I think you seem a little bogged down in the legislative process here Karol. Rangel voted against his own bill because, as the article you link to clearly shows, he was frustrated with what appeared to be a House GOP effort to rush the bill to the floor with no debate or testimony. The minority party in the House simply does not have the rights that the minority in the Senate has. This clearly won't be a repeat of two years ago since the situation has clearly changed. Rangel now has the votes to get a hearing though it would be hard for me to imagine the bill would pass. I don't think is quite the joke you seem to think it is.

Well, Rangel's pretty-much-explicitly-stated goal is to instill a Vietnam-era style of mistrust and resentment of the military in today's draft-age population.

Of course, it's much more likely to instill a 2007-style mistrust and resentment of the dinosaurs of the Democratic Party.

Way to go, Chuck!

I generally loathe fashiable cliches (and especially the no-longer-fashionable ones) but I can't get away from "stuck on stupid" when thinking about the upcoming Congress....

Although I don't believe we should be fighting this war, I'm not opposed to a draft in order to increase the number of troops fighting this war. At the very least, a draft will raise the average IQ of the military.

Chuckie Rangel believes we should bring the troops home, but rather than call for the President to bring the troops home, Rangel thinks we should send people to fight who don't even want to be in the military.

I wonder how many beers in a Harlem jazz club it takes before that sounds like a prudent idea.

Mark Poling hit the nail on the head when he says this is merely a cynical attempt by Rangel to institute a culture of mistrust and resentment of the military, Vietnam-era style.

He'd make a fine poker opponent, though.