« Beldar's take on the Veep debate | Main | Supreme Court practice »
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
Draft bill voted down 402/2; sponsor Rangel defines hypocrisy
I wonder if Charlie Rangel knows the meaning of "hoisted on his own petard"? Per tomorrow's WaPo:
Rumors of reinstating the military draft, which have flourished for months in panicky e-mails, online chat rooms, college dorms and student newspapers, suddenly dominated the House floor yesterday in one of the strangest parliamentary maneuvers in memory. With even its sponsor voting against it, a bill to require young adults to perform military or civil service failed, 402 to 2.
Gosh, I hope Ms. Cocco feels better now.
More from the WaPo article (boldface added; ellipsis and bracketed portion in original):
Democrats refused to take the obvious bait. The bill's main sponsor, Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.), called a news conference to say he would vote against his bill and to denounce Republicans as cynics who use parliamentary rules for political manipulations rather than for debates of serious topics.
"It is so darn hypocritical for the Congress to come forward and put a [controversial] bill on the suspension calendar," Rangel said. "It's a shame that ... this legislative body is being used as a political tool on the eve of elections."
Rangel and several co-sponsors said they introduced the bill primarily to raise awareness of who makes up most of the volunteer army and to stimulate debate about the administration's military and economic policies....
Ooooo-ho-ho! So introducing a bogus bill isn't cynical, but putting it up for a vote is? Find me a first-grader who can't spot the hypocrisy here. But hey, let's not leave out Nancy Pelosi:
Top Democrats said the vote will not end worries of Bush's intentions. "Anyone who says the policies of this administration will lead to a draft is absolutely correct," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) said.
In other words: We Dems intend to continue lying to spread panic; pay no attention to how I or anyone else actually voted.
Posted by Beldar at 10:58 PM in Politics (2006 & earlier) | Permalink
TrackBacks
Other weblog posts, if any, whose authors have linked to Draft bill voted down 402/2; sponsor Rangel defines hypocrisy and sent a trackback ping are listed here:
» An Open Letter to Charlie Rangel from A Stitch in Haste
Tracked on Oct 6, 2004 7:56:45 AM
Comments
(1) kimsch made the following comment | Oct 5, 2004 11:39:25 PM | Permalink
So, who were the two that voted for it?
(2) Deb made the following comment | Oct 5, 2004 11:40:29 PM | Permalink
I really wonder who the two numbskulls were that voted for it. Pelosi is as she always has been. Stupid.
(3) Deb made the following comment | Oct 5, 2004 11:43:24 PM | Permalink
"Voting for the measure were Reps. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), who long has argued the United States needs more troops in Iraq, and Fortney "Pete" Stark (D-Calif.), a 32-year House veteran."
hehehehe Stark. *dies*
(4) MaDr made the following comment | Oct 6, 2004 12:15:41 AM | Permalink
"cynical" "hypocrisy" Both very good expressions. I'd vote for heaping on more venom, but I've got other questions.
Will the rest of the Lmsm present this the way WaPo did, ie yeah, this was voted down, but the issue still persists. Not just the Donks perpetuating one more of their scare stories, but let's keep hearing from the other activists.
A few WaPo perpetuating staements:
"with no end to the war in Iraq in sight and military personnel stretched thin"
"pressured by the war on terrorism, Bush might attempt to renew conscription."
Who else did WaPo look to for imflammatory statements? "Mothers United to Stop the Draft" & "Alliance for Security (AFS), a program of the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundations".
A cursory look at the above group yielded the following:
"The Alliance for Security is a program of Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation, an international humanitarian organization that has been addressing the causes, conduct and consequences of war through programs of advocacy and service for victims of conflict around the world for over twenty years. "
(5) Steve L. made the following comment | Oct 6, 2004 8:42:46 AM | Permalink
Hmmmmmmmmm...The Congress has to authorize a draft before the President can institute it. The Congress voted 402-2 against a draft.
PELOSI IS RIGHT! THERE WILL BE A DRAFT!
(6) Swede made the following comment | Oct 6, 2004 12:41:42 PM | Permalink
This vote has exposed the House Democratic leadership for the hypocrits that they are. On the same note, yesterday's statement by Tom Delay regarding the issue was right on the money. It was the most damning statement about the Democratic leadership in the House that I have ever read. It should be required reading for everyone.
(7) Phil made the following comment | Oct 6, 2004 4:14:36 PM | Permalink
Tonight's headline on CBS:
"Courageous Rangel leads fight to stop GOP draft"
(8) Swede made the following comment | Oct 6, 2004 5:58:11 PM | Permalink
Good for the House Republicans! By forcing this vote they made obvious a cynical political ploy on the part of the Democrats. Think of it as turning the light on in a darkened room. Once the vote was called one could almost hear the shuffling of feet, rustling of papers, and overturned chairs as the hypocrits scattered in search of cover.
(9) J_Crater made the following comment | Oct 6, 2004 7:00:24 PM | Permalink
Murtha and Stark weren't even co-sponsors of HR163, so what happened to the 15 co-sponsors ?
And, for crying out loud, HR163 still had the mispelling (or was it) "a member of an active or reverse component of the uniformed services" in four different places.
You think maybe they meant "reserve" ?
(10) JEGjr made the following comment | Oct 7, 2004 3:49:01 PM | Permalink
"Top Democrats said the vote will not end worries of Bush's intentions: 'Anyone who says the policies of this administration will lead to a draft is absolutely correct,' House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) said. In other words: We Dems intend to continue lying to spread panic; pay no attention to how I or anyone else actually voted."
That's because the substance of what was voted on was real, not the actual result of the vote.
(12) st made the following comment | Nov 18, 2004 2:18:41 PM | Permalink
Those who believed in the Iraqi war should be drafted to fight. Regardless. If you believe in it-- you fight it.
Or else you all have melancholy breath.
The comments to this entry are closed.
