Responding to Rangel

[darrels joy]

Responding to Rangel
"The National Commander of The American Legion called on Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) to apologize for suggesting that American troops would not choose to fight in Iraq if they had other employment options," says a press release from the legion:

"Our military is the most skilled, best-trained all-volunteer force on the planet," said National Commander Paul A. Morin. "Like that recently espoused by Sen. John Kerry, Congressman Rangel's view of our troops couldn't be further from the truth and is possibly skewed by his political opposition to the war in Iraq." . . .

"These brave men and women lay it on the line every day for each and every one of us, for which I am very grateful," Morin said. "Their selfless commitment for the betterment of our world from radical extremists is beyond commendable. It's time for members of Congress to stop insulting our troops. . . ."

Some of our readers, responding to our item yesterday, took Rangel's disparagement personally. Here is Brian Bartlett:

I have a message for Mr. Rangel; I will not use the term Honorable with him. At age 17, I had already had seven years of college and university education for which I had received 3 1/2 years' credit due to the vagaries of our educational system and I was teaching at the university for those 3 1/2 years as well as working as a professional consultant starting at $40 per hour, a rather princely sum in 1974.

Following family tradition--my mother, father, grandfathers and beyond had all served--I entered the United States Navy nine days after my 17th birthday. There followed an education second to none in various fields of engineering including nuclear. The training was intense, essentially cramming years of engineering into six months, and not very many were left at the end of the school even in my section, the best and brightest. The civilian world has no equivalent; graduate school is a joke by comparison, and I should know, having been through both.

Despite my disabilities that resulted in my discharge after over 13 years of service, I am subject to recall to this day, and should they call, I will answer willingly. Unlike, apparently, Mr. Rangel, I know what is happening on the ground over there, as I have kin there to this day. I have been to the Middle East several times, and my sister served in Saudi Arabia and Iraq for the First Gulf War. In my family we serve, peace or war, because that is what we are and what we do. It's not for money, it's not for the educational benefits after the service, which is my case were laughable. He can go peddle his contempt elsewhere.

Patti Sayer adds:

I am the mother of a fine young man, an American soldier in the U.S. Army Reserve, who risked his life in Iraq for 14 of the longest months of his and my life . By the way, he just re-enlisted for another eight years. I also happen to be the Air Force brat daughter of a Vietnam vet. I grew up in Europe while my father defended that ungrateful continent from attack by the Soviet Union.

My father's brother served on the USS Louisville in World War II, and his turret was struck by a kamikaze during the Battle of Surigao Strait. He was grievously wounded. Another uncle spent a miserable year of service in Korea in 1951. I guess you could say that my family has sacrificed a lot for this nation. So when I hear Rep. Rangel imply, in essence, that my son, father and uncles served only because they had no other economic choices or were too stupid to know what they were doing, I get angry.

As for the issue of the Iraq war, how dare Mr. Rangel denigrate my son and his fellow soldiers as nothing but a bunch of uneducated, patsy, losers, being manipulated by an evil George Bush? He makes their sacrifice appear to be that born of ignorance and poor upbringing, and I am deeply resentful of his attitude. My son is not stupid, and there are plenty of economic opportunities where we live. It is apparent that Mr. Rangel perceives himself as smarter than my poor dumb son, who voluntarily joined the military and who is honored to serve our nation in spite of Mr. Rangel's contempt.

And here is Ben Kohlmann:

I think the comments attributed to Rep. Rangel reveal not only the mindset of liberal policy makers in relation to the military, but also their view of what I like to call "duty to the self." Those that achieve the greatest academic achievement usually tend to be the most self-centered, imagining their indispensability to the world as a whole. Why should someone give up four years (or more!) of comfort and high earning potential to be subjected to months away from family, cramped living conditions, and the legally binding orders of others? In our modern, liberated, self-centered mind, such a thought is inconceivable.

Much of this is fostered in the academic environment they are indoctrinated into. This view, in and of itself, is at odds with the underlying selflessness that must be present for an effective member of the armed forces. So I don't so much take it as insulting as revealing a gross negligence in comprehending the true nature of sacrifice.

I am a young naval officer, and for the record, I graduated with both Latin and departmental honors from a top 10 university. I was named "Greek Man of the Year" and held numerous leadership positions throughout campus. One of my good friends, who happens to be a Marine just back from Iraq, won the freshman writing award at the same institution, and also graduated with honors. My peers in our squadron's ready room have masters degrees from MIT and Ivies. My best friend earned a graduate degree from Stanford before his current service in Afghanistan. My roommate's wife, a Marine signals-intelligence officer, recently finished up work at Cambridge in chemistry stemming from a Gates scholarship.

We are all under 26, and had we so chosen, certainly could have had the "option of having a decent career" apart from the military. I cite these things not to egotistically promote our individual accomplishments, but only to show that I personally know the representative is wrong.

He scoffed at our true willingness to fight. Ironically, as an aside, since the beginning of the Iraq war, my only desire has been to get over there and fight, but to no avail, as my current military obligations have me training elsewhere. Anyway, we fight because we recognize that the best years of our lives are better spent serving something bigger than ourselves than serving selfish ends. We fight knowing that for all the hardship and tears shed over being away from loved ones, the defense of our Republic, and even the giving of our lives, is far more worthy than going through life focused on wealth and pleasure.

It is undoubtedly true that to the last, we all would like nothing better than to settle down, have a family, and raise them in peace, being there for every birthday and anniversary. We, too, would like to pursue jobs that pay tens of thousands more per year than we currently receive. I can't tell you how many times I've looked at my friends in law school and other prestigious professions in envy at the "opportunities" they have while I "endure" months of boredom.

But it is also true that there are men and ideologies in the world that would like nothing better than to rip those things away from many in our population who enjoy such blessings. We will not stand idly by and allow that to happen. Our educational and academic accomplishments make us more duty bound to serve the country that enabled us, better than any other, to realize our full potential. These past few years of service have encompassed the greatest struggles and most trying times of my entire life, but ultimately, that is the cost of defending an ideology of freedom. Indeed, it is that cost itself that brings true value to freedom.

The San Francisco Chronicle profiles someone with a similar attitude:

If Dr. Martin Holland had his way, he'd be in Iraq right now. In Fallujah or Ramadi or Baghdad. Up to his elbows in blood and brain matter, operating on Marines and soldiers with severe head injuries.

As it happens, it's unlikely the doctor will find himself hovering over a battlefield operating table. But he has a strong desire to serve -- to do something for the troops suffering severe combat injuries. Instead of teaching residents and interns how to stop intracranial bleeding in San Francisco, Holland is wearing Navy whites and operating on sailors and Marines in San Diego.

Holland is not an 18-year-old who joins the Marines fresh out of high school. He's 44, and he quit a prestigious job as director of neurotrauma at UC San Francisco. But there are similarities: Both put aside personal lives to enlist in the military.

They also serve who stand and operate.

"When I was a kid, I loved stories about knights in shining armor," he said. "There was something very appealing about the ideals of honor, courage and all that kind of stuff.

"The only thing I saw in the modern world that was even close to that code of chivalry was, one, the military, and two, was medicine with the Hippocratic oath."
Responding to Rangel
"The National Commander of The American Legion called on Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) to apologize for suggesting that American troops would not choose to fight in Iraq if they had other employment options," says a press release from the legion:

"Our military is the most skilled, best-trained all-volunteer force on the planet," said National Commander Paul A. Morin. "Like that recently espoused by Sen. John Kerry, Congressman Rangel's view of our troops couldn't be further from the truth and is possibly skewed by his political opposition to the war in Iraq." . . .

"These brave men and women lay it on the line every day for each and every one of us, for which I am very grateful," Morin said. "Their selfless commitment for the betterment of our world from radical extremists is beyond commendable. It's time for members of Congress to stop insulting our troops. . . ."

Some of our readers, responding to our item yesterday, took Rangel's disparagement personally. Here is Brian Bartlett:

I have a message for Mr. Rangel; I will not use the term Honorable with him. At age 17, I had already had seven years of college and university education for which I had received 3 1/2 years' credit due to the vagaries of our educational system and I was teaching at the university for those 3 1/2 years as well as working as a professional consultant starting at $40 per hour, a rather princely sum in 1974.

Following family tradition--my mother, father, grandfathers and beyond had all served--I entered the United States Navy nine days after my 17th birthday. There followed an education second to none in various fields of engineering including nuclear. The training was intense, essentially cramming years of engineering into six months, and not very many were left at the end of the school even in my section, the best and brightest. The civilian world has no equivalent; graduate school is a joke by comparison, and I should know, having been through both.

Despite my disabilities that resulted in my discharge after over 13 years of service, I am subject to recall to this day, and should they call, I will answer willingly. Unlike, apparently, Mr. Rangel, I know what is happening on the ground over there, as I have kin there to this day. I have been to the Middle East several times, and my sister served in Saudi Arabia and Iraq for the First Gulf War. In my family we serve, peace or war, because that is what we are and what we do. It's not for money, it's not for the educational benefits after the service, which is my case were laughable. He can go peddle his contempt elsewhere.

Patti Sayer adds:

I am the mother of a fine young man, an American soldier in the U.S. Army Reserve, who risked his life in Iraq for 14 of the longest months of his and my life . By the way, he just re-enlisted for another eight years. I also happen to be the Air Force brat daughter of a Vietnam vet. I grew up in Europe while my father defended that ungrateful continent from attack by the Soviet Union.

My father's brother served on the USS Louisville in World War II, and his turret was struck by a kamikaze during the Battle of Surigao Strait. He was grievously wounded. Another uncle spent a miserable year of service in Korea in 1951. I guess you could say that my family has sacrificed a lot for this nation. So when I hear Rep. Rangel imply, in essence, that my son, father and uncles served only because they had no other economic choices or were too stupid to know what they were doing, I get angry.

As for the issue of the Iraq war, how dare Mr. Rangel denigrate my son and his fellow soldiers as nothing but a bunch of uneducated, patsy, losers, being manipulated by an evil George Bush? He makes their sacrifice appear to be that born of ignorance and poor upbringing, and I am deeply resentful of his attitude. My son is not stupid, and there are plenty of economic opportunities where we live. It is apparent that Mr. Rangel perceives himself as smarter than my poor dumb son, who voluntarily joined the military and who is honored to serve our nation in spite of Mr. Rangel's contempt.

And here is Ben Kohlmann:

I think the comments attributed to Rep. Rangel reveal not only the mindset of liberal policy makers in relation to the military, but also their view of what I like to call "duty to the self." Those that achieve the greatest academic achievement usually tend to be the most self-centered, imagining their indispensability to the world as a whole. Why should someone give up four years (or more!) of comfort and high earning potential to be subjected to months away from family, cramped living conditions, and the legally binding orders of others? In our modern, liberated, self-centered mind, such a thought is inconceivable.

Much of this is fostered in the academic environment they are indoctrinated into. This view, in and of itself, is at odds with the underlying selflessness that must be present for an effective member of the armed forces. So I don't so much take it as insulting as revealing a gross negligence in comprehending the true nature of sacrifice.

I am a young naval officer, and for the record, I graduated with both Latin and departmental honors from a top 10 university. I was named "Greek Man of the Year" and held numerous leadership positions throughout campus. One of my good friends, who happens to be a Marine just back from Iraq, won the freshman writing award at the same institution, and also graduated with honors. My peers in our squadron's ready room have masters degrees from MIT and Ivies. My best friend earned a graduate degree from Stanford before his current service in Afghanistan. My roommate's wife, a Marine signals-intelligence officer, recently finished up work at Cambridge in chemistry stemming from a Gates scholarship.

We are all under 26, and had we so chosen, certainly could have had the "option of having a decent career" apart from the military. I cite these things not to egotistically promote our individual accomplishments, but only to show that I personally know the representative is wrong.

He scoffed at our true willingness to fight. Ironically, as an aside, since the beginning of the Iraq war, my only desire has been to get over there and fight, but to no avail, as my current military obligations have me training elsewhere. Anyway, we fight because we recognize that the best years of our lives are better spent serving something bigger than ourselves than serving selfish ends. We fight knowing that for all the hardship and tears shed over being away from loved ones, the defense of our Republic, and even the giving of our lives, is far more worthy than going through life focused on wealth and pleasure.

It is undoubtedly true that to the last, we all would like nothing better than to settle down, have a family, and raise them in peace, being there for every birthday and anniversary. We, too, would like to pursue jobs that pay tens of thousands more per year than we currently receive. I can't tell you how many times I've looked at my friends in law school and other prestigious professions in envy at the "opportunities" they have while I "endure" months of boredom.

But it is also true that there are men and ideologies in the world that would like nothing better than to rip those things away from many in our population who enjoy such blessings. We will not stand idly by and allow that to happen. Our educational and academic accomplishments make us more duty bound to serve the country that enabled us, better than any other, to realize our full potential. These past few years of service have encompassed the greatest struggles and most trying times of my entire life, but ultimately, that is the cost of defending an ideology of freedom. Indeed, it is that cost itself that brings true value to freedom.

The San Francisco Chronicle profiles someone with a similar attitude:

If Dr. Martin Holland had his way, he'd be in Iraq right now. In Fallujah or Ramadi or Baghdad. Up to his elbows in blood and brain matter, operating on Marines and soldiers with severe head injuries.

As it happens, it's unlikely the doctor will find himself hovering over a battlefield operating table. But he has a strong desire to serve -- to do something for the troops suffering severe combat injuries. Instead of teaching residents and interns how to stop intracranial bleeding in San Francisco, Holland is wearing Navy whites and operating on sailors and Marines in San Diego.

Holland is not an 18-year-old who joins the Marines fresh out of high school. He's 44, and he quit a prestigious job as director of neurotrauma at UC San Francisco. But there are similarities: Both put aside personal lives to enlist in the military.

They also serve who stand and operate.

"When I was a kid, I loved stories about knights in shining armor," he said. "There was something very appealing about the ideals of honor, courage and all that kind of stuff.

"The only thing I saw in the modern world that was even close to that code of chivalry was, one, the military, and two, was medicine with the Hippocratic oath."
Responding to Rangel
"The National Commander of The American Legion called on Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) to apologize for suggesting that American troops would not choose to fight in Iraq if they had other employment options," says a press release from the legion:

"Our military is the most skilled, best-trained all-volunteer force on the planet," said National Commander Paul A. Morin. "Like that recently espoused by Sen. John Kerry, Congressman Rangel's view of our troops couldn't be further from the truth and is possibly skewed by his political opposition to the war in Iraq." . . .

"These brave men and women lay it on the line every day for each and every one of us, for which I am very grateful," Morin said. "Their selfless commitment for the betterment of our world from radical extremists is beyond commendable. It's time for members of Congress to stop insulting our troops. . . ."

Some of our readers, responding to our item yesterday, took Rangel's disparagement personally. Here is Brian Bartlett:

I have a message for Mr. Rangel; I will not use the term Honorable with him. At age 17, I had already had seven years of college and university education for which I had received 3 1/2 years' credit due to the vagaries of our educational system and I was teaching at the university for those 3 1/2 years as well as working as a professional consultant starting at $40 per hour, a rather princely sum in 1974.

Following family tradition--my mother, father, grandfathers and beyond had all served--I entered the United States Navy nine days after my 17th birthday. There followed an education second to none in various fields of engineering including nuclear. The training was intense, essentially cramming years of engineering into six months, and not very many were left at the end of the school even in my section, the best and brightest. The civilian world has no equivalent; graduate school is a joke by comparison, and I should know, having been through both.

Despite my disabilities that resulted in my discharge after over 13 years of service, I am subject to recall to this day, and should they call, I will answer willingly. Unlike, apparently, Mr. Rangel, I know what is happening on the ground over there, as I have kin there to this day. I have been to the Middle East several times, and my sister served in Saudi Arabia and Iraq for the First Gulf War. In my family we serve, peace or war, because that is what we are and what we do. It's not for money, it's not for the educational benefits after the service, which is my case were laughable. He can go peddle his contempt elsewhere.

Patti Sayer adds:

I am the mother of a fine young man, an American soldier in the U.S. Army Reserve, who risked his life in Iraq for 14 of the longest months of his and my life . By the way, he just re-enlisted for another eight years. I also happen to be the Air Force brat daughter of a Vietnam vet. I grew up in Europe while my father defended that ungrateful continent from attack by the Soviet Union.

My father's brother served on the USS Louisville in World War II, and his turret was struck by a kamikaze during the Battle of Surigao Strait. He was grievously wounded. Another uncle spent a miserable year of service in Korea in 1951. I guess you could say that my family has sacrificed a lot for this nation. So when I hear Rep. Rangel imply, in essence, that my son, father and uncles served only because they had no other economic choices or were too stupid to know what they were doing, I get angry.

As for the issue of the Iraq war, how dare Mr. Rangel denigrate my son and his fellow soldiers as nothing but a bunch of uneducated, patsy, losers, being manipulated by an evil George Bush? He makes their sacrifice appear to be that born of ignorance and poor upbringing, and I am deeply resentful of his attitude. My son is not stupid, and there are plenty of economic opportunities where we live. It is apparent that Mr. Rangel perceives himself as smarter than my poor dumb son, who voluntarily joined the military and who is honored to serve our nation in spite of Mr. Rangel's contempt.

And here is Ben Kohlmann:

I think the comments attributed to Rep. Rangel reveal not only the mindset of liberal policy makers in relation to the military, but also their view of what I like to call "duty to the self." Those that achieve the greatest academic achievement usually tend to be the most self-centered, imagining their indispensability to the world as a whole. Why should someone give up four years (or more!) of comfort and high earning potential to be subjected to months away from family, cramped living conditions, and the legally binding orders of others? In our modern, liberated, self-centered mind, such a thought is inconceivable.

Much of this is fostered in the academic environment they are indoctrinated into. This view, in and of itself, is at odds with the underlying selflessness that must be present for an effective member of the armed forces. So I don't so much take it as insulting as revealing a gross negligence in comprehending the true nature of sacrifice.

I am a young naval officer, and for the record, I graduated with both Latin and departmental honors from a top 10 university. I was named "Greek Man of the Year" and held numerous leadership positions throughout campus. One of my good friends, who happens to be a Marine just back from Iraq, won the freshman writing award at the same institution, and also graduated with honors. My peers in our squadron's ready room have masters degrees from MIT and Ivies. My best friend earned a graduate degree from Stanford before his current service in Afghanistan. My roommate's wife, a Marine signals-intelligence officer, recently finished up work at Cambridge in chemistry stemming from a Gates scholarship.

We are all under 26, and had we so chosen, certainly could have had the "option of having a decent career" apart from the military. I cite these things not to egotistically promote our individual accomplishments, but only to show that I personally know the representative is wrong.

He scoffed at our true willingness to fight. Ironically, as an aside, since the beginning of the Iraq war, my only desire has been to get over there and fight, but to no avail, as my current military obligations have me training elsewhere. Anyway, we fight because we recognize that the best years of our lives are better spent serving something bigger than ourselves than serving selfish ends. We fight knowing that for all the hardship and tears shed over being away from loved ones, the defense of our Republic, and even the giving of our lives, is far more worthy than going through life focused on wealth and pleasure.

It is undoubtedly true that to the last, we all would like nothing better than to settle down, have a family, and raise them in peace, being there for every birthday and anniversary. We, too, would like to pursue jobs that pay tens of thousands more per year than we currently receive. I can't tell you how many times I've looked at my friends in law school and other prestigious professions in envy at the "opportunities" they have while I "endure" months of boredom.

But it is also true that there are men and ideologies in the world that would like nothing better than to rip those things away from many in our population who enjoy such blessings. We will not stand idly by and allow that to happen. Our educational and academic accomplishments make us more duty bound to serve the country that enabled us, better than any other, to realize our full potential. These past few years of service have encompassed the greatest struggles and most trying times of my entire life, but ultimately, that is the cost of defending an ideology of freedom. Indeed, it is that cost itself that brings true value to freedom.

The San Francisco Chronicle profiles someone with a similar attitude:

If Dr. Martin Holland had his way, he'd be in Iraq right now. In Fallujah or Ramadi or Baghdad. Up to his elbows in blood and brain matter, operating on Marines and soldiers with severe head injuries.

As it happens, it's unlikely the doctor will find himself hovering over a battlefield operating table. But he has a strong desire to serve -- to do something for the troops suffering severe combat injuries. Instead of teaching residents and interns how to stop intracranial bleeding in San Francisco, Holland is wearing Navy whites and operating on sailors and Marines in San Diego.

Holland is not an 18-year-old who joins the Marines fresh out of high school. He's 44, and he quit a prestigious job as director of neurotrauma at UC San Francisco. But there are similarities: Both put aside personal lives to enlist in the military.

They also serve who stand and operate.

"When I was a kid, I loved stories about knights in shining armor," he said. "There was something very appealing about the ideals of honor, courage and all that kind of stuff.

"The only thing I saw in the modern world that was even close to that code of chivalry was, one, the military, and two, was medicine with the Hippocratic oath."
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110009311

[Robert Ryan]

I was unable to e-mail Rangel, so I sent my Represntative an e-mail telling him about my displeasure with Rangel. I asked that he pass me comments on to him, I doubt that will happen. Such poor judgement on behalf of the leaders of this nation. First Sen Kerry and now Sen Rangel. Poor Leadership on both parts.

[SparrowHawk62]

Rangel wants the Draft back? Well, he served in Korea, more honorably then Kerry did in Nam.
I've never agreed with him on most matters and I don't agree with him now.
The real issue is when do the Troops come home?
When do we leave the people in Iraq to fend for themselves?
Why does the US instist on fighting a war, that looks like it can not be won?

[SuperScout]

Originally posted by SparrowHawk62 Rangel wants the Draft back? Well, he served in Korea, more honorably then Kerry did in Nam.

BFD: service does not give someone carte blanche to denigrate our warriors.

I've never agreed with him on most matters and I don't agree with him now.

Me neither!

The real issue is when do the Troops come home?

This usually happens after the war is won, wouldn't you agree? Except for occupation forces, which have an indeterminate status of time, all others come home after Victory is achieved.

When do we leave the people in Iraq to fend for themselves?

See above comment .

Why does the US insist on fighting a war, that looks like it can not be won?

Why do we allow the main stream media to determine which wars can be won and which ones can't?

[SparrowHawk62]

Super, I agree with all of your comments. Rangel, Fat Al, Jessie, and the rest of that crew should be dragged through the streets of NYC and then buried in Jersey!

True, I was voicing concerns that I've heard over and over again on the news or read in the newspapers.
My opinion is we stay until we get the job done! I have the ut-most respect for our service people who are in Country doing what needs to be done.
Yes, I cringe every time there is a body count mentioned, but that is the price of war.

[darrels joy]

Yesterday's compilation of emails from readers responding to Rep. Charles Rangel's disparagement of American servicemen was so well received that we thought we'd publish another batch. We begin with Brian Boyd:

I am a 47-year-old meteorologist with a college degree. I have a good career and a family and lots of opportunities. On Sept. 12, 2001, I wrote the Air Force and volunteered to enlist and give up my job and all its benefits. I said I would serve anywhere they wanted me, whether in combat or at a weather station in Greenland.

Because of the volume of offers of enlistment from around the nation, the Air Force did not respond to me for several months, but they did respond. In that email, they thanked me for my offer, but unfortunately they had received so many such offers that they could not use me at that time.

My brother is an officer in the Air Force. He speaks four languages and has served in dangerous places around the world, including Bosnia and Baghdad. Our father was in the Navy and was in several Korean War battles. His brother served in World War II, in European battles. Both gave up opportunities for college in order to serve. They received their education later.

If the Air Force calls me today, I will walk away from my career and go where they tell me to go. I would consider it a privilege to be considered stupid and worthless by the likes of Rangel and Kerry.

Jack Sides is a member of what is sometimes called the "Greatest Generation":

I have no tip for you, but I offer my heartfelt thanks for the quotes from the serving military and family today. I am exceedingly tired of politicians who denigrate the military.

For the record I am an 83-year-old Air Force retiree who was a P-38 fighter pilot flying out of Italy in World War II. I have two master's degrees, I am a certified financial planner, and I am still actively working. And by the way, I qualified for and once belonged to Mensa.

I, too, wish that I could serve again.

Brian Patton has served more recently:

I am an Army sergeant who just returned from Iraq this past week. I myself enlisted within weeks of 9/11 and shipped out within days of graduating from the University of Texas four long years ago. In the time since, I've served in the infantry in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and spent many a patrol or mountain climb alongside some of the greatest men our country has to offer. Better men, I may add, than any of the ones I spent my carefree college years with. And in many ways, smarter too.

Charlie Rangel may think us too stupid to shine his shoes, but he wouldn't last five minutes in our chosen profession, physically or intellectually.

Patrick Shearin weighs in on the importance of strong political leadership:

I'm brought to tears reading the testimonials from the best and brightest that are currently serving in harm's way. As I read, I was viewing the film "Rocky," an all-time American classic, and for some reason the power and optimism of American youth overwhelmed me. I got my degree and I served and I chose combat arms (mechanized infantry--HUAH), but I did so in what was to be known as the Clinton years. Now I will grant you that I am a marked partisan, nonetheless, the impact of that C-in-C cannot be underestimated.

Myself, I conducted a recon-in-force and once I saw that the Clinton administration was going to leave matters like the Mog (the battle of Mogadishu) alone, I figured I was done. They were far more concerned about gay rights, Waco and Elian Gonzalez than us grunts. Just see what the Mog generals asked for and what they got! Les Aspin, RIP, shot them down, right before they were shot down. Not that the U.S. press cared. Funny how U.S. servicemen and our enemies pay the most attention to our suffering. I don't remember the barometer of Clinton's non-policies' effects on re-enlistment when I bailed! That was when nothing mattered (pre 9/11), but a lack of support and understanding from the home crowd.

I think that is a fundamental disconnect between those who serve and those who never will--what is the mission and what is the home mood. Most of us serve regardless, it is a matter of how long. The mission affects that--if it is worthy, so many will stick to it, some may not. But it is a strong beacon when there is a leader that will lead the home, when there is a president who will stand up and stand strong against what needs to be done. A serviceman is used to being ignored and misunderstood, but when his president stays with him, well, he never, ever forgets that.

I hope that President Bush knows that.

John Griffin describes some of the young servicemen-to-be he's encountered:

I am a professor of finance at Old Dominion University. ODU has a very active and large military science program (ROTC). The program has freshmen who wish to join the military after college and active military who have been selected to further their education. In the seven years that I have been at ODU, I have had a large number of students in my classes who are in the program. Let me say that these are some of the brightest, most polite and hardest-working students that I have had. It has been an honor to teach them. They make being their professor an honor. Knowing that these men and women will be running our military and our country someday makes me feel at peace with the future of our country.

However, the thought of Mr. Rangel and Mr. Kerry running the country scares me. Furthermore, these two should be ashamed of themselves for looking down on these fine young men and women. I will match my students' scholastic abilities with either one of these so called men any day. I would also like to say, thank you for standing up for our troops.

Andrew Macfayden has a pithy message for the congressman:

I am a former Navy pediatrician. I went to medical school on a Navy scholarship and was on active duty for five years. I served stateside during Gulf War I. I did my internship and residency at Bethesda Naval Hospital and was taught by many very fine doctors, all active duty. I was stationed at three different Navy hospitals and met hundreds and hundreds of military personnel, most of them enlisted.

All I can say is: Mr. Rangel, you're an idiot.

And Cliff Woodhall, though apparently not a doctor, wants to give Rangel a taste of his own medicine:

Both you and your readers have been pretty hard on Rangel over the past couple of days. A closer reading of his remarks suggests that he deserves our compassion, not our contempt. Rangel's words clearly reflect his act of lashing out. Most of us realize, from personal experience, that attacking the life choices made by others is quite often a way of expressing disappointment in one's own choices regarding life and career.

Mr. Rangel is, after all, a congressman, a job held in scorn, disparaged and disrespected by the general population, a constantly recurring punch line in the comic monologue of our late-night talk-show hosts. Most of a congressman's life between elections is spent "raising money" for his next election, "raising money" now being a phrase generally accepted in Washington as selling one's ability to write legislation to lobbyists, a procedure that involves, at best, compromising one's own most deeply held beliefs and, at worst, the acceptance of outright bribery. In short, it is not the sort of life that one dreams of when growing up.

It is generally acknowledged that an industrious person can earn more money working in the private sector than the public one. Sadly, however, it is a fact that America is a ruthless meritocracy, with the best and highest-paying jobs awarded to those who have the most talent or ability to perform them. Members of society who lack the skill to produce a product or provide a service for which others will pay money are forced to take whatever may be available in those jobs left over.

We don't know what sad circumstances, many perhaps not of his own choosing, have forced Mr. Rangel into his position as a congressman, but we can say with some certainty:

If a young fellow has an option of having a decent career or selling himself out to the highest paying lobbyist so as to become a member of Congress, you can bet your life that he would not be in Congress. If there's anyone who believes these youngsters want to spend their life arguing with each other and viciously maligning anyone with whom they disagree, you can just forget about it. No bright young individual wants to fight just to seize public funds for himself and his friends. And most of them come from backgrounds of very, very questionable ethical and moral circumstances, making it harder to get real jobs.

Indeed, the biography page on Rangel's Web site says that "he has spent his entire career in public service," the poor man. It turns out, moreover, that Rangel himself was in the military:

Congressman Rangel served in the U.S. Army from 1948-52, during which time he fought in Korea and was awarded the Purple Heart and Bronze Star.

So maybe his contempt for American servicemen is actually a manifestation of his own self-loathing--that is, perhaps he is seeking to scapegoat the military for his own disappointments in life.

But this is unfair. Many people who serve in the military go on to be quite successful. "There seems to be more than a modicum of truth in the belief that military leaders make good corporate executives," IAfrica.com reported in July. According to a study by Korn/Ferry International, "companies led by CEOs with military experience have outperformed the S&P 500 index over the past three, five and ten-year periods by as much as 20 percentage points."

[darrels joy]

We should all remember that the MSM is getting stories from the bad guys. One is a man who, among other stories, told one about civil war breaking out with one side burning lots of people on the other side to death. He told the media that he was a cop which he is/was not.

This never happened. The story was a fake designed to scare us out of the middle of a civil war in Iraq. He told other stories too.

Sigh

Joy

[Robert Ryan]

Just deplorable by a so called leader of this nation.

[SuperScout]

... "so called leader of this nation..."

Charles Rangel (Democrat - NY ) is to leadership of this nation as accordions are to French militarty tactics.

[exlrrp]

Your guys never let up , do ya, fabricating insults where there is none.
Saw you do it on Kerrry and other people too--I know some of you here have fabricated and blown thngs out of proportion Ive said, too so I really don't expect much more. When you got nothing at all on your side but to garble people's meaning, youre a Republican.
Rangel is a combat vet from Korea--OOPS he's a Democrat so lets all slam what he says.
I'm a a combat vet too--I take that to mean I can say whatever I want. I'm a Democrat too so that means have an open season on my combat record ( I DID smoke pot, I did go AWOL--just like George BUsh--but unlike Bush I showed up to sign my discharge)
Over 2800 Americans killed in Iraq for a war the Republicans had to phony up eveidence to get us into and all you have to worry about is what a Democrat says about the draft. Bush has to go to Jordan because he's too chickenshit to meet the Iraqi Prime Minister in Iraq and youre slamming a combat veteran.
Republicans would rather have you vote for drunken drivers and draft dodgers than decorated Vietnam vets as the last 2 presidential elections show so well
well here's a finger back to everyone who signed onto this BS