Multi Medium

No One Could Have Anticipated

Because only gay officers would ever sexually harass their subordinates…

Rep. Massa, an upstate Democrat, resigned his seat after admitting to “inappropriate” behavior with young male aides – groping and unwanted advances, the complaints alleged – that he described as a carry-over from his days as a career Navy officer.

Then former shipmates emerged last week with stories that Massa tried to grope, “snorkel” and ogle those of lesser rank.

“It’s a cautionary tale” of a superior officer allegedly seeking to prey upon subordinates that argues against repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, said Elaine Donnelly, head of the anti-repeal Center for Military Readiness.

“That kind of abuse would become far more frequent” if gays were allowed to serve openly, Donnelly said.

That is such homophobic bullshit, right up there with all the arguments against gay priests/teachers/scoutmasters that equate homosexuality with pedophilia.  There has never been any shortage of straight sexual harassers, and tolerance for gay servicemembers doesn’t mean tolerance for abusive ones.

Add comment March 15th, 2010 at 07:03am Posted by Eli

Epic Optics Fail

Sure, that’s a great idea to publicly embrace a company whose reputation is so corrupt and bloody that it had to CHANGE ITS NAME.  How could that possibly backfire?

The Republican National Committee plans to hold an April fundraiser at a Moyock, N.C. compound owned by the military contracting firm formerly known as Blackwater, Politico reports.

According to an RNC fundraising document uncovered on Wednesday, RNC “Young Eagles” — party major donors under 40 — will meet at the facility in the spring.

(…)

It was recently reported that Blackwater employees took hundreds of firearms from both the U.S. Mmilitary and Afghan police forces using the South Park alias “Eric Cartman.”

Brilliant!  Hey, maybe KBR can handle the lighting.

Add comment March 4th, 2010 at 08:30pm Posted by Eli

Rove Chides Self For Not Lying More Effectively

Poor Dubya – Karl really let him down:

While defending the administration’s handling of Iraq, Rove concedes that the failure to find weapons of mass destruction damaged the administration’s credibility. And he blames himself for failing to set the record straight.

“When the pattern of the Democratic attacks became apparent in July 2003, we should have countered in a forceful and overwhelming way,” he writes. “We should have seen this for what it was: a poison-tipped dagger aimed at the heart of the Bush presidency.”

If only he had done more to convince America that Iraq really did have WMDs.  Maybe he should have given Dubya’s little “Where are the WMDs?” sketch a happy ending or something.

Add comment March 4th, 2010 at 07:10am Posted by Eli

Maybe Now Someone Will Do Something

It never used to be a big deal that our children are overweight and undereducated, but maybe that will change now that we’re confronted with the horrifying cost of our neglect:

The biggest long-term threat to U.S. national security might not be terrorists or weapons of mass destruction. According to a group of military leaders, it’s homegrown obesity, ignorance and criminality, which together make seven of 10 target-age recruits ineligible to serve in the American armed forces.

“It’s not just disturbing. It’s a call to action,” James A. Kelly, former deputy assistant secretary of defense, said Thursday during a telephone news conference from Washington.

Kelly is one of nearly 100 former and current military leaders who came together last year to form an organization called Mission: Readiness to draw attention to the status of potential recruits. In a study it calls “Ready, Willing and Unable to Serve,” the group says Pentagon analysts have concluded that 75 percent of people ages 17 to 24 could not qualify for military service because they are obese or have some other health problem, lack a high school diploma or have a serious criminal history.

Won’t someone please think of the military?

3 comments November 7th, 2009 at 02:25pm Posted by Eli

The Absurdity Of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: Exhibit 267

“I am gay” gets you discharged immediately, but “I am autistic” doesn’t.

Also: Epic Recruiting Fail.

(h/t La Lisa)

Add comment July 6th, 2009 at 07:33am Posted by Eli

Epic Messaging Fail

This is just foolish on so many levels:

Democrats plan a July 4th ad campaign to punish House Republicans who voted against the $100-plus billion Iraq and Afghanistan war supplemental — emulating GOP attacks against John Kerry and other Dems who voted against Bush war bills.

A series of 60-second radio ads will run during drive time from July 1 through July 8, according to a script provided to POLITICO — and they have the support-our-troops ring of GOP spots.

They’ll target seven Republicans seen as vulnerable in ‘10, including Reps. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.), Charlie Dent (R-Pa.), Jim Gerlach (R-Pa..), Dan Lungren (R-Calif.), Mike McCaul (R-Texas), Lee Terry (R-Neb.) and Joe Wilson (R-S.C.).

The Terry script:

Around here, we recognize Independence Day with parades … and picnics … maybe a few fireworks. But July Fourth is about more than that.

It’s about remembering those who fought for our freedoms. And those still fighting today.

Congressman Lee Terry used to understand that.

When George Bush asked, Congressman Terry voted to fully fund our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And, last year he said, quote, “We must give our military every resource it needs.”

Seems like Congressman Terry is playing politics now …

Last month Congressman Terry voted AGAINST funding for those same troops.

It’s true: vote No. 348 – you can look it up.

“Republicans never hesitated to criticize those who voted against the previous supplemental bills that included funding for the troops, but now that they are trying to score political points, Republicans’ votes have conveniently changed,” said DCCC executive director Jon Vogel.

Yes, I appreciate the “Were you lying then or are you lying now” gotcha here, but do the Democrats really want to brand themselves as the Stay-In-Iraq-Forever Party?  They could have easily circumvented that pitfall – and secured a lot more progressive Democrat votes – by simply including a withdrawal timeline, but they didn’t, and I still don’t understand why.  After all, Obama did provide such a timeline during his presidential campaign, is it no longer operative now?  Why raise doubts about his stated commitment to get us out of Iraq, especially when it came so close to making the supplemental unpassable?

Of course, even if the supplemental hadn’t been written by morons ($108 billion to bail out the IMF?  WTF?), we’re still left with the Democratic Party embracing the GOP’s voting-against-war-funding/war-prolonging-is-like-personally-shooting-the-troops-in-the-head framing.  And while there is some poetic justice to seeing Republicans hoist by their own petard, it’s really not an argument our side should be validating.  I can’t wait to see the 2010 campaigns against Terry et al. where the Democratic challengers make a big deal about how the Republicans refused to vote to prolong the war.  I’m sure that’ll go over well.

Add comment June 27th, 2009 at 11:46am Posted by Eli

The Most Important Legislation EVAR!

According to Joe Lieberman and his BFF Lindsey Graham, there is no higher legislative priority than ensuring that photographic evidence of war crimes never sees the light of day.

It is so heartwarming to see someone standing up for the torturers.  Truly, they are an inspiration to us all.

Add comment June 9th, 2009 at 09:18pm Posted by Eli

I Mean, Aside From That…

If only there were some way to reduce suicides among our combat troops – but how?

For more than two hours, Chiarelli, Army personnel chief Lt. Gen. Michael D. Rochelle and a roomful of other generals combed through the facts surrounding a dozen of the Army’s latest suicides, with commanders from Afghanistan, Iraq, the Horn of Africa and bases throughout the United States participating in a video teleconference.

Such meetings are one piece of a broader effort to arrest the Army’s rising suicide rate, which has surged to record levels in the past year. In 2008, 140 soldiers on active duty took their own lives, continuing a trend in which the number of suicides has increased more than 60 percent since 2003, surpassing the rate for the general U.S. population.

To deal with the problem, the Army has added to the ranks of mental health and substance abuse counselors. The service also required all units to cease operations for two to four hours to talk about suicide prevention in February and March.

Chiarelli’s monthly meetings are the Army’s way of sleuthing out patterns and identifying new policies to deal with the trend. In the most recent meeting, conducted last week, commanders were brutally candid about what went wrong — a mental health screener who missed signs of distress; the failure to take notice when a normally reliable infantryman with three combat tours didn’t show up for an Army school; the dangerous interactions of drugs, dispensed to help soldiers deal with combat stress, with caffeine and alcohol.

It’s too bad there isn’t some easily identifiable root cause behind this alarming trend…

Many soldiers are now in the midst of their third or fourth combat tour, and Army surveys show that mental health deteriorates with each one. Senior Army officials said they are focusing more resources, including extra mental health counselors, where troops are returning from multiple deployments. This year, Fort Campbell, Ky., which is home to the frequently deployed 101st Airborne Division, has had 14 suicides.

“We probably don’t know how many mental health care providers we need after eight years of war and three and four deployments,” Chiarelli said.

I guess it’ll always be a mystery.

(Am I the only one who thinks this is like reading about managers at an unshielded nuclear power plant trying to figure out how to reduce the incidences of cancer among their staff?)

1 comment May 23rd, 2009 at 12:18pm Posted by Eli

So Is That, Like, $1 Million Per Electrocution?

Well, this is disgusting yet unsurprising:

The U.S. Army paid “tens of millions of dollars in bonuses” to KBR Inc, its biggest contractor in Iraq, even after it concluded the firm’s electrical work had put U.S. soldiers at risk, according to a source close to a U.S. congressional investigation.

The Senate Democratic Policy Committee plans to hold a hearing on Wednesday to examine KBR’s operations in Iraq, and question why the Army rewarded the Houston-based company.

The panel says KBR has been linked to at least two, and as many as five, electrocution deaths of U.S. soldiers and contractors in Iraq due to “shoddy work.”

Investigators believe hundreds of other soldiers may have received electrical shocks, the source added. The Army is investigating.

(…)

Military reports have criticized KBR’s work in Iraq in recent years. Yet afterward, the company received “tens of millions of dollars in bonuses,” said the source, who declined to be identified.

“We want to know why,” the source said.

Um… bonuses are supposed to be a reward for exemplary work, right?  Perhaps the military has adopted the same standards as the corporate world applies to executives.  Electrocute some troops, run a company into the ground, good job, here’s your bonus.

I hope the committee invites some family members of troops who were electrocuted – I’m sure they’ll be very interested in hearing why that warranted a financial reward.

1 comment May 20th, 2009 at 11:54am Posted by Eli

Don’t Bogart That Suffering

And all this time, I thought suffering was a bad thing:

Suffering is a gift, not a problem.  It’s temporal happiness that’s a curse. When life is easy and unthreatened, the cancer of self-centered contentment can take over our spiritual life.  When that happens, suffering is the greatest gift that God can impart to us.

(…)

Isn’t it ironic that our happiness-seeking American culture is doing all in its power to avoid suffering–the true source of blessing?  We even do it through bailouts, and printing endless streams of fiat money. We want happiness without difficulty, the good life without pain.  But that pursuit will also mean life without God, character, heaven, or true peace. Self-centered worldly avoidance of pain is killing our spiritual and corporate life.  Only the gift of suffering can awaken us and point us to the true source of blessedness.

Okay, I’m sold: Suffering is Teh Awesome.  But why should its benefits be limited to ordinary citizens and those lucky duckies in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Hellraiser movies?  Shouldn’t the upper classes be allowed to share in its blessings too?  Surely we owe them some tax increases at the very least.  True, it might deprive the lower and middle classes of some of their suffering, but they’ve had so much that they can afford to sacrifice a little for the sake of fairness.

And what about those noble heroes who have selflessly spread so much suffering to so many?  They’re entitled to a better reward than the curse of wealth, power, and permanent comfort.  Surely we can give the Masters Of The Universe who crashed the economy the gift of unemployment or at least steep pay cuts – maybe even jail time for the truly worthy.  And it would be churlish not to offer the torturers and war architects of the Bush administration prolonged prison sentences as a token of appreciation for all the concentrated suffering they’ve bestowed upon the world.

Of course, their natural modesty and humility will require them to protest this largesse as simply too generous, but we really must insist.  It’s the least we can do for them after all they’ve done for us.

It’s their due.

Add comment May 16th, 2009 at 01:39pm Posted by Eli

It’s Not A Bug, It’s A Feature

As I’ve said before, the fact that torture does not provide actionable intelligence was never a deterrent for the Bush administration, since they were a lot more interested in propagandizable intelligence.  False confessions are what torture gets you, and that’s just exactly what BushCo. wanted:

“There were two reasons why these interrogations were so persistent, and why extreme methods were used,” the former senior intelligence official said on condition of anonymity because of the issue’s sensitivity.

“The main one is that everyone was worried about some kind of follow-up attack (after 9/11). But for most of 2002 and into 2003, Cheney and Rumsfeld, especially, were also demanding proof of the links between al Qaida and Iraq that (former Iraqi exile leader Ahmed) Chalabi and others had told them were there.”

It was during this period that CIA interrogators waterboarded two alleged top al Qaida detainees repeatedly — Abu Zubeida at least 83 times in August 2002 and Khalid Sheik Mohammed 183 times in March 2003 — according to a newly released Justice Department document.

Jim White actually speculated about this on Sunday, and now it’s confirmed.

Amazingly enough, Zubeida and KSM were able to resist – possibly because they had no idea what their torturers were talking about.  And in the end, it didn’t really matter, since we ended up invading Iraq anyway.

Add comment April 22nd, 2009 at 06:12am Posted by Eli

Conservatives Switch Sides In War On Terror

Apparently it is now unacceptable for the DHS to focus on violent extremists if even a handful of them are troops and veterans.

Republicans are now arguing that, for politically correct and politically expedient reasons, we should ignore this possible domestic terror threat identified by George Bush’s FBI and George Bush’s Department of Defense.

I understand that it’s politically correct, and fun political fodder, for Republicans to express false outrage over a new Department of Homeland Security report that noted, among other things, that right-wing extremists were trying to recruit US military members. But are the Republicans really now saying that Homeland Security should not keep an eye on terrorists’ efforts to recruit former US military members?

Yes, they are.

(…)

The Bush administration’s FBI and DOD documents thousands of cases of US soldiers being members of far-right extremist groups. Yet the Republicans are now saying that our anti-terror organizations should not keep an eye on this potential domestic terror threat because it wouldn’t be politically correct.

….Republicans don’t think the Dept. of Homeland Security should be paying any attention at all to domestic terrorists’ efforts to recruit members of the US military, because they think “defending the military” will earn them political points, even if it means risking another Oklahoma City style terrorist attack, killing hundreds of thousands of Americans in the process. Saving the country from another Great Depression or another major terrorist attack has taken a back seat to earning political points.

In other news, prominent conservatives have objected to repeated descriptions of the sky as “blue,” arguing that it is the height of presumption to claim that the heavens themselves lean Democratic.  House Minority Leader John Boehner has demanded an immediate halt to this baseless attack on the Republican Party’s legitimacy.

Add comment April 16th, 2009 at 08:44pm Posted by Eli

I Agree With Newt!

He may not be right in quite the way he thinks, but he’s right all right:

Reacting to President Barack Obama’s speech in Prague, Gingrich called the plan for a Global Summit on Nuclear Security a “wonderful fantasy idea,” saying Russia and other nations can’t be trusted.

“What are they going to promise, and why would we believe them?” Gingrich said. “It’s very dangerous to have a fantasy foreign policy, and it can get you in enormous trouble.”

That is so true.  Look what happened when we had a foreign policy based on the idea that you can bully, bluster, and invade countries to make them do anything you want.

Add comment April 5th, 2009 at 01:24pm Posted by Eli

Wanker Of The Day

Ari Fleischer is so wanky it makes my head spin:

In an interview set to air over the weekend on CNN’s D. L. Hughley Breaks the News, Ari Fleischer admits that the Bush administration was wrong to claim that Saddam Hussein had WMD in the lead up to the Iraq war, but still insists that Saddam was at fault for the war. “Saddam was the big liar here,” Fleischer concludes:

FLEISCHER: We were wrong about weapons of mass destruction being in Iraq. […]

HUGHLEY: When you found out that you were wrong, how did that make you feel?

FLEISCHER: You just scratch your head and say, “How could we be wrong?” It wasn’t just us that thought he had weapons of mass destruction. The Egyptians thought it, the French thought it, the Germans thought it the United Nations thought it, Bill Clinton’s CIA though it. We all thought it. Saddam was the big liar here.

Yeah, Saddam was a big fat liar who cunningly tricked the US into invading his country and executing him by saying that he didn’t have WMDs when, in reality… he didn’t have WMDs.  Brilliant.

Add comment February 22nd, 2009 at 03:23pm Posted by Eli

Quote Of The Day

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert:

Our fight is not with the people of Gaza.

Well, in all fairness, I can see where a lot of people might get the wrong idea, what with you indiscriminately bombing them to a pulp and all.  But I’m sure the Gazans will all be very relieved to hear that it was all just a big misunderstanding, and you only want to wipe out the government that they democratically elected.  Bygones!

1 comment January 18th, 2009 at 12:42pm Posted by Eli

Wait, Which Country Was He Talking About Again?

Dubya gets right to the heart of the problem in his farewell address:

The battles waged by our troops are part of a broader struggle between two dramatically different systems. Under one, a small band of fanatics demands total obedience to an oppressive ideology, condemns women to subservience, and marks unbelievers for murder. The other system is based on the conviction that freedom is the universal gift of Almighty God, and that liberty and justice light the path to peace.

I think he might be exaggerating a little bit about conservatives marking unbelievers for murder, but otherwise I think he’s spot on.

Add comment January 16th, 2009 at 09:45pm Posted by Eli

Joe The Plumber Author War Correspondent Strikes Again!

Joe The Whatever-He-Is-This-Week continues to be a humungous tool:

I’ll be honest with you.  I don’t think journalists should be [allowed anywhere near] war.  I mean, you guys report where our troops are at.  You report what’s happening day to day.  You make a big deal out of it.  I-I think it’s asinine.  You know, I liked back in World War I and World War II when you’d go to the theater and you’d see your troops on, you know, the screen and everyone would be real excited and happy for’em.  Now everyone’s got an opinion and wants to downer–and down soldiers.  You know, American soldiers or Israeli soldiers.  I think media should be abolished from, uh, you know, reporting.  You know, war is hell.  And if you’re gonna sit there and say, “Well look at this atrocity,” well you don’t know the whole story behind it half the time, so I think the media should have no business in it.

“Only cheerleaders and partisan hacks like me should ever be allowed to report or comment on wars.”

Add comment January 11th, 2009 at 07:34pm Posted by Eli

Wingnut Logic

(Before I begin, let me just point out that I’m Jewish, so the proper epithet would be “self-hating” rather than “anti-semitic” – just wanted to clear that up in advance.)

Nazis killed Jews.
Hamas kills Jews.
Ergo, Hamas are just like the Nazis, and anyone who opposes Israel bombing Gaza into tiny bloody pieces is objectively pro-Nazi. (Because if there’s one thing the Nazis were known for, it was their excessive pacifism and compassion.)

I really do believe that this false equivalence is at least a piece of the psychology behind Israel’s Gaza policy and those who cheerlead for it – it’s a massive loss of perspective.

In the late 30s and early 40s, Nazi Germany was a heavily industrialized military power, and the Jews had no country, and no army – they were completely defenseless.  Today, the Jews have their own country and not just any army, but the fourth-most powerful military in the world.  They can defend themselves just fine now.

And Hamas and the Gazans?  They’re raggedy and starving, and their Wehrmacht is mostly rocks, light arms, and a few rockets.  Yes, they wish Israel ill, but they are not an existential threat.  (It’s probably also worth mentioning that the Jews in 30s and 40s Germany weren’t restricting the Nazis’ movements or food, much less bombing them.  The Nazis hated the Jews solely for being Jewish.)

But as long as Israel and their apologists can conflate Hamas with the Nazis, then no action against them can ever be excessive.  Bombs away!

2 comments January 8th, 2009 at 09:54pm Posted by Eli

Joe The Plumber Author War Correspondent

Joe The Plumber’s ongoing quest to become The King Of All Media continues…

Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, aka “Joe the Plumber,” is taking on a new job as a war correspondent. He is heading to Israel to cover the war for the conservative site PJTV.com. Wurzelbacher said his 10-day journey will help explain why Israeli forces are mounting attacks against Hamas:

I get to go over there and let their “Average Joes” share their story, what they think, how they feel — especially with, you know, world opinion. Maybe get a real story out there.

Yes, I’m sure that with Joe’s l33t journalamism skills, he will surely come up with a scoop or two, if you define “scoop” as “a story that no-one else is reporting,” without imposing any conditions of accuracy or plausibility.  I wonder what kind of unique perspective he might bring to his original reporting…

Last October, Wurzelbacher claimed that Obama’s victory would mean “death to Israel,” leading Fox News reporter Shep Smith to call him “frightening.” Wurzelbacher also questioned Obama’s loyalty to the U.S., and has justified the invasion and occupation of Iraq by claiming “it’s like someone coming to Jesus and becoming saved.”

Yes, he sounds very objective.

This is either a classic case of wingnut welfare, or the GOP’s none-too-subtle attempt to get rid of him…

Add comment January 7th, 2009 at 09:15pm Posted by Eli

It’s On.

Holy crap.

Looks like Israel has decided to invade Gaza to try to take out Hamas once and for all, and too bad for anyone else who happens to be living there.  I guess they were inspired by how well our invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq went, and how effective they were at neutralizing terrorism.  Because if there’s one thing we’ve proven, it’s that nothing succeeds like unchecked brutality, right?

Israel has fallen into a trap similar to the one the Bush administration fell into with al Qaeda: elevating their enemies into an existential threat.  Of course, in Israel’s case, Hamas is a democratically-elected government which actually showed some willingness to negotiate.  They are not al Qaeda, and they are not the second coming of Nazi Germany.

But if they weren’t implacable enemies of Israel before, I’m pretty sure they are now – and unlike al Qaeda and the U.S., they’re right next door. Violence will only beget more violence, and death will only beget more death.

Today is a sad and tragic day for Palestine, but the future will be sad and tragic for both Palestine and Israel.

3 comments January 3rd, 2009 at 02:15pm Posted by Eli

Support Our Mercs!

Hey, remember those American troops who indiscriminately opened fire on a bunch of innocent Iraqi civilians, killing 14 of them?  Oh, wait, they were Blackwater?  You’d never be able to tell from their defense team’s website:

Take a look at the homepage:

See all the references to Blackwater Worldwide?  Me neither.  All I see are the five seals of America’s Armed Forces and an image of the Marine Corps War Memorial.  Instead of this:

We see this:

(…)

See all those signature Blackwater goatees, baseball caps, and side arms?  Me neither.  I’m only seeing the photos of three marines and two soldiers.  So instead of this:

We see this:

(…)

What we have here is a move to elicit sympathy for the accused guards by painting them as patriotic soldiers and marines who were only doing their duties in Iraq.  We see their initial entry photos, deliberately intended to make them seem younger than they are, even though they’re now much older.  Even the father of one of the accused said he “can’t believe prosecutors are going after such decorated military veterans.”  In fact, every aspect of the portrayal makes it look as though soldiers and marines are going on trial here.  But they’re not.  Rather, these indictments were handed down to five highly-paid contractors who were working for Blackwater Worldwide on behalf of the U.S. State Department.  But they were in no way associated with the U.S. military.

(…)

These guys chose to fight in Iraq for a private company that offered them more money and looser grooming standards.  They left the more disciplined world of the Army or the Corps.  And that’s what they wanted.  That’s fine.  They just need to accept responsibility for the decision.

And they can start by leaving the military and its symbols out of this.  If working for Blackwater is such an honorable endeavor, then they should have no problem providing images of themselves operating in Iraq in the service of the State Department.  Instead of the Marine Corps War Memorial, we should see an image of the Blackwater bear paw.

The problem here is that if these guys are found guilty, because of the way their defense has rolled them out to the public, it’s going to reflect on the military.  And that’s not acceptable.  Because the military had nothing to do with this massacre.

What pisses me off is that by blurring the line, the defense team is trying to include Blackwater in the warm fuzzy glow of “supporting the troops,” even though they’re really highly paid mercenaries who are only in it for the money.

On the other hand, if they get the same kind of support our troops and veterans have been getting, maybe they’ll get what they deserve after all…

Add comment December 11th, 2008 at 09:20pm Posted by Eli

Supporting The Troops Fail

Once again, a couple of sterling examples of just how much our Republican government cares about our troops:

The military ignored steps before the invasion of Iraq that could have prevented the staggering number of casualties from roadside bombs, the Pentagon’s acting inspector general charged Tuesday.

The IG’s report says that the military knew years before the war that mines and homemade bombs, which the military calls “improvised explosive devices,” would be a “threat . . . in low-intensity conflicts” and that “mine-resistant vehicles” were available.

“Yet the military did not develop requirements for, fund or acquire” safer vehicles, the report says. The military invaded Iraq in 2003 “without having taken available steps to acquire technology to mitigate the known mine and IED risk to soldiers and Marines.”

Even after the war was under way, as the devices began taking a deadly toll and field commanders pressed for vehicles that were better protected from roadside bombs, the Pentagon was slow to act, the report says.

(…)

MRAPS are bigger and heavier than the Humvees that troops have used for patrols in Iraq. They’re higher off the ground and designed to deflect an explosion.

The IG report says that the military “stopped processing” a 2005 request for 1,169 MRAPS from commanders in the field. Another request came a year later, according to a letter from Bond and Biden to Gen. James Conway, the Marine commandant.

(…)

Gayl, a former Marine, said that “gross mismanagement” delayed the use of MRAPS in combat. Otherwise, he concluded, “hundreds of deaths and injuries could have been prevented.”

In a 2007 memo from Conway to Gen. Peter Pace, who was then the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the nation’s top Marine said that MRAPS could cut IED casualties by 80 percent, according to Gayl.

…Or our veterans:

There was nothing dramatic about how Spc. Cristapher Zuetlau’s career in the Army came to an end: he stepped in a hole. But the damage to the tank crewman’s wrenched back was so brutal he can barely walk.

The Army agreed he was no longer fit to serve, but in doing so determined his disability was not severe enough to warrant long-term care by the military. That turned his health care over to the Department of Veterans Affairs, which left him with no retirement benefits and cut off his family from government health care.

Thousands of similar stories caused veterans advocates to protest that the military was manipulating disability ratings to save money, and Congress last year ordered the Pentagon to accept appeals from wounded and injured troops.

So far, officials have yet to examine a single case.

“Congress finally took action to give those troops a fair hearing, and now the Department of Defense is dragging its feet,” said Vanessa Williamson, the policy director at New York-based Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, a veterans’ advocacy group. “Establishing the review board was clearly not the Department of Defense’s priority. And that’s a real shame.”

That’s our Bush administration: Supporting the troops as long as it’s not, y’know, too much trouble.

(h/t dakine)

Add comment December 10th, 2008 at 09:35pm Posted by Eli

Tell Me Why We Invaded Afghanistan Again?

We didn’t capture or kill bin Laden.  We didn’t destroy al Qaeda.  Oh, but at least we liberated the country from the Taliban, established democracy, and ended the oppression of women!  Eh, not so much…

The collapse of Afghanistan is closer than the world believes. Kandahar is in Taliban hands – all but a square mile at the centre of the city – and the first Taliban checkpoints are scarcely 15 miles from Kabul. Hamid Karzai’s deeply corrupted government is almost as powerless as the Iraqi cabinet in Baghdad’s “Green Zone”; lorry drivers in the country now carry business permits issued by the Taliban which operate their own courts in remote areas of the country.

The Red Cross has already warned that humanitarian operations are being drastically curtailed in ever larger areas of Afghanistan; more than 4,000 people, at least a third of them civilians, have been killed in the past 11 months, along with scores of Nato troops and about 30 aid workers. Both the Taliban and Mr Karzai’s government are executing their prisoners in ever greater numbers. The Afghan authorities hanged five men this month for murder, kidnap or rape – one prisoner, a distant relative of Mr Karzai, predictably had his sentence commuted – and more than 100 others are now on Kabul’s death row.

This is not the democratic, peaceful, resurgent, “gender-sensitive” Afghanistan that the world promised to create after the overthrow of the Taliban in 2001. Outside the capital and the far north of the country, almost every woman wears the all-enshrouding burkha, while fighters are now joining the Taliban’s ranks from Kashmir, Uzbekistan, Chechnya and even Turkey….

(…)

Is it really the overriding ambition of Afghans to have “democracy”? Is a strong federal state possible in Afghanistan? Is the international community ready to take on the warlords and drug barons who are within Mr Karzai’s own government? And – most important of all – is development really about “securing the country”? The tired old American adage that “where the Tarmac ends, the Taliban begins” is untrue. The Taliban are mounting checkpoints on those very same newly-built roads.

(…)

“We” are not winning in Afghanistan. Talk of crushing the Taliban seems as bleakly unrealistic as it has ever been. Indeed, when the President of Afghanistan tries to talk to Mullah Omar – one of America’s principal targets in this wretched war – you know the writing is on the wall. And even Mullah Omar didn’t want to talk to Mr Karzai.

So… after our supposed victory, Karzai was effectively nothing more than the mayor of Kabul.  Now, 7 years later… Karzai is effectively nothing more than the mayor of Kabul.  I think the biggest change that we’ve effected in Afghanistan is to make its people hate us.  Bravo.

(h/t Elliott)

3 comments November 28th, 2008 at 07:13am Posted by Eli

What Bob Geiger Said.

You do not get to posture about how you support the troops and Democrats don’t, when you turn around and stab troops and veterans in the back every single chance you get.

Wankers.

Add comment November 11th, 2008 at 12:42pm Posted by Eli

Obama And The Arab Blogosphere

The NYT op-ed page has a fascinating selection of Arab blog reactions to Obama’s victory, ranging from Hooray for America to Big deal, America will still treat us like dirt:

Tamem, Egypt (tamem.wordpress.com)

The victory of Barack Hussein Obama that we, along with the rest of the world, are witnessing today is another historic moment, not just for America but for the whole world by virtue of America’s huge influence, whether we like it or not. Personally I, like others, doubted Americans’ ability to overcome racism, but in electing “Abu Hussein,” they created a historic moment by accepting the first black president to govern not just America but the white West as a whole. With this, they removed all such doubts and the impossible dream of Martin Luther King became possible.

Syrian Dream, Syria (syriandream.com)

The world arose today to welcome Barack Obama as the first black president of the United States, and Africa danced with joy.

The whole world is optimistic about what he offers but doubts remain about him, a great question mark.

What will Syria’s fate be under him? Will he give the green light to bombing us?

(…)

Esra’a, Bahrain (mideastyouth.com)

I can honestly say that we can finally wave goodbye to the overwhelming anti-Muslim and anti-Arab bigotry that we have suffered with for the past eight years under the Bush administration. We can expect less wars, less corruption, less political abuse. It won’t be perfect, but it will get better. I am so happy and proud of all the Americans who worked extremely hard for Obama, understanding fully well the importance of change in every sense of the word. This moment is not just historical but crucial to us here in the Middle East.

This is a win for all of us, not just America.

This is a win for civil rights and justice.

For all the pessimists out there, allow us to enjoy this moment. If you learned anything from this campaign, you would learn that it starts with hope — not cynicism. And hope is what I have right now, for America and the Middle East.

We can do it, and this time, we can be sure that we can do it together.

I haven’t said this in a really long time, but I am loving America right now.

(…)

Mashrabeya, Egypt (mashrabeya.blogspot.com)

Only time would tell if Obama is real, or just too good to be true!

Sometimes, it is not enough to have a Big Dream. What matters is to have enough strength to resist the pressures to give up a Big Dream!

Land and People, Lebanon (landandpeople.blogspot.com)

My take on this is that he is the president of the United States, and not Barack Obama. That said, I would really like to hope for change. After all, Obama showed that change was possible: he himself changed from a supporter of Palestinian rights into a man who believes that Jerusalem is the historic capital of Israel. He also changed during his campaign from “No Iraq war for me please, I’m trying to quit” into “All right I’ll have some, but a tiny piece please.”

(…)

But the question that really interests me is about the relationship between Obama and the true center of world power, Kapital. There was an awful lot of money in Obama’s campaign … A great chunk must have come from carefully planned investments by C.E.O.’s and multinationals. Will Obama be able to confront the mega-corporations? Does he want to? The poor and the colored population of the world, including that of the U.S., is the one that suffers most from malnutrition and hunger and food insecurity. We know now that mega-corporations, pushing for more profit at any cost, are responsible for most of the damage. Will Obama do something about that? Does he want to? Can he?

An Arab Woman Blues, Iraq (arabwomanblues.blogspot.com)

(…)

I also said that Obama will strike a deal with Ahmadinejad on Iraq and in particular southern Iraq.

And lo and behold, the vice president for the booma Obama is none other than J. Biden. J. Biden, the Zionist, is an ardent supporter of the partition of Iraq into three statelets. No wonder Maliki & Co. were also backing the booma along with Iran. I also know that Iran had generously contributed to the Obama campaign.

… I shall not congratulate you on your 44th president. He will simply finish off what the other Zionists had started — the final partition of my country.

To hell with all of you and all of your presidents.

Neurotic Iraqi Wife, Iraq (neurotic-iraqi-wife.blogspot.com)

For me, this is not just about history, this is about someone who was able to bring down the very people that broke my country. It’s a great punch to the very people that destroyed the individual Iraqi. And that to me is an enough victory.

I will only have to say to Mr. Obama, don’t let us down.

There’s a lot of hope, but also a lot of well-earned bitterness and cynicism.  I think the reality is probably going to be somewhere in the middle.  I don’t think Obama will stray outside the bounds of our historical Middle East foreign policy, but he also won’t be nearly as callous or malevolent towards Arabs and Muslims as his predecessor.

It won’t be The Dawning Of A Brand New Day in American foreign policy, but at least we won’t be trying to rule by fear and gratuitous violence.  Who knows, we might even stop bombing weddings.

Add comment November 8th, 2008 at 09:10pm Posted by Eli

Sarah Palin Outs The Republican Party

I knew it!

She continued: “And there must be something about San Francisco and he because it’s like I heard on Fox News today, it’s like a truth serum where when he’s there, he seems to be more candid, and remember it was there that he talked about, there you go, the bitter clingers, the cling-ons, all of us, I guess, you know holding on to religion and guns and, um, so something about he being there in San Francisco.”

It sure would explain their foreign policy, although not their complete lack of courage or honor.

(h/t Blue Texan)

Add comment November 3rd, 2008 at 07:49pm Posted by Eli

Surprise!

Okay, so let me get this straight: 9 days before the election, our military sends four helicopters into Syria to shoot up a bunch of construction workers?

Does that sound at all… suspicious to anyone?  Like maybe the Bushies want everyone talking shiny new war instead of economic meltdown?

Although it’s probably a tossup at best whether this would actually help McCain or any other Republicans – I think most Americans are pretty damn sick of the Bush Doctrine.

Add comment October 26th, 2008 at 04:35pm Posted by Eli

Do Veterans Groups Have A Golden Raspberry?

In case you’re not familiar with it, the “Razzie” is awarded to the worst movies, actors, and directors every year.  I wonder if veterans groups have anything similar – it would be the only possible explanation for this:

Yesterday, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) held a telephone town hall meeting, in which “thousands” of Nevadans — according to the McCain campaign — called to listen in. Among some of the hostile, pointed, and critical questions came one from a veteran, who challenged McCain on his voting record regarding funding for the Veterans Administration and veterans’ priorities:

Q: I know you voted for lesser increases, and sometimes they were so much less, and our VA desperately needs the money. Can you tell me why you would vote for less money for the VA when there’s a war going on?

M: Well of course I have not and I’m afraid I’ve been endorsed by the VFW in every election that I’ve been in. I have been — received the honors, the highest honor and awards from all our veterans organizations for my consistent support of them. I don’t know what you’re looking at, but the DAV, the VFW, the American Legion, all of them have given me their highest awards for my consistent support of them.

As ThinkProgress has repeatedly documented, McCain is either willfully lying or he is delusional about his record — and the meaning of “highest awards.” In fact, McCain has recently stood on the opposite side of all three of the groups he mentioned:

– Disabled American Veterans (DAV): In a list of 36 “key votes,” shows McCain “Voted Against Us” 16 times. (Obama “Voted With Us” 17 times, and against only once.)

– Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW): Endorsed Sen. Jim Webb’s (D-VA) GI Bill that McCain vigorously opposed; called McCain’s alternative GI Bill “very partisan” and said they “didn’t have much input” in its crafting.

– American Legion: Endorsed Webb’s GI Bill and criticized McCain’s concern about how it would affect retention, saying the bill “would encourage young men and women to join the military.”

Just last week, the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America gave McCain a grade of D for his record of voting against veterans. (Obama got a B.) The Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA) have noted that in its “Key Votes,” McCain “Voted Against Us” 15 times and “Voted For Us” only 8. (Obama voted for VVA 12 times, and against only once.)

Earlier this month, Rep. Chet Edwards (D-TX), a leading veterans advocate, excoriated McCain in an interview with ThinkProgress: “If you look at John McCain’s record on veterans issues, it’s a failed one.” It’s a sentiment IAVA executive director Paul Rieckhoff agrees with. Noting McCain’s dismal voting record on VA funding, Rieckhoff told ThinkProgress, “If he says the VA’s not working, it’s in part because he hasn’t funded it properly.”

Maybe it’s enough just to say that you support veterans.  The “Republicans support the troops and the Democrats don’t” meme has always mystified me, especially when it comes to veterans, who Republicans consistently screw over – even the ones who are veterans themselves.

2 comments October 20th, 2008 at 09:33pm Posted by Eli

What Worries Lieberman

Joe Lieberman’s worldview in a nutshell:

ASHLEY MARTELLA: Alirght, Iran has sworn to exterminate Israel as well as attack the United States. Does Barack Obama have the right stuff to bomb Iran if it came to that level?

SEN. JOE LIEBERMAN: Well, I worry about that. I worry that Sen. Obama’s world view is naive. Sen. McCain has been around awhile. He’s learned some things. I’ve traveled the world with him a lot. He’s, he will be the kind of president who our allies will trust, but who our enemies will fear. And in a dangerous world, al Qaeda, Iran, Iran trying to get a nuclear weapons, we want a president who our enemies will fear. I don’t believe that Sen. Obama will be that kind of president.

I share Lieberman’s faith that John McCain has the right stuff to bomb Iran, so much so that he wouldn’t even need a reason.  Only I don’t think that that’s a good thing.

Add comment October 9th, 2008 at 07:32am Posted by Eli

Instant Karma

See if you can spot the irony:

He met her in the bar of the swank hotel and invited her to his room. Once there, the woman fixed the drinks and told him to get undressed.

And that, the delegate to the Republican National Convention told police, was the last thing he remembered.

When he awoke, the woman was gone, as was more than $120,000 in money, jewelry and other belongings.

(…)

In a statement released today, Gabriel Nathan Schwartz, 29, of Denver, put the figure at much less.

“It’s embarrassing to admit that I was a target of a crime. I was drugged and had about $50,000 of personal items stolen, not the inflated number that the media is reporting from an inaccurate police report,” he said.

“As a single man, I was flattered by the attention of a beautiful woman who introduced herself to me. I used poor judgment.”

(…)

The haul included a $30,000 watch, a $20,000 ring, a necklace valued at $5,000, earrings priced at $4,000 and a Prada belt valued at $1,000, police said.

(Poor judgment?  By a Republican?  That’s unpossible!)  Now here’s the beauty part:

During the convention, Schwarz wasn’t shy about talking to the media. In an Associated Press article about Sen. John McCain’s acceptance speech, Schwartz was quoted as saying that as far as oratorical skills go, McCain “has more experience in his little pinkie” than Democratic nominee Barack Obama.

In an interview filmed the afternoon of Sept. 3 and posted on the Web site LinkTV.org, Schwartz was candid about how he envisioned change under a McCain presidency.

“Less taxes and more war,” he said, smiling. He said the U.S. should “bomb the hell” out of Iran because the country threatens Israel.

Asked by the interviewer how America would pay for a military confrontation with Iran, he said the U.S. should take the country’s resources.

“We should plant a flag. Take the oil, take the money,” he said. “We deserve reimbursement.”

A few hours after the interview, an unknown woman helped herself to Schwartz’s resources.

It is so refreshing to see one of these Grand Theft Auto Conservatives get a taste of his own ideology.

(h/t Blue Texan)

Add comment September 16th, 2008 at 06:48pm Posted by Eli