Let's See: There's John Kerry, Ted Strickland, .... and Now Charlie Rangel

Photo of Tom Blumer.

From Allah at Hot Air, who has the Fox News video at his site -- New York Congressman Charlie Rangel spouts off (HT LGF) on why soldiers in our all-volunteer army sign up:

I want to make it abundantly clear: if there’s anyone who believes that these youngsters want to fight, as the Pentagon and some generals have said, you can just forget about it. No young, bright individual wants to fight just because of a bonus and just because of educational benefits. And most all of them come from communities of very, very high unemployment. If a young fella has an option of having a decent career or joining the army to fight in Iraq, you can bet your life that he would not be in Iraq.

This follows John Kerry's "botched joke" (horse manure -- we know what he meant, and he hasn't really apologized for anything) and Ohio Governor-elect Ted Strickland's long, painful dissertation on the economic reasons why soldiers enlist and why sons and daughters of official Washington don't (which has the unfortunate characteristic, like so much of what Ted says, of not being true -- also noted as such by fellow blogger NixGuy here).

At what point does one conclude that the demeaning "uneducated soldier with no other choices" myth is a core belief of the party these three men belong to? And when are these people going to be challenged about false statements such as these?

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Rangel

Just occurred to me -- Based on the bolded part of the quote, does Rangel even know there are women in the military these days? What conservative would escape criticism if he or she failed to mention our "men and women" in the military?

Rangel

Also, Matt at Right Angle Blog in Ohio sent me this link to a Heritage Foundation report on the makeup of our military recruits:

Who Are the Recruits? The Demographic Characteristics of U.S. Military Enlistment, 2003–2005

Rangel, Redux

Here is an interesting article on why we need to expose Rangel's new draft proposition.....sent to me by a by a friend who knows all about it.

Typical liberal hypocricy....let's draft only the rich kids....forget about the rest of us.

Silly Rangel.

paper

That's a very good paper, esp the point about a 2-year draft period being a nearly complete waste of time in today's complex military.

Tom,I thought so too.  After

Tom,

I thought so too.  After reading it, I asked my friend (a West Pointer) what he objected to.....

His point, well taken by me, was that the military requires young and flexible MINDS and bodies.....that even though those of us who have expertise in support areas are well versed, experienced, etc....it requires the flexibility of youth to maintain a combat tempo.

Which made perfect sense to me.

As I said, I received this from someone I totally respect in regard to all things military.  

If that quote were remotely t

If that quote were remotely true, how come recruitment quotas were met and the service academies have a nice stack of applicants to choose from? 

Proof once again the Left views the military in extreme contempt. 

"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy."  -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)

Wobbit Wabbit Wangel

Unsane,

So this being the case, why should this man be the chair of a Committee?

He and F'ing ought to be run out on a rail for holding the members of our military (and potential members) in such low regard.

I find it disgusting to be lectured to by Woger Wabbit.