1960's Anti-War Democrats Want to Reinstate the Draft?

CBS's Face the Nation hasn't issued the transcript yet, but here's the opening line from their report on Congressman Charlie Rangel's (D-NY) performance this morning:

Rangel Will Push To Bring Back The Draft
N.Y. Dem Says U.S. Needs More Military To Face Iraq And New Challenges
Face the Nation
Nov. 19, 2006

A senior House Democrat said Sunday he will introduce legislation to reinstate the military draft, asserting that current troop levels are insufficient to sustain possible challenges against Iran, North Korea and Iraq.

"There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way," Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) said on CBS News' Face the Nation.

Rangel, a veteran of the Korean War who has unsuccessfully sponsored legislation on conscription in the past, said he will propose the measure early next year.

At a time when some lawmakers are urging the military to send more troops to Iraq, "I don't see how anyone can support the war and not support the draft," he told Bob Schieffer.

Anyone else notice the problem here? On the one hand, Rangel is saying we need additional forces to counter "challenges against Iran, North Korea and Iraq" and immediately afterwards, admits that his draft proposal is nothing more than an effort to cripple any future U.S. military activity.

You would think that the last thing these dinosaurs of the 1960's, who witnessed first hand the burning of draft cards or exodus to Canada (or in Bill Clinton's case: England), would want is a return to a policy that was so divisive and destructive.

Put aside for a moment the weighty body of evidence showing the quality of our current forces, how representative they are of the population as a whole and how committed they are to their mission.

If Rangel really believed we needed a STRONGER military, than why does he consistently vote against funding it? The Center for Security Policy ranks him at ZERO in terms of supporting US National Security.

Rangel's advocacy of a renewed draft would be laughable if Democrat's didn't currently hold both houses of the legislature. But the anti-military, anti-security attitudes Rangel's idiotic proposal represents will soon find some form of expression.

Finally, Charlie says "I don't see how anyone can support the war and not support the draft." Are we to take it that the converse is true, and that since Charlie supports the draft, he now supports the war?

I say let Rangel and likeminded Democrats push this proposal. Let all the people who voted for Democrats to gain power realize that doing so might mean forced conscription to Charlie Rangel's wars in Iraq, Iran and North Korea.