Rangel Does It Again
By Michael P. Tremoglie (02/18/05)
Two years ago, I wrote an article for Front Page detailing the distortions by New York Congressman Charles Rangel about those who serve in the military. Rangel wanted to implement a military draft because he said that those in the military, who would be called to die in an invasion of Iraq, would be disproportionately minority.
This was not true.
On February 13, 2005, while appearing on NBC’s Meet the Press, Rangel, a decorated Korean War veteran, made this specious statement to host Tim Russert, "We're fighting this war with other people's kids." Implying that rich kids are not serving and poor kids are. Rangel continued his sophistry by saying Americans, "don't want their children to die for other people's freedom."
Not only are these remarks specious they are extremely ironic for two reasons.
The first reason is that Rangel risked his life in Korea for the freedom of other people - South Koreans. Of course, the Korean War was about preventing the spread of communism so, ultimately, Rangel risked his life for the freedom of his fellow citizens - many of whom did not consider him a citizen.
During the show Rangel claimed, "I'm telling you, we went into Iraq not for elections. We went there to knock off Saddam Hussein, but the American people thought it was connected with 9/11, there was (sic) weapons of mass destruction, there were connections with al Qaeda. It was all a fraud."
This too is a fallacy.
President Bush addressed the nation on March 19, 2003 about his decision to invade Iraq. These are excerpts from that address which mentioned the reasons for invading Iraq. He said, “American and coalition forces are in …military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger. …helping Iraqis achieve a united, stable and free country will require our sustained commitment….We have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people….Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly -- yet, our purpose is sure. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder. We will meet that threat now, with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and Marines, so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of fire fighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities.…We will defend our freedom. We will bring freedom to others.”
He mentions WMD’s once, he mentions the Iraqi people several times. Rangel was incorrect.
The second irony of Rangel’s pronouncement that Americans do not want to die for other people’s freedom is that he said this during Black History Month. This month recalls the history of former citizens who were slaves, whose emancipation was the result of tens of thousands of Americans who willingly sacrificed their lives.
Many Americans kids died for other people’s freedom during the Civil War. Several hundred thousand Americans were killed furnishing freedom to people who were a different race. They were killed for people they would never know.
While the Civil War was an issue of national security, it was also an issue of ending tyranny. Slavery was immoral and the nation purged this immoral practice.
If we would use Rangel’s logic - indeed if we would use the logic of Ward Churchill, Noam Chomsky, Howard Dean, and other academicians, clergy, journalists, and politicians who opposed the war – there would not have been a Civil War. Those opposing the Civil War simply would have said since the Confederate States never invaded the Union it was an unjust war. They would have claimed that there was no moral authority to conduct the war. They would have said that innocent citizens would be killed.
In other words, they would have said exactly the same claims that the soi dissent “peace” activists make today.
It is unconscionable for Rangel to demean the courage of the Iraqi people who risked their lives to vote – just as his fellow African-Americans risked their lives to vote. It is contemptible that he - by implication – would promote the cause of the Baathist/Islamist terrorists who, like the Ku Klux Klan, terrorize innocent, liberty loving Iraqis who wanted to vote just as his fellow African Americans wanted to vote and were terrorized so they would not vote.
The Iraqi people chose democracy instead of dictatorship. It was the American military –Americans of all classes, races, and ethnicities – who provided them the opportunity.
Whether you were for or against the war, this cannot be denied.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Michael P. Tremoglie
