On the draft
Tonight on Scarborough Country, Joe and his guests were discussing Charlie Rangel's proposal to reinstate the draft. Lawrence O'Donnell tried to shout everybody down to make the case that people who haven't served in the Armed Forces shouldn't advocate for war.
Now, DB is certainly disgusted by foamy-mouthed (and cheeto-fingered) war hawks who wouldn't dream of enlisting or watching their children risk anything. But the argument O'Donnell was making so passionately is rather hollow in the context of any real discussion of policy (especially when he complains that the Bush girls aren't in Baghdad). After all, it's not an accident that the Constitution puts control of the military in civilian hands and does not list service in the military as a requirement for elective office.
Abraham Lincoln never served a day in his life and he presided over the bloodiest conflict in American History. DB, for one, is pleased with the results.
Obviously, anybody who calls the war in Iraq (or elsewhere) an "existential threat" and is still unwilling to make any real sacrifices in order to win it is a hypocrite and, quite frankly, an immoral piece of crap.
As far a Rangel's proposal, DB supports him. Not because this blogger supports the proposal, but precisely the opposite. The country resoundingly believes the draft is a bad idea, that this war is a bad idea and either expanding or escalating this war is a bad idea.
Rangel's proposal serves a series of useful purposes. It reminds the country how rotten this war is. It reminds us how wrong John McCain and Joe Lieberman are. It reminds us that they don't have the public support to actually pull off the things they are suggesting and, therefore, they are not credible people or presidential contenders. And it reminds us that these two hawks and their ilk are not, as the media tries to tell us, centrists. They are extremists, far, far out of the mainstream.
So Rangel's proposal is not good for America (or the world), but the act of proposing it is fantastic.
Now, DB is certainly disgusted by foamy-mouthed (and cheeto-fingered) war hawks who wouldn't dream of enlisting or watching their children risk anything. But the argument O'Donnell was making so passionately is rather hollow in the context of any real discussion of policy (especially when he complains that the Bush girls aren't in Baghdad). After all, it's not an accident that the Constitution puts control of the military in civilian hands and does not list service in the military as a requirement for elective office.
Abraham Lincoln never served a day in his life and he presided over the bloodiest conflict in American History. DB, for one, is pleased with the results.
Obviously, anybody who calls the war in Iraq (or elsewhere) an "existential threat" and is still unwilling to make any real sacrifices in order to win it is a hypocrite and, quite frankly, an immoral piece of crap.
As far a Rangel's proposal, DB supports him. Not because this blogger supports the proposal, but precisely the opposite. The country resoundingly believes the draft is a bad idea, that this war is a bad idea and either expanding or escalating this war is a bad idea.
Rangel's proposal serves a series of useful purposes. It reminds the country how rotten this war is. It reminds us how wrong John McCain and Joe Lieberman are. It reminds us that they don't have the public support to actually pull off the things they are suggesting and, therefore, they are not credible people or presidential contenders. And it reminds us that these two hawks and their ilk are not, as the media tries to tell us, centrists. They are extremists, far, far out of the mainstream.
So Rangel's proposal is not good for America (or the world), but the act of proposing it is fantastic.
