What's got Charlie Rangelled?

Is Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., just a jaundiced, miserable, old curmudgeon – a military hater – or does he resent the current administration to the exclusion of all objectivity? The aforementioned questions notwithstanding, Rangel has launched more of his yellow vitriol at our military in an attempt to belittle our president.

On the "Hannity & Colmes" show (Fox News Channel – July 21, 2003), Rangel bawled out: "We have a law on the books that the United States should not be assassinating anybody" – a reference to the deaths of Saddam Hussein's sons, Uday and Qusay, by the U.S. led coalition forces. His position being that the U.S. is in an undeclared war and, in the absence of same, "Executive Order 12333, Part 2: 2-11 expressly states 'No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States government, shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassinations.'"

TRENDING: Is America having a near-death experience, or is this the end?

Let me first acknowledge he is correct with respect to "Executive Order 12333," but he is either knowingly disingenuous or senile to associate said order with the military operation in Iraq.

Further, why did he not produce the same argument in the Nicaraguan "Contra" War, or during the U.S. intervention in Lebanon? Why did he not argue this point when then-President Clinton was bombing aspirin factories and janitors? Was he unaware of U.S. involvement in Kosovo?

I would further point out that if our brave men and women are today being reduced to murderous assassins in an undeclared war, what does his military service in the Korean "conflict" make him? Would it not also reduce him to the same level?

Rangel's continued ignominious, gutteralizations are a slap in the face of the men and women serving our country. His malevolent taunts of "How can you get so much satisfaction that two bums have been killed? We got bums all over the world and some in the United States" and "I personally don't get any satisfaction that it takes 200,000 troops, 250,000 troops, to knock off two bums" are beyond the pale, even by the hemipteran standards he continues to set.

Rangel's actions are akin to those of a nulliparous woman in that he has watched President Bush (the "dumbest man in America" and the "least-qualified president since Martin Sheen") take principled positions and make historical decisions, while he can only look at the vacuous content of his own record.

In the areas that count, Rangel's congressional record is nilpotent. He can point to his record and single out H.RES. 50 that would have the president clear the name of Marcus Garvey, but the legacy of Marcus Garvey is Liberia.

I suggest Rangel promote the New York City Police Department in a positive way and advocate scholarships for the children of detectives Rodney Andrews and James Nemorin.

I would argue that while there may be a modicum of debatable value to his initiative of empowerment zones – the real empowerment zones should be the family – as in "let's once and for all confront the issue of out-of-wedlock children," and I do not suggest doing so by advocating the Sanger method.

A real empowerment zone would be to tangibly address New York City's failing public-school system. One could submit that if Rangel were truly about empowerment, he would confront the problem of New York teachers who are unable to pass certification exams, so the teachers instructing the students who will ultimately be applying for his "medical studies scholarships" could read and comprehend that which they are teaching.

An example of an empowerment zone would be for Rangel to take off his cufflinks and remove his tailored suits, and gather volunteers to go door to door, block by block, neighborhood by neighborhood conjunctively with law enforcement to rid said environs of drugs, guns and the criminals who traffic in all that same represents.

You see Charlie, our military and our president are confronting evil where it exists. You, my friend, are just ... well you get my drift.