Nov 30, 2006

And I walk upright now, too! 

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us
Summation of the Rangel/Kerry mindset. And also an inter-service dig at Blackfive...

"If a young fella 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."
Soooo, here's some questions for Charlie Rangel:
- You were in the Army - what's your excuse? Couldn't get a decent career back then? And is there any chance that the composition of the US military has changed since you were in HALF A CENTURY AGO?
- Did you run this line of thinking past the man who just tipped the Senate your way, Jim Webb? After campaigning in the boots of his Marine son, he might take issue with your questioning his kid's job choice (regardless of Webb's whole campaign platform being built on getting out of Iraq).
- Did you run this line past ANY of your fellow Congress members with kids in the military? (There doesn't appear to be a current count, but in 2003 there were seven.)
- Wouldn't the draft you keep pushing effectively remove this "option" between a "decent career" and the army? If somebody gets drafted, the only option they have left is to become a soldier or to become a Canadian (nothing against actual Canadians...)
- When you were in Korea, would you say your presence there created more Commies?

And this leads nicely into another question I've asked before; namely, at what point did joining the military change from meaning that you were "an upstanding citizen who cares about the future of your nation and wants to protect it from danger," to you being "some inbred hick with the brains God (or the deity of your choice, to include Darwin) gave a dust-bunny, who doesn't have so much as two Saddam-face dinar to rub together"? How come being in the military was a good thing for Charlie Rangel, John Kerry, Jim Webb, Max Cleland, Wesley Clark, and Jack Murtha, but it's obviously such a bad thing for myself and everyone who's in now?

If it's such a horrid existence how come there's virtually no one in the military right now who doesn't still want to be? That's right. Enlistments are four years long (typically). If you joined prior to 9/11 and you wanted out, by now you'd be out. And if anybody pulls out the word "stoploss," you can stuff it - stoploss is not currently in effect. ("Stuff it" also goes for bringing up IRR recalls. Those numbers are tiny. Sucks for those guys, but doesn't disprove my point.) If you joined after 9/11 but before Iraq and want out, you're getting out soon - nobody's gonna stop you. If you joined AFTER Iraq... hell, you WANT to be in the military. Ain't no way you can convince me that anybody who's THAT WORRIED about IEDs figures they'll chance it so they can get their hands on some college money or avoid having to work at Micky D's. There is no amout of money that convinces people to go risk getting blown up. It takes more than that - something that a Purple Heart and Bronze Star recipient like Rangel should know, but seems to have brain-dumped. But apparently all us mouth-breathing, broke-ass, cave-dwellers are simply being duped into Rumsfeld's Bush's war... for the last three years. Well... we would be slow on the pickup, wouldn't we?

My point is, Rep. Rangel is - once again - demonstrably wrong, not to mention insulting. And that's all well and good. I actually prefer someone to say what they mean and be an asshat, than for them to say they have my back one minute and drive a knife into it the next. That's
why I prefer jihadis to liberal politicians at times like this. At least when the jihadis say they want to kill me, I believe them.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Weblog Commenting by HaloScan.com