency is one of the reasons he resigned as Sec-Def -- the other reason being, I suspect, the election results and Rummy's disinclination to face questioning from a hostile Congress. More troops must come from somewhere, and hence a few lonely but principled conservatives have previously come to the logical conclusion that a draft is necessary :
It is enough to note that we cannot plausibly threaten another nation should we need to (Iran, Syria and North Korea come to mind); that our Reserve and Guard units are tapped out at a rate previously envisioned only for a third world war scenario; that our existing formal and informal commitments (to South Korea, to Taiwan, to Israel, to Europe) are now mostly hypothetical or Navy/Air Force affairs; that recruiting is, as has been well-documented, suffering badly; and that many units and personnel are on their third battlefield rotation in two years. Against this is usually stacked the factual point that retention is going unexpectedly well -- stop-loss helps, no doubt -- and the crackpot point that we don't need more troops in Iraq anyway. Silver linings everywhere.
We have few good options left in Iraq and we're running out of time to choose which path we will follow. Put succintly, our choices are to "go big, go long [or] go home" -- that is, send in more troops to pacify and secure hostile areas, maintain or decrease troop levels but be prepared to stay for a long and drawn-out conflict, or leave and let the Iraqis fight it out. Personally I think the first option holds the highest likelihood of leading to a stable and reasonably friendly Iraq, but decisive action is required. If a draft is to be at all relevant to the outcome in Iraq it must be held quite soon, given the length of training required before a teenager can be responsibly sent into a war zone set in a landscape of complex cultural and religious conflict. The political climate in the US being what it is, I just don't see a draft happening anytime soon. That means additional troops for this "one last push" will need to be diverted from other areas, and this is clearly unacceptable in the long term; consequently, the window to achieve stability in Iraq is short. Bush does not have the luxury of waiting to decide
which course of action he will pursue in Iraq much longer.
Regardless of what happens in Iraq, I think the conversation about requiring a short period of service (military or otherwise) from youth is something that deserves serious consideration. Many countries have such requirements , and as a Heinlein fan I have to confess to a certain sympathy with the view that citizenship is a responsibility and not just a privilege: "Ask not what your country" and so forth. On the other hand, I certainly do agree that one of the reasons our military forces are extremely good at what they do is they undergo extensive training, and a group of kids who got drafted, don't really want to be there, and haven't had years of training can't really be expected to perform at the same level, although they would still be useful in situations where sheer numbers and blunt force are needed. I also wouldn't want kids who opted out of the military service to waste a year doing meaningless work that doesn't really help anyone, so my support would depend on the exact nature of the program. There are pros and cons on both sides: what do you folks think?
Comments :
I don't think it's realistic
to suggest that the draft might be seriously considered. It is not.
I think draft is a reasonable solution only in a time of a real worldwide war and a national emergency. The main reason we do not have enough troops available is the readiness problem, and not that we don't actually have those troops.
We have plenty of troops. Do you think that readiness problem will be addressed by wasting a whole lot of money on even more troops who don't even care to be there? Hell no.
I think that a draft is a bad idea in a country founded on values our founders believed it. People should be free to choose whether they'd want to sacrifice their lifestyle to defend the country, especially in non-emergency times.
I am uncomfortable with any concept of citizenship as a responsibility outside of behaving in a lawful manner.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I thought Iraq was an emergency!!
"People should be free to choose whether they'd want to sacrifice their lifestyle to defend the country, especially in non-emergency times."
OK - color me confused. Aren't the war supporters arguing that this is an emergency? Aren't we in a war against Islamofascism that threatens the very existence of the Christian/liberal/democratic civilization of the West? In which case shouldn't a draft have been instituted years ago?
Or is Iraq really not an emergency? Is it really just a war of choice in which case - what the hell are we doing there?
Service
Rangel has been proposing a draft for several years now so it has nothing to do with providing more forces for a final push. (They wouldn't be ready in time in any case.)
I'm as opposed to the bloated military sector as anyone, but I think the concept of mandatory national service might be a good idea. Young people would have to put in one year in a government approved program, but not necessarily the military. This could include social work assistance, infrastructure rebuilding as was done with the CCC during the depression, or even specialized training in an area that is understaffed.
Some things might be substituted for serving such as pledging to work as a teacher in difficult districts for a number of years. Those in the program should be paid a living wage. Part of the program should include citizenship education as to a person's responsibilities as a member of society.
We don't live in a dog-eat-dog world (or if we do then we should be working to change this). So people should learn that they have certain obligations as well as benefits from living in a society. Those who push for extreme "freedom" are skirting on the edge of anarchy.
--- Policies not Politics
Yes, I think a national service program
could be tweaked until it provides a way for kids to grow up, learn some skills, and genuinely help other Americans. I'm leery of obligatory service because it does impose upon individual freedom and all that but on the other hand I think it could be of significant benefit to the kids as well as the country. I guess my Heinlein/JFK/big government side wins out here.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Here's something to chew on...
According to most (all?) opinion polls Americans do not support a draft. But by a far smaller number Americans want to get out of Iraq. If a draft were instituted to deal with the failures in Iraq the number wanting out sharply increases. So have we really arrived at the point where we are willing to continue with our bloody and destructive involvement in Iraq - but only as long as somebody else has to make the sacrifice?
Perhaps Rangel is calling the bluff not just on the leadership but on the American citizenship as a whole. Pain and suffering for democracy is fine as long as its somebody else doing the hurting. That's always been one of my criticisms of the way Bush and company have sold and pushed this war - it won't last long, it won't cost much, let's not see disturbing images, let's not move to a wartime economy, let's not in any way adjust uncomfortably for this endevor. Meanwhile hundreds of thousands of people are sacrificed (mentally and physically) to accomplish a goal that will allow us to claim to be the heroes just because we "supported" our President and troops in this challenge.
Kinda turns your stomach if you think about it.
I think that's where Rangel is coming from, yes,
and I would personally agree there's some truth to the perception that "other people" are being asked to sacrifice for this war while the public as a whole has not been asked to support this supposedly critical endeavor.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
It is a wake up call
I don't think he is wholly serious, but who knows.
I wouldn't mind seeing some kind of public service requirement out of or during high school. The Peace Corps, the Military, Americorps or something along those lines. It wouldn't hurt to increase awareness of the customs of the rest of the world, and the different parts of our own society, in this new global age.
To those that want to send in more troops, that think we need to bomb Iran and egg on a war with China, Russia, Korea and the whole of the Middle East to stave of the fascist rise of Islamism, I don't see how you could NOT want to reinstate the draft. This country simply does not have enough troops to support that kind of hard right military protectionism.
I'm only half stupid
Gee, how the tone is changing.
<Disclaimer>
This comment is not directed at Brendan, per se, but more generally at the liberal establishment. I have seen some posts which indicate, at least I think that they do, that Brendan believes that we should have pushed forward with some of our military options with more resolve that we have (e.g. Fallujah and Ramadi). I am not familiar enough with Brendan's detailed positions to comment specifically on his position here.
</Disclaimer>
That having been said, I love it when the liberals start talking out both sides of their mouth. In the run up to the last election the clear and undeniable mantra from the left has been that we NEED TO GET OUT OF IRAQ ASAP, and that TOO MANY PEOPLE HAVE DIED FOR A FAILED CAUSE/POLICY.
These are positions which are easily taken when you are disavowing all responsibility for having brought that policy into play (even though Democrats clearly did play a part with their votes to a) get into the war in Iraq in the first place, and b) later refusing to demand immediate withdrawal when that was put to a vote later). The record of the votes - the place where it really counts as opposed to soundbites in the media - speaks for itself.
In fairness Rangel has proposed a draft for some time now. I do not believe that he does so because he is behind the goal of winning in Iraq, but quite the opposite. He is using the draft as a means of ratcheting up the pressure on those who don't have family members who have VOLUNTEERED to join the military forces. It is a tactic aimed at increasing support for WITHDRAWAL from, not for WINNING in, Iraq. So let's keep that point clear here.
Well, now that the Democrats have won congress we suddenly see some desire to find a solution other than just leaving. Now we're interested in putting MORE TROOPS IN IRAQ rather than pulling them all out. I find the timing of this obvious shift in rhetoric to be quite telling. Suddenly actually winning is ACTUALLY IMPORTANT.
I actually have two viewpoints that I wish to express in this matter: 1) the Partisan Hack viewpoint, and 2) the Right Thing to Do viewpoint.
<PartisanHackViewpoint>
The partisan hack in me believes in using my opponent's propoganda approaches and techniques against them. In other words, whatever they through at us in terms of lies and smears we seek to through right back in their faces without mercy. In this respect, my comments here are merely a reflection of that perspective.
For the past however many years the Democrats have had the advantage of being able to use their minority status as a shield. It allowed them to say whatever they wanted, to actually vote however they wanted, all the while claiming that they were blameless because they didn't have any real say in the direction the country was taking. This was never more true than in the run up to this last election.
So, my partisan hack response to "Should we have a Draft?" is 100% hell yes. The Republicans and the bloggers should be encouraging, no DEMANDING, that the Democrats do nothing less than that. Why? Because it would be a political bombshell of a thing to do. Note that only the Democrats have been talking draft all along. They started lies and rumors in the run up to the 2004 compaign that Bush had a secret plan to institute a draft after the election. Gee, what happened to that secret plan? Answer: there never really WAS such a plan. It was a lie.
In the partisan hack scenario, the Republicans should steadfastly oppose and and all efforts on the part of the Democrats to actually get a draft. They should grandstand shamelessly via a filibuster on the topic to the greatest extent possible. They should be highlighting the shift in position on the part of the Democrats from get the troops out now to let's now get real and send in more troops. Put the hypocrisy on display for all to see and refuse to allow a little thing like worrying about doing the right thing get in the way of trying to get back into power.
That's how they have been acting, so that's how the Republicans should be pushing back. Fight fire with fire. Ramp up the toxicity of the debate beyond anything the Democrats have produced thus far ... although admittedly I am not able to even imagine such a thing being possible.
</PartisanHackViewpoint>
<RightThingToDoViewpoint>
As far as I am concerned the right thing to so is to "stay the course" (in the sense that it has always been intended, not the left wing lies about it). In other words we need to stay in Iraq, Afganaistan, and wherever else we need to be or go to actually win this war on terror. Will we make mistakes? Yes. Will there be missteps? Of course. Is that any reason to give up and retreat? Obviously not.
How would I deal with the need for more troops? The draft would be my absolute last option to pursue. If we actually decide to pull ourselves out of these partisan gutters that we have constructed, how about something like actually reporting on the threat like it is just that, a real threat to our national security and survival, as well as that of the rest of the free world.
How about we show bi-partisan support for our national efforts to fight the terorrists to encourage people to enlist voluntarily for a real cause, rather than having half of the body politic screaming about how everything is failing, people are dying for lies (which they are not), etc.
How about we actually have a MSM that investigates and reports on the secret positions and plans of our enemies rather than telling our enemies every secret program we are using to thwart them? When was the last time the MSM told us anything useful about what the terorrists were doing? Obviously they have the contacts to gather such information, we have custom made video of the terrorists sniping US military all at the direct request of the MSM.
Alas, I fear that this scenario will not play out. The toxic politics of the past 4 to 6 years will make that impossible, as far as I can see.
</RightThingToDoViewpoint>
Anyway, there's my $0.02 for what it is worth.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Don't hold back on the liberal bashing!
Partisan hack attack
Your overiding assumptiom seems based on a fact that democrats don't believe in the military. We need a military and it should be strong. Iraq has put a huge strain and drain on our fighting forces.
You clearly have not been listening. I recall we support the troops but not the war.
There has been support for fighting terrorists, it is just a question of methods. I don't think you have been listening.
An honest evaluation of the situation without all the rhetorical stereotyping might be a good place to start.
Can you hear me? Or are you deaf because you "think" I am a liberal, and have therefore made gross assumptions about my views based on your preconcieved and much overused stereotyping.
You should take note that James Webb a used to be Republican has realized that your gross and inadequate right wing hack stereotyping has actually gotten in the way of success in prosecuting a success strategy for the military. Thank God he has come home to where he belongs, the Democratic party.
I'm only half stupid
Quick response.
Here is a quick response and then I will be away from the computer for a while...
Yea, I have heard that but it is a meaningless statement. An oxymoron if you will. You can't support the troops but not the war unless you are calling for an all-out withdrawal as far as I can tell. Clearly some on your side, to the credit of their intellectual honesty, have done just that.
Anyone who says we need to get out ASAP before the election, then says that we need to wait a few months after the election, then starts calling for a draft to get more troops to send over there isn't being intellectually honest (not that I am saying the Brendan or you in particular are doing this, but the Democratic party leadership seems to be doing just that).
So, if you don't support the war and think that it is a failure, how can you support sending more troops over there at this point? Bring the troops home NOW!
I have been listening: "I voted for the war before I voted against it." -- John Kerry
This deserves a more thoughtful response than this soundbite but I am out of time for now. Maybe later.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4But apparently never checked the facts
Did Kerry Vote "No" on Body Armor for Troops?
Sic semper tyrannis
Whatever.
If his statement was inaccurate, take it up with him. It is his quote afterall, not mine. He actually said it. It is not something the Republicans made up.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Irrelevant
Sic semper tyrannis
Please clarify this for me.
Do I need to double check the things every liberal politician says, or can I assume that they say what they mean and mean what they say, especially when it is about their own votes?
In other words, can I assume that the 2004 Democratic Presidential candidate knows what he voted for and why he did so or are you warning me that he sometimes lies or is otherwise inaccurate on these types of things?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4There is nothing wrong with this statement
He voted for the 87 million when it included the measure he supported and then against after the measure was defeated.
Sic semper tyrannis
OK, so I guess I must
be confused about your original point above. What did you mean when you said I didn't check the facts?
I admit I did not look into it in the detail that you have, but now you seem to be agreeing that he said what he said which is all I said that he said, so what are you saying? :-)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4If you didn't present
the statement as if there was something wrong with it then I have nothing to argue about.
Sic semper tyrannis
Rangel's intent hasn't been coy at all.
He's come out and clearly stated he's suggesting we re-institute the draft because then the leaders of this nation will be forced to care about thier benefactors children, and will come to different conclusions than they are now.
Curiously goright, Glenn Greenwald today
says much the same thing. He gives great links to back up his claims. FDR, Churchill, Chamerline...here's some Cliff Notes:
The bombastic analogy most frequently invoked by our non-fighting warmongers is World War II. In this vision, war advocates are the Churchill/FDR equivalent, Democrats are Neville Chamberlain, and the wandering bands of Islamic jihadists are the all-powerful Nazi military bent on world domination (and every new Islamic leader is the New Adolph Hitler). But unlike the play-acting, self-absorbed war advocates with which our country is currently saddled, Americans during World War II actually believed that fighting and winning that war was a matter of grave national urgency -- i.e., they actually believed what they were saying -- and for that reason followed through on their rhetoric by accepting a military draft.
and
Anyone who wanted to join in that chest-beating rhetoric did so only carefully and with great thought, because they knew that doing so -- as Roosevelt made clear -- would mean that they would personally bear the burden of the war they were supporting and would be making great personal sacrifices for it of every kind. It makes no sense to claim that a country is facing some Epic Struggle for Its Very Existence but then be afraid to do what is necessary to fuel it -- whether that be tax increases to pay for it or conscripting those who are needed to fight it.
Good food for thought.
Double check
liberals and conservatives.
I don't appreciate G-Dub going back on his campaign promise on no nation building.
I'm only half stupid
You are like a walking human version
of right wing talking points memo.
John Kerry is so last year.
How do you know Rangel is talking about Iraq. That is yet another gross asumption on your part.
We could use troops in Afghanistan, and other hot spots, like say Somalia, Chad, Darfur. Having a bedegradled force in Iraq only, is not a healthy quota for overall US National security purposes is it?
We just need a functioning military that isn't bogged down in one country that has equipment that isn't broken down and used up. Wouldn't it be nice to have some extra troops in case of emergency instead of just barely enough to get stuck in the middle of a civil war in Iraq.
Btw wind surfing is cool!
Yes a more thoughtful response would be appreciated!
I'm only half stupid
Yes it would be nice to have more troops.
But as I said above I don't believe a draft is the way to get them. And regardless of where Charlie was thinking of sending them once their are in the military they will go where they are needed/told.
I still favor a volunteer military and I believe that one way to improve the enlistment numbers is to stop carping on the policy in Iraq and start acting like we actually mean to win the whole GWOT, not just Iraq.
So, here is the common ground: we need more troops. I don't believe that before the election that this would be considered common ground. We differ on how to get them and how to treat them once they enlist.
If it makes you feel any better I will admit that there have, in fact, been some voices on the left that have recognized the need for more troops and the need to actually win in Iraq. Many of those voices say one thing yesteday and another today, so it is difficult to know just where your party as a whole stands. I still contend, however, that the preponderance of voices on the left have been as I described based not only on media soundbites but actions as well.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4The common ground
is needing a strong, vibranty military.
When you say more troops you imply they would go to Iraq.
Forget about Iraq for a second. All of our "troops" are sucked into the sandy sink hole we call Iraq.
If you want an all volunteer army, then military families shouldn't need to go to the food bank for dinner. They should have easy available access to the VA. They should be paid better. There has to be an incentive to join. Going to Iraq and looking for IED's in a rust bucket isn't all that attractive.
Going to Iraq and wondering if you just gave a gun to a trained Iraqi police officer and then having him quit the next day and shoot your buddy......! There is no clear mission. The point of a draft is to have a public outcry to force either a sound policy or get out.
Where is the military force that is that at the ready in case of a National Defense emergency? There isn't one. They are all stuck in Iraq.
I'm only half stupid
What are you willing to sacrifice?
Wanting an all-volunteer army is great, but you need to find something to entice people to join.
Under the current administration, we have seen gross examples of what not to do:
- Lack of body armor
- "You go with the military you have..."
- Cancelling signing bonuses
- "Stop gap"
- Telling soldiers that if they get body armor from friends or family their life insurance will be cancelled.
- Co-pays at the VA
- Claiming that any of the above is simply the need for soldiers to sacrifice while the CEO of Exxon/Mobil spends his $400 million dollar golden parachute adding a sixth chin to his jowls and gets a nice tax break to boot.
I would love to have an all-volunteer army. That, by definition, suggests that you would have, you know, volunteers.
We do have volunteers.
They are all volunteers.
The lack of body armor and "you go with the military that you have" are all natural and unavoidable realities of the real world, something liberals profess to believe in.
General George McClellan
in the civil war exemplifies what happens when you try to wait until you have "the military that you want." In other words, if you wait until everything is perfect then you won't ever go.
As for anything that looks or smells like a cut in veteran benefits, I am totally against it. I don't recognize all of the points you raised above, but VA benefits should be kept strong IMHO.
As for the CEO parachute issue, it is irrelevant how much money a private sector organization pays their employees.
As for enticements, I would support increasing the signing bonuses (not sure about your reference to them being cancelled) as well as the education benefits to make the whole thing more attractive. I would also suggest praising the troops on a regular basis for their service rather than comparing them to Stalin and Pol Pot.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4You missed the point
We would have many more volunteers if the enticements were there. But they aren't.
As someone who has a nephew in Iraq, I know the pain of sitting by the sidelines knowing that our family had the cash to purchase him top of the line body armor only to be told that if we sent it to him, he would lose the life insurance provided by the military.
As for "you go with the military you have," I wasn't suggesting perfection. But I am expecting something a little more supportive of the troops than Rumsfeld's ridiculous quip. Boil it down and it becomes "too bad, so sad" or "cry me a river, boys."
I am glad to see you on board regarding no cuts in the VA.
That isn't enough, however, to entice people to put their lives on hold, face the possibility of death in the field, and then tell them they can't have state of the art body armor.
Make it attractive and we wouldn't be dumbing down the parameters for getting new people into the military.
I don't think I did.
I agree with you, which is why I said:
I don't know enough about the home purchased body armor canceling the life insurance issue to comment substantively. I don't like that situation any more than you do, I expect, however are we sure that this is a policy that originates from the government or does it originate from the insurance industry? I am not defneding the decision, but I can understand how the insurance companies would balk at letting people buy their own body armor.
They are insuring people based on specific assumptions one of which is that soldiers are utilizing body armor that meets or exceeds the specifications which have been tested and certified by the government. One way to insure that is to simply say only military provided body armor counts.
Now I undersand that you and anyone else would most likely be buying either the same equipment that the government issues, or perhaps even better, but I can see why an insurance company would not want to cover just anything.
I believe that the best answer here is to insure that the government is sufficiently funded to provide our men and women with the equipment that they need. These shortages are most likely not due to a lack of desire for them to have the equipment, but rather they are due to the realities of the priorities and trade-offs imposed by a constrained budget or production capacities. While Rumsfeld has never been known for being politically correct in his verbiage, I believe the point of his "you go with the military that you have" comment was more a reference to the above realities and priorities than any particular indifference to the needs of the individual soldiers.
I agree. See my first point above. If we can find more meaningful enticements that can be added to create a "win" for the volunteer in exchange for services rendered now in defense of our country, again, I am all for supporting the troops in these ways.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4So, I'll go out on a limb here...
I, an admitted liberal, support growing our Armed Forces.
What about you? Right now, the budgets that have been submitted to the House & Senate haven't called for that because they didn't want to pay for it.
You may not be willing to enact a draft, are you willing to pay for more servicepeoples?
Absolutely yes.
I am all for the strongest military we can muster, especially now. I am all for spending on military R&D as well to stay technologically strong and to provide civilian side benefits that generally flow out of military R&D as well.
We may differ on how to pay for all this, though. I prefer cuts in social programs as opposed to the (false) idea of raising taxes. No, I don't have any specific programs in mind. Until I do, across the boards cuts will be fine.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Well, I'm glad the Democrats are in a position
where they are forced to assume some responsibility (however small in practice) for guiding our military policy. It's better that the war in Iraq be a national endeavor (despite conservatives' attempts to polarize the country into with us or against us). That said, Rangel doesn't fit into the mainstream of the Democratic party anymore than McCain does for the Republicans -- just today Hoyer is already distancing the official Dem position from Rangel's remarks.
So yes, I agree that there's some inconsistency on the liberal side, with calls to retreat from a failed war before the election and now some desire to finish the job correctly. My response would be that in many cases particular people have remained consistent, it's just different voices on the liberal side that are getting airtime, and further I would personally argue that regardless of the reason for Dems becoming more engaged in Iraq (if they are), it's a good thing.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
I agree with these points.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Republicans should learn to eat their own SNAFUs
Democrats voted to give the president authority to use force as a last resort, which is not exactly the same as having any part in taking us into a war. (Especially considering that no matter how they would voted the Republicans would have it their way anyhow) I too, dare question motives of someone who had plans to attack Iraq since before he took the office, but refused to admit to them till the last moment.
Actually about 2/3 of the Democrats voted for Woolsey amendment (05/25/05)"that sought to express the sense of Congress that the President should develop a plan for the withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Iraq" The vote you seem to be referring to was a usual Republican piece of partisan hackery which most Democrats didn't bite.
Sic semper tyrannis
More thoughts.
So if this is true, why did the Democrats vote the way that they did? I mean if their votes did not matter why not vote their conscience?
Are you suggesting that they did not, in fact, vote for what they considered to be the best interests of the country? Does this mean that they, in fact, were dishonest with the American people?
(Side note: this sounds a little like a thread a few days ago about the front pagers on RS being dishonest because they decided to keep disagreement on Iraq off the front pages. In both these cases the underlying argument is one of demonstrating personal integrity? It is one thing to have personal integrity when you are a blogger on RS, and quite another to have it when you are voting to give the President of the US the power to use force if necessary. Would you not agree with this?)
The vote I am referring to is one in which the Republicans basically called the Democrats bluff. The Democrats were smack talking a good line about the need to withdraw (I think it was Murtha) so the Republicans basically put together a motion to withdraw immediately. On this vote almost none of the Democrats voted for it because they knew it was wrong.
It is one thing to sit in the back seat and demand a timetable from someone else so that you can just nit pick it at your leisure. It is quite another to put a hard deadline on the table like "NOW" and then take responsibility for it.
So your point is well taken. 2/3 of the Democrats apparantly voted to push the responsibility for a timetable onto the administration, but only a handful at best were willing to take on that responsibility themselves. If you are going to demand a timetable you better be willing to put your name on it or you're just playing politics.
I am sure that you will feel that "the adminstration made this mess, let them take responsibility for setting the timetable to clean it up." But if you are going to take the position that it is the Administration's mess and they need to fix it, you don't get to have a say in how it gets done. If you want a say in how it gets done, be willing to vote for the hard choices.
We'll see how the new congress does on this point.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4So basically what you are saying
is the Republicans broke the plate to serve up liberty to the Iraqi's. The plate is broken into a million pieces. The Republcan answer has been it is broken and our plan is........"stay the course"?
But since the democrats disagree with your non-plan plan, then it is up to the democrats to glue the million pieces back together.
The truth is no one knows how to fix this mess. Nothing will be gained until a hard cold honest assessment is made of what is ReaLLy going on. Your side has been in hard core denial that there was even a problem.
The options are very bad, and absolutely horrible, especially for the Iraqi's who have lost their country, due to American hubris and arrogance.
I'm only half stupid
False premise.
I don't agree that I ever said this. I don't think that it is broken. I just don't think that we have reached the end yet, and I always expected it to take 6-10 years after the whole thing started. So as far as I am concerned we are still on course for a successful mission.
Remember, "stay the course" means stay in the fight and don't leave until Iraq has a democratic goverenment that can defend itself. That definition does not preclude changes to the operational realities on the ground, but it does preclude just pulling up and leaving as the Democrats want to do.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Ah, so
you do give a timeline of expectancy at least. Well, I guess there is no way to say whether you are being honest about this statement, but I can tell you that no one in the current leadership
thought it would take that long:
I guess you know more about military strategy and societal reconstruction than them though.
Your 6 years to 10 years puts us two years away at best or 6 years away. Do you really think the average American has the patience (I mean this as far as 65 military deaths per month
and a financial expense at $9 Billion 
a month in our tax money) to pay to rebuild a country that did nothing to us for that long when they see no progress? You live in a different America than I do.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
That was my honest assessment at the time.
I guess you could call that a timeline on my expectations, but I should point out that these are not hard deadlines like the Democrats are calling for. Depending on what is happening on the ground I have not particular aversion to adjusting my epectations based on new data.
I agree the BushCo never would have agreed with that. There were pundits (can't recall who) who also claimed 10 years was not out of the question.
I don't claim to be a military guru. I was just giving it my best guess based on the level of societal change involved. You can't really expect people to make the ideological change from Saddam to Democracy in a year or two.
I don't know if the American people have the patience or not. I do. I think that it is just a matter of keeping your eye on the prize and keeping the pressure on.
You choose not to see progress. I choose the opposite:
So, as I said, I don't think that it's broken.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I'm not anti-success
in Iraq. I hope very much we do succeed. I think that time is running out on us. I think most of the things you listed are positive developments. Unfortunately, this is a cost/benefit analysis where the costs are overriding the benefits.
I do not want to go through each of your points (I'm getting tired), but let's just say that most of those (except the Libya point) are nullified by the country disintegrating and falling into a civil war.
What's the old saying? Oh yeah, out of the frying pan and into the fire. Difficult to say one is progress.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
This is fine.
As always we see things differently, which is OK.
Let's just say that to me these "benefits" are stepping stones or battles in our fight in the GWOT. So to me the benefit is the very survival of our country and our way of life. I put a pretty high price on those.
I understand, on the other hand, that you may view the Iraq War as a distraction rather than a battle in the GWOT. On that we just have to agree to disagree most likely.
Have a good night.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Goodnight n/t
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
So why dont we do that in Sudan and NKorea too
Is it US job to bring Democracy to Iraq? Is it the 2900 soldiers job to die for Iraq? Should we sacrifice not giving health care to 40 M americans to spend 1 trillion dollars for Iraq?
Poland, Serbia, Lebanon, Philippines, etc did it on their own, had people power to bring down their dictators. Why should it be the job of US?
It is even more justified to go to Darfur
where there is active genocide going on.
Or invading Iraq when Kurds were being actively gassed -, 1990 but 12 years after for a huge cost to US and our soldiers.
The fact that there are 10 worthy causes
is NOT an argument against undertaking just one of them, is it?
This seems to be saying, since we can't address them all then we shouldn't address any. I just don't buy that logic. By way of a (not 100% direct) analogy it is like saying, if we can't save 10 people from drowning that we shouldn't save even one.
I am not disagreeing with your contention that these other places are in need of assistance as well.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4So you support a hand up
for people around the globe,
yet at home you think people should pull themselves up by their bootstraps.
Isn't your foreign policy just another big government program at tax payers expense?
I'm only half stupid
Where did I say the bootstrap thing? n/t
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I am assuming you are against
a welfare state, the nanny state, and giving people a hand up.
No problem with welfare for Iraq and it's people.
Big problem if you happen to be poor and living in the US. See New Orleans.
I'm only half stupid
You need to adjust your assumptions, I think.
I can support programs which provide a social safety net for things similar to the following (for US citizens only):
I do NOT support long-term handouts for otherwise able bodied people who simply choose not to work.
Interestingly enough, I do NOT support our providing these benefits to non-US citizens. They should make use of whatever programs are available to them within their country of origin.
Social programs such as these are a completely different form of aid than fighting a war to liberate a nation, at least in my mind, so I consider these to be apples to oranges comparisons on your part. I acknowledge that you may view this differently.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Our great country
under the leadership of FDR became even greater because the teaching of the bible, if you will, of helping those who can't help themselves, and helping the poor improved opportunity for all.
That starve the beast mentality that Club for Growth advocates...... is detrimental and deceiving.
Tax cuts with more debt do not a tax cut make.
So we should go into debt to create a middle class in Iraq, while we are busy turning our own middle class into the poor.
I do appreciate your seeming sincerity. I see it more like apples (US) and applesauce (Iraq). We are trying to rebuild Iraq at the expense of our own country! Why is it worth it! It's not.
I'm only half stupid
We go into debt for Iraq ...
because (at least for right wingers) the war there is a fundamental battle in the GWOT (as opposed to simply being about bringing those who committed 9/11 to justice) whose purpose is to insure that we are even here to argue about the state of the middle class.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Let's review on lessons learned
History says:
When the Palestinians held democratic elections, they elected Hamas.
?Did the US respect the results of that democratic process?
They already had elections in Iraq. Elections do not a stable government make.
If elections were held in Iraq today, who do you think would win?
I say the pro-Iranian fundamentalist Islamic Shiites would win. How is that a good thing. In your world, that would be democracy in action. Perhaps a more realistic goal should be stability and a functioning government.
What I think you and others like you fail to see is the reality that you are the worst kind of liberal. You have liberal ideas for other countries, you want big government to pay for it (US taxpayer funded military) and you really don't have a realistic strategy.
That is the failing of the neoconservative agenda that you have bought into. Wanting a utopian and liberal vision for the world, and using big government to achieve it. Your liberal view of freedom for Iraq has been served up without regard to reality, pragmatism or how the world really works.
I'm only half stupid
Joe Wilson said that
A PBS show--I thin it is Frontline, months prior to Iraq War, he was debunking the reason that installing Democracy will bring Israel and US friendly leaders thus stabilitiy in ME.
He said, usuallly, populists candidates who inspire passion and emotions among electorate win elections and to do that in Middle East, it is to invoke hatred on Israel and America. Therefore those who win elections will be those who are not friendly to US or Israel. And he said Saddam is the friendliest leader you can get in that area.
Therefore, this is not unexpected. This was already known.
Please elaborate.
Please describe the reasons and actions that the US government took that you feel did not respect the election of Hamas into power?
What exactly are you suggesting here? That we prop up yet another version of Saddam? That we seek to muzzle the self proclaimed interests of the Iraqi people to suit our own interests?
I won't bite on any of that. I don't demand that the elected government of Iraq become a mere pawn of US policy, if I did then I would be a hypocrit. If they choose a different path that is for them to decide. I, personally, have confidence that a free society in Iraq is more likely to embrace western notions of freedom than to shun them in the long run and will, thereby, be an ally to freedom rather than to oppression in the world.
With all due respect, my positions are anything but liberal. ( Where I come from, them thar is fightin' words, little missy. :-) )
I believe that empowering people and promoting freedom within the world is a force for good. It is as simple as that.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Western aid was halted to
Western aid was halted to Palestine due to the Hamas win in the Democratic elections putting Palestine in dire straits and forcing many workers to go unpaid creating yet more problems.
In other words, the US refused to respect or accept the results of the Palestinian election. How can you be for democracy before you are against it?
Touting democracy and elections as the be all and end all solution to other countries problems, is foolish and unrealistic. If Iraq held elections today, which faction would gain power? The fundamentalist Shiites would. That is a step backwards, not forwards, and is the direct cause of US actions.
Your confidence in Iraq's free society would go a lot further if the society was STABLE. People without jobs who fear to leave their homes...... you call that freedom? I call it war torn chaos.
Your above statement is very liberal and I would wholly agree with it. It is very idealistic (and simplistic) to say you want "world peace".
Like I have said previously, we seem to agree on the basic goals of promoting human rights, dignity and freedom, we just disagree on how to get there.
I'm only half stupid
because
Democracy is not a blank check to elect anyone without any repercussions. Palestinians elected terrorist Hamas, and Germany elected Nazis back in the day. Are we supposed to respect murderous regimes just because they were democratically elected? Even American Democrats are not that crazy.
When someone is for democracy, that means one believes it to be the best of the political systems - but it doesn't mean that it will always produce a good result. It is not perfect and can, in case of Palestine, or Germany long time ago, produce horrific results.
What you are doing is you are putting the will of the people on the pedestal regardless of what that will is. That is against what our Founding Fathers believed because if you remember they believed that certain rights are inalienable no matter what people say.
Examine what you say a little bit closer and you will see the fallacy of worshipping any people's choice.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I will simply
respectfully disagree with your assessment.
It is confuses people when you pretend to be fighting a war for the sake of establishing a democracy, and hold up democracy on some huge pedastel, and post elections, suddenly sing a different tune.
It takes on a bad appearance, and a look of hypocrisiy.
The US rushed those elections and spent several million to do so, so the flouting could begin. They just got the wrong result to promote their freedom agenda.
I'm only half stupid
Where is it written that we must provide
aid to governments that we don't like?
Not liking them, and not sending them aid, is NOT the same thing as not respecting them. In this context not respecting them would be essentially refusing to recognize them as a governing body. I don't believe that we ever refused to recognize that Hamas was the legitimately elected government of the Palestinians, we just chose to deny them any assistance because we didn't like them which is clearly not the same thing as not respecting or recognizing their official status.
If the Iraqi's end up electing an anti-US government then I don't think that we are obligated to keep sending them aid. We are free, are we not, to support the people we like and to deny support to those that we don't, right?
With this I agree.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Like I said
We were for democracy before we were against it.
Right! So the whole point is the Iraq War should not have been sold as promoting democratic reform for an Islamic country. It was foolish from the outset to do so. But it sounded good to John Q Public (R) who then voted for Bush the great freedom fighter in 04.
I'm only half stupid
I think your are confusing
our sending aid to various countries with the notion of respecting self-rule through a democratic process.
I can support someone's right to elect whomever they choose, and respect that choice by recognizing those duly elected officials diplomatically, but this in no way obligates us to continue sending aid to those countries who choose to elect officials that we feel are not in our best interests.
These are two separate issues.
I am FOR democracy regardless of the outcome. So why are you saying that I am AGAINST it?
I am FOR sending aid to any government that we consider friendly to our interests, and AGAINST sending aid to those governments that we consider unfriendly to our interests. Taking this position in no way dilutes my support for democracy, does it?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4So you support elections in Palestine
but not the outcome of the democratic process!
You must admit there is a mixed message there.
I believe in freedom and democracy, but not the outcome?
Puhlease.
There is where neocon ideology clashes with reality big time.
I'm only half stupid
umm
think about this:
When one believes in freedom and democracy, one believes in both, but at the same time what do you think is more important out of the 2? Freedom, don't you think, because without freedom what is the point of democracy (if you are a slave to the state?).
So lets say you give people democracy, and they vote to destroy freedom by electing a new dictatorial government that couldn't care less about freedom. How can you support that?
Again, just because one supports democracy and freedom, when such new democracy takes away the freedom, then there is nothing left to support. Is that so hard to understand?
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Perhaps it is?
Because I am not sure I am following what you are saying here either.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4what is the point
of democracy without freedom? To some leftists here apparently democracy is the most important thing regardless of whether it brings Hitler or Mao or Stalin. Democracy is God to them which illustrates a profound disregard of liberty.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Sir it is the war mongering neocons
who have hailed holy over democracy and holding elections in Iraq, and Palestine.
I would agree the neocons are a perversion of the far left.
They are idealistic to the point of being impractical. To think that holding elections in Iraq would solve the challenges of the Iraq, was liberal lunacy to the extreme.
And that was your sides position not mine. It was a sort of "feel good strategy" for Republicans to promote democracy in the Middle East and US politicians to prove the harmony between the two countries dipped their fingers in purple ink and flaunted it on TV.
Look at us. Vote for Republicans with purple fingers. We held elections in Iraq
and now everything is going to be peachy keen.
I'm only half stupid
It wasn't that pursuing democracy
that was the mistake. It was pursuing democracy at the wrong stage of the war and Iraq's development that was the problem.
It was the unique circumstances of Iraq itself and the incredible sectarian tensions that are the problem.
So overall I disagree with the tactics utilized, but not the direction itself.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Don't you think part of the
problem is that there never was or never has been a clear mission statement on exactly why we went into Iraq in the first place!!!
You could say, from an Iraqi point of view, that the US gave Iraq a gift when it removed Hussein from power.Whether you agree or disagree with the invasion.
There was good will from the Iraqi people in return for that gift.
If you look, and history will, every thing that has happened after the fall of SH has been badly handled. And now we learn that the training of the Iraqi military is a joke, literally. Underfunded. Young Americans who have never fought and don't speak Arabic, training war wise Iraqi's. Really it is horrendous.
And I also heard something about an effort to bring in troops from Iran to help stabilize Iraq. I mean........ how bad is it when you have to rely on Iranian troops to salvage this "democracy" for Iraq.
I am not convinced that the powers that be had Iraqi's interests in mind when they invaded. If they did, this has got to be the most poorly planned, ill prosecuted strategy I know of.
I'm only half stupid
OK, I agree.
I think that Saddam himself was a prime example of your point. In theory he was "elected" but I don't consider his regime to have been a true democracy. Democracy and Freedom always go hand in hand, unless I guess if you are an anarchist?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4They do not necessarily
go together.
I don't see anything about freedom. One is a political framework, while the other is an ideology.
They are connected connotatively in our framework, but they do not necessitate each other. In other words, they should go together, but they don't have to.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
I would agree that they
are mutually independent concepts. For example, I believe that at least in theory anarchy and freedom are (or can be) compatible as well.
I don't believe that any form of communism or facism could be said to be compatible with freedom, however. Is this correct or not in your opinion?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Interesting question
that may not be as easy for me to answer as you (or I) want. My initial reaction is no. In all the forms of fascism and communism as institutionalized by governments of states we've seen so far, there does not exist freedom as I would call it.
My theoretical side complicates things a bit more and sees it in terms of degree. In fascism, the leader or upper echelons may have freedom, but the mass of people do not. The farther down the social ladder you go, the less freedom you have until you reach the 'undesirables' who have no freedom.
In communism (as institutionalized in developed nations as a government), again, the ruling party has a bit more freedom than the masses.
In theoretical communism, the state would whither away as there would be no need for a government in a classless society (Marx talking here, not me), and so there would be abundant freedom almost as in an anarchic state. Of course, you nor I believe in this teleological utopia, so we can throw this scenario out the window, but I thought I would mention it to show that it is theoretically possible.
I think the governmental system we have now in the US and in most other developed western nations is fairly close to the mark as far as striking a balance between individual freedom and government regulation. Of course, I tend to think we could still improve (legalizing most consensual crimes-drugs, prostitution, gay marriage, etc) to increase our freedom here, so it is by no means perfect.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
communism with abundant freedom
except for zero freedom to private property? Zero freedom to pursue happiness as an individual?
Just because there might not be government in the classical way, communism is a pure example of tyranny even in a theoretical example because people are precluded from personal liberty by default and are supposed to live for the sake of others.
Which is why I view both real and theoretical communism as evil.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
O/T
but now that we're seeing how the threads look with longer conversations running, do you think there should be a limit to how far the margins extend? If this conversation were double the length (say, a really heated debate), the right margins would be so far over that people would have to scroll just as far left/right as they would up/down to read it.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Yea, what you said.
(Except that I wouldn't type that "evil" part out loud!)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4These comments quit indenting way too soon IMO
This is in response to Ender's comment.
You (along with a lot of pro and anti-communists) have some big misconceptions of Marxism/theoretical communism. There is a notion of private property in some interpretations of communism such as Marxism (see Fromm's book, Marx's Concept of Man
). For example, your house is yours, you do not share your wife (referring to Aristotle's/Christianity's argument of women as property), and anything you make with your own hands is yours. The important aspect Marx states here is more to the point of what a person makes with his own labor is his rather than giving the end product of the labor to another person (the owner/capitalist) to sell. This idea is similar to what Locke says in Second Treatise of Government, in which one takes from the commons and gets to keep the results of his labor. The difference between the two is that Locke argues that the commons is quickly used up and so we must use our time as a product to sell (wage labor) leading to classes (those with capital-owners and those without-the laborers). Marx believes that in an industrial society, we can use manufacturing as a 'commons'. Of course we, as a society, are passed the point of industrialization in this country for the most part (we are turning into an information and service sector economy), so I do not believe Marx was correct in his teleological historical progression (in other words, communism will never happen in the way he imagined).
Still, this shows that there is freedom of private property and (perhaps more) pursuit of happiness in theoretical communism. So your evaluation is not correct.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
I changed the width
of a comment - made it a bit smaller. Which allowed me 3 extra indentation layers - bringing it from 9 to 12...
I could make indentation width itself even smaller and create even more layers, but that would mess with legibility...
Though I could completely remove the right column when you are reading comments...
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
oh yeah
that change really screwed up the threading in this diary. Sorry :)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Maybe that is the problem
It seems to be a problem in just this thread.
No problem. You're doing a great job.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
We must be talking past each other or something.
What am I saying that leads you to this conclusion?
What would I need to do in order to get you to agree that I am "supporting the outcome of the democratic process?"
My definition as listed above is that we officially recognize them diplomatically as the legitimately elected government, regardless of who gets elected and whether they are friend or foe. Did we not do that with the Hamas government?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I don't doubt your intentions are good
I will take your word that you think Palestine is a viable democratic country.
I'm only half stupid
I'm not a mind reader
But after being fed false or selectively chosen data by the administration some voted believing they do it in the best interest of the country. A whole bunch, few Republicans too, voted against. Do you really think that if the Democrats who voted for the use of military force in Iraq voted "no" it would somehow stop the process that was in motion since Bush set the foot in the White House?
You might call the request for the timetable "pushing the responsibility for a timetable onto the administration" - nice try - it is normally known as "oversight authority over the Executive Branch".
Sic semper tyrannis
Po-tay-to/Po-tah-to
The information available at the time was what it was. It was simply the best information available at that time and people made their decisions based on that.
The fact that the Democrats chose to vote they way that they did, knowing full well that they were free to vote their conscience because of the Republican majority, only serves to suggest that they too believed that the information was credible.
In a post 9/11 world the decision was made to accept the data as being accruate rather than risk another attack of even greater proportions. This was and remains the best possible decision from a national security perspective that could have been made.
You can call it "oversight authority over the Executive Branch" or anything else that you want, but giving it such a name does not change the fundamental truth that demanding a timetable but being unwilling to put your name to a vote on the specific details is passing the buck.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4As I stated before to you
We won't know this:
until Phase II
of the Iraq Intelligence Report that was stonewalled by Roberts 
comes out. Thankfully, the democrats will see it is done, so we can have definitive answers on this matter. Until it does, we can talk ourselves silly without convincing each other on this, but let's just say that there is a lot of evidence that it will be ugly for Bush and his cohorts when it is made official.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
The fact that the info was believed
does not validate it or excuses those who sold it as such, or change the fact that those who believed it were taken for suckers. Some did publicly state that they might/would have voted differently.
I didn't make up the phrase "oversight authority over the Executive Branch" -- it's one of the duties implied in authority of a legislative branch. When Congress authorizes the president to conduct military action and makes us pay for it, it damn better keeps a watchful eye on what's going on.
Funny that you mention "passing the buck" in reference to this administration. I don't think they found it yet. Didn't Bush perform a skit looking for it in the oval office a while ago? It's probably hiding in plain sight smack on top of the desk. Or maybe he was looking for WMDs. Who knows? - they might be right on top of the buck for all I know.
Sic semper tyrannis
Last for tonight...
I don't think that I said or even implied that it did (validate the information).
I know that you did not make up that phrase, sorry if you think I implied that you did. Regardless of who coined the phrase or from whence these oversight powers originate, nothing that they do changes the fundamental truth that demanding a timetable but being unwilling to put your name to a vote on the specific details is passing the buck.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4It's your opinion
I on the other hand think that calling the vote for this non-binding resolution for immediate withdrawal was a political stunt, and in the words of Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland:
It is not among Congress's prerogatives to micromanage the executive branch, but it is perfectly within their authority to inquire about the timetables for the tasks, especially such tasks that initially were claimed to take no time and money and now after paying horrendous cost in human lives in addition to putting a big hole in the budget there does not seem to be any plan or end in sight. Just staying put and waiting for the president to request more money is not a good way to run legislature.
Sic semper tyrannis
It may surprise you ...
but I am not at all against the concept of legislative oversight of the executive branch. By all means, let's employ those checks and balances for the benefit of all.
Moving on...
So, taking the statements made by the house minority members on the floor of the House of Representatives, putting them into a clear and concise piece of legislation, and then voting on them represents "the rankest of politics and the absence of any sense of shame" to your side of the aisle?
That is not a political stunt, as you call it. That is calling your opponent's bluff when you know that they are lying through their teeth. That is putting the dishonest and disingenuous grandstanding of your opponent to the test. That is putting a shining light on the tactics of a minority party that is only interested in obstructing progress.
The fact that the Democrats could not even come to vote for the very things that they were arguing on the floor merely illustrates the hyprocracy and dishonesty with which those arguments were being made.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Yes it was a political stunt
and I'm not the only one calling it that.
But we have to agree to disagree.
I must say that you convinced me that the dems should pay back the repubs in the same coinage they've been given while in minority. Maybe force a vote on a non-binding resolution that we are going to stay in Iraq forever or until the country goes bankrupt.
Sic semper tyrannis
It's a win/win for the dems
Partisan View:
If passed: On one hand, it's put up or shut up. The majority of Americans will see this war is not worth fighting when their kid's lives are on the line, and we then have an early withdrawal.
If not passed: On the other hand, Repubs don't look like they're serious about winning since they won't create the numbers we need by making their kids expendable. Dems look good by pointing out the hypocrisy of the Repubs.
My View:
Bad idea, though I am not anti-mandatory service of some kind as Brendan and others noted.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
regardless of both of your partisan views
this plan got 2 votes out of 435 last time, and it won't get more than 3 this time - which means no one will blame anyone and it will disappear.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Agreed
I didn't say it was practical, just an interesting way to push the Repubs in a corner.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
Rangel was just trying to make a point
Rangel was trying to make a point that if you want more troops or stay longer then a draft would be needed and hopefully this will cause a realization among the population and leaders the cost of their stay the course policy or increase the troops policy will be a burden the people will not accept.
We agree.
From above:
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Rangel is making the point
that if a war is worth fighting,
then it should be worth enough support among the American people, that all should be called on to serve their country. That in serving your country and being in the military is a valuable.
Instituting the draft would serve as a check and a double check on engaging in frivolous wars.
I'm only half stupid
A totally politically incorrect question ...
If we do reinstate a draft, should it include Affirmative Action? In other words, for two otherwise equally qualified candidates to be soldiers, should the job/preference go to the minority?
I personally don't think so. I am more of an Equal Opportunity mindset, myself, but I am curious what the proponents of Affirmative Action have to say. Is there any reason why the rationale for Affirmative Action should apply elsewhere but not here?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4According to DOD
the military fairly represents the society. (link
)
Well, with some exceptions like:
My guess is that affirmative action for affluent suburban whites would be in order.
Sic semper tyrannis
I think that you need to
read up on the definitions of Affirmative Action
.
Affirmative action never applies to giving preference to the white population, only to minorities. This is similar to the oft cited maxim that "minorities can't be prejudiced or bigotted, only white people can".
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I think he nailed it correctly
Your quote says:
Woodsman states that there is no ongoing discrimination as the numbers he cites suggest. Therefore, no need for affirmative action.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
Whoops, deleting duplicate copy of above. n/t
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4