Posted on 11/19/2006 10:30:36 AM PST by Brilliant
Evidently you have never been to boot camp. When I was in boot camp, Parris Island, January to April of 1970, over half my platoon was draftees. But there was no distinction between volunteers and draftees among the drill instructors. We were all maggots and the ones who couldn't "adapt to military life" were indeed weeded out. One morning when we got up, about 20 of them were gone and we never saw them again.
Funny thing about us draftees: we were older, better educated, more mature and better suited for leadership. When it came time for handing out the honors at graduation, 5 of the 6 of us who got promoted were draftees.
Trying to analogize the military to the public school system only goes so far. Unless boot camp has been totally wussified in the past 37 years.
Don't be putting down the REMFs. You liked getting paid, fed and clothed, didn't you?
A more accurate headline would be "Rangel again says he will seek to reinstate the draft". He has said it before, but did not mean it, and did not vote for his own bill. There is nothing to suggest he is serious this time, either.
Actually I think it has been wussified to allow for the co-ed training I hear they do. But that's just hearsay on my part because I don't know anyone who's been to boot camp in the last 10 years.
I'm of your generation and being of the opposite gender, was not drafted, so I have no first-hand knowledge. Just a question - when a draftee washed out in 1970, were they excused service or did they go into some other part of the military ?
They went home. Done. No more military. If it had been a year or so earlier, they might have let some of them stay.
I'm sure you educated your daughters and supported the whole family on bullets, water and MREs. You really shouldn't try to bullship an old bullshipper, ya know. ";^o
"They also serve who only stand and wait".
I was on active duty thru '78 and, the post-nam force had its weaknesses. However, I have to say that one of the biggest problems were the remaining draftees, some of whom were still around in '76 and '77. 'Nam and its legacy really did a number on the Army, more than any other service. I would never want to be in a force like that again.
Was there some type of less-than-honorable discharge that followed them around, or the whole thing was just dropped from military records ?
Programs are only as good as their administration. Who said anything about pay and benefits. A little subsistence and do for your country. Check out the LDS missionary program. There is a church run like a business and missionaries pay dividends. A little faith maintenance mechanism, so to speak. A bit of America is right and a little less of freedom without a personal payment.
We seem willing to let teachers teach America is always wrong and we subsidize them.
Thanks for the info.
I don't know for sure. Probably a General Discharge but don't bet the farm on that. It may well have been honorable. My first bunky was sent back to Alabama because he looked stupid. He was one of those guys who never seems to look like he woke all the way up. But he wasn't half as stupid as some of those that were kept. He was just quiet.
JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN SENIOR PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): With Senator John McCain leading the charge for more U.S. troops in Iraq...
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: Are we winning? And I think the answer is no.
MCINTYRE: ... Democratic Congressman Charles Rangel is renewing his call for a return to the draft.
REP. CHARLES RANGEL (D), NEW YORK: Having our young people commit themselves to a couple years in service of this great republic, whether it's our seaports, our airports, in schools, in hospitals -- and, at the end of that, to provide some educational benefits -- it's the best thing for our young people and the best thing for our country.
MCINTYRE: While U.S. commanders insist sending more American troops is not the answer, they concede they really couldn't maintain a much bigger force in Iraq than the 150,000 there now. The U.S. military is simply too small.
GENERAL JOHN ABIZAID, COMMANDER, U.S. CENTRAL COMMAND: When you look at the overall American force pool that's available out there, the ability to sustain -- sustain that commitment is simply not something that we have right now with the size of the Army and the Marine Corps.
MCINTYRE: There are some 1.4 million active-duty troops in the U.S. military, but less than half, roughly 500,000, are ground troops. And, of that, four-fifths, about 390,000, are either deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, returning home, or getting ready to go back.
But the Pentagon, the administration, most members of Congress, and virtually all U.S. commanders agree, a return to forced conscription would be expensive, unnecessary, and would undermine the all-volunteer force that's been performing superbly.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "FACE THE NATION")
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: We just need to get more people to join, better benefits, better pay. I think we can do this with an all-voluntary service, all-voluntary Army, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Navy.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But...
GRAHAM: And, if we can't, then we will look for some other option.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(END VIDEOTAPE)
MCINTYRE: Congressman Charles Rangel originally said he planned to introduce legislation to revive the draft when he takes over as chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee next year. He's now backpedaled a bit, but still says he would like to have hearings on the subject to show that he thinks the current system is unfair.
But no one at the Pentagon -- or on Capitol Hill, for that matter -- gives the legislation much of a chance for passage -- Paula.
ZAHN: Jamie, thanks so much for the update. Now, despite that chorus of criticism that seems to be coming from all corners, Democratic Congressman Charlie Rangel isn't backing down. And I spoke with him just a short time ago.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ZAHN: How disappointed are you that the newly elected Democratic leadership won't touch your draft issue?
RANGEL: I don't blame them. Talking about the draft is a very dangerous thing politically.
(CROSSTALK)
ZAHN: What's so dangerous? What's the risk?
RANGEL: The risk is that you're talking about putting kids, American kids, in harm's way that come from affluent voting families. And they don't like that idea.
But I think it's more important that people who keep talking about sending more troops to Iraq, putting military options on the table in Iran and in North Korea, have to understand that other kids, other people's kids, are fighting these wars. And, so, I think it's very important, when our military chief in Iraq says that you may want more troops there; I don't think we need them, but we don't have think anyway.
And I know where these young people are coming from, and I think we have exhausted our National Guard, exhausting our reserve. And we ought to pause, take a deep breath, and see whether we're prepared for everyone, universally, men and women, to share in this sacrifice.
ZAHN: You obviously believe a draft is necessary if we potentially will enter a military conflict in -- in Iran, and maybe even North Korea.
When you say you don't blame the Democratic leadership, don't you wish they had more backbone on this one?
RANGEL: I don't care what the leadership does. The American people voted in the midterm election. They either don't know why we're in Iraq, but they certainly want us to get out of Iraq.
You have never heard the president of the United States make a patriotic appeal for all Americans to volunteer to stop terrorism from coming from Iraq to the United States. And we all know that the people that are enlisting are enlisting because they don't have better options.
If that wasn't so, the military would not be spending $4 billion setting up recruiting stations in the areas of the highest unemployment, offering up to $40,000 to enlist, and, in addition to that, $70,000 in education, and upping the age, since they couldn't get enough recruits, from 26 to 39. So, we know what's going on. Is it difficult to talk about? Is it awkward? Yes. It doesn't take away from the patriotism of those that are fighting. But, if the war is worth fighting, what's the objection for everyone making a sacrifice?
ZAHN: But isn't it disingenuous for you to say that you don't care what the House leadership does, when, in fact, you need them if there's ever going to be a vote on this issue?
RANGEL: I don't -- forget the vote. Before you get to the vote, we have to have the debate; we have to have the hearings; we have to have full discussion. And that's good enough for me. It could very well be, at the end of the day, the wars are over, they don't need all of these people, and so we don't need a draft.
And, then, I would talk about national military service, which is another subject good for another time.
ZAHN: Thank you for setting the record straight here tonight.
Charles Rangel, appreciate it.
RANGEL: Thank you so much, Paula.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ZAHN: My pleasure.
The current chairman of the House Armed Services Committee made a point of going public against Congressman Rangel's draft proposal today.
And, a little bit earlier, I spoke with Republican Duncan Hunter of California, who also happens to be exploring the idea of running for president.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ZAHN: And Representative Duncan Hunter joins us.
Always good to see you, sir. Thanks so much for being with us.
REP. DUNCAN HUNTER (R-CA), HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN: Good to be with you.
ZAHN: Why are you so opposed to Congressman Rangel's idea to bring back the draft?
HUNTER: Well, first, Paula, I am opposed to the premise upon which he bases this idea.
And I have -- I have heard Charlie. I like him. He was an old 2nd Division man from Korea.
But his argument is to the effect that -- that only people go to war who have to go. And I can tell you that, after 9/11, I came back to San Diego, to my hometown, and I -- and I had a son who was in the high-tech industry, good job, wife and baby, and I saw him running up the mountainside. I said, what are you doing?
He said: I quit my job. I'm joining the Marines. We're going to go get them.
And -- and he did, subsequently, two tours in Iraq as a Marine officer.
Secondly, the voluntary military is working. I just looked at all the statistics. And the combat units, the people that go into combat -- and you would think, if anyone was -- that did -- would not want to reenlist, it would be the guys in combat. They're reenlisting. And we're meeting more than 100 percent of our goals for reenlistments. And we're meeting enlistment goals across the board.
ZAHN: That may be true, but a lot of people think that misses the point. Even General Abizaid, who's in charge of the operations in Iraq, has said, if you brought in 20,000 more troops now, you simply can't sustain that. The -- the Army is too small and has been too weakened.
HUNTER: Well, here's what we have done, Paula.
When the Clintons walked out of the White House, they cut the U.S. Army from what was 18 divisions to 10, cut it almost in half. We have increased the Army now by 30,000 troops. Now, in Iraq, it's true that we need new troops. We need more troops in Baghdad.
And I have got an answer for that. We have got 114 Iraqi battalions that we have trained and equipped that are in Iraq. Twenty-seven of them are in places where there's no fighting to speak of going on. We need to take those Iraqis that we have trained and equipped that -- who have weapons, have communications gear. We need to saddle them up and move them into Baghdad. That will mature them as a fighting force.
That will help them. It will help the Iraqi people. And it speeds up the time when America can leave.
ZAHN: We have heard your chief objections to reinstating the draft. And I know you feel very passionately about this. But how much does politics enter into this? Are you afraid that no one wants to take this issue on because of all the pain that it causes?
HUNTER: No, listen, I'm just an American who saw my dad volunteer in World War II. He had a deferment. He volunteered. I didn't do anything special in Vietnam, but I -- I showed up as a volunteer.
And my son volunteered for this Iraqi -- for this war in Iraq and -- and the war against terror. And I think that is the principal ethic that moves Americans. That's the ethic of patriotism and volunteerism.
It doesn't make sense, Paula -- if you have a volunteer who is willing to take a position and wants to take a position and volunteers or re-ups or enlists in the military, it doesn't make sense to push him out of the way, and put in somebody who didn't volunteer, who would rather be doing something else.
ZAHN: Representative Duncan Hunter, thanks for your time tonight. We really appreciate it.
HUNTER: Hey, thank you.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0611/20/pzn.01.html
REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA), SPEAKER-ELECT OF THE HOUSE: Mr. Rangel will be very busy with his work on the ways and means committee. (UNINTELLIGIBLE) strong voice for justice in our country and that's a way to make a point about this war that it has not involved (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
KOPPEL: Could you say if you support -- if you support Chairman Rangel's call for a draft? Is that something...
PELOSI: No. No.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KOPPEL: Now, the outgoing chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Duncan Hunter, today said that he doesn't think that such a proposal even makes sense.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. DUNCAN HUNTER (R-CA), OUTGOING CHAIRMAN, HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE: At this point, that ethic of patriotism is filling those ranks. We don't need to have an artificial -- an artificial tool, which is what a draft is, to fill the ranks. So if you don't need it, why have it?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KOPPEL: Now just two years ago, Chairman Rangel did get a draft Bill to the floor of the House, John. It was overwhelmingly defeated by 402 against, two votes in favor. Even Chairman Rangel, himself, the incoming chairman, voted against it because he said that the Republicans pulled a fast one, got it to the floor without an acceptable debate.
Nevertheless, today, Chairman Rangel seems to be backing off a bit. He said that this whole idea of a draft was raised at the very end of the interview that did he on the Sunday talk show.
He said he had no clue that it was going to be coming up, and he said he's about more than just talking about the draft. After all he's going to be the next chairman of the armed -- of the ways and means committee and, obviously, that's not within his jurisdiction, John.
KING: Andrea Koppel for us on Capitol Hill. Andrea, thank you very much.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0611/20/sitroom.01.html
LOU DOBBS, HOST: The Pentagon calls it a myth, trying to downplay reports of new strategies devised for Iraq. But Pentagon officials admit senior officials are brainstorming on ways to move forward there.
I'll talk tonight with the incoming chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Democrat Ike Skelton. An avid supporter of the military, he's been an outspoken critic of this war.
Jamie McIntyre reports tonight on the military's effort to strike down speculation about new strategies for the war in Iraq.
MCINTYRE (voice over): Pentagon officials say there are a lot of myths that have grown up around its internal review of Iraq's strategy. Perhaps the biggest is that the reappraisal will produce a formal report or make any firm recommendations for the way ahead. Instead, officials say what's been dubbed the "Strategic Dialogue Group" is more of a brainstorming exercise among 16 of the brightest military officers, mostly colonels or equivalent rank, who are fresh from the front lines in Iraq.
They've been meeting regularly with Chairman Peter Pace and the rest of the joint chiefs, providing insights, advice, and an unvarnished reality check, according to Pentagon insiders, so Pace can hone his advice to the president, which he hasn't yet offered.
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I haven't made any decisions about troop increases or troop decreases, and won't until I hear from a variety of sources, including our own United States military.
MCINTYRE: Pentagon officials say a second myth is that the Pentagon group has outlined three options described by "The Washington Post" as "Go Big," for sending a lot more troops, "Go Home," for pulling out quickly, or "Go Long," for the current plan of stepped-up training for Iraqi troops, along with perhaps a short boost in U.S. troop levels.
"The Post" report did prompt outgoing House Armed Services Committee chairman Duncan Hunter to label his latest idea with a similar catch phrase...
REP. DUNCAN HUNTER (R), CALIFORNIA: Go Iraqi.
MCINTYRE: ... calling for Iraqi units in nine relatively peaceful provinces to be moved to the front lines.
HUNTER: In those provinces are 27 Iraqi battalions. Those Iraqi battalions could be sent into the contested areas in Baghdad and should be sent into those contested areas.
Meanwhile, former secretary of state Henry Kissinger told the BBC he's concluded the U.S. cannot win a clear military victory.
HENRY KISSINGER, FMR. SECRETARY OF STATE: If you mean by clear military victory an Iraqi government that can be established and whose writ runs across the whole country, I don't believe that is possible.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
MCINTYRE: Duncan Hunter's "Go Iraqi" proposal is pretty much in line with what General John Abizaid, the top Persian gulf commander, outlined as his preferred strategy last week before Congress, pushing Iraqi forces into the lead before the violence in Iraq spins out of control -- Lou. DOBBS: Jamie, this announcement of this evaluation was announced as the Iraq Study Group's -- that discussion about what they're bringing forth heated up. So what we're hearing now is that there won't be a report, there won't be recommendations, and it's just brainstorming?
What in the world does that mean?
MCINTYRE: Well, what it means is that General Pace has basically asked for who he thinks are the brightest officers to come in, tell him what they really think, and then he's going to be the one that synthesizes that in his head, and he's going to advise President Bush when the Iraq Study Group comes out whether he supports what the Iraq Study Groups says, or whether he thinks his officers have a better idea.
But he wants to have a handle -- a fresh perspective. He wants a complete scrub of everything. And to do that, he's relying not on the generals at the Pentagon, but the commanders that he thinks have the best grasp of what was actually going on in the ground in Iraq.
DOBBS: But not the generals?
MCINTYRE: Not necessarily the generals. Some of the people who are actually on the front line.
DOBBS: And this is the first time he's done this?
MCINTYRE: Well, it's been going on actually for a month or so. It was very quiet at first, but then it became -- it sort of came out in the last couple of weeks and he acknowledged it publicly for the first time a few weeks ago.
DOBBS: All right. Jamie, thank you.
Jamie McIntyre from the Pentagon.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0611/20/ldt.01.html
This was just too funny last night. Lawrence O'Donnell flipped his wig!
Guests: Michael Crowley, Terry Holt, Matthew Felling, Bob Kohn, Ashlan Gorse, Tom O¡®Neil
JOE SCARBOROUGH, HOST: Memo to the president: You cannot win this war. (INAUDIBLE) message on Iraq from none other than Henry the K. Mr. Kissinger, the same man who spent the last two years counseling Mssrs. Bush and Cheney on how to avoid another Vietnam, that same foreign policy icon who oversaw America¡®s first defeat in war, has now concluded the United States military is headed towards its second. The Iraq war is a lost cause, Kissinger believes, and he is part of an every expanding majority.
But if most of America has given up on Mr. Bush¡®s war, will they embrace one of the incoming Democratic majority¡®s most powerful chairmen and his proposal to push a military draft? And how will this White House react to the stunning reality that if this war is to have a reasonably sane ending, it will be because empowered (ph) terror states like Iran and Syria will be asked to step in to keep the peace. What a long, tortured path we¡®ve taken since being too arrogant to allow France and Germany in on the spoils of reconstruction in 2003. Ah, those were the halcyon days, weren¡®t they?
To answer those questions, let¡®s bring in former executive producer of NBC¡®s ¡°The West Wing¡± Lawrence O¡®Donnell. He¡®s of course, a frequent contributor to the Huffingtonpost.com. Also Michael Crowley, senior editor for ¡°The New Republic,¡± and Republican strategist Terry Holt.
Lawrence, let me begin with you. Kissinger says it¡®s over. Is the White House finally listening?
LAWRENCE O¡®DONNELL, POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, they have to listen. They have to hear it. But there¡®s really nothing much they can do about it. Now, Kissinger says it is a hopeless exercise now, we can¡®t win it by any definition of winning that we might come up with. But he then says, in pure Kissingerian form, we must not leave. This was his Vietnam calculation, that we must not leave.
And so now you¡®re left with the princes of foreign policy on the Republican side of the world acknowledging that it¡®s unwinnable, that there¡®s no real achievement for us to get there, but of course, we must stay because if we leave, it will become unstable and it will be become a disaster, much like what they said about Vietnam, which the president of the United States¡ªthe second president of the United States in a row has just finished visiting as the completely stable country that it is today.
So the Kissinger doctrine in place now is, It¡®s unwinnable, but we must stay, which is a horrible message to give to the American troops over there, to say, You¡®re not going to win anything, but we¡®re going to leave you there and an undetermined number of you are going to die in this exercise that you will not win, and at a certain point, when we feel enough face has been saved, we will remove ourselves from that exercise.
SCARBOROUGH: But Michael Crowley, I mean, is this president going to be able to remain in denial, or will this Kissinger confession finally change his outlook?
MICHAEL CROWLEY, ¡°THE NEW REPUBLIC¡±: I think he can¡®t be in denial anymore. I don¡®t think people are buying denial anymore, and I think people like Kissinger are making it impossible for him to be in denial. I mean, the state of denial, so to speak, is finally coming to an end.
SCARBOROUGH: But what about Kissinger¡®s statement, We can¡®t win the war, but we¡®ve got to stay there?
CROWLEY: Well, I mean it¡®s just incredibly¡ªit¡®s horrifying, first of all, that we¡®re hearing this right after the election. I mean, it was clear that the election was something of a referendum on Iraq, and all these people are sort of coming forward now to say all these new and interesting things about the war that they presumably had been able to determine a handful of weeks ago.
SCARBOROUGH: Well, you fire Rumsfeld the day after the election results come in, and now you have Henry Kissinger, the guy that¡®s trying to prevent another Vietnam, coming out saying it¡®s an unwinnable war but we have to stay there. What if you were a father or a mother or a husband or a wife with a loved one over in Iraq, and you¡®ve got military¡ªor you¡®ve got political leaders saying, We can¡®t win this war, but we¡®re going to stay there anyway?
CROWLEY: Well, Joe, the amazing thing is¡ªyou know, that famous line of John Kerry from the end of the Vietnam war, ¡°How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?¡±
SCARBOROUGH: Yes.
CROWLEY: I mean, it¡®s an incredibly pertinent line right now, I mean, almost amazingly so, almost eerily so. It¡®s unbelievable that we¡®re back in such a similar situation, but here we are. And unfortunately, nobody has a good answer. They just have incredibly bleak diagnoses, like we¡®ve heard from Henry Kissinger.
SCARBOROUGH: You know, Terry Holt, we¡®ve all learned that after the Tet offensive in 1968, Americans turned against the war, but the poll numbers now against the Iraq war seem to be so much higher, 66 percent of Americans now disapprove of this war in Iraq, only 31 percent approve. And as you know, Terry, generals since Vietnam have been telling us that we can¡®t fight a war under those type of political realities. Is it time to leave?
TERRY HOLT, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Well, it¡®s not, obviously. We still have to get the Iraqis in the game here. There are several brigades of Iraqi army people who have been trained, have been equipped, and they need to get in the game. You saw Duncan Hunter from the Armed Services Committee today say that we need to move the Iraqi troops up to the front line, get them in this business, because after all, I mean, the violence that¡®s going on in Iraq is Iraqi on Iraqi. And it¡®s tragic, but it is the circumstances that we face.
And I think there¡®s actually, after this election, a range of options that may not have been viable prior to the election but that now are. You have Senator McCain talking about bringing more troops in, perhaps, to oversee a stabilization and a redeployment. You talk about the dialogue that can go on between Iraq and Iran and Syria and all of the important issues that can be discussed there. And then you have this ability to put the Iraqi people in charge of their own destiny. And ultimately, the president¡®s policies from the very beginning have been about putting the Iraqis in charge of the Iraqi future...
SCARBOROUGH: But Terry...
HOLT: ... and that¡®s got to be what it is.
SCARBOROUGH: You know, in 2003, Terry, we wouldn¡®t let the Germans and the French come into Iraq after we won that war in short order, the hot part of the military campaign. Now we¡®ve gotten to a point where we¡®re going to bring terror states like Iran and Syria in and allow them to stabilize this country that we can¡®t stabilize?
HOLT: Well, I see what you¡®re saying, Joe, and it does seem odd. But the fact of the matter is that Iran and Syria have hundreds of miles of borders that impact directly the security situation in Iraq, whereas Germany and France, they were never in the game to begin with. They were never in a position to put significant numbers of troops in the game. In fact, you know, the French were in charge of an African project earlier this year. They wound up sending a couple of hundred troops where they¡®d promised tens of thousands.
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: That is the rub. I mean, the French don¡®t have the people to go in there. Lawrence...
HOLT: Unless you want to surrender, you can¡®t bring the French in.
SCARBOROUGH: Now, Lawrence, obviously, things have deteriorated in a terrible way. A lot of people are saying we don¡®t have enough troops to win over there. We can¡®t do what John McCain wants to do by sending in more troops. So Charlie Rangel, the incoming chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, as you know, the man that¡®s going to be one of the most powerful people on Capitol Hill, had this to say about an upcoming military draft. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. CHARLIE RANGEL (D), NEW YORK: 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.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCARBOROUGH: And of course, Charlie now is pushing, Lawrence, for a military draft. Is that...
O¡®DONNELL: Well, you know, he...
SCARBOROUGH: What¡®s he¡ªwhat¡®s he trying to do, snatch defeat from the jaws of victory for Democrats?
O¡®DONNELL: Well, you know, he suggested this a couple years ago, and he was fairly open last time around about not being serious. He says this time that he is serious. What he makes, Joe, is a very, very serious point, which is to say we now have an American combat force that has no connection to the society at large. We have a military culture in the United States...
HOLT: That¡®s just not right, Larry. I mean...
(CROSSTALK)
O¡®DONNELL: Oh, yes? How many combat veterans do we have on this panel tonight? I don¡®t like to hear...
HOLT: There are dozens of...
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: Hold on a second!
O¡®DONNELL: ... cowardly warmongers¡ª
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: One at a time!
O¡®DONNELL: Not one of us has the courage to put ourselves in a military uniform...
SCARBOROUGH: Well, Lawrence...
O¡®DONNELL: ... or ever go into combat! So don¡®t you dare tell me...
SCARBOROUGH: Lawrence...
O¡®DONNELL: ... that you are in any way connected to this military!
You¡®re as much of a coward...
SCARBOROUGH: Lawrence!
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: Hold on a second, Lawrence!~
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: Hold on! Lawrence, you are so out of line, I don¡®t even know where to begin! Walter Cronkite¡ªI don¡®t know if Walter Cronkite served in World War II or the Korean war, but Walter Cronkite could come on and talk about the Tet offensive. Yes, I am connected to people who are over in Iraq right now.
O¡®DONNELL: Joe, you are connected...
SCARBOROUGH: I know people...
O¡®DONNELL: ... Terry Holt is not.
SCARBOROUGH: I know people...
O¡®DONNELL: Terry Holt is the typical...
SCARBOROUGH: ... over in Afghanistan.
O¡®DONNELL: ... draft-dodging...
SCARBOROUGH: I know people all the time that have to go over there.
I know wives who have left their husbands!
O¡®DONNELL: I know you do, Joe.
SCARBOROUGH: I know husbands that have 2-year-old kids they have hardly seen at all! There are people who are connected to this war. I don¡®t think, though...
O¡®DONNELL: Does Terry Holt have any relatives in Iraq? I don¡®t think so.
HOLT: No, but I have members of my church, members of my community, people that I have met with. And Larry, come on...
O¡®DONNELL: And you would never dream of it yourself! You live your whole life...
HOLT: But Larry, look at the reality!
(CROSSTALK)
O¡®DONNELL: ... supporting this kind of war without ever¡ªone minute of your life has not been spent contemplating military service yourself, have you!
HOLT: But let me make a point to you, sir!
O¡®DONNELL: Tell the truth!
HOLT: Let me make a point to you...
O¡®DONNELL: You¡®re just like me, you wouldn¡®t dare enlist in the military...
HOLT: I¡®m sorry, I just am trying...
O¡®DONNELL: ... because you are as afraid of it as I am!
HOLT: ... to interrupt to make a point to you, and that is that people in Columbus, Ohio, and Indianapolis, Indiana, and Des Moines, Iowa, have friends and families that have suffered and sacrificed in this war.
O¡®DONNELL: And you don¡®t!
HOLT: And for you to suggest that a draft would make people hurt more, I think that¡®s unfair to the millions of military families around this country...
O¡®DONNELL: What Rangel is saying is a draft will connect the military...
HOLT: ... that have made a sacrifice.
O¡®DONNELL: ... to the wider American population, which is absolutely true.
CROWLEY: Joe, may I budge in for a minute? I think that maybe the key point is that political, and frankly, media leadership in this country. So it¡®s not that average Americans have no connection to the military or that tiny numbers of Americans do, but unfortunately, I think the people who make the decisions about war and peace in the corridors power and at the newspapers, to some extent, editorial boards¡ªthose people are all too disconnected from the culture of the military.
SCARBOROUGH: And Michael Crowley¡ªMichael Crowley, that¡®s a great point.
CROWLEY: And by the way, I am one of those...
SCARBOROUGH: The fact is...
CROWLEY: And that applies to me. I¡®m not trying to point the finger.
SCARBOROUGH: Right.
CROWLEY: And it paralyzes my thinking about these issues.
SCARBOROUGH: Well, sure. And it¡®s not that middle America is not connected to the loss that our men and women are suffering overseas. It is a fact that elites¡ªand because I¡®ve got a TV show, by my definition before I got into TV what an elite would be, I would be one of those. Elites in this country, people in the media, people in Congress, people in the executive branch, they are disconnected.
I remember hearing Doris Kearns Goodwin talking about her son deciding from Harvard to serve this country and talking about how she¡®d go to dinner parties, and people would like at her like her son was out of his mind. Of course, he wasn¡®t.
HOLT: Joe, does a draft make that happen?
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: And Lawrence¡ªlet me ask that question to you, Lawrence, because we know how the last draft went. I mean, the elites are still going to be able to keep their kids out of the draft.
O¡®DONNELL: Yes. Tell that to John Kerry and everybody else from his Yale class who enlisted. The draft put the pressure...
HOLT: Whatever!
O¡®DONNELL: ... on people to...
SCARBOROUGH: John Kerry...
O¡®DONNELL: ... face the decision...
SCARBOROUGH: John Kerry went in in 1965...
HOLT: The draft brought people in the middle...
(CROSSTALK)
HOLT: Hold on. Hold on. Hold on.
O¡®DONNELL: My brother went in and I have cousins going in...
HOLT: Go ahead. Go ahead. Talk.
O¡®DONNELL: ... who don¡®t want to go in, and they had to go in! So it did happen, and the draft did connect you. Everybody had a draft number, and they had this relationship to this war at the time...
HOLT: But does it make them a more effective fighting force?
(CROSSTALK)
O¡®DONNELL: Terry Holt gets to live completely apart from this war.
Not a single relative involved. Nobody he cares about does he have to worry about going to Iraq.
HOLT: Well, I wouldn¡®t attack you personally, Larry. I¡®m sorry.
(CROSSTALK)
HOLT: I¡®m just not going to go there with you.
SCARBOROUGH: That¡®s an awful personal¡ªthat¡®s an awful personal...
O¡®DONNELL: It is personal!
SCARBOROUGH: ... attack, isn¡®t it?
O¡®DONNELL: President Bush has two kids who belong in Iraq, and they¡®re not there! And if they had to...
HOLT: Oh, my goodness!
O¡®DONNELL: ... go there, he would make a different decision! It is a disgusting disconnect...
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: Hold on a second! Lawrence...
O¡®DONNELL: ... from military service!
SCARBOROUGH: ... I don¡®t know why you think that people who don¡®t want to serve in the armed services should serve in the armed services...
(CROSSTALK)
O¡®DONNELL: People who are afraid of the armed services should not advocate war!
SCARBOROUGH: Lawrence...
O¡®DONNELL: If you¡®re afraid of being in the armed services...
SCARBOROUGH: Lawrence...
O¡®DONNELL: ... you cannot advocate war!
SCARBOROUGH: Lawrence, you are just so out of bounds tonight. Let me finish my sentence. We¡®ve got over a million people that serve in our military, that do it proudly, that are proud of what they¡®re doing, and as much as this may shock you and other people, they¡®re very proud of what they¡®re doing in Iraq. They¡®re proud of what they¡®re doing in Afghanistan. They¡®re proud of what they¡®re doing in the Balkans. Don¡®t tell them...
O¡®DONNELL: I¡®ve had family in Iraq...
SCARBOROUGH: ... that they¡®re the dregs of society!
O¡®DONNELL: ... myself, Joe. What I¡®m telling you is if someone is afraid to put on a military uniform and afraid of combat, they have no right to advocate war.
HOLT: Who¡®s talking about being afraid? We¡®re talking about...
O¡®DONNELL: You Terry! You¡®re afraid!
HOLT: ... a policy...
O¡®DONNELL: You didn¡®t do it!~
HOLT: Larry...
O¡®DONNELL: And you advocate war!
HOLT: We¡®re not talking about fear...
O¡®DONNELL: Just like President Bush!
HOLT: ... or no fear. We¡®re talking about...
O¡®DONNELL: He was afraid of combat, and he advocates war.
HOLT: Well...
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: Hold on. Did you say that about Bill Clinton also?
O¡®DONNELL: Yes! Bill Clinton was a draft dodger, classic afraid, terrified draft dodger.
O¡®DONNELL: He
SCARBOROUGH: OK. And he sent our trips overseas...
O¡®DONNELL: That¡®s right.
SCARBOROUGH: ... and aren¡®t you glad that he sent them to Bosnia and Kosovo?
O¡®DONNELL: I¡®m not sure that I am glad that he sent them there.
SCARBOROUGH: Well, there were a hell of a lot of people that were being killed there...
(CROSSTALK)
CROWLEY: It rather tends to limit the 2008 Democratic presidential field. I mean, Lawrence, I¡®m sympathetic to a lot of what you¡®re saying, but it makes it a little bit difficult for the Democratic Party to continue to exist...
O¡®DONNELL: Well, the Democrats will continue to be as hypocritical about it as the Republicans...
(CROSSTALK)
O¡®DONNELL: ... from war cowards loathsome!
SCARBOROUGH: All right, we¡®re going to have to leave it there.
Lawrence O¡®Donnell, you came to fight tonight. Michael Crowley, Terry, thanks for being with us.
HOLT: Thanks, Joe.
SCARBOROUGH: It¡®s an important debate you¡®re going to be hearing in the coming future, I¡®ll guarantee you that, if Charlie Rangel has his way.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15830521/
Fewer new members of Congress have military experience
By BOB DART
Cox News Service
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
WASHINGTON — As a key member of the new Democratic majority in the House calls for resuming the draft to spread the burden of the war across society, the incoming Congress itself illustrates a decline in the military experience once shared by Americans of all ilk.
Only about one in ten of the new members of Congress is a military veteran, half as many as the members they replaced, according to a survey by the Military Officers Association of America. In all, only about one in four members of the new Congress will have served in the military — down from one in two in 1991 and more than three of every four a decade earlier.
"The declining number of veterans in Congress is a reflection of the same trend among all Americans," says the organization of retired, reserve and active duty officers. "With smaller forces, the proportion that has served will continue to decline as time passes."
Pointing to the tiny slice of citizenry that has sacrificed as all-volunteer forces fight the Iraq war, Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, has called for a conscription to spread the burden throughout society and to discourage future military adventurism.
In Congress — as in society as a whole — views are shaped by military service.
Rep. Jim Marshall, D-Ga., said there is "no question" that his Army duty in Vietnam has helped him decide how to vote in the House of Representatives.
"I have a perspective as a veteran that I gained through experience that someone who hasn't served doesn't have," said Marshall, who won two Bronze Stars and a Purple Heart as a platoon sergeant. Leading a small combat team engaged in "what was basically counter-insurgency ... has given me a better feel for what our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan face."
But that doesn't mean colleagues who haven't had that experience can't make good decisions on military policy, he added. The incoming chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., was disqualified from military service after suffering from polio as a child, said Marshall. But "Ike is extremely supportive of our military in a very thoughtful way. He is a good example of the kind of member who serves us every well on military matters and yet himself was unable to serve."
Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, is among the large majority of members who did not serve in the military.
"Every individual brings a unique perspective. Prior service to our nation is one factor," said Doggett. "But I know that many of my colleagues, veterans and non-veterans, share my view that those who have worn our uniform must receive all the benefits they have earned."
Steve Robertson, legislative director of the American Legion, said "it obviously makes a difference" when a lawmaker has served in the military.
Veterans in Congress "understand the sacrifices and hardships experienced not just by members of our military but also by their families," said Robertson. "They don't have to think what it's like to be in combat or imagine what it's like to be deployed overseas because they've been there."
Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican who is a colonel in the U.S. Air Force Standby Reserve, told the Associated Press he agreed that the U.S. does not have enough people in the military.
"I think we can do this with an all-voluntary service, all-voluntary Army, Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy. And if we can't, then we'll look for some other option," said Graham, who is assigned as a reserve judge to the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals.
Rangel believes the sacrifices and hardships in the Iraq war have been borne by too few Americans, with the same volunteer troops returning for tour after tour while most people escape any danger. A draft would spread the woes and provide personal ramifications for warmakers.
"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," Rangel said on the CBS News program "Face the Nation."
When the Democrats take over Congress in January, Rangel said he will introduce legislation to reinstate a draft for all young Americans. The Korean War veteran has proposed similar measures in the past that failed amid overwhelming bipartisan opposition.
Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said Monday that she opposes reinstatement of the draft.
"It's not about a draft. It's about shared sacrifice in our country," Pelosi told reporters in her Capitol Hill office. She said Rangel was making a point "that this war has not involved or made any shared sacrifice."
The declining number of lawmakers with military experience "presents an educational challenge" to advocates for veterans, active-duty troops and their families, said Steve Strobridge, director of government relations for the Military Officers Association of America.
"It's not that members who aren't veterans don't support us on military issues. Sometimes they bend over backwards because they didn't serve," he said. "But we need to work a little harder to explain the issues" to those who don't have first-hand knowledge of the military.
"Once they understand, they can be at least as supportive as those who have served," he said.
The trend reflects the dying of the World War II generation — where virtually all the men served — and the growing years since the end of the Vietnam War and the nation's last military draft. The number of veterans in the House peaked in 1977-78 when about 80 percent of the members had military experience, said Strobridge. The peak in the Senate was in 1983-84 when 75 percent of the senators were veterans.
There has been a decline ever since.
In 1973, the draft ended and the nation converted to all-volunteer military forces. In a population of about 300 million people, there are only about 24 million veterans now, said Robertson, the legislative director of the largest veterans' organization. That's fewer than one in ten Americans.
By those percentages and not historical ones, he said, veterans are still well represented in Congress. With the exception of Bill Clinton, every president since Franklin Delano Roosevelt has been a veteran, he noted.
Robertson, the American Legion lobbyist, said that even though veterans in Congress can draw upon their experiences, many understand that the military forces have changed dramatically since they served. During the Vietnam War, for instance, most soldiers were single and serving one hitch. With the all-volunteer force, many more are married and staying in the military for longer tours.
But Robertson said that being a veteran doesn't necessarily mean a candidate rates American Legion support.
Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Texas, was a non-veteran running against an Iraq War veteran but their respective service or lack thereof was never an issue, he said. "That's because Chet Edwards has been such a staunch supporter for veterans."
In their effort to educate non-veteran members, Strobridge said 130 retired military officers will visit congressional offices as the new Congress opens. One issue is that "we don't have a big enough force," he said.
"We're asking the same people to go again and again and again" to Iraq and Afghanistan, he said. "Whether you like the current war or not, you always have to be ready to fight the next one."
Data box:
1991 1995 1999 2003 2005 2007
Senate 68% 56% 43% 35% 31% 29%
House 48% 37% 31% 27% 25% 23%
This year's difference is highlighted by comparing those who left Congress by retirement or defeat vs. the freshmen legislators who replaced them:
Departees New Freshmen
Senate 20% 10%
House 25% 11%
The declining number of veterans in Congress is a reflection of the same trend among all Americans. With smaller forces, the proportion that has served will continue to decline as time passes.
Source: Military Officers Association of America
Bob Dart is a Washington correspondent for Cox Nedwspapers.
http://www.pulsejournal.com/search/content/shared/news/stories/2006/11/CONGRESS_DRAFT21_COX_W9723.html
Wow I wish I has seen it, thanks for posting that...pandora
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.