Tea Party's Concern for Veterans is Short-Lived

During the shutdown, Rep. Blake Farenthold was one of the 'bagger reps exploiting veterans for political gain. When veterans learned that the WWII Memorial was closed, Farenthold was right there, making sure the barricades were pulled away. See, during a government shutdown, the real important thing is not making sure that families have food assistance, that homeless shelters remain open, or that the families of soldiers killed in action received death benefits. No, what was really important was to get plenty of photos of Rep. Blake Farenthold and other Republicans gladhanding vets, blackslapping each other, and generally acting like moving a temporary fence was pretty much equal to landing at Normandy themselves.

"Today, I was proud to join some of my fellow Texas members in welcoming WWII veterans from the Dallas/Ft. Worth area 'Honor Flight' to the World War II Memorial in D.C.," Farenthold said in a Facebook statement at the time. "These heroes made the ultimate sacrifice in serving our nation - and no barricade should prevent them from visiting their memorial."

Strictly speaking, the "ultimate sacrifice" would be dying, since "ultimate" means "last." So they haven't actually made that sacrifice for Blake Farenthold's freedom quite yet -- but Blake's working on that.

Burnt Orange Report: Farenthold sat down with Kristv news to discuss what exactly the shutdown did to the country and his motives for supporting it.

Kristv news quickly pointed out that many of Farenthold's constituents have said they will not vote for him again. Kristv asked Farenthold about the people who say he's lost their vote; people like retired veterans who were on the verge of losing their disability checks next month.

"I feel like my mandate when I was elected was to go reduce the size of government, lower taxes, and increase freedom, and freedom isn't free, and sometimes you have to make a small sacrifice to move forward with what you're after," Congressman Farenthold said.

CONTINUE TO POST>>

Shinseki the Realist

I would say that what's been mobilized to this point -- something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers are probably, you know, a figure that would be required. We're talking about posthostilities control over a piece of geography that's fairly significant, with the kinds of ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems. And so it takes a significant ground-force presence.
-General Eric Shinseki to Sen. Carl Levin of the Senate Armed Services Committee, on the size of the force required to invade Iraq, 2003.

That got Shinseki fired. Then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld had long argued that the US needed to use a lighter force, with the emphasis on speed, and that anything else was fighting a 21st century war from a cold war mindset. Needless to say, Shinseki was right. Rumsfeld's strategy was shortsighted and simpleminded. When we invaded Iraq, our forces were too few to defend gains. We'd chase fighters off, declare victory, then roll of in a triumphant cloud of dust. Then the fighters would return and we'd be gone. This boneheaded "strategy" of Rumsfeld's had entirely predictable results. We'd chase off Iraqi guards from munitions stores, roll off in our big American cloud, and leave these ammo dumps completely unguarded, because we didn't have enough personnel to leave behind. Munitions captured by militias and terrorists are probably still being used as IEDs to this day. Donald Rumsfeld's brilliant plan for a light, fast fighting force was just as idiotic as it seemed to be.

But before all that happened, before Shinseki was proven right, the general was forced into retirement for not buying the neocon line. Rumsfeld said Shinseki's estimate in senate testimony "will prove to be high." Deputy SecDef Paul Wolfowitz said his numbers were "way off the mark."

It wasn't until 2006 that anyone admitted that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz had bet on the wrong horse. "General Shinseki was right," Gen. John Abizaid, chief of U.S. Central Command, told that same committee three years later. Bush's "surge," while coming too late to correct the neocon vision for the military of the future, was basically an admission -- three years after the fact -- that Shinseki was right and the Rumsfeldian's side of the argument was as wrong as any ten year-old could've told them they were. As a result, Bush wound up claiming success for his surge, although the decrease in violence was due more to successful ethnic cleansing campaigns by militias and insurgents that might have been avoided. Violence had died down not because of an increased military presence, but because the killers had run out of people to kill. Rumsfeld's brilliant new strategy not only cost him his own job, but also countless lives. Entire neighborhoods went dark, the residents either dead or refugees.





All of which makes this a lot better news than you'd normally take it as being.

Washington Post:

President-elect Barack introduced retired Army Gen. Eric K. Shinseki as his nominee to head the Department of Veterans Affairs, bringing to his Cabinet a career military officer best known for running afoul of the Bush administration by questioning the Pentagon's Iraq war strategy.

Shinseki, a four-star general and 38-year veteran who retired shortly after the fall of Baghdad in 2003, appeared with Obama in Chicago at a news conference today commemorating the 67th anniversary of the Japanese attacks on Pearl Harbor. Obama said Shinseki agreed to join the incoming administration because "both he and I share a reverence for those who serve."

"When I reflect on the sacrifices that have been made by our veterans and I think about how so many veterans around the country are struggling even more than those who have not served -- higher unemployment rates, higher homeless rates, higher substance-abuse rates, medical care that is inadequate -- it breaks my heart, and I think that General Shinseki is exactly the right person who is going to be able to make sure that we honor our troops when they come home," Obama told NBC News' Tom Brokaw in a interview taped for broadcast today on "Meet the Press."

"If Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and [former undersecretary for defense Douglas J.] Feith had listened to Shinseki, there wouldn't be as many wounded veterans to take care of," middle east expert Juan Cole told WaPo. "I think this is a way of saying, 'Here was a career officer who had valuable insights who was shunted aside by arrogant civilians, and we're not going to make the same kind of mistakes.'" Cole expands on his comments in a post at his blog, Informed Comment, saying "Wolfowitz was wrong about everything" and "Rumsfeld either did not know or did not care about" the responsibilities -- including those under international law -- of an occupying force.

Gen. Shinseki won't have an easy job at the VA. That department has been allowed to fester under Bush. The president who's been positively eager to hide behind the military and accuse critics of "not supporting the troops" has been an astonishingly awful president for vets. There's been the Walter Reed hospital scandal, there have been cuts to veterans' benefits, 25% of all homeless are veterans, and veteran suicides are rising. This won't be a cushy job to reward someone who stood up to the neocons in defense of reality. This will be real work.

But it's also a return to sanity. Shinseki was punished by the civilians at Bush's Defense Department for daring to bring the real world to the table. As an example of the bass-ackward thinking of the neocons, Gen. Shinseki's treatment by them is pretty much perfect.

If you want proof that government is back in the business of dealing with reality and not the neocon fantasyworld where wishing makes it so, here you go. Gen. Eric Shinseki was appointed because of his track record, not because he buys the correct ideology.

The days of sycophantic government are nearly over.

-Wisco

Occupation, Inc.

The number being reported is "at least $85 billion," but when talking about money and Iraq, the truth is always murky. In a war practically run by war profiteers, the number is likely to be higher. The upper estimate of the amount of public dollars we've paid private contractors in Iraq is more than $100 billion. Normally, erring on the side of caution would require you to assume the lower figure -- which is why that number is being used in the media. But when we consider the history of waste, corruption, and corporate malfeasance involved in the occupation of Iraq, the higher number seems the safer estimate.

The higher figure comes from Voice of America. In their story, the cite Peter Orszag of the Congressional Budget Office [CBO], who said, "The federal government has awarded $85 billion in contracts for work in [the] Iraq theater through 2007. If you included this year, the total would exceed $100 billion: roughly one of every $5 for the cost of the war in Iraq." The piece goes on:

Orszag says the use of private contractors in U.S. military engagements is not new. What is new, however, is the extent of the reliance on private firms. The Iraq war marks the first time in which the number of private personnel has equaled or exceeded the number of military personnel. By contrast, the CBO report notes that, during World War II, military personnel outnumbered private contractors by a ratio of seven-to-one.

Given what they're being paid and how much we're relying on them, you'd think that private contractors are doing just an astonishingly great job of whatever the hell it is we're hiring them to do.

Of course, you'd be wrong.



What a lousy job contractors were doing became one of the early stories of the occupation. Mega-construction company Bechtel -- fresh off royally screwing up Boston's "Big Dig" -- was hired in a no-bid contract to reconstruct Iraq's schools. It didn't go well.

CorpWatch:

Headmaster Abdel-Razzaq Ali's school is located in a predominantly Shi'ite quarter in a poor area of Baghdad. More than 1,500 students attend the Anbariyn School in two shifts: boys in the morning, girls in the afternoon. Looting has never been a problem at his school. But Abdel-Razzaq has his share of problems in the new Iraq. "The parents are constantly complaining to me, but who can I complain to?" he wonders. He is particularly skeptical about the refurbishment plans for the school, which are being carried out by Bechtel Corporation.

[...]

At the start of the program Abdel-Razzaq received a visit from a representative of the Iraqi company, Adnan Mussawi, which Bechtel subcontracted to carry out the work. The headmaster was asked to sign a declaration that the work had been completed, which he refused to do until the work had actually been done. Twenty days later, the walls were painted, the rusty doors painted over, new electric cables laid, and some of the sanitary facilities replaced. However, the real problem with the toilets -- namely the sewage pipes -- were left untouched. So Abdel-Razzaq is sure that next winter once more, there will be a lake of sewage in the bathrooms.

Most of the cheap plastic cisterns are already broken. Even a broken banister that resulted in one child falling one floor down - was not considered to be part of Bechtel's renovation plan. So the director ordered to weld it again, paying the work out of his own pocket. The work on the school, according to Abdel-Razzaq, was completed without a single person from the Bechtel corporation appraising the work. "Why do we need Bechtel? They have done absolutely nothing," he said.

"Cronyism is an important factor in our Iraqi debacle. It's not just that reconstruction is much more expensive than it should be," wrote the New York Times' Paul Krugman in 2003. "The really important thing is that cronyism is warping policy: by treating contracts as prizes to be handed to their friends, administration officials are delaying Iraq's recovery, with potentially catastrophic consequences."

Other examples of the great job these corporate cronies/US contractors did were serving contaminated water and spoiled food to troops (while overcharging the government for it) and the scandalous conditions wounded vets were forced to deal with at Walter Reed. We won't even go into mercenary forces like Blackwater.

To add insult to injury, all of this privatization didn't save us anything. "According to the report, the yearly cost of maintaining a single private contractor in Iraq can approach half a million dollars -- far exceeding the annual pay of even the most senior military commanders," VOA reports.

None of this should surprise anyone who's had elementary school math. Where corporations must turn a profit, government doesn't have to. If something costs X, it costs a for-profit X+profit. For the record, the latter is more than the former. The only way to squeeze X+profit out of X is to reduce the value of X. The line given by privatization fans is that this is done magically with "increased efficiency," but history and the facts show that this is done by cutting corners and doing what is normally referred to as a "half-assed job." When you get right down to it, corporations increase their profit margins by doing as little as they can get away with, while charging as much as they can get away with.

And so we have contractors electrocuting troops with lousy wiring. We have contractors whose employees' idea of a good time consists of kidnapping and rape. We wind up spending $100 billion for lousy, sub-standard work performed by corrupt contractors and their sociopathic employees.

And our problems here aren't ending any time soon. A new study finds that troops returning from combat face "the unholy trinity" of "alcohol abuse, post-traumatic stress disorder and depression." For all the drawbacks and limitations of the care these returning vets get, at least it exists. Returning contractors have no such support structure. The war comes home with them.

All in all, I'd say that if the occupation of Iraq proves anything, it proves that privatization of the military turns out to be a real bad idea. It's a failed experiment whose result was entirely predictable -- more business in war means more war profiteering means more corruption, more waste, more crime, and more death.

By having more contractors than troops in Iraq, we've proved that a stupid idea is a stupid idea. Here's hoping that lesson sticks.

-Wisco

Rule of Law? What Rule of Law?

Big news. Last night, Rep. Dennis Kucinich presented articles of impeachment against George W. Bush. Thirty-five counts in all. Big, big news...

Except it's not. Flipping through the channels this morning, I saw nothing about this. As far as the mainstream media is concerned, it never happened. We watch crime after crime after crime revealed, but holding the criminal accountable is completely out of the question.

The Democratic leadership likewise looks the other way, declaring impeachment "off the table" for political reasons. Far from holding the administration accountable for their undeniable crimes, the media would rather pretend they don't exist and cover the horse race of the election, while congressional leadership pretends that hearings without consequences and empty expressions of outrage are punishment enough. The truth is, that's not punishment at all. Bush and the rest of the bloodsoaked neocon crew, with shreds of the Constitution still hanging from their fingers, are going to get a stern talking-to, believe you me Buster and no two ways about it. They won't avoid the wagging congressional finger, the Harry Reid letter of miffedness, the Nancy Pelosi statement of irk, but any actual lasting consequence for their actions is completely out of the question. At this point, it could be revealed that Bush and Cheney have Iraqi children for breakfast every morning and all that would happen would be that they receive a letter respectfully asking them to stop -- please, if they feel like it.

Although not criminal in any legal sense, one issue where the Bush administration's moral criminality is most apparent is on the 21st Century GI Bill. Bush and Cheney are constantly hiding behind soldiers and veterans, constantly telling us that disagreeing with their stupid and pointless war in Iraq is somehow abandoning the troops. Bush is the military, any criticism of Bush is magically transformed into "not supporting the troops."

Meanwhile, Bush does absolutely jack for soldiers in the field and even less for those who come home. Bush and Cheney can't be bothered with funerals -- in fact, for a while there, they'd rather pretend there were no casualties at all, barring any photos of returning caskets. For the Bush administration, war is like crime -- neither has any consequence at all. Soldiers are pawns in every situation; when war crimes are ordered, the soldiers who carried out the orders are convicted -- those giving the orders go on talking head shows to be asked polite questions. If they can't fight anymore, they're warehoused in moldy VA hospitals. If veterans make up a significant percentage of the homeless, then that's just too bad -- there's nothing anyone can do. If the Army is experiencing an epidemic of suicides, prepare a press release about all the stuff you're going to to do address the problem -- then prepare a nearly identical one for next year when the token measures you implemented did absolutely nothing to address the problem. Do as little as you can get away with -- and, with a weak-kneed opposition party leadership, that's a pretty much limitless category -- and demand everything of them. Sacrifice is, after all, a one way street, leading in the opposite direction of the White House. The administration proposes, but the soldier disposes. And all the lost and ruined lives the White House leaves in their wake are irrelevant. It's the cost of freedom and it's a cost that someone other than the neocons pay.

"The day will come when the mission he served has been completed and the fighting is over, and freedom and security have prevailed," President Bush said in giving a posthumous Medal of Honor to Private First Class Ross Andrew McGinnis. "America will never forget those who came forward to bear the battle. America will always honor the name of this brave soldier who gave all for his country, and was taken to rest at age 19."

Yeah, about that...

Army Times:

The father of the nation’s latest Medal of Honor recipient has publicly called for President Bush to endorse a veterans’ education benefits bill being negotiated in Congress.

“I feel there is someone out there more important than [my wife] Romayne and I, and that is the troops who are still active,” Tom McGinnis said as he thanked family and friends for their support. “It’s important that we show them our appreciation … so that they are reminded that they are appreciated and will be welcomed when they come home.”

[...]

Spc. Ross McGinnis used his body to smother a grenade that had been thrown into his Humvee while on patrol Dec. 4, 2006, in Adhamiyah. Ross McGinnis, 19, was killed in the blast, but his actions saved the lives of the other four soldiers in the truck.

"I could talk about it to my friends all I want,” McGinnis said. “What good is that going to do? If I didn’t do it when I was down there at the Pentagon or the White House, one of the two, when will I ever have the chance to make an impact? I did what I felt was right, whether it was right or not."

The provision "covers the full cost of tuition and fees at any four-year public college or university and provides a monthly living allowance and an annual payment to cover books and supplies." Bush has promised to veto it. Remember, we expect everything from the soldier and nothing from Bush. That's the way things work these days.

The good news is that the 21st Century GI Bill is extremely popular. About 80% of Americans say that veterans are getting a raw deal under the old GI BIll and about 90% think we should update it.

But the Bush administration is joined by John McCain in opposing the bill, saying it would provide an incentive for troops to leave the service and go to college. It's a stupid argument -- what incentive is there to enlist in the first place? What Bush and McCain seem to envision is a military where people enlist and nearly 100% make it their career. It's not an extremely realistic vision, but visions rarely are. You'll notice that Bush didn't make the military his career, but walking the walk and talking the talk are two different things.

Of course, it looks like a veto would be overridden. An override is an almost sure bet in the Senate and a good bet in the House. But Bush, who's established long ago that he's above the law, could conceivably ignore the override. He's used "signing statements" as an unconstitutional stealth veto, which allows him to interpret the law any way he wants to. Bush could sign the 21st Century GI BIll into law and add, "Yeah, but we don't have to do any of that."

And then what would happen?

The wagging congressional finger, the Harry Reid letter of miffedness, the Nancy Pelosi statement of irk. Break the law all you want, Mr. President, but don't expect to get away without a lecture you can go ahead and ignore. The President of the United States has become a lawless position, with no danger of ever paying any price for the office's crimes. Nancy and Harry have seen to that.

Until there's some sort of consequence for the crimes Bush has committed, he has no incentive to ever obey the law. Token resistance from the lawmaking body makes sure of that. Future executives will be able to point to the Bush administration and say there's no such thing as an impeachable offense -- that precedent will have been established by Pelosi and Reid.

So cheer on legislation that Bush doesn't want. Just don't expect him to obey those laws or to implement their requirements. There's no reason him to.

Well, other than the rule of law, which has been allowed to degenerate into a quaint and ancient pretense. The justice and oversight muscle, unused, has been allowed to atrophy.

-Wisco

Technorati tags: politics; war; Bush; Cheney; White House; neocon; veterans; war; Dennis Kucinich; law; crime; Constitution; impeachment; Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have established that there's no such thing as an impeachable offense

McCain's Stand on Veterans is to Stand on Veterans

The ABC News blog, Political Radar, summed it up this way; "Obama Tells Veterans: 'I WIll Not Let You Down'." Speaking to a town hall in Las Cruces, New Mexico, Obama told vets:

We should make sure that today’s veterans get the same benefit that my grandfather got when he came back from World War II. It was a good investment not only for him, but it was a good investment for the country, built our middle class. So we're gonna make sure that that get's passed. Because we gotta have outstanding educational opportunities for our veterans when they come home.

"I will cede to no one the ability to talk about veterans’ issues," Obama said. "John McCain will have to decide whether he thinks that the current level of benefits is sufficient. If he does, then that’s a substantive debate that we’ll have in November."

Do I need to add that it was Memorial Day yesterday? For his part, John McCain spent his day defending his stand on increasing vets benefits under the 21st Century G.I. Bill -- he's against it. His reasoning mirrors George W. Bush's in that he's afraid that if you give veterans decent benefits, active duty personnel will quit to become veterans.

"In my life, I have learned more from noncommissioned officers I have known and served with than anyone else outside my family," McCain said at a competing New Mexican event in Albuquerque. "They are very hard to replace. Encouraging people to choose to not become noncommissioned officers would hurt the military and our country very badly."

Except the current debate is over a bill authored by Virginia senator Jim Webb -- former Secretary of the Navy under Ronald Reagan -- that merely updates the benefits given to veterans of WWII to the present market. In other words, this is catch-up. McCain's and Bush's arguments ignore history; the original G.I. Bill didn't destroy the military and bring America to her knees. McCain, who makes his political living posing as America's leading veteran, stands in opposition to almost every veterans' organization in the nation -- virtually all major vet groups support Webb's bill, including the typically right-leaning VFW. McCain, clearly, does not stand for veterans here. McCain stands for the military and puts that institution above the people of whom it's comprised.

Since McCain's opposition to the bill is identical to Bush's and since their arguments are likewise identical, a Memorial Day NYT editorial applies just as aptly to Baghdad Johnny as it does to the Commander in Chief.

He is wrong, but at least he is consistent. Having saddled the military with a botched, unwinnable war, having squandered soldiers’ lives and failed them in so many ways, the commander in chief now resists giving the troops a chance at better futures out of uniform. He does this on the ground that the bill is too generous and may discourage re-enlistment, further weakening the military he has done so much to break.

So lavish with other people’s sacrifices, so reckless in pouring the national treasure into the sandy pit of Iraq, Mr. Bush remains as cheap as ever when it comes to helping people at home.

And, while Bush was "pouring the national treasure into the sandy pit of Iraq," McCain's only real complaint was that he wasn't doing it fast enough. McCain's stand on Iraq has always been "more" -- more personnel, more money, more blood, more death, more throwing our reputation in the world down the toilet. With Baghdad Johnny it's always more, more, more. Like Bush, he assumes that if what you're doing isn't working, you do more of it. Unlike Bush, he comes to that conclusion months sooner.

Except, of course, when it comes to the G.I. Bill and veterans' benefits. Then the mantra is "less, less, less." Plenty of medals to hand out, many posthumous, but anything that might make these volunteers choose to improve their prospects outside of the military is bad. John McCain, as much as he talks about veterans, can't convincingly argue that he stands for them. McCain stands for the Department of Defense, the Pentagon, the Veterans' Administration, but not the veterans. Get down on that ground level, where you see that armies are made up of individual people, and John McCain is nowhere to be seen. He's hovering high above, where an army is one thing and the only reference to individuals is in the BS catch-phrase "support the troops."

A catch-phrase rendered meaningless by the lack of support it represents. Like those damned. stupid bumper magnets that people put on their cars or those idiotic little flag lapel pins that the Republicans pretend you're required by law to wear, McCain's support of the troops is for display purposes only. John McCain supports the troops in much the same way that a mattress sale supports Presidents' Day -- i.e., he doesn't. Veterans are just an excuse to run a sale on John McCain.

Of course, in Bush's case, the White House has a strategy; when you're getting bad press, attack the media. In a response to the NYT editorial, the White House said that the paper "doesn't let the facts get in the way of expressing its vitriolic opinions" and that the "editorial could not be farther from the truth about the President's record of leadership on this issue."

If had been about McCain -- and, as I've pointed out, to a certain extent it is -- you could expect the Straight-Talker to try to spin his way out of it in a very Bushian way.

It's bad enough that Bush hides behind soldiers whenever the going gets tough -- expect him to be surrounded by military personnel when he vetoes Webb's bill -- but when the opportunity arises to do them any good at all, he runs. This is shameful behavior from a US President and it's just as shameful from a presidential candidate like John McCain. If you think praising veterans while stabbing them in the back is a wonderful thing for a president to do, Baghdad Johnny's your man.

In the competing vet events yesterday, Barack Obama came out on top -- clearly and inarguably. John McCain's stand on veterans is to stand on veterans. To use them and, when you're done with them or they're rendered unusable, to throw them away. McCain's view on vets is a typically Republican view; a sink or swim argument that's loaded with market-tested words and phrases like "bootstraps" and "personal responsibility."

Bush will veto Webb's bill. And John McCain won't vote to override. He probably won't vote at all, showing that, for all his heroism and valor, he's a political coward.

Barack Obama proves that you don't have to be a vet to care about vets, while John McCain demonstrates that being a vet doesn't automatically mean you give a damn. There's one veteran in the world that we know John McCain cares about and that's John McCain. As far as caring about any other vets -- well, there's no evidence of that.

-Wisco

Technorati tags: politic; war; Iraq; Afghanistan; Barack Obama; Jim Webb; military; Veterans have nothing to thank John McCain for

John McCain's Hundred Year Jobs Program

As the wars slog on and on and on, the consequences at home grow. The war in Iraq is now expected to cost Americans $3 trillion dollars, once all the borrowing and spending has finally been accounted for. That figure, by the way, represents cockeyed optimism -- the debts continue to rise.

Coalition losses total 4052 military deaths. Of course, that's today. Accurate casualty figures have a very short shelf life and the number only increases. On the Iraqi side, as many as 90,778 have died.

Those costs are permanent, the money wasted will never be regained and the fallen will never rise again. Other costs are likewise permanent, but go unmeasured or when they are documented, go largely ignored by a media fascinated by a presidential campaign at home and war fatigue among the public.

News & Observer (N. Carolina), "Combat vets face hurdles as students":

Spc. Natasha McKinnon survived losing part of her left leg to an improvised bomb in Iraq. Now that she's back, she's trying to find her balance in college life. Sometimes she can't recall a professor's name. She loses track of test dates. Occasionally, she forgets she has pulled off her prosthetic leg to rest her stump during a long lecture, only to tilt off balance when she tries to stand.

As tens of thousands of veterans of the fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq try to collect on their promised college benefits, McKinnon and others are finding that their combat experience complicates the transition from soldier to student.

Some have trouble collecting the government money that is supposed to pay for college, or they discover that the benefits aren't nearly enough to cover tuition and other bills. While their classmates complain about homework and hangovers, many vets struggle with post-traumatic stress disorder, the effects of traumatic brain injury, lost limbs and a range of chronic medical problems.

"Not only am I a full-time student," McKinnon told the paper, "I'm a full-time patient. It takes a toll, mentally and physically. Sometimes I'm there in class, but only in body. Not in mind."

There are moves out there to make the lives of student vets like McKinnon's a little easier. Enter the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2007. This has widely been reported as an "expansion" of the WWII-era Montgomery G.I. Bill, but it's really just an update. According to the Inside Higher Ed, "The bill would enable eligible veterans to receive payments covering tuition -- up to the cost of in-state tuition at the most expensive public college in a veteran’s home state -- room and board, fees, educational costs and a $1,000 monthly stipend." We aren't talking about sending vets to Harvard or Yale here; this would allow them to enroll in state universities.

Of course, the Pentagon and John McCain oppose the bill -- which otherwise has bipartisan support. "Officials in charge of Pentagon personnel worry that a more generous and expansive GI Bill would create an incentive for troops to get out of the military and go to college," ABC News reported. Do they really need an incentive? You'd think a pointless and needless war would be incentive enough.

For his part, McCain has offered an alternative bill. Not surprisingly, it's a freakin' joke. "The McCain-sponsored bill aims to increase the $1,100 per month active-duty service members now get for educational expenses to $1,500." reports The Hill. "The sum would increase to $2,000 per month for a member who served on active duty 12 years or more."

Let me repeat that -- under McCain's bill, you'd have to serve for twelve years in order to qualify for just $2,000 a month. And, for people enlisting today, that's not $2,000 today dollars, that's $2,000 2020 dollars. Figure in projected inflation and that's $1,516.51. You know what? You might as well take that $1,500 and get out as soon as possible, while you're actually college-aged. There's your "incentive for troops to get out of the military and go to college." McCain apparently shares Bush's math skills, which have us shoveling $3 trillion down a rat hole while cutting taxes for the wealthy.

Of course, that's not the only program Baghdad John has in mind for military personnel. A new Democratic National Committee ad reminds us of McCain's jobs program:



On the plus side, McCain's "hundred years in Iraq" means jobs for life -- if you can call that a plus. It also means shoveling trillions more down that aforementioned rat hole.

John McCain has been running as America's leading veteran. But veterans would be right to ask him, "What have you done for me lately?" Under President McCain, they'd get endless war, joke benefits, and -- assuming they ever get out -- they'll come home to a ruined economy.

If that's leadership, John McCain can keep it.

--Wisco

Technorati tags: politics; war; Iraq; Afghanistan; Republican; elections; 2008; G.I. Bill; Jim Webb; The bad news is John McCain's education benefits for veterans, the worse news is his century-long jobs program

Support the Troops -- But Only While They Fight

Bill O'Reilly's been catching some deserved criticism for denying that there are many homeless veterans in America. "They may be out there, but there's not many of them out there. Okay?" the ridiculous boob said. "If you know where there's a veteran sleeping under a bridge, you call me immediately, and we will make sure that man does not do it."

It didn't take long for Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America to make sure O'Reilly learned of a lot of them. O'Reilly was mocking John Edwards, who said there were 200,000 homeless vets on any given night. Of course, Edwards was right and O'Reilly was wrong. The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs estimates that there are almost 200,000 homeless veterans at any given time.

O'Reilly caught some flack over the comment from a lot of sources (including me). So he addressed his self-inflicted controversy yesterday by digging himself in deeper:

Now I've said on this program that we will pay for homeless veterans to be taken to the Edwards mansion in North Carolina for shelter. Of course, that's an immature remark, I know that, but there's a reason I'm saying it.

Certainly there are homeless veterans, but it's not because of the economy. It's mostly because of addiction and mental illness, something politicians can do little about...

A point of order, here. Bill never said he'd pay to have vets taken to the "Edwards mansion" -- he said, if you find a vet sleeping under a bridge, "you call me immediately, and we will make sure that man does not do it." Turns out, with nearly 200,000 out on the street every night, keeping that promise turned out to be a little more expensive than Bill had counted on. So he tries to turn the criticism back to John Edwards.

O'Reilly also makes this astonishing comment, "Of course the rich do have advantages, but I am living proof that you can start with very little and prosper economically if you work hard and keep it honest." O'Reilly, who makes his living pulling "facts" out of his ass, wouldn't know honesty if it hit him in the forehead.

And O'Reilly is typical of the right -- he hides behind the troops abroad, while ignoring the veterans at home. Bill and any number of right wing talkers will tell you that we have to be unquestioningly supportive of war in Iraq or we "don't support the troops." Yet, when the opportunity to become an advocate for veterans comes, he tells his audience that the sort of help they need is "something politicians can do little about." He washes his hands of them. Soldiers only have worth when they're fighting -- when the fighting's over they can screw off and stop whining.

Here's another example. One year ago today, Roger Chapin of Citizens to Win the War on Terror wrote a piece for the right wing Human Events. In that article, he argued that we have to stay in Iraq -- pretty much until the end of time -- or the terrorists would win. An armchair general, Chapin offered a plan to win that included drafting "all Iraqi males of combat age" and a million more troops. Yeah, it was as stupid as it was unrealistic.

But Roger Chapin headed another organization as well. And his plan for that was as lousy as his plan for Glorious Victory in Iraq:

ABC News:

The director of a national charity for veterans has gone into hiding after defying a congressional subpoena.

Roger Chapin, head of the California-based charity, Help Hospitalized Veterans, refused to appear today before a congressional hearing chaired by Congressman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., who is investigating how the charity's money was spent.

Waxman said Chapin had evaded attempts by U.S. marshals to find him for the past week to serve a warrant to compel Chapin to answer questions before Congress about his charity, which raised more than $98 million last year.

Help Hospitalized Veterans was given an "F" by American Institute of Philanthropy, a charity watchdog, with most of the money raised going into Chapin's pocket. Like O'Reilly, Chapin's idea of supporting the troops was supporting the war -- and when those troops came home, they were on their own.

Chapin finally wound up in front of that congressional committee yesterday and another player's commitment to supporting the troops was revealed:

Retired U.S. Army Gen. Tommy Franks, who led the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, was paid $100,000 to endorse a veterans charity that watchdog groups say is ripping off donors and wounded veterans by using only a small portion of the money raised for veterans services, according to testimony in Congress today.

Gen. Franks' involvement was revealed as members of Congress questioned Roger Chapin, who operates Help Hospitalized Veterans and the Coalition to Salute America's Heroes Foundation, charities that congressional investigators say spend only 25 percent of the money they raise on projects for wounded veterans.

"He helped us raise millions and millions of dollars more than we would have," Chapin told the committee. According to the report, "Chapin also revealed that his charity paid $5,000 a month for the endorsement of retired Air Force Brig. Gen. Arthur 'Chip' Diehl."

In their defense, it's entirely possible that both Diehl and Franks were scammed like the donors and veterans. But a little background check would've found that Chapin's "charities" were BS.

Finally, one last "Support Our Troops" type -- President Bush. In his last holiday message to the troops, Bush wrote:

In this season of giving, we remember our duty to others, and we see that sense of duty fulfilled in the men and women who wear our Nation's uniform. Our country owes you a debt of gratitude for your courage and resolve to serve the cause of peace. Americans are proud of your dedicated service, and I am proud to be the Commander in Chief of the greatest force for freedom in the history of the world.

Our Nation is thankful for the many sacrifices you and your families make every day. During the holidays and throughout the coming year, we ask the Almighty to bestow His protection and care on you and your loved ones. We pray for your safety and for liberty, justice, and peace on Earth.

Notice how, when it comes to their protection and safety, Bush calls on divine intervention. There's a reason for that -- he's not actually doing any of that himself. In fact, Bush is treating service members in a way that can only be described as unbelievable.

Associated Press:

Soldiers who were medically unfit or considered borderline have been sent to the Middle East to meet Army goals for "deployable strength," The Denver Post reported Thursday.

Quoting internal Army e-mails and a Fort Carson soldier, the newspaper said that more than 50 troops were deployed to Kuwait en route to Iraq while they were still getting medical treatment for various conditions. At least two have been sent home.

Capt. Scot Tebo, the surgeon for Fort Carson's 3rd Brigade Combat Team, wrote in an e-mail obtained by the newspaper that "We have been having issues reaching deployable strength, and thus have been taking along some borderline soldiers who we would otherwise have left behind for continued treatment."

Master Sgt. Denny Nelson said he was sent to Kuwait last month despite a severe foot injury. He was sent back to Fort Carson after a military doctor in Kuwait wrote that he never should have been shipped out.

How's that for supporting the troops? Our military's stretched so thin that we have to send wounded soldiers back overseas to keep up troop levels. Again, "support the troops" really means "support the war" -- the troops themselves can go choke.

Regardless of how you feel about the war, you have to admit that these examples are really lousy ways to treat our veterans and our troops. They deserve much, much better.

But it's also telling that these guys are using the troops as a totem. They aren't really all that worried about the troops themselves, just the war the troops represent. And once they get out of that war, the "Support the Troops" crowd has no more use for those people they were previously so gung ho about supporting. They don't support the troops, they support the fight. Their support is a cheerleader's support for the team, it's not a support of the players. All "support" means to them is that they want them to "win" -- whatever the hell that is at this point. And they want that win regardless of the costs paid by those troops they claim to love.

The only way these people can claim to support the troops is if they redefine "support" as "reduce to a disposable propaganda symbol."

--Wisco

Technorati tags: politics; war; Iraq; Bush; Bill O'Reilly; Roger Chapin; Help Hospitalized Veterans; charity; crime; scandal; Tommy Franks; "Support the Troops" is the propaganda slogan of our time

When is an Epidemic not an Epidemic?

The TimesOnline gets right to the lead:

More American military veterans have been committing suicide than US soldiers have been dying in Iraq, it was claimed yesterday.

What TimesOnline is relaying is a CBS News story on what's finally being labeled a "suicide epidemic" among veterans. While the rate for all vets is higher than the rest of the population, one group stood out.

...Veterans aged 20 through 24, those who have served during the war on terror. They had the highest suicide rate among all veterans, estimated between two and four times higher than civilians the same age. (The suicide rate for non-veterans is 8.3 per 100,000, while the rate for veterans was found to be between 22.9 and 31.9 per 100,000.)

"Wow! Those are devastating," said Paul Sullivan, a former VA analyst who is now an advocate for veterans rights from the group Veterans For Common Sense.

Contrast that with the comment by Dr. Ira Katz, mental health head at the Department of Veterans Affairs. Katz told CBS, "There is no epidemic in suicide in the VA, but suicide is a major problem."

Executive Director of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America Paul Rieckhoff has written about the problem of suicides among vets for some time. In August, he wrote for Military.com, "Our troops are facing serious mental health problems, and they aren't getting the treatment they need. At least one-in-three Iraq veterans and one-in-nine Afghanistan veterans will face a mental health issue like depression, anxiety, or Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. About 25 percent of those who committed suicide had 'a history of at least one psychiatric disorder.'"

The VA is notorious for ignoring problems that are a result of war. Between 1962 and 1971, troops in Vietnam were exposed to the herbicide Agent Orange. When these vets started developing health problems, the VA and the government ignored them. They were "crazy Vietnam vets." Never mind that Agent Orange contained a form of dioxin -- the most toxic compound on Earth -- it wasn't until the 1980s that the VA started taking vets exposed to it seriously. Most think they're still not doing enough.

When veterans of the first Gulf war started reporting their own problems, the phenomenon was given a name -- Gulf War Syndrome. These vets were told that their disease didn't exist, despite being exposed to depleted uranium (in civilian life known as "nuclear waste") on an almost daily basis.

So it's not extremely surprising to find the VA dragging its feet and denying that an epidemic of suicides represents a suicide epidemic. Like Agent Orange and Gulf War Syndrome before it, the military's suicide problem is a problem that will eventually just go away. That's the advantage of being an institution -- you can always win the waiting game. The Veterans' Administration will still be around long after all these vets are gone. That's one way to "solve" these sort of problems. If you ignore them, they literally go away. You just have to outlive the veterans.

Sen. Daniel Akaka, chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, sent the following statement to CBS, in response to their story:

The report that the rate of suicide among veterans is double that of the general population is deeply troubling and simply unacceptable. I am especially concerned that so many young veterans appear to be taking their own lives. For too many veterans, returning home from battle does not bring an end to conflict. There is no question that action is needed.

The question isn't whether action is needed -- that it is is pretty much unquestionable. The question is whether action will happen. Given the VA's history with these sort of issues, I'm pretty confident in saying that nothing will happen without a swift kick in someone's ass.

But the real question is what is the occupation of Iraq worth? It doesn't really serve any purpose at this point -- other than making sure some future president "loses the war" after Bush is gone. This problem will continue long into our future and, the longer we do this, the larger the problem becomes. Is "winning the war" for the sake of winning a war worth it? Because that's the only thing this war is about anymore -- and that's being a cockeyed optimist about it.

The Congress is playing games with Bush again, passing legislation in the House to impose a timetable on the war. Bush will veto it -- if it gets that far. The Senate isn't expected to pass it. Clearly, the only way to end this war is to defund it. Screwing around with legislation that's not going to go anywhere is pointless.

Meanwhile, the war goes on -- pointlessly and stupidly and in no one's interest other than Bush's. Meanwhile, 2.4 Americans a day die in combat. Meanwhile, 17 veterans a day commit suicide. Meanwhile, Iraqis are killed every day and the middle east becomes more and more destabilized, making us less safe and more hated in the world. Meanwhile, we accomplish nothing. Not anything good, anyway.

It's just not worth it.

--Wisco

Technorati tags: politics; military; veterans; Vietnam; Will Veterans' Administration solve the problem of Iraq war vet suicide by waiting vets out?

The War to End All Wars

After WWI, November 11 was celebrated as Armistice Day. On the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month in 1918, the armistice was signed between the Allies and Germany. WWI was called "the war to end all wars" -- didn't really work out that way. Since WWI, America alone has fought fourteen wars -- at least, by my count. I may have missed one or two. The war to end all wars was followed by one helluva lot of wars. In fact, to a large degree, WWII was a result of a poorly thought out treaty ending WWI. The German economy was ruined by the cost of reparations and the people, tired of runaway inflation in combination with a worldwide depression, were desperate enough to follow anyone who promised a way out. Fascism made that promise.

Then, as now, money made the world go 'round.

After WWII, Armistice Day became Veterans Day. It was that day that Americans celebrated yesterday. It was a day to honor the fallen and has become a day to honor all war veterans. It'd be nice if we followed up the wreaths and parades and speeches and flags with some sort of actual help, though. As things are now, we help a few and let the majority of those who need help slide. No doubt we've made a lot of progress since WWI, but we haven't come close to solving all the problems we create with our wars. Like the Armistice that ended WWI, our past wars intrude on the present. The wars come home with the heroes who'd fought them.

Voice of America:

Veterans Day, November 11, is a national holiday set aside to honor the men and women who have served in America's armed forces and to acknowledge the debt we owe them. However, a new study shows that veterans are more likely to be homeless than those in the general population, and that, nationwide, veterans tend to have less access to health care and other supportive services than they need.

The study, which was done by the Washington, D.C.-based National Alliance to End Homelessness, also found that nearly half a million veterans were homeless at some time during 2006, and as many as 66,000 of those vets were chronically without shelter. And while veterans comprise only 11 percent of the American population, they make up one of every four of the nation's homeless.

Part of the problem is PTSD, part of it is physical disability, part may be pre-existing conditions like a tendency toward substance abuse and addiction. Psychological and emotional problems like addiction and PTSD play a very large part here, since movement is often part of the disease. People suffering from these conditions often see their problems as the result of their locations -- if you could only get away from that group of guys who drink themselves stupid every night, if you could get away from all those people who just won't leave you alone, if you could just leave this place that is somehow so much like that hell you left overseas, then you'd be OK. Then you could start over.

But like they say, no matter where you go, there you are. If your problems aren't caused by your community, you just take them with you. The veteran who's run to California or New York or Florida finds that he has just as much trouble holding down a job and building relationships there, but without the family and friends to help support them when they're in trouble.

So they wind up on the street.

Or worse. While the study by the National Alliance to End Homelessness has been getting a lot of press lately, other problems are being under-reported. The National Coalition for Homeless Veterans tells us that in 1998, there were 937 incarcerated veterans per 100,000 veteran residents. For the most part, these are unlikely inmates -- only 1 in 6 was not honorably discharged from the military and veterans in prison are three times more likely than the rest of the population to have attended college. It seems extremely likely that, if it hadn't been for their war experience, these people would never have seen the inside of a cell.

President Bush had a lot to say about how much he's helped veterans in his weekend radio address:

Veterans Day also reminds us of our solemn responsibility to care for those who have fought our Nation's wars. Under my Administration, Federal spending for our veterans has increased by more than two-thirds. We have extended medical treatment to a million additional veterans, including hundreds of thousands returning from Afghanistan and Iraq. And we have expanded grants to help homeless veterans across the country.

It's obviously nowhere near enough. Amazingly, 1 in 8 veterans are uninsured. Suicide rates among veterans, especially army vets, are climbing alarmingly. And now rampant homelessness. And, despite VA grants for homeless vets, three states -- Alaska, Maine, and North Dakota -- and Puerto Rico have zero beds for homeless veterans. No state has as many beds as it has vets on the street.

It seems likely that the only way to end these problems is to knock off this war stuff, like we'd planned to after WWI. It may seem unlikely now, but I've always defined hope as the recognition that the best possible outcome is always a possible outcome. It may not be very probable, but it is possible.

Until then, we have to take responsibility for the consequences of our wars. And that means taking better care of veterans.

--Wisco

Technorati tags: politics; war; Iraq; Afghanistan; Vietnam; Korea; WWII; PTSD; Despite what Bush says, we aren't doing nearly enough for Veterans

Disposable

Proof positive that there is no issue that some fringe nut won't politicize.

Associated Press:

Congress took steps [Oct. 23] to reduce the high rate of suicides among former members of the armed forces, but only after a gun-rights senator succeeded in removing a plan to track veterans treated for mental illnesses.

[...]

[Oklahoma Republican gun nut] Coburn succeeded in making changes to "help protect the privacy of veterans' medical records" because of his concern that a provision requiring the VA to track the veterans it cares for could result in veterans treated for mental-health issues being denied the right to purchase guns.

Because it's the job of the federal government to make it more difficult for states to enforce their laws, I guess. Republicans are all for state and local control -- except when they're not, then they're big fans of big government.

Meanwhile, according to Veterans' Affairs Committee chairman Rep. Bob Filner, suicide among veterans is a national tragedy of massive proportions. "It's a terrible statistic: As many Vietnam veterans have now committed suicide as died in the original war," he said. "That's over 58,000."

But it's all-important that they be able to get guns.

Never mind that that wasn't the purpose of the provision. In Coburn's paranoid little mind -- a mind that once concluded showing Schindler's List on network TV was "an all-time low, with full-frontal nudity, violence and profanity" -- it was a creeping federalism designed solely to take people's guns away. Coburn is one sick little nutjob and, every time the people of Oklahoma re-elect him, they do the nation a terrible disservice.

Here's the real reason for the provision:

Associated Press:

One major hurdle in stopping suicide is getting people to ask for help. From 20 percent to 50 percent of active duty troops and reservists who returned from war reported psychological problems, relationship problems, depression and symptoms of stress reactions, but most report that they have not sought help, according to a report from a military mental health task force.

If you're already having trouble getting people into the system, you really need some way to try to keep them in the system. Most of the people tracked would be sufferers of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and PTSD patients tend to drift away from treatment.

And this is especially dangerous if they move. If they have to seek help again, the odds are they won't. It's smarter to have the care follow them automatically.

But, of course, Coburn and the NRA know better than mental health professionals. Better to be paranoid than wise.

Not helping matters any is the fact that PTSD is still poorly understood. According to the Washington Post, a study by the National Academies shows, "The majority of treatments for post-traumatic stress disorder that are used to treat hundreds of thousands of veterans lack rigorous scientific evidence that they are effective." That doesn't mean that no treatments work.

"The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) today agreed with a new Institute of Medicine (IOM) report finding exposure-based therapies for the treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) to be effective," says the VA in a press release. Exposure-based therapies "utilizes techniques to promote confrontation with feared objects, situations, memories and images. It involves use of psychoeducation, breathing retraining, prolonged exposure to the memory of the trauma through imaginary reliving, and repeated exposure to safe situations being avoided because of traumatic fear."

It's not much of a stretch of the imagination to conclude that some of those safe situations being avoided are within the VA system and that this is why the numbers for vets seeking help are so low. And why the stakes are so high.

Veterans for Common Sense:

Experts worry that the numbers will grow as more soldiers come home with mental wounds. Dr. Bentson McFarland, an Oregon psychiatry and public health professor and an author of the recent suicide study, said veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan face many risk factors, such as repeated tours and the constant stress of urban warfare.

"I hate to say it," McFarland said, "but I think it's going to be worse than Vietnam."

We need to start taking this seriously. We're literally creating these cases with our wars and we don't really know what to do about them. This is a problem that won't end with the eventual peace. The fact that we're still dealing with suicides among Vietnam war vets is proof enough of that.

How much are these wars worth? How many lives are we willing to sacrifice -- long term and short term -- to fight them? Clearly, the death toll will continue to rise long after the wars are over.

How many minds are we willing to scar and, in some cases, destroy? We have almost no idea what we're dealing with now and we need to create more? And how often are we willing to let politicians like Tom Coburn and lobbyists from organizations like the NRA get in the way?

We need to answer those questions. We need to do it now. We treat troops as disposable on the battlefield, there's no good reason to treat them that way at home.

--Wisco

Technorati tags: politics; Iraq; Afghanistan; Vietnam; mental illness; PTSD; Veterans' Administration; Veterans don't stop dying when the wars end

President Bumpersticker

The Bush administration supports the troops.

That is, if by "support the troops," you mean use them as backdrops for photo ops, to hide behind when he has something unpopular to say. He supports them, if by "support," you mean sending them off to Iraq and Afghanistan in longer and longer rotations. It's support if by "support," you mean using them as human sacrifices to keep a failed policy going until Bush is safely out of office. Then someone else gets to take the blame for "losing Iraq."

It's "support" only if you radically redefine the word.

It's more honest to say that Bush uses the troops to support him. They're this lame duck's crutch as he hobbles toward the end of two disastrous terms in office. Bush uses soldiers as human political shields, a way to pass the buck. This president gets to call himself a "War President," but pretends that war is entirely out of his hands. We're supposed to believe that Gen. Petraeus runs this war, that decisions are left to "commanders in the field," as if the military were a government in itself over which the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of civilian government have no legitimate control.

See, that way, when things go horribly, horribly wrong -- as they have with Abu Ghraib or at Walter Reed -- it's not Bush's fault. No, President Bush is the first president in american history to have no responsibilities. Nothing is the fault of the White House -- ever. If you were to believe what Bush says, you'd have to believe that everyone under him just does whatever the hell they want to.

So Walter Reed wasn't Bush's fault. Bush is Commander in Chief -- the military's top officer -- when it suits him and a mere bystander when being the War President is a liability. With Walter Reed, the responsibility quickly passed out of Bush's hands -- by design. If Bush accepted any responsibility for the conditions that wounded soldiers had to deal with in the Veterans' Administration system, it was only to pass that hot potato on to someone else.

In this case, that responsibility was given to former Sen. Bob Dole and former Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala. Bush announced they would lead a blue ribbon panel -- the President's Commission on Care for America's Returning Wounded Warriors -- to investigate conditions in VA hospitals and come up with recommendations. Of Walter Reed's moldy rooms, third world level health care, and the bureaucratic nightmare troops need to navigate once wounded, Bush said, "It's unacceptable to me, it's unacceptable to you, it's unacceptable to our country, and it's not going to continue."

Yet, continue it does.

Associated Press:

The Army has yet to fully staff the new "warrior transition units" being put together because of poor conditions at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center, according to a congressional report made public Wednesday.

As of mid-September over half of these units had significant shortfalls in one or more critical position, the Government Accountability Office said in a report presented to a House hearing on treatment of wounded soldiers.

Many of the current staffers, said John Pendleton, author of the report, are borrowed, presumably temporarily, from other offices. Ultimately, hundreds more nurses, social workers and mental health specialists will be needed to handle such issues as traumatic brain injuries and post traumatic stress disorder, he said.

Keep in mind that the Dole/Shalala panel's recommendations came back in July. Nothing's happening. At that time, Donna Shalala told PBS's Judy Woodruff, "We have given them recommendations that are doable. Everything we have recommended can be done within six months to a year, most of it quicker than that. Most of our recommendations can be done by the administration."

None of the panel's recommendations have gone anywhere and nothing much has changed. Bush's support for the troops is an "out of sight, out of mind" sort of thing. For Bush, the problem was fixed the day he put together the panel. Like the 9/11 panel and the Iraq Study Group, that's as far as it went. The recommendations and findings aren't important -- the "President announces he'll fix it" headlines are all that matter.

That's why I used one of those ribbon magnets to illustrate the post. They're easy and they don't mean jack. You slap one of these on your bumper and you're done; you don't actually have to do anything for the troops or even think about them very often. You just make this empty political statement and that's all you ever have to do. Saying "I support the troops" is the same as actually supporting the troops. Never mind that some lance corporal in Iraq has no idea you've got it on your car, it's magic -- you stick this on your car and the troops' moral goes up. You don't actually have to do anything for any of them.

So it is with Bush's support of the troops. It's just something you say. If you say it, it's so and you don't have to do a damned thing to back it up.

That's the way in which Bush supports the troops.

--Wisco

Technorati tags: politics; war; Iraq; Afghanistan; military; veterans; Walter Reed; When Bush says, "I support the troops," it'd be nice if he didn't mean it in a BS propaganda way

Leave it to the Experts

In his weekend radio address, President Bush once again revisited Vietnam and urged us to learn the lessons of history. The problem with this new kick of his is that pretty much no one thinks the Vietnam war was a good idea anymore and that the lessons we're supposed to be learning from history are undercut by... Um... history.

He told us to learn "lessons we can draw from the advance of freedom in Asia in the 20th century." As an example, he said, "America's enduring presence and perseverance on that continent aided the rise of democracy, helped transform American enemies into American allies, and made our country safer."

That's not so true. We lost in Korea, we lost in Vietnam, and the largest country in Asia -- China -- is nowhere near democratic or free. Our record for war in Asia is similar to everyone else's -- it sucks. And, despite losing all these absolutely necessary wars, the 'domino theory' was proven wrong -- Asia didn't turn red. You'd think that losing 'necessary' wars would have some sort of historical consequence, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

Other people, who had a better view of Asia than the frat boy who's influential dad got him into a 'Champagne Unit' of the National Guard, have a more realistic view of Vietnam:

There are similarities between the war in Iraq and the war in Vietnam. One of the lessons to be learned from Vietnam is that the commitment of American military strength alone cannot solve another country's political weakness. This should be a somber warning to us all to responsibly end the war in Iraq and the additional loss of precious American lives.

That's former Senator Max Cleland, who gave the Democratic response to Bush's radio address. He lost three limbs in Vietnam, earned a Silver Star and a Bronze Star, and has something of a realistic view of what war looks like.

And Cleland isn't alone in his view of Iraq. The White House is currently running a big public relations campaign, trying to convince everyone that military personnel want to stay in Iraq until the sun burns out. I've written about it recently (in fact it was my last post of last week), so I won't go into it here. Let's just say that reality keeps intruding on the big "Huzzah for war!" propaganda push.

Associated Press:

A call by Puerto Rico's governor for a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq earned a standing ovation from a conference of more than 4,000 National Guardsmen.

Gov. Anibal Acevedo Vila said Saturday that the U.S. administration has "no new strategy and no signs of success" and that prolonging the war would needlessly put guardsmen in harm's way.

"The war in Iraq has fractured the political will of the United States and the world," he said at the opening of the 129th National Guard Association general conference. "Clearly, a new war strategy is required and urgently."

That hasn't been getting a lot of press. It's weird, but the cable news networks seem to have plenty of time for pundits, politicians, and other talking heads who want to tell us what the troops think, but when you get actual military personnel expressing some sort of opinion, you get crickets from cable land. It's not news. They aren't experts, I guess. Because experts tell us the troops want to stay. That's how you can tell they're experts.

So about 4,000 non-experts turned out at Kennebunkport, Maine to protest the war, including Iraq Veterans Against the War. IVAW, I guess, aren't experts on what troops want either. If it'd been 4,000 for war, it would've been the big story on cable.

Portland Press Herald:

Several of the speakers at the rally were from the military or military families. Liam Madden, with Iraq Veterans Against the War, told crowd members that they were "actively building a movement of conscience within the military" to end the war.

"Our government has failed us," Madden said. "This war will not end by an act of Congress. It will end through an organized and collective act of conscience."

The biggest problem facing those who argue in favor of the war is that it serves no purpose in the first place. Every reason we were given to invade has turned out to be completely false. Not only is there no reason to keep fighting it, but there was no reason to start it in the first place.

But the experts tell us that Iraq is Vietnam -- only the Vietnam we should've fought -- and ignore the fact that we had no good reason to fight there either. The experts tell us that the troops want to stay in Iraq until the world stops turning and ignore the fact that that's not what they're saying at all. They tell us that we don't understand what's happening, that the people who got us into this incredibly screwed up mess in the first place do. The morons who've been wrong about everything, every step of the way, they know best. And those of us who were right all along are just complainers.

Does that make any damned sense to you?

--Wisco

Technorati tags: politics; war; Iraq; Veterans; military; peace; protest; the media has weird ideas about expertise

Buy a War and Get a Free Large Fries

You've got to love groups with names like "Freedom's Watch." The very name is a accusation -- if you don't agree with them, you hate freedom. Unfortunately, Freedom's Watch doesn't have a damned thing to do with freedom -- it's a phony astroturf organization dedicated to convincing americans to stay in Iraq until time stops. It might as well be named "Flag Eagle Liberty Patriots."

Like all astroturf orgs, Freedom's Watch claims to represent the people, despite the fact that there's no big public groundswell for their effort. According to the Center for Media and Democracy, FW "is a new White House front group of prominent conservatives mascarading as a grassroots movement (i.e. astroturf) which began a multimillion-dollar advertising campaign on August 22, 2007 'to urge members of Congress who may be wavering in their support for the war in Iraq not to "cut and run".'"

The group, led by former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer, plans to spend $15 million on an ad campaign to keep wavering congress critters on board. Don't expect a lot of progress on that front. In a stunning display of the group's lack of political clout, Sen. John Warner -- who the Washington Post calls "one of the most influential Republican voices in Congress on national security" -- is now calling on President Bush to begin withdrawal from Iraq by September 15th. This just days after FW announced the launch of its campaign.

It's a demonstration of just how much grassroots power the White House has lost. The campaign was widely ridiculed when it was announced and that initial reaction wasn't helped any when Fleischer proved that he really didn't give a crap about the veterans he was supposedly representing. Asked on MSNBC's Hardball to name the veteran featured in their big ad campaign, Fleischer admitted he didn't know (he's John Kriesel). Way to admit to using vets as interchangeable cardboard cutouts, Ari.

Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America's Paul Rieckhoff reacted to the ad on the same program:

People on both sides of the aisle, but especially the president and this administration, have continued to use troops as a political prop. As a backdrop for political rhetoric. It's why the president gave such an impassionate speech today in front of the VFW. It's why this ad carries so much weight on a visceral level. And it really bothers me because our troops are not political props and they're not chew toys.

Also not helpful to FW's argument is that the ad is complete BS. It features Ari's unknown soldier saying [text courtesy of Center for Media and Democracy and emphasis mine], "Congress was right to vote to fight terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan. I re-enlisted after Sept. 11 because I don't want my sons to see what I saw. I want them to be free and safe. I know what I lost. I also know that if we pull out now, everything Iive given and the sacrifices will mean nothing. They attacked us, and they will again. [Image of World Trade Towers being struck by a jet on 9/11.] They won't stop in Iraq. We are winning on the ground and making real progress. It's no time to quit. It's no time for politics."

Wait a second, Iraq attacked us on 9/11? That'd be news to President Bush, who said in 2003, "We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 11 September attacks." You really wish these guys would keep their stories straight.

What bothers me most is that Bush and his phony front group are using veterans as a political crutch, while ignoring their needs at every turn. It was just a few days ago that I wrote about how the Army's suicide rate is the highest in 26 years and that Bush has blown off recommendations to fix problems in the Veterans Administration's health care system. On top of that, many vets are suffering from PTSD and depression, telling researchers they felt like "guests in their own homes" when they came back from war and that "their children did not respond warmly to them, or were even afraid of them." Veterans need help and leadership from the White House would be a real good start.

What they get from the neocons is a $15 million ad campaign to convince us to keep throwing these people back into the meat grinder -- as if war and death and the fates of nations were no more important than deciding which clown to buy your next burger from. That's all these men and women are to them, ingredients in a product they're marketing. They mean nothing to the White House and, veteran or not, neither do you. They have no respect for the intelligence of any of us. They'll use veterans to convince you to convince your local congress critter to support the war and it's the war they care about. Not you and not the veterans they've used.

Freedom's Watch is watching out for your freedom in the same way that Burger King is watching out for your cholesterol levels.

--Wisco

Technorati tags: politics; military; Iraq; propaganda; White House; neocons; Bush; If this new public relations campaign doesn't work, Ari Fleischer will start handing out coupons for war

Army Suicide Problem Nothing New

In December of 2003, the Baltimore Sun ran a headline -- "Army's Suicide Rate has Outside Experts Alarmed." In that article, we were told, "A report by a 12-member team of military and civilian mental health professionals dispatched to Iraq in October to evaluate mental health of soldiers is expected to be released after the holidays." Good news, something was being done.

"After the holidays" turned out to be the end of March of 2004, when Stars and Stripes ran the headline, "Suicide Report Makes Army Improve." That story reported the Army taking "swift steps to improve mental health services for troops in Iraq and Kuwait" and that it would "send in behavioral health experts and improve logistics to get antidepressants and sleeping pills to combat troops immediately."

Now we see the headline, more than three years later, "Army Suicides Highest in 26 Years." Not surprisingly, a new Army Suicide Event Report (ASER) notes that "there was a significant relationship between suicide attempts and number of days deployed" in theater.

"This new report only confirms what we veterans have been saying for years," writes Paul Rieckhoff, of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. He tells us "Soldiers and Marines who have deployed to Iraq more than once have a 50% higher rate of combat stress," that "90% of military psychiatrists, psychologists and social workers reported no formal training or supervision in the recommended PTSD therapies," and that "VA officials have admitted that
waiting lists render mental health and substance abuse care 'virtually inaccessible.'" You have to wonder what things were like before the Army made all of its improvements.

Rieckhoff also writes that "this report does not even include the unknown number of military personnel that have committed suicide after they have left the military's payrolls." No one tracks these numbers.

In March of this year President Bush, embarrassed by reports of unforgiveable conditions at Walter Reed in particular and the Veterans Administration in general, called on Bob Dole and Donna Shalala to put together recommendations for improving care for vets. "I am concerned that our soldiers and their families are not getting the treatment that they deserve, having volunteered to defend our country," Bush said as he announced the commission. "Any report of medical neglect will be taken seriously by this administration, I'm confident by the Congress, and we will address problems quickly."

Kind of sounds like he planned to get right on it when the recommendations came back, doesn't it? Yeah, not so much. When the Dole-Shalala report came out in July, AP reported, "White House press secretary Tony Snow said that Bush would not be acting immediately on any of the recommendations. Rather, he said that the panel's ideas would likely be integrated with other ongoing efforts to improve health care and overall treatment of returning soldiers." The president, barely able to contain his lack of enthusiasm, called the recommendations "interesting."

Bush blew them off. Nothing has happened with the recommendations since. Allow me to blow my own horn here, but I called it. Say what you like about him, but President Bush is anything but unpredictable. When Bush is given the opportunity to do the right thing, you'll never lose money betting he won't take it.

"It has been hurry up and wait for the results of this commission report and now the White House is telling our vets to wait even longer," said Sen. Patty Murray of Bush's disinterest in pursuing the report's recommendations. Paul Rieckhoff's assessment is harsher.

"There should be no more excuses," he writes. "Every day that the president delays, more troops will die as a result of a flawed military and veterans healthcare system."

The problem has been ongoing since 2003, for chrissake, and since the problem was first identified, it's gotten much, much worse. Veterans and their families deserve better. Suicides, even when they're so clearly a result of war, are not honored by the military. They receive no hero's funeral. There's more than one type of collateral damage.

President Bush is constantly asking us to pray for the troops -- this is what passes for some sort of solution. Call it faith-based suicide prevention. And all the husbands and wives, mothers and fathers, children, friends, and communities who wake up one day to a huge unpatchable hole in their lives, I guess we're supposed to pray for them too. That's the fix. Prayer is pretty much all the president has to offer. And all he seems interested in offering.

--Wisco

Technorati tags: politics; Iraq; Afghanistan; war; military; Army; suicide; health; VA; Bob Dole; Donna Shalala; Paul Rieckhoff; When Bush asks you to pray for veterans, just remember that's about all they're going to get