
![]() | |
October 2012
August 2012 July 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003
|
Greetings! You are reading an article from The Mudville Gazette. To reach the front page, with all the latest news and views, click the logo above or "main" below. Thanks for stopping by! October 6, 2004 America: 402, Rangel: 2ByThe Cocco kids are safer tonight, thanks to house Republicans, who destroyed Democrat Charles Rangel's bid to weaken the military by adding conscripts to the ranks. Rangel's bill to reinstate the draft was demolished, 402-2: "We're going to put a nail in that coffin," said the House majority leader, Representative Tom DeLay of Texas. He accused Democrats of generating opposition to President Bush - especially on college campuses - by raising the idea that the draft might be re-established after the November election to provide troops for service in Iraq I'll be sleeping easier in my tent tonight, thanks. But the Dems were quick to condemn the Republicans for exposing their fraud: Democrats were outraged at the tactic, charging Republicans with a cynical political ploy on a matter that merited more thoughtful hearings and debate. The Democrats originally introduced the measure early last year as a way to protest the war, even before it began, and to spotlight how low- and middle-income Americans shoulder much of the burden of serving in the military. Actually, patriotic Americans quite willingly shoulder that responsibility with pride - the above paragraph is just another example of the NY Times (and others) complete inability to comprehend the core strength of the all-volunteer force, and that's not a topic to debate. But the next paragraph in the story offers the ultimate in deranged sputtering, combining delusional comments from the bill's sonsor with what had to be one of the most agonizing lines ever sweated by an editor in the Times: "It is a prostitution of the legislative process to take a serious issue and use it for political purposes on the eve of the election just to say they are against the draft," said Representative Charles B. Rangel, Democrat of New York, the author of the bill, who ended up voting against it. If anyone can provide a rational translation of that paragraph please do so in comments. Like dialogue in a Jerry Lweis film, it's too ridiculous to ridicule. But shortly after, the Times story returns to "real journalism" by claiming three non-related anti-war talking points are crucial draft facts: Some Democrats said it was the administration's loss of credibility due to the failure to find chemical and biological weapons in Iraq and its mishandling of the aftermath that was to blame for worry about the draft. "The president's foreign policy is scaring the kids of this country," said Representative Tim Ryan, Democrat of Ohio. A quick search of the story finds that Bush stealing the election in 2000 was not mentioned - a massive failure on the part of the usually sharper Times staff. Honestly, they may have been trying to balance the Republican talking points which were included in the story, and that was just the best the opposition could do. But sometimes a simple "not available for comment" works best, especially in response to statements like these: "The reason we are doing this is to expose the hoax of the year, which has been needlessly scaring young people," said Representative Duncan Hunter of California, chairman of the Armed Services Committee. But instead of "no comment" we get this (attention South Dakota voters): Senate officials said they had no intention of acting on a similar proposal, but the Democratic leader, Senator Tom Daschle, said he doubted the House vote would put the matter to rest. Yea, okay. Bring. It. On. Posted by / October 6, 2004 8:14 PM | Permalink 3 TrackBacksSo much for that sorry, tired, lame political ploy. The House crushed it with a bunker-buster 402-2. The Mudville Gazette has the full re-cap here. What is, or rather should be, astonishing, is that the Dems are whining about this (nothing they do a... Read More So the House got up on its Shirley Temple legs and danced alllllll over Charles Rangel's sleazy little effort to reinstate the military draft. They handed Rangel his greasy pointed head in a 402-2 vote---and even Rangel voted against the... Read More Jay Tea over at Wizbang nicely encapsulates what it is about Islamism and Shari'a as Islamists see it, that famously moved Christopher Hitchens to observer in re Afghanistan and the Taliban, "The United States of America has just succeeded in... Read More 10 Comments |
November 26, 2010America@war [Greyhawk]
I think anyone who's ever pondered the "comment" option - once only available on blogs and bulletin boards, now ubiquitous on almost any web site - will appreciate this:
The so-called faculty of writing is not so much a faculty of writing as it is a faculty of thinking. When a man says, "I have an idea but I can't express it"; that man hasn't an idea but merely a vague feeling. If a man has a feeling of that kind, and will sit down for a half an hour and persistently try to put into writing what he feels, the probabilities are at least 90 percent that he will either be able to record it, or else realize that he has no idea at all. In either case, he will do himself a benefit. That's wisdom from the past, captured for posterity at the US Naval Institute, shared via the web on the institute's 137th anniversary. From their about page:
"The Naval Institute has three core activities," among them, History and Preservation: The Naval Institute also has recently introduced Americans at War, a living history of Americans at war in their own words and from their own experiences. These 90-second vignettes convey powerful stories of inspiration, pride, and patriotism. Take a look at the collection, and you'll see it's not limited to accounts from those who served on ships at sea, members of the other branches are well-represented. I'm fortunate to have met USNI's Mary Ripley, she's responsible for the institute's oral history program (and she's the daughter of the late John Ripley, whose story is told here). She also deserves much credit for their blog. ("We're not the Navy nor any government agency. Blog and comment freely.") We met at a milblog conference - Mary knew (and I would come to realize) that milbloggers are the 21st-century version of exactly what the US Naval Institute is all about. Once that light bulb came on in my head, I mentioned a vague idea for a project to her - milblogs as the 21st century oral history that they are. "Put that in writing," she said (of course - see first paragraph above!) - and here's part of the result. Shortly after the first tent was pitched by the American military in Iraq a wire was connected to a computer therein, and the internet was available to a generation of Americans at war - many of whom had grown up online. From that point on, at any given moment, somewhere in Iraq a Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine was at a keyboard sharing the events of his or her day with the folks back home. While most would simply fire off an email, others took advantage of the (then) relatively new online blogging platforms to post their thoughts and experiences for the entire world to see. The milblog was born - and from that moment to this stories detailing everything from the most mundane aspects of camp life to intense combat action (often described within hours of the event) have been available on the web... And et cetera - but since you're reading this on a milblog, you probably knew that. And you know that milblogs aren't just blogs written by troops at war, that many friends, family members, and supporters likewise documented their story of America at war online in near-real time, as those stories developed. The diversity in membership of that group is broad, the one thing we all have in common is the impulse to make sense of the seemingly senseless, and communicate the tale - for each of us that impulse was strong enough to overcome whatever barriers prevent the vast majority of people from doing the same. Everyone at some point has some vague idea they believe should be shared - we were the people who, from some combination of internal and external urging, found and spent those many half hours persistently trying to write it down. But where will all that be in another 137 years? Or five or ten, for that matter. That's something I've asked myself since at least 2004 - when I wrote this:
Membership in the ghost battalion has grown in the years since, and an ever growing majority of those abandoned-but-still-standing sites are vanishing. Have you checked out Lt Smash's site lately? How about Sgt Hook's? If you're a long-time milblog reader you know the first widely-read milblog from Operation Iraq Freedom and the first widely-read milblog from Afghanistan are both gone from the web. If you're a relative newcomer to this world you may never even have heard of them - or the dozens upon dozens of others who carried forth the standard they set down. If you have a vague notion that something should be done about that, (a notion I've heard expressed more than once...) then you and I and the good folks at the US Naval Institute are in agreement. Preserving the history documented by the milbloggers is just one of the goals of the milblog project, the once-vague idea that we're now making real. And it's a big idea, if I say so myself - too big to explain in one simple blog post, so stand by for more. Likewise, it's too big a task to be accomplished by just one person. So if you're a milblogger (and exactly what is a milblogger? is a topic for much further discussion on its own) I'm asking for your help. All I'll really need is just a little bit (maybe just one or two of those half hours...) of your time, and your willingness to tell the tale. We've already made history, it's time to save it. (More to follow...) Posted 4:02 PM | Permalink |
Comments (0) |
|
The Mudville Gazette is the on-line voice of an American warrior and his wife who stands by him. They prefer to see peaceful change render force of arms unnecessary. Until that day they stand fast with those who struggle for freedom, strike for reason, and pray for a better tomorrow.
![]() Furthermore, I will occasionally use satire or parody herein. The bottom line: it's my house. I like having visitors to my house. I hope you are entertained. I fight for your right to free speech, and am thrilled when you exercise said rights here. Comments and e-mails are welcome, but all such communication is to be assumed to be 1)the original work of any who initiate said communication and 2)the property of the Mudville Gazette, with free use granted thereto for publication in electronic or written form. If you do NOT wish to have your message posted, write "CONFIDENTIAL" in the subject line of your email. Original content copyright © 2003 - 2011 by Greyhawk. Fair, not-for-profit use of said material by others is encouraged, as long as acknowledgement and credit is given, to include the url of the original source post. Other arrangements can be made as needed. Contact: greyhawk at mudvillegazette dot com ![]() Tending Distant Far from hearth and home, watching What tales we'll tell When things grim Some distant sunset, vision fading Saluting fallen friends whose names - Greyhawk, Baghdad, December 2004 |
I wonder who the two rat bastards who voted FOR the measure were...
Here's how I would translate Charlie Rangel's comment:
"I had created a perfectly good club which the Democratic Party was beating the Republicans over the head with, and those right wing meanies took it away from us!"
I do believe the...er...Honorable Mr. Rangel's done been hoisted on his own petard.
"Mr. Rumsfeld said during a radio interview with Sean Hannity. "We've got, you know, 295 million people in this country and we have an active force of about 1.4 million and we are having no trouble at all attracting and retaining the people that we need to serve in the Armed Forces"
So I guess they can lift the stop-loss order and stop calling up members of the inactive reserve . . .
Wow, he voted against his own sponsorship.
Ok, if the constituents in his district wanted this, which would be the precursor to his introduction and sponsorship, did they change their minds and now are against it?
I bet almost no one in his voter pool ever called to ask him to initiate a bill for a draft, which means he did it merely for the propaganda value.
Does Charles realize he just got to be the staked goat for the wolf pack? I guess he's taking one for john-john...that, in the darkness, makes me smile...:)
Yeah - this was one of the more cynical political ploys by the Dems. Rangel drafted this POS as a dead-letter talking point last year and let it rot - and then the Democratic machine noticed it and said: Lookie lookie! A DRAFT BILL! Sitting in Congress just waiting to be signed by Bushitler so he can send you to get your head chopped off in Iraq! After all, a million spams sent to every college student in America can't be wrong.
Hugh Hewitt is right - the Dems as we know them must be destroyed...
Republicans are pretty much for war, as long as somebody else is fighting them. Their Draft-Dodger-in-Chief embodies that philosophy. Most of the comments, of course, assume that were there to be a draft, it would be full of the same loop-holes that existed during Vietnam, i.e. allowing many, like Dick Cheney, to pursue deferrments and avoid duty. Then their is the back-handed critique that, once the privileged class have successfully been removed from the war, only the inferior were left to be drafted, thus undermining the military's war-fighting ability. A modern draft would probably not be so full of loop-holes for the elite draft dodgers, and that is probably the real reason Republicans would be against a draft.
Ghost Dansing,
My husband is a Republican, it's obvious by this forum and he's down range fighting on his own volition.
He was not called upon, He VOLUNTEERED.
It was a Republican, Nixon, who abolished the draft in 1973.
"Republicans are pretty much for war, as long as somebody else is fighting them" Excuse me?
There is currently 101 House of Represntives who served in the military
56 Republicans 45 Democrats
http://grunt.space.swri.edu/housevet.htm
There is is currently 36 in the Senate who served in the military
19 Republican 16 Democrats and 1 Indp.
http://grunt.space.swri.edu/senatevet.htm
There are 9 Govenors who have served in the military
6 Republican and 3 Democrats
http://grunt.space.swri.edu/stategov.htm
I don't think these men had others doing their fighting.
What's your record like?
The 2 votes in favor of this bill were both cast by Democrats: Pennsylvania Rep. John Murtha and California Rep. Pete Stark.
As Frank J. had ol'Rep. Rangel say "Who better to represent the well-nigh retarded than me?"
Charlie is a cynical NY POS. His timing is totally suspect. Did anyone else notice no one has picked up on Kerry's National service plan, he mentioned it last night in the debate, probably by mistake, since in effect it IS a draft.
I really hate the DNC and what they've done to American politics, despicable.
Bush in '04
[Another pissed-off Vietnam vet for W]