Rangel just stole Bushco's Dec surprise, he knows politics and

[CK_John]

will force the administration to support his bill or resign. I think Bush will lie and Cheney will resign. Everyone knows we need 400,000 to continue in Iraq and 400,000 to contain the fallout and instability if we leave.

Grow up and look at the dangerous world the PNAC has created in the past 6Yrs. It will not be solved overnight or by wishing it away. We will need troops in the area for 8 to 10 yrs and with some units on their third rotation, a draft is going to happen no matter what or who occupies the WH.

Rangel just wants to insure the rules are fair and the loop holes closed.

[knowbody0]

1. reality surely sucks sometimes.

[Mythsaje]

2. They'll never close the loopholes...

Or, even if they do, they'll just find new ones. Or simply tweak the system.

Oh, goody. Another Vietnam.

[Erika]

5. If we demand the loopholes to be closed, it will be done

The likes of Rangel and the other vets can do it.

[still_one]

9. what planet are you from

[primative1]

90. LoL ..

My thought exactly.
The only hope here is to fight the concept of a draft period. If one is re-enstated we KNOW it will be chuck full of ways for the priveledged to escape contributing to the society that they plunder.

[Mythsaje]

11. I strongly doubt it...

But, hey, it will help with future wars of imperial aggression, so, shit, we should all just climb aboard the war train.

[OneBlueSky]

65. loopholes will always exist for the privileged . . .

no matter who, what, where, when or how a new draft is structured . . . the people structuring it will INSURE that their kids will not have to go . . .

further, draft boards are local and APPOINTED -- and quite willing to offer deferments to the wealthy, the influential, and the connected . . . it's always been that way, and it will always be that way . . . as long as we have local draft boards . . .

but even disregarding all that . . . if we're against war, why on Earth would we want to give BushCo additional resources to continue existing wars -- AND to start new ones . . . that makes absolutely NO sense to anyone who's been paying attention for the past six years . . .

[lligrd]

76. Sure We Can

For the people, by the people and of the people or we are nothing! Rangel is sending an important message and we could at least try to understand it and at best support him. He has been one of the few against this assinine war from the beginning. He was right then and he is right now. He is not asking for your support of the measure, just the concept!

[Erika]

3. The Georgia unit is on their 3rd tour to Iraq

At some time, W has to face reality. Is he going to ask all Americans to sacrifice their family members?

Go Rangel! (Sorry, if I offend those who think I am a Rangel "cultist") LMAO.

[Mythsaje]

6. Do you even understand the concept

of a "cult of personality?"

The guy isn't going to be able to wave a magic wand and make everything work right. He's one man in an institution based on compromise.

What part of that don't you understand?

Sheesh.

[Erika]

15. What don't you understand that Rangel is not a cult leader?

Sheesh. Some of us think he is a war veteran who has the guts to question a war and bring discussion.

[Mythsaje]

17. Do me a big favor

and look up the term "cult of personality."

Then maybe you won't be rambling LIKE a cult member every time you mention it.

[Erika]

20. What do you have against Rangel?

Just lay it out.

[Mythsaje]

23. I don't...

I have an issue with all the people here who seem to think a Draft is a fine and dandy idea. And act as though because this guy brought it up, it's all gonna come out hunky-dory.

Well, it ain't.


Well, come on mothers throughout the land,
Pack your boys off to Vietnam. (or Iraq, Iran, Syria, or N. Korea)
Come on fathers, don't hesitate,
Send 'em off before it's too late.
Be the first one on your block
To have your boy come home in a box.

[Erika]

34. I've seen more passion against the war in the last week

Than I've seen since W started it. You think the draft had something to do with it? You think?

[still_one]

40. DU has always been passionate aginst this war, WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN?

and what do you think the election was about?

[Erika]

44. I've been at DU a long time

How about you?

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Erika]

49. Is this a personal attack?

Just answer.

[pnwmom]

92. What do I have against Rangel?

I don't like people who play poker with my kids' lives. That's what I have against him.

[still_one]

7. watch the democrats implode if they support this shit

you can laugh your ass off, but it ain't funny

[Erika]

10. Too bad the GOP didn't stand up earlier

Now you're blaming the dems? Don't think many will buy it but go for it.

[still_one]

14. If they push a draft YOUR DAMN RIGHT, but you know something

they won't go for it, it is just rangel grandstanding

[USA_1]

86. PRECISELY!

Listen to right wing Republican radio and you will hear them gloating that this is what they want to see. They know it will fuck the Dems chances in 2008.

Dems in this forum better come to their senses soon and to STOP RANGEL!

[still_one]

4. I didn't support democrats for this nonesense

As far as that premise that he "just wants the rules fair", that is also bullshit, look at the Viet Nam war, and it won't be different this time

If democrats back this crap, the democratic party is OVER

You want fair, YOU GO. The war was based on a pack of lies. We invaded a country that had NOTHING to do with 9/11 and didn't have WMDs

[Erika]

8. So you're contacting W and the GOP to stop this war?

Democrats didn't start it. The democrats are "over" if they back peace in Iraq and a successful solution? LMAO.

[still_one]

12. What the hell do you think I have been doing the last 4 years?

You want a draft YOU GO. I have been through the Viet Nam war already, and I saw what LIES DO

[Erika]

16. Who knows?

Opposing the dems, why?

[still_one]

19. If they push a draft your darn right

[Erika]

22. The draft is to bring discussion and it certainly did

The "haves" are scared. Wars are fine as long as they are fought by the "have nots" accoriding to the GOP, and some of their enablers.

[Mythsaje]

25. I don't want ANYONE fighting in their fucking wars...

Not my kids, not your kids, not the kid across the street, not the kid growing up on Queen Anne some thirty miles North of here.

Not a single KID forced to fight for THEIR imperial pretensions.

[Erika]

27. Well, I'm just a Rangel "cultist"

Why respond to me?

[still_one]

30. Exactly, and THAT IS WHERE THE DISCUSSION SHOULD BE

getting OUT OF IRAQ

WE supposedly have the majority in both houses, we DON'T need games like rangel wants to play to debate the war anymore, WE SET THE FRICKN' agenda

[Mythsaje]

32. If anything, this is a side-track

and it IS one that could backfire badly in so many ways.

[still_one]

38. You and I are definitely on the same page

[Erika]

41. I don't think so

Love the anti war passion which is suddenly, after four years, appearing.

[Mythsaje]

46. Like he asked...

Where the fuck have you been?

Have you read MY journal?

Or are you just talking out your rear-end?

[Erika]

62. Another personal attack?

Turned over to the mods.

[Mythsaje]

64. It's a question...

One you didn't answer, btw.

[still_one]

26. the "haves" ain't scared, their kids won't go

[Erika]

29. Rangel will stop the loopholes

All will serve equally. No more Cheney and W chickenhawks.

[still_one]

33. No way, there has always been special interests, and loopholes

[Mythsaje]

47. And right after that

they'll give all their extra money to the poor kids and everybody will have a party. With dancing bears. And penguins. But not gay penguins. That would be bad.

[Mythsaje]

31. Oh, but Charlie will MAKE them...

How, I'm not so sure.

:banghead:

[Erika]

37. Believe me a Black Korean vet

will fill the loopholes.

[still_one]

42. no way

[Mythsaje]

43. This may come as something of a surprise

but as much as he'd LIKE to, I have a feeling they'd never let that happen. Keep in mind he's dealing with a host of OTHER people who sure as hell aren't going to want THEIR little kiddies or grandkiddies going off to feed the beast.

This is so bad on so many levels it makes my brain hurt.

[krispos42]

63. How about a national referendum on a draft?

Has this ever been done before in this country? I don't know; I was born after Vietnam and missed all the 'fun'.

[Mythsaje]

66. I don't know myself...

I was born in the middle of Vietnam. My dad served very early over there (62-63) and I'm pretty sketchy on some of the politics involved with how the draft ended.

I think the notion at the time was that an all volunteer force would restrict certain types of wars because if the people didn't support them, they wouldn't join up. If they didn't join up, they wouldn't have the bodies to fight their wars.

Now the argument seems to be going the other direction. Which, if you ask me, seems a little...odd.

[krispos42]

68. I think LaRouche talked about that

One of the grocery stores in Huron, SD (of all places) has a free weekly paper of his in the entryway. I glanced at it a few times and he seemed to want no standing army at all, the idea being that before a war would be fought, an army would have to be raised first.

But that depends upon wise and thoughful and caring leaders. If we don't have them...

Well, it is far easier to get yourself in a quagmire than out of it.

[Mythsaje]

69. Yep...

I think LaRouche is a nutcase, but I believe the founding fathers were opposed the idea of a standing army too. For similar reasons.

[krispos42]

70. Well, I think we need a standing army now...

But a small one. Modern warfare is to complex to just throw a bunch of raw recruits scooped up on a field into combat. Unlike the musket era of two hundred years ago. But keep the core able to fight the small stuff and have plenty of National Guard troops in case a big job comes along.

And keep the Navy and Air Force strong so we can deal with the enemy at arms length and with overwhelming support and firepower.

[Mythsaje]

71. I think Murtha is right

in saying we need to increase the number of ELITE units and rely less on the basic infantry. For the most part, unless we go invading other countries, most conflicts we'll be getting into will probably be peacekeeping missions that require more highly trained troops and fewer "hoo-rah heroes."

We should bring up the Marine Corps to its old standards, back when the Marines as a whole was an elite fighting force, ramp up the high end Army units like the Rangers and the Special Forces, and push forward with the whole "Land Warrior" program they've been working on that's set to unveil in 2010.

[krispos42]

73. Sounds good to me.

When are you running for president? Got my vote.

[Mythsaje]

75. LOL

Would you believe my Mother In Law asked me the same question?

Actually I think four or five people have now. And not just on DU.

I'd make a TERRIBLE candidate. My closet looks like Davey Jones's locker. Or a mausoleum--what Buffy called a "spooky cereal box of death." LOL

Besides--the elitists would HATE me. I'd probably be shot in some hotel kitchen.

[Solon]

67. Bush would still have to sign off on it, so it has no chance of passing in that form...

The middle case scenario is that the bill, though the art of compromise, will have so many loopholes in it, that no family making more than 100 grand a year will have any kids that are drafted, period, and that's BEST case. We do NOT have a supermajority in congress, we cannot override a veto, and Bush WILL veto a bill like Rangels, guaranteed. The Democratic party will look bad, and WILL lose in 2008.

A best case scenario is that the bill is killed, either through a veto by Bush, killed in committee, or the majority in Congress vote against it. No matter how it goes, the Democratic party will be the one with egg on its face, and our chances in '08 will not look so good.

The worst case scenario is a bill that actually passes in the form that Rangel wants, unlikely, but possible. Anyways, if such a bill passes, yeah, the Iraq war will end much quicker than otherwise, on the tops of probably 10,000 draftees' bodies. The Democratic party will lose its majority in Congress in '08, will definitely not win the Presidency, and will lose elections nationwide for probably the next 20 years.

[aquart]

50. No, the middle class which cheered from the sidelines is afraid.

Gosh it was easy to root for a war your kids would never fight. And maybe those rah-rah Christians could pretend they were Quakers to get their kids out. So many young college Republicans with better things to do...when everyone with power used their clout.....those are the kids who will find they don't have quite enough.


Nobody thinks a place in the National Guard is that cushy anymore, either.


No nation survives that will not fight its own battles.

[Mythsaje]

55. Ain't so healthy to go inventing battles either...n/t

[acmejack]

88. The Military isn't for "Our kind of People"

[CK_John]

13. This is not Vietnam, it is clash of world views and how we got

there adds nothing to the solution.

[still_one]

18. Nam was about communist takeover, and the domino effect

same old lady, different dress

You want it, YOU GO

[Mythsaje]

21. Oh, the fuck it doesn't...

If we don't examine WHY we're there, it'll be just as easy for them to do it the NEXT time. Hit on the right moment, when people are vulnerable and angry, and hey! Instant war...just add soldiers. And if we have a draft, they're easy to come by.

And it's one, two, three,
What are we fighting for ?
Don't ask me, I don't give a damn,
Next stop is Vietnam; (or Iran, or Syria, or N. Korea)
And it's five, six, seven,
Open up the pearly gates,
Well there ain't no time to wonder why,
Whoopee! we're all gonna die.

[Erika]

24. That's what Rangel is doing by this legislation

Got to wonder why all this passion against the war is now just coming forth.

[Mythsaje]

28. Are you kidding me?

I've been against the war from the VERY BEGINNING. Since I first heard about it.

My first comment? "Are they fucking stupid?"

I knew damn well it was going to end up this way. KNEW it. And that was long before I ever discovered DU.

And, in case you weren't paying attention a couple of weeks ago, the people voted AGAINST the war and put the Democratic Party in control of Congress.

No draft was on the table then, now was it?

[still_one]

35. The passion was always here at DU, WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN

read some of the freeper sites, they are laughing at rangel for this stunt

[Erika]

39. I've been at DU a lot longer than most

Maybe you've been busy at the right wing sites.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Erika]

48. Is this a personal attack?

Just answer.

[still_one]

51. Perhaps I should ask you that question when you said to me:

"Maybe you've been busy at the right wing sites."

[Erika]

52. You brought up the right wing sites Yes or No? n/t

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[still_one]

58. thank you

[Branjor]

81. Well, I've been at DU

since 2003, just before the Iraq invasion began, and *my* memory is that most DUers have been passionately against this war from the very beginning. I know I have.

[Mythsaje]

82. I've been here since April of last year

I was somewhere else on 9/11, and as soon as this whole war thing came up, I hit the ceiling. I argued against it from the very beginning, and may as well been gifted with Maud'dib's prescience for how correctly I called it.

"We'll be greeted as liberators!"

Ummm. No. We'll be greeted as imperialist oppressors.

Nitwits.

[krispos42]

60. I agree

The idea of a smallish standing army is to keep wise leaders from starting major wars without public support. It turns out that the people we, um, 'elected' weren't that wise, and decided to fool the public into supporting the war by a) scaring them shitless, and b) lying about how much effort would be required.

Well, now thanks to the brilliant leadership of BushCo, we have TWO major wars to complete. The public does not support the wars, so they do not join up. The wars are against enemies that cannot threaten us militarily, so there is no fear of "if we lose, we're conquered", despite attempts by BushCo to make us believe otherwise. Ergo, we do not volunteer. This is not World War Two, which was a life-or-death struggle against powerful and ruthless enemies.

We have enough troops there to destabilize the region. We do not have, nor have we ever had, enough troops there to re-stabilize the region.

We can get enough troops there, but only by a draft, as normal volunteer recruitment is not enough. And then we would have to seriously realign our economy to support the war effort. Tax the rich to the wall and reconfigure our manufacturing to produce the arms and supplies we need.


We would need a half-million troops for the next ten years, so you are talking about 5 million people under arms would need to be drafted during that same time period so they could be rotated in and out of the region.

It is a scary thought. I'm a healthy (although somewhat overweight) 30-year-old male. I really don't want to get a draft notice, especially with a kid to take care of. I also have a 24-year-old brother, also healthy, without a wife or kids. I REALLY don't want him to be drafted either.

[cornfedyank]

36. two years for everyone.. three choices

war --- never ending
two peace corps: domestic and/or foreign

[still_one]

61. that sounds similar to what mccain flew a year or so ago

Here is the problem with that, THEY CAN'T BE TRUSTED

Look at what they are doing with the national guard now

In addition, I can seem them using people who didn't sign up for fighting, to be driving supplies and weapons in the middle of a war zone

[Jack Rabbit]

53. Why would Bush and Cheny have to resign over that?

Bush is the President, not the Prime Minister.

I don't understand. I wish it were that simple.

[CK_John]

59. Cheney will back a draft and make Bush bring in Team B, this will

force a showdown which Cheney cannot win. Team B is Poppy's gang.

[Jack Rabbit]

74. That still wouldn't make Cheney resign

Bush could marginalize him, but he can't fire him. Cheney is an elected (well, you what I mean) official. Bush cannot ask for his resignation like he can ask for a cabinet officer's.

Bush could suggest that Congress impeach Cheney, but I doubt that will happen for two reasons: frist, I don't think Cheney will go public with a disagreement with Bush; we may hear about it, but he'll deny and no matter how much we hear, he'll keep denying it. Second, Cheney could drag down Bush with him. Bush knows it. Not even Bush is so dumb to try a stunt like that.

[CK_John]

78. Just the opposite, Cheney will go public, he picked himself for

this mission and now that his buddy is out, he is hoping or will try to get the chimp to resign.

[krispos42]

54. We have to pull out ground forces and let them fight it out

The sooner they start, the sooner they're done. The more violence and hatred before the civil war starts, the longer they will fight. The more infrastructure is destroyed, the more they will fight for what is left.

We have to keep the Fleet and plenty of Marines aboard ship nearby in the Gulf. Keep the borders of Iraq under constant surveillence to keep out Iranians, Syrians, Turks, and Saudis. Use F-18s and special ops Marines to take out people trying to smuggle arms into Iraq.

Once the Iraqis sort themselves out, start pouring reconstruction money and maybe project managers into the country, get the infrastructure rebuilt to keep idle hands busy and to restore basic services and the people's trust in the rebuilding.

Anything else will simply tear this country apart, and if we're torn apart, the situation in Iraq will become open civil war anyway.

[Yukari Yakumo]

72. Question is...

The bill is (intentionally) doomed in Congress. Rangel wants the Repugs to admit they're fine with war as long as it isn't fought by their kids.

My question is can Chimpy reinstate the draft anyway (via executive order or something)?

[chaz4jazz]

77. I Am Against a Mercenary Army which is what we have now

This may not be a popular opinion on this site. It certainly isn't popular on the Repukes sites. When the draft was ended I knew in my heart that the new "professional" Army would be nothing more than a mercenary army, loyal only to its commander (who would be loyal to...?). There's not much difference between the US Army of today and the independent contractors serving in Iraq - except for the amount of $$$ they are paid to do their work (and that the contractors have less restrictions on their behavior - which is why they are there).

It pains me to read some of the writings here though I can't say stop writing, it's against my own principles. But, knowing that the majority of posters here are young (I'm in my 60s) there's a good chance they have not served in the military. They certainly were not conscripted as I was in the 60's. Yes, I served 2 years in the US Army as a draftee - a citizen soldier. Unlike 95% of the the GOP congressional members, I served my country - after receiving my induction notice.

Now, to inform some of you who carp about how the poor and disadvantaged would be filling the ranks as cannon fodder - using examples of GW Bush and Cheney's deferments (and Clinton) and others, who escaped service, or combat, by pulling strings - I would enlighten you to the fact that today, in Iraq, there are more "would-be disadvantaged" service members on the front lines then there were in Vietnam. The volunteer Army is a beacon to those in our society who have no hope of getting a decent job. During the 10 years of the Vietnam war, the US Army ranks were complete with college graduates, professionals and journeyman tradesmen, not just homeboys pulled off the streets.

The standards for service were HIGHER back then now - the gov having lowered the standards.

I was 23 and a half years old when I was drafted. I was one of the older members of my basic training company (there were about a dozen of us that age, known as the Dirty Dozen). Because of our age we were all made training squad leaders. The body of the company, ages 18-19, called us "pop." We covered our windows with blankets at night so we could read in bed. The IQ level in the conscripted Army was WAY higher than the army of today. The "leftist sense" in the company was very noticeable, compared to today where you'd be hard pressed to find a liberal.

If you were to ask me if I believed that a company of conscripts would march on the Capital Building and arrest Congress (a la Germany), I would say, less chance they would than a company of the 101st AB today who are totally loyal to the commanding officers.

Two men from my basic training unit died in 'Nam, and some were hurt, though most were ultimately deployed there. Because there was a draft, young people, their parents and others filled the streets of America demanding an end to that war. Our streets are not filled today because, though we are appalled and opposed to this awful action, IT JUST DOESN'T SCARE THE SHIT OUT OF US, PERSONALLY.

I said above that I am uncomfortable reading about the draft here on DU and the many people who are opposed to it - wanting, I guess, the mercenary army to do the dangerous work for us, keeping us safe, etc. But you can see what happens when you have an Army of "non-citizens" who go where they are told to go, without considering the ramifications or analyzing the reasons they are being asked to put their lives on the line.

I believe in public volunteerism. I did my time. I believe every American, man and woman, should give 18 months of service to their country - either in the military (more $$ for that) or in hospitals, in law enforcement, fire service, social services aiding the needy. Not only will the character of our country be elevated, but feeling of ingrained racism would be tempered by working contact with people from other social castes and geographical centers. Our country would benefit and the out-of-control need for greed that has persistently increased in the past 3 decades would be affected positively.

So, before criticizing this all important issue, think about joining the Peace Corps, or some domestic service - or the military to help radicalize it a little as we did (without motivation) in 1966.

Chaz

[Mythsaje]

80. While I respect your position

and your service (my Dad served in Nam in '62-63) I have to disagree with this assessment of what it all means.

The first basic fact is that you cannot give a criminal cabal (and make no mistake--that's what's been running our government for the last 12 years, at least) an unlimited supply of troops to carry out the plans of the PNAC. Which, as we know, is the stated intention to dominate the Middle East.

Just because they're not in power now doesn't mean they won't regain it. These are very unscrupulous men who have shown that they're willing to do almost anything to hang on to power. Many of them have ties to the very people who engineered the Vietnam conflict, and have the means to make certain that any attempt to "level" the field by conscripting the children of the elite will fail. Even if they have to bully or bribe local draft board officials. (More likely, in my opinion, they'll just have someone invent an automated system that can be jiggled at will, but that's just supposition on my part).

These days their collaborators all but own our media, have already pushed through several laws that tip the balance of power in their direction, and it looks as though the Democratic leadership is hesitant to take them on directly. Unless they are thoroughly investigated and exposed, they WILL rise to power again, and, again, unless the Patriot Act is eviscerated, Posse Commitus is reinstated, and the new law giving the President power over the National Guard is rescinded, they can make any attempt to protest in the streets a VERY dangerous activity.

The problem isn't so much with the program if it's instituted the way it's proposed, but how it might be MISUSED by those who may again gain the power they've temporarily lost. Though I will admit I myself do not think what I consider "forced servitude to the State" is a policy that should be embraced by a free and democratic society, my greatest fear is that it will provide the means for evil to extend its reach farther than it can now.

I think it is an extremely dangerous tool to put in the hands of people I don't think are worthy of it.

[acmejack]

89. That's absolutely right Chaz.

I saw it evolve, serving a while in both entities. I can say authoritatively that there was a profound difference between the citizen force and the AVF, and not for the better.

[lligrd]

79. Everyone Calm Down

First understand what Rangel is asking for and then realize it will never happen anyway. He is not exempting anyone except for medical reasons. And he allows for Civil service in lieu of war. And he doesn't expect it to pass. In fact, even he voted against it last time. But this means, Repugs have to take a stand for or against a draft which equates to for or against this war. And the one against Iran that Cheney is so desperately trying to get in before they totally lose power.

[ima_sinnic]

83. you beat me to it--and welcome to DU!

I can't believe the hysteria over "dems supporting a draft" and "rangel is an a-hole"--well, guess what? Rangel has made it IMPOSSIBLE for the neoCONS to institute a draft, because it would have to incorporate the provisions he included for EVERYbody to serve, not just the poor. Allowing someone like Rangel to get the jump on republican pricks is a GOOD thing. He has forced them to put up or shut up--and hell will freeze over before they put up.

[watrwefitinfor]

85. And THINK, people. Please.

Does the word "preempt" have any meaning to you guys?

Don't you know this issue is coming - and from the Repubs? Were there not long discussions here on DU about how they were just waiting till after the election to raise it?

Do you not realize a draft proposal could be on Baker's short list of things Bush can do to save his situation? Wouldn't that take the heat off the repubs if Baker raised it? "Oh, well, we Repubs don't want it, but Baker says we must have it..."

Didn't a general just testify that we couldn't field large numbers of soldiers if more were called for? Isn't McCain calling for them? Will Baker?

Rangel is bringing it front and center, and raising the issues that need raising, BEFORE the Repubs can put their spin (or their exemptions) on it. It will never become law. Dems will never vote for it. Will the Repubs? Or will they be forced to go on record as voting against a draft?

Charley Rangel was one of the very first to speak out against Bush starting this war. He is one of the oldest, toughest, most progressive Dems in Washington, but he is not faultless. I have seen Rangel grandstand before. I have been one of those who called him Crazy Charley, eons ago. And I have no idea if this will work, or even if it was necessary. But I do have sense enough to recognize what he is trying to do, and to not run around emotionally screaming The Sky Is Falling, Save Me Save Me!

We have spent a whole lot of time here bemoaning how Dem reps had no spines, and how they couldn't get any press. Well, now they seem to have a little of both. Will this backfire on Rangel? I don't know. But does he have to be attacked by DU's very own circular firing squad?

The Dems are back in town. Get used to a little noise that ain't lock-step. And please try to debate it rationally, instead of taking pot shots at one of our own. It is hard to watch people whose writing here on DU I have admired - DUers I have great respect for - falling apart this way.

Wat

On edit: A big Welcome to DU! :hi:

[Mythsaje]

87. I'm debating the issue...

I have no beef with him...

But I strongly oppose a draft. And I've outlined my reasons repeatedly.

[USA_1]

84. Baloney

We do not need 400,000 troops in that area. The USA cannot pursue a unilateral policy of promoting PNAC's desire for world conquest. If there is any need to have troops in that area to stop instability, that MUST be done by the UN or by the Arab League. The USA has no interest there. Perhaps the wealthy corporate oil baron do but that does not represent my needs or interest.

STOP ALL TALK OF A DRAFT OR REPUBLICANS WILL WIN 2008!

[pnwmom]

91. You mean, he just provided cover for the draft Bush intended anyway?

He's got Bush's back.

To heck with him.