Lawyer-Wearing-Yarmulka
Monday, November 27, 2006
A Serious Joke
Looks like Charlie Rangel does an even better impersonation of John Kerry than John Kerry.
"If a young fellow 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," Mr. Rangel, a Democrat representing Manhattan and Queens, said on "Fox News Sunday."
Hat tip- BOTW"If there's anyone who believes these youngsters want to fight, as the Pentagon and some generals have said, you can just forget about it. No bright young 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," the congressman said.
posted by LWY, 1:29 PM
18 Comments:
What a silly comment by Rangel. Everyone knows that patriotic Americans like CWY and all his conservative lawyer friends plan to enlist as army infantry as soon as they get a chance. That is unless a law firm gives more income with less risk to life than army service.
And don't give me the "I can't join because of medical/religous/social/practical condition X" because would you have joined the army if that wasn't the case?
Do you deny that many army recruits are people who don't have doors open to them due to lack of education/earning power? fyi, I have a very close relative in the military who is very well educated so I know this isn't a universal statement.
And don't give me the "I can't join because of medical/religous/social/practical condition X" because would you have joined the army if that wasn't the case?
Do you deny that many army recruits are people who don't have doors open to them due to lack of education/earning power? fyi, I have a very close relative in the military who is very well educated so I know this isn't a universal statement.
Do you deny that many army recruits are people who don't have doors open to them due to lack of education/earning power?
Yes and no. Obviously, the army draws many people by offering to pay for college, train people, etc. But that doesn't mean they have *no* opportunities; it means that the army gives them better ones. Meanwhile, Rangel's comments are idiotic.
He's claiming that none of these youngsters "want to fight". What does that mean? Nobody wants to fight. But do they feel it is necessary sometimes? Of course. They didn't enlist to not fight. They're ALL volunteers.
Yes and no. Obviously, the army draws many people by offering to pay for college, train people, etc. But that doesn't mean they have *no* opportunities; it means that the army gives them better ones. Meanwhile, Rangel's comments are idiotic.
He's claiming that none of these youngsters "want to fight". What does that mean? Nobody wants to fight. But do they feel it is necessary sometimes? Of course. They didn't enlist to not fight. They're ALL volunteers.
Ezzie, before fatherhood, did you ever consider volunteering? Why not... again no medical/religious reasions.
Linked to the preceding paragraph, it seems he's saying none want to fight in Iraq not that none want to fight. "None" is an extreme word, but it's safe to say that a good chunk of the infantry isn't enthusiastic about Iraq. It also doesn't say "no" opportunities. He says no one joins JUST for the bonuses and education. He's also correct that many come from communities with high unemployment.
I don't like the quote or agree with it completely, but it say they're idiotic seems a bit extreme.
Linked to the preceding paragraph, it seems he's saying none want to fight in Iraq not that none want to fight. "None" is an extreme word, but it's safe to say that a good chunk of the infantry isn't enthusiastic about Iraq. It also doesn't say "no" opportunities. He says no one joins JUST for the bonuses and education. He's also correct that many come from communities with high unemployment.
I don't like the quote or agree with it completely, but it say they're idiotic seems a bit extreme.
bsci-What Rangel says simply conflicts with reality. They don't want to fight? Then how do you explain the reenlistment numbers? (They're quite good) "Most of them come from communities with very, very high unemployment?" Simply untrue.
"No bright young individual wants to fight just because of a bonus and just because of educational benefits."- again, the steroetype of the stupid soldier is simply untrue.
"No bright young individual wants to fight just because of a bonus and just because of educational benefits."- again, the steroetype of the stupid soldier is simply untrue.
I don't like the quote or agree with it completely, but it say they're idiotic seems a bit extreme.
They're idiotic because it's a smear against the entire military and as well as completely false.
And don't give me the "I can't join because of medical/religous/social/practical condition X" because would you have joined the army if that wasn't the case?
Why not? What if it's a valid reason? When I started law school I looked into applying to JAG, but quickly realized that being an Orthodox Jew in the military is quite difficult. (Though it didn't stop a college friend of mine from joining the Marines)
I'm sure the people on the front lines are glad you considered joining. Too bad so many Orthodox Jews who support the war can't physically join due to religous difficulties. I'm sure our troops are still happy to have your moral support. Keep typing away.
Ezzie, before fatherhood, did you ever consider volunteering? Why not... again no medical/religious reasions.
You can't say "no medical/religious reasons" when those obviously play a huge role. I considered staying in Israel, where I would likely have joined the army in some role - does that count? And were it not for religious reasons, I would likely have given serious consideration to the military.
"None" is an extreme word, but it's safe to say that a good chunk of the infantry isn't enthusiastic about Iraq.
A huge majority of soldiers there think it would be a huge mistake to pull out.
He says no one joins JUST for the bonuses and education.
Of course not. They join for those + they think it's important.
I'm sure the people on the front lines are glad you considered joining. Too bad so many Orthodox Jews who support the war can't physically join due to religous difficulties. I'm sure our troops are still happy to have your moral support. Keep typing away.
Actually, I'm pretty sure they ARE happy to have the support of people like CWY. Do you read the emails of anybody over there? I get emails from a (religious Jewish) doctor who is serving (who discusses how difficult it is as a frum Jew). Just last week he was saying how important it is to him and others to hear the words of encouragement and support from people here.
The USA doesn't need every single person to serve. That's exactly why we *don't* have a draft. Slandering those who volunteer to serve serves the interest of nobody.
You can't say "no medical/religious reasons" when those obviously play a huge role. I considered staying in Israel, where I would likely have joined the army in some role - does that count? And were it not for religious reasons, I would likely have given serious consideration to the military.
"None" is an extreme word, but it's safe to say that a good chunk of the infantry isn't enthusiastic about Iraq.
A huge majority of soldiers there think it would be a huge mistake to pull out.
He says no one joins JUST for the bonuses and education.
Of course not. They join for those + they think it's important.
I'm sure the people on the front lines are glad you considered joining. Too bad so many Orthodox Jews who support the war can't physically join due to religous difficulties. I'm sure our troops are still happy to have your moral support. Keep typing away.
Actually, I'm pretty sure they ARE happy to have the support of people like CWY. Do you read the emails of anybody over there? I get emails from a (religious Jewish) doctor who is serving (who discusses how difficult it is as a frum Jew). Just last week he was saying how important it is to him and others to hear the words of encouragement and support from people here.
The USA doesn't need every single person to serve. That's exactly why we *don't* have a draft. Slandering those who volunteer to serve serves the interest of nobody.
I'm sure the people on the front lines are glad you considered joining. Too bad so many Orthodox Jews who support the war can't physically join due to religous difficulties. I'm sure our troops are still happy to have your moral support. Keep typing away.
So according to you, unless you actually serve in the military you have no right to express support for anything that puts the troops in harms way?
I guess if your city has a crime problem, you're not entitled to have an opinion unless you join the police academy.
So according to you, unless you actually serve in the military you have no right to express support for anything that puts the troops in harms way?
I guess if your city has a crime problem, you're not entitled to have an opinion unless you join the police academy.
Like I said, I'm sure they're happy to have your support. I'm sure they'd be much happier if they had your boots next to theirs. I do sense a common theme how Conservatives think about joining, but there always seems to be some reason they don't.
Like I said, I didn't like Rangel's wording and disagreed with some points, but now you've gone from calling it idiotic to slander. I think the core of his arguement is that the military isn't 100% voluntary. There are people like CWY, Ezzie, and me who have the full ability to choose the military or hundreds of other jobs. We can afford to wonder how this choice will let us practice certain aspects of our religion.
There are a non-trivial number of people in the military who come from very poor areas and have fewer choices. While the choice is still voluntary, if you are deciding between unemployment, minimum wage for a grueling job, or military service to the nation, there is much less of a choice. I see this as part of what Rangel was getting at with his comment. It's hard to say succinctly and he failed.
Like I said, I didn't like Rangel's wording and disagreed with some points, but now you've gone from calling it idiotic to slander. I think the core of his arguement is that the military isn't 100% voluntary. There are people like CWY, Ezzie, and me who have the full ability to choose the military or hundreds of other jobs. We can afford to wonder how this choice will let us practice certain aspects of our religion.
There are a non-trivial number of people in the military who come from very poor areas and have fewer choices. While the choice is still voluntary, if you are deciding between unemployment, minimum wage for a grueling job, or military service to the nation, there is much less of a choice. I see this as part of what Rangel was getting at with his comment. It's hard to say succinctly and he failed.
So according to you, unless you actually serve in the military you have no right to express support for anything that puts the troops in harms way?
Like I said to Ezzie, moral support IS good, but boots on the ground are better. Using your support of the troops as a blanket defense of all your political and military stands and using it as a partisan tool is by someone who didn't serve is much shakier.
To be clear, I support our troops and I'm horrified at the careless and irresponsible ways our military leaders have misused their lives through poor planning from day one. I was ambivalent about this war when it began, but the more evidence that I see about lousy planning the sadder I become. Iraqis are now dying at a rate faster than under Sadam AND American troops are dying. The people who say we should stay there indefinitely are not saying what we can do to actually make a longer stay a sucess. The McCain plan of more troops is the closest thing to a policy suggestion, but even that doesn't say how the more troops will be used to bring victory.
Like I said to Ezzie, moral support IS good, but boots on the ground are better. Using your support of the troops as a blanket defense of all your political and military stands and using it as a partisan tool is by someone who didn't serve is much shakier.
To be clear, I support our troops and I'm horrified at the careless and irresponsible ways our military leaders have misused their lives through poor planning from day one. I was ambivalent about this war when it began, but the more evidence that I see about lousy planning the sadder I become. Iraqis are now dying at a rate faster than under Sadam AND American troops are dying. The people who say we should stay there indefinitely are not saying what we can do to actually make a longer stay a sucess. The McCain plan of more troops is the closest thing to a policy suggestion, but even that doesn't say how the more troops will be used to bring victory.
Using your support of the troops as a blanket defense of all your political and military stands and using it as a partisan tool is by someone who didn't serve is much shakier.
And how exactly am I doing that?
And how exactly am I doing that?
You're implying that this guy is an stupid for talking about other reasons why people join the military yet he fairly accurately is talking about why people like you join less often and others join more often. My broader comment doesn't relate to you or this post directly.
I'm not implying that he's stupid, I'm clearly stating that he's slandering and smearing the military, and from what he's said, I think I have a pretty strong case.
Like I said to Ezzie, moral support IS good, but boots on the ground are better.
BSCI, you're creating a black and white dichotomy that doesn't exist.
Consider the liklihood, that someone college educated and in law school like CWY, if he had chosen the military path, may very likely have chosen to go to West Point, and graduated an officer. So you're choice of "support vs. boots" is false. Its entirely likely that nobody in this conversation would be infantry, so what difference does it make?
The fact is that Rangel is an idiot, for the simply political reason that he saw the furor that Kerry's comment made, and then thought he could get away with essentially saying the same thing a short time later. That's idiotic, the relative merits of the statement aside.
BSCI, you're creating a black and white dichotomy that doesn't exist.
Consider the liklihood, that someone college educated and in law school like CWY, if he had chosen the military path, may very likely have chosen to go to West Point, and graduated an officer. So you're choice of "support vs. boots" is false. Its entirely likely that nobody in this conversation would be infantry, so what difference does it make?
The fact is that Rangel is an idiot, for the simply political reason that he saw the furor that Kerry's comment made, and then thought he could get away with essentially saying the same thing a short time later. That's idiotic, the relative merits of the statement aside.
Officers ARE boots on the ground. If you join the army, until you reach a fairly high level, part of your job is to be on the ground and lead others.
Even being a JAG officer requires time in combat zones. In the Navy and Air Force you can be a bit more separated from risk to life, but you're still working on the ground.
Frankly, Kerry and Rangel's comments were poored worded, but for everyone who moans over what Kerry said and tried to use it to taint Democrats before the elections, it didn't seem to do much good. It seems voters can tell the difference between a stupid quote and the incompetance of Republican lawmakers. Shocking.
Even being a JAG officer requires time in combat zones. In the Navy and Air Force you can be a bit more separated from risk to life, but you're still working on the ground.
Frankly, Kerry and Rangel's comments were poored worded, but for everyone who moans over what Kerry said and tried to use it to taint Democrats before the elections, it didn't seem to do much good. It seems voters can tell the difference between a stupid quote and the incompetance of Republican lawmakers. Shocking.
1. Not everyone who graduates West Point leads a fire squad.
2. I'm not aware of any injuries to JAG officers in any recent combat. I'd be shocked if someone in JAG actually fires a weapon outside of the shooting range.
3. Rangel's comments weren't poorly worded, he said exactly what he wanted to say and he meant every word. I haven't heard him apologize or issue some sort of correction. Kerry at least claimed he was trying to make a joke. And this isn't a campaign issue, elections are 2 years away.
2. I'm not aware of any injuries to JAG officers in any recent combat. I'd be shocked if someone in JAG actually fires a weapon outside of the shooting range.
3. Rangel's comments weren't poorly worded, he said exactly what he wanted to say and he meant every word. I haven't heard him apologize or issue some sort of correction. Kerry at least claimed he was trying to make a joke. And this isn't a campaign issue, elections are 2 years away.
1. Unil the Iraq war, not everyone who joins the military goes to an active war zone. Any evidence contradicting that a good chunk of Westpoint grads from 2001-2004 have spent time in Iraq and not just within a heavily fortified bunker.
2. JAG officers are stationed in war zones including Iraq. For example: http://www.law.harvard.edu/alumni/bulletin/2005/spring/feature_5-1.php
By boots on the ground, I'm referring to people who spend serious time in places where they can come in direct contact with enemy fire... Perhaps not knowing this is one reason you considered JAG? :)
3. I still don't get the fuss everyone is making over the quote. He's not saying people aren't joining to fight or even every who joins is dumb (although enlistment standards have lowered). He's saying that they aren't joining because they want to go to Iraq. I think that's an incorrect statement, but it is true a good number of soliders aren't happy about their Iraq service... one reason re-enlistment numbers are down and they had to redraft some people whose terms were up.
2. JAG officers are stationed in war zones including Iraq. For example: http://www.law.harvard.edu/alumni/bulletin/2005/spring/feature_5-1.php
By boots on the ground, I'm referring to people who spend serious time in places where they can come in direct contact with enemy fire... Perhaps not knowing this is one reason you considered JAG? :)
3. I still don't get the fuss everyone is making over the quote. He's not saying people aren't joining to fight or even every who joins is dumb (although enlistment standards have lowered). He's saying that they aren't joining because they want to go to Iraq. I think that's an incorrect statement, but it is true a good number of soliders aren't happy about their Iraq service... one reason re-enlistment numbers are down and they had to redraft some people whose terms were up.
one reason re-enlistment numbers are down
Re-enlistment numbers are UP.
Re-enlistment numbers are UP.
