Draft bill voted down 402/2; sponsor Rangel defines hypocricy
Beldar
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 hypocricy 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. |
