Bottom Line Up Front: D-Charlie Rangel believes soldiers serving in Iraq are there because they couldn’t get a “decent career.”

Who hates the military more; Bill Clinton who wrote in 1969 that he “loathed the military”? John Kerry who joked that soldiers are uneducated and stupid? Charlie Rangel who believes the military isn’t a “decent career”? It’s hard to say, but new comments from D-Congressman Charles Rangel of NY are yet another example in a long line of put downs aimed at the military from Democrats. Rangel on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace said this:

I want to make it abundantly clear: if there’s anyone who believes that these youngsters want to fight, as the Pentagon and some generals have said, you can just forget about it. No young, bright individual wants to fight just because of a bonus and just because of educational benefits. And most all of them come from communities of very, very high unemployment. 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.

Before addressing the insult, let’s address the error. The Heritage Foundation Report: Who Bears the Burden? did an in depth analysis of U.S. military demographics to include household income, level of education, race/ethnicity, and region/rural origin. Here are some of their findings:

ON INCOME:
Indeed, the U.S. military’s qualitative superiority is what makes it the most efficient and lethal combat force in history. In economic terms, high-skill human capital among troops makes the military more productive overall.

The proportion of high-income recruits rose to a disproportionately high level after the war on ter­rorism began, as did the proportion of highly edu­cated enlistees .

We found that recruits tend to come from mid­dle-class areas, with disproportionately fewer from low-income areas.

On average, recruits in 2003 were from wealthier neighborhoods than were recruits in 1999.

Very few recruits—less than 5 percent—came from neighborhoods with average incomes below $20,000 per household.

ON EDUCATION:
We find that, on average, recruits tend to be much more highly educated than the general pub­lic and that this education disparity increased after the war on terrorism began.

98 percent of all enlisted recruits who enter the military have an education level of high school graduate or higher, compared to the national aver­age of 75 percent.

In summary, we found that, on average, 1999 recruits were more highly educated than the equiv­alent general population, more rural and less urban in origin, and of similar income status. We did not find evidence of minority racial exploitation.

RACIAL REPRESENTATION:
The demographic data on race reveal that mili­tary enlistees are not, in fact, more heavily recruited from black neighborhoods.

The Washington Times reported last year that “Middle-class youths, not the poor, are providing the bulk of wartime recruits to the armed forces. The poorest neighborhoods provided 18 percent of recruits in prewar 1999 and 14.6 percent in 2003. By contrast, areas where household incomes ranged from $30,000 to $200,000 provided more than 85 percent.” Hmmm…..

When confronted by Chris Wallace about these statistics, Rangel summarily dismissed it with no counterargument. He also said in on Fox News Sunday:

Those with the least opportunity at this age find themselves in the military, as I did when I was 18 years old.

Time to question his patriotism: Rangel just admitted he joined the military because he had no opportunity. Duty? Honor? Country? Cash? At least Rangel admits the military offers opportunity in hopeless situations.

Oddly enough, Rangel can portray his service as a result of not having any decent job alternatives, but it led to his career in the House of Representatives. It could be said that if someone had the option of a decent career or becoming a Congressman we can bet no one would choose to be a Congressman.

Here are some suggestions for the Congressman from New York: He should speak for himself, and only when spoken to, HOOAH? He should do some research and accept the findings. He should learn English and ditch ebonics. He should stop referring to GEN Abizaid as “the top military guy over there” if he wants any credibility with the military.

The good news is that Rangel is echoing the true belief in the Democratic party about the military loud and clear. Their “love the soldier, hate the military” attitude is as believable to those in uniform as the “love America, burn the flag” ideology is to the average American, or “love the sinner, hate the sin” principle sounds to the average homosexual. No one believes it except the one saying it.

The fact is that liberals like Rangel are so out of touch with practical patriotism that there is no other explanation in their fascist brains other than to assume it is either stupidity, trickery or poverty that traps a young man into military service. These liberals who love their freedom of speech but disrespect the soldier (who guarantees it) are the cornerstone of the egotistical, spoiled elitism that has become the Democratic party. Duty, honor, country is simply an out of date slogan to liberals replaced by “Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you.“

Rangel said last week:

It seemed to me there’s not enough patriotism in this country to warrant us going to Iraq and staying in Iraq.”

Clearly, Rangel has not been talking to servicemen when coming to his conclusions. In order to make such a statement, Rangel must fundamentally discount the overwhelming patriotism of soldiers who continue to re-enlist to go back to Iraq and Afghanistan in this war on terror. He doesn’t understand the kind of patriotism which prompts a person to risk their lives to save others. Hypocritically, Rangel praised the firefighters of 9/11 who entered the burning World Trade Centers to save others. Really, if young firefighters had “an option of having a decent career or joining the fire department to fight blazes in New York, you can bet your life that they would not be in the NYFD,” right Rangel? To his credit, Rangel hasn’t been praising any vocations lately but the Democratic Congressmen in the House. At least we know where he stands.

David S.C. Chu, undersecretary of Defense for personnel and readiness, said in October that one of the main reasons recruitment and reenlistments are high is because of

“Patriotism. One of the things we read into the survey results of young Americans today is (that) patriotism has risen to a much higher place on the list of reasons why people join the military. In a sense, we are seeing right before our eyes the unfolding of a new ‘greatest generation’ in the history of our republic.”

Chu said enlistments lag in New England and the upper Midwest and are strong in all other parts of the country. Patriotism lags in New England? And apparently New York.

Cross-posted @ Amy’s Blog: Bottom Line Up Front

1. Rangel’s comments are just as insulting as Kerry’s. So why isn’t he getting nailed in the MSM?

   Comment by John Sobieski — November 27, 2006 @ 4:38 pm

2. Rangal is a good reason why people in his district have no opportunity as are the parents of these children who find themselves in a dead-end location. That is the point of this. It is not that these kids have no future. It is simply that there is no future where they live. As it so happens, more often then not, the regions with little/no opportunities are Democrat controlled.

   Shame on Rangel for providing no opportunities for his ‘people.’

   Comment by Fred Fry — November 27, 2006 @ 5:07 pm

3. Rangel’s a strange one — he voted against a draft bill in the Congress in 2004. The Wall Street Journal had a great “hot topic” on Iraq force levels this weekend. I put up an blog post critical of Rangel and citing other sources showing how an all volunteer military is vastly superior to a conscript army. Take care.

   Comment by Donald Douglas — November 27, 2006 @ 10:59 pm