House Shoots Down Draft, 402-2

The House of Representatives voted on bill to reinstate the draft by Democrat Charles Rangel (NY), and defeated it soundly, 402-2. The bill, which languished in Congress with no real support since its introduction in January 2003, has often been used as evidence the Republicans favor a draft, despite the fact that a Democrat sponsored it, 14 other Democrats cosponsored it, and no Republicans supported it. The rumors reached urban legend status, leading the House Republicans to take the uncommon step of voting on a bill that was not under remotely serious consideration. The two voting in favor of the bill were Democrats John Murtha (PA) and Pete Stark (CA), who was one of the cosponsors. Republican Senate majority leader Bill Frist said the Senate will not address the issue.

Comments

No, the argument is

[porkchop_d_clown]

that the secret plan is to pass those bills and have a fully operating draft by june of this year.

Given how many paniced brothers and sisters of mine received that e-mail, the Republicans did the right thing.

Re:The problem is that a lot of people are taking

[Pluvius]

I would dispute the idea that Bush would "have to revive the draft" - it's far more likely that he'd be forced to lower his expectations instead.

But that would be flip-flopping, not staying the course!

Rob

Re:GOOD!

[dtfinch]

The bill was introduced by Charles Rangel to prevent wars. His stated intentions:
...to make it clear that if there were a war, there would be more equitable representation of people making sacrifices...

I truly believe that those who make the decision and those who support the United States going into war would feel more readily the pain that's involved, the sacrifice that's involved, if they thought that the fighting force would include the affluent and those who historically have avoided this great responsibility.

His point was that we'd be less likely to go to war if people of all classes, rich and poor, had to fight.

Money, for one...

[ImaLamer]

Yes, he did say that last night... in a sense:

We want to raise the active-duty forces by 40,000, double the special forces so we can find terrorists where they are, and provide the kind of support for families -- health care, housing -- that they deserve while their loved ones are serving and protecting us.
Senator John Edwards October 5th, 2004

He also pointed out:

They said that they supported the troops; and then while our troops were on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, they went to the Congress and lobbied to have their combat pay cut.
Senator John Edwards October 5th, 2004

and this:

He attacks us about the troops. They sent 40,000 American troops into Iraq without the body armor they needed. They sent them without the armored vehicles they needed. While they were on the ground fighting, they lobbied the Congress to cut their combat pay. This is the height of hypocrisy.
Senator John Edwards October 5th, 2004

Maybe telling the troops the truth about what they are fighting for, and not making them seem like they are fighting for unjust causes and "illegal wars" would be enough to keep them around also. One of the major problems is not getting new troops, it's keeping the ones that are there.

It's not fair that these men and women make almost no money when they are fighting a war to liberate oil fields. They should get some sort of profit sharing, right?

Re:Read the bill.

[dbrutus]

Statistically, the children of Congress are over represented in Iraq by 4-5 times compared to any set of 535 random US families. How much more over representation has to occur before liberals stop drinking Michael Moore's koolaid?

Congressional Children in Military

[porkchop_d_clown]

Senator Tim Johnson's son is in the 101st Airborne and served in Iraq.

Representative Duncan Hunter's son is a Marine and was in Iraq as of February 2004.

Senator Joe Biden's is on active duty, but not in Iraq.

Outside of Congress: John Ashcroft's son is active duty Navy, deployed to the Persian Gulf

Rep Kennedy - the guy Moore mocks in the movie? His nephew is active duty, but Moore edited that out of the final movie.

So, excluding nephews and Ashcroft's son, and excluding the guy who wasn't deployed to Iraq, that gives us 2 sons out of 535 congressmen, a ratio of 268 to 1. According to the cenus bureau, 104,705,000 households in the United States in 2000. If we guess that 300,000 service men and women have been deployed to Iraq and different times, the ratio of households to Iraqi vets is 104,705,000 to 300,000. This reduces to a ratio of 349 to 1.

Thus, children of congressmen are over-represented in Iraq.

Re:Read the bill.

[tyen]

This is for all the responding posts to the parent asking for corroboration. 10 minutes of Googling later, here (requires registration) are some related links.

No one has been able to fully enumerate the five Congressional members and their offspring who are serving in Iraq. However, some facts pointed out in this discussion:

1. Moore never asserted in his movie that the children of US Congressmen are under-represented in US forces in Iraq. See the movie transcript to verify from primary source. Instead, he asked the people that authorized the Iraq war (members of Congress) if they would send thier kids to Iraq.
2. Equally factual is that in the United States, you can only enlist in the armed forces when you are of the age of majority. Meaning your parents (the Congressmen Moore was posing his question to) cannot do what he posits. They can no more send their children to Iraq than violate some fundamental precepts of the Constitution.
3. Quote: Senators and Congressmen (and Pentagon workers, and the President himself) ARE on the front lines of this war, and have been since its opening salvo. They don't need their children to be put in harm's way to show their bravery and resolve. They need only show up for work. If you don't think Washington, D.C. is a target, you haven't been listening to Osama.
4. The Congressional members who are known to have children serving in the Enduring Freedom theatre of operations or are expected to be there soon are: Sen. Tim Johnson, D-SD, son Brooks Johnson, 31, a staff sergeant with the Army's 101st Airborne Division; Rep. John Kline, R-MN, son, Dan Kline who is slotted for shipping out.
5. For anyone who still wants to play the statistics game and still assert that Congress members' families are under-represented, fine. Let's see where the numbers take us. Quote: The correct comparison would be to compare the total number of parents in the US with children of military age over the total number of troops and then the same comparison in the Congress - number of Reps with children of military age vs. number serving...assume that all people from the age of 40 to 79 have children of military age and likewise all Congressional Reps. - the errors are likely to be in the same direction (overstated in both cases) and so even out. There are around 130 million in the 40 to 79 age group. So the rate of service is around 1 per thousand potential parents. Applying this to Congress, you'd expect less than 1 child in Iraq. Instead, we can count one for certain, possibly another four depending upon your sources. So the representation, in known terms from primary sources, is at least the enlistment rate of the general population.
6. This is just immediate family members. Including first relations, representation of Congress members' families is likely to go much, much higher. If you are a Moore fan, would you care to chase down primary sources on that, which will only widen the gap further, o

And who voted for it?

[mec]

And who put the current draft registration system in place? Republican President Jimmy Carter. The bill was filibustered in the Senate by Democratic Senator Mark Hatfield of Oregon, but the Senate overrode the veto.

Oh wait. Reality check. Carter was a Democrat, and the opposition and filibuster were conducted by Republicans.

Re:What's more equitable than choice?

[Anonymous Coward]

So you just intended to spit in the face of those who served their country in the Texas National Guard? Or maybe you intended to spit in the face of those who served their country during the Vietnam war but weren't actually in Vietnam?