Support our soldiers

Right now, in a disgraceful move, Sen. Tom Coburn is single-handedly holding up some very important veteran legislation. Sen. Coburn is trying to block S. 1963, “The Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2009.” While this is a legal move, we think it is morally wrong for Sen. Coburn to hold up any veterans benefits during a time when our men and women in uniform are giving so much to our country.

Sign the petition and send Coburn a message.

Further proof

That the Pentagon does not give a shit about the troops and embraces the 'use them up and throw them out' policy: [my bold]

A newly leaked military document appears to show the Pentagon knowingly exposed US troops to toxic chemicals that cause cancer, while publicly downplaying the risks exposure might cause.

The document, written by an environmental engineering flight commander in December of 2006 and posted on Wikileaks (PDF) on Tuesday, details the risks posed to US troops in Iraq by burning garbage at a US airbase. It enumerates myriad risks posed by the practice and identifies various carcinogens released by incinerating waste in open-air pits.

Because of the difficulties in testing samples, investigators could not prove that chemicals exceeded military exposure guidelines. But a military document released last December found that chemicals routinely exceeded safe levels by twice to six times.

The leaked report was signed off by the chief for the Air Force's aeromedical services. Its subject is Balad Airbase, a large US military base about 70 kilometers north of Baghdad.

I wonder where they got this attitude?....

Support our troops

And stop this madness:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- One week after the U.S. Army announced record suicide rates among its soldiers last year, the service is worried about a spike in possible suicides in the new year.

The Army said 24 soldiers are believed to have committed suicide in January alone -- six times as many as killed themselves in January 2008, according to statistics released Thursday.

The Army said it already has confirmed seven suicides, with 17 additional cases pending that it believes investigators will confirm as suicides for January.

If those prove true, more soldiers will have killed themselves than died in combat last month. According to Pentagon statistics, there were 16 U.S. combat deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq in January.

"This is terrifying," an Army official said. "We do not know what is going on."

Col. Kathy Platoni, chief clinical psychologist for the Army Reserve and National Guard, said that the long, cold months of winter could be a major contributor to the January spike.

"There is more hopelessness and helplessness because everything is so dreary and cold," she said.

But Platoni said she sees the multiple deployments, stigma associated with seeking treatment and the excessive use of anti-depressants as ongoing concerns for mental-health professionals who work with soldiers.

Those who are seeking mental-health care often have their treatment disrupted by deployments. Deployed soldiers also have to deal with the stress of separations from families

(Via the Sailor of SteveAudio).

Gee... you mean there are Democrats in the military?

And that's not an oxymoron?

President Bush has almost single-handedly ended the GOP’s lock on veteran and military voters through his tragic mismanagement of the war in Iraq. I have seen the change among active duty members of the military firsthand. Our families have been torn apart by the intolerable rate and length of deployments – and even many solidly conservative members of the military will privately question the competence of Republican leaders.

Now, it will be up to a Democratic president to rebuild a military that has been pushed to the breaking point by a Republican. President-elect Obama will rebuild the military for the 21st Century by increasing the size of the Marine Corps and Army; restoring the readiness of the National Guard and Reserves; and fully equipping service members for the missions they face.

Domestically, the party that rushed us into war in Iraq has abandoned the needs of veterans here at home. It was a Democratic senator, Jim Webb of Virginia, who led the successful fight against the Bush Administration for a new GI Bill. It has been Democrats who have fought to expand health benefits for veterans, improve access to health care for reservists, and cut through the red tape at the VA.

The success of Democratic veteran candidates has reinforced this trend. This new generation of leaders is making its mark on the Democratic Party and changing the conventional wisdom on political support among veterans and military voters.

This is not to say that Democrats are inherently more patriotic than Republicans. There are honorable people from all walks of life and political affiliations serving in the military today. But no longer will the party of Harry Truman and John Kennedy sit idly by while Republicans attack our commitment and dedication to our country.

Maybe we'll learn from this that supporting our troops does not mean forcing them back into the war for six or seven tours of duty, that threatening other countries is not as good as diplomacy, that war is not the first option on the table but the last.

Maybe.

You cannot use the military for political purposes.

The Republicans blame Obama for trying to use the troops for political purposes. Or not. Or that he tried to but the Pentagon said no. Or the Pentagon said no before he visited with the wrong staff. With or without cameras. Or something:

The Obama campaign [] announced that it had decided to cancel the visit to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, saying that it would be "inappropriate" to make such a visit as part of a campaign trip.

The McCain camp has nonetheless been using Obama's canceled trip to insinuate that he's anti-troops. "Barack Obama is wrong," McCain spokesperson Brian Rogers said in a statement yesterday. "It is never 'inappropriate' to visit our men and women in the military."

But it turns out that the Pentagon did in fact tell Obama that in this case, it was not only "inappropriate," but against DOD rules, for him to conduct the visit with campaign staff.

"We have longstanding Department of Defense policy in regards to political campaigns and elections," Pentagon spokesperson Elizabeth Hibner told me. "We informed the Obama staff that he was more than welcome to visit as Senator Obama, with Senate staff. However, he could not conduct the visit with campaign staff."

After being told this, the Obama campaign announced yesterday that it had decided it was "inappropriate" to make the visit as part of a campaign trip.

Mullen addressed the dangers of mixing the military and politics here earlier:

The highest-ranking U.S. military officer has written an unusual open letter to all those in uniform, warning them to stay out of politics as the United States approaches a presidential election in which the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will be a central, and certainly divisive, issue.

“Keeping our politics private is a good first step,” he added. “The only things we should be wearing on our sleeves are our military insignia.”

I had misunderstood and Bryan of Why Now? put me straight with this explanation in comments:

This isn't a change; this is what should have been happening. When you are identifiable as a serving member of the US military, you are not allowed to engage in any political activity. The rule goes back to the Civil War.

The Hedgemony has been enforcing the rule selectively against anyone who disagrees with them, but it applies to partisans of either side.

No one who worked for me ever knew who I voted for in elections when I was serving. There are no campaign signs on military bases.

This shouldn't be happening, and Mullen knows it, and is concerned about it. Politics and religion have no place in the military. Do what you want off-base, off-duty, and out of uniform, but not when you are identified as a member of the military.

Even McCain agreed using Petraeus for political fundraising was wrong.

So when is using the military for political purposes a good thing? What do the politicians want when they pose with the military? To connote this?



Hoping some of that machismo will rub off?

Do they want to imply this?



Or to suggest that having served in the military suddenly makes you a leader and a supporter of the troops? Even if you're not:



Is this why politicians love parades?:



And love to talk about 'the romantic side' of war?



Even though they actually have little or no understanding what it is like to be in the military:



And have no concept of what their political actions result in:







And often do not listen to anybody except those who parrot back what they want to hear:



And mock those who earned their honor:





And think the military is there to fulfill their every wish?









Ignoring the inevitable results:



Because someone who has never been in combat thinks wearing the uniform will make him look manly, fearless and like a leader:



Oh, wait, that's not the one of Georgie taking charge, THIS is the one...

The Deciderer Commander Guy in costume?



And stopping a ship just before it arrives at port, turning it around and pretending to fly in on a jet? And then use the military as a backdrop for one of the lamest military speeches of all time?



And finally... aren't elected leaders asked to use the military ONLY for necessary actions, and always with a plan and an exit strategy?:





Which is why we have Congress be the ones to declare war:



We want thoughtful politicians who weigh all options, all possibilities, all outcomes:





Update: 8/4:

The backdoor draft

Bush's legacy: Use them up and throw them out. In other words, send the soldiers, wounded or not, back to Iraq until they die:

Because of Bush's abusive stop-loss policy, Jason had been sent into an unwanted third tour of duty. He was a father of three and could not afford to lose his pension. Some "volunteer Army".

During his three 15-month tours in Iraq, exposure to roadside bombs and other job-related injuries caused Jason to be hospitalized several times for concussion and internal bleeding and other injuries. Recently, Jason's condition was such that the Department of Defense flew him from Iraq to Dover Air Force Base for surgery. He was released from the hospital into the loving arms of the government who sent him directly back into Iraq. He was put on active duty while he was still on a liquid diet, unable to eat solid food because of a throat hemorrhage due to a botched surgery at a military hospital.

To date all the family has heard from the Army is that Jason variously died "in his sleep" and "in his bunk" and "in his quarters" and my favorite "sleep apnea complicated by smoking cigarettes," in other words, natural causes.

After his second tour Jason returned home with severe mental and physical issues. He was certainly in no condition to be pressed into a third tour. He wanted out of the army. But Jason was a victim of the liar's back-door draft.

The administration knows the war could not continue if the draft was reinstated, hence the criminally deceptive stop-loss program. At all costs, the administration wants to avoid Vietnam-scale student protests. In this case the cost fell on Jason, whose death will not be included as a war casualty. Jason Dene will not be buried at Arlington National Cemetery; he will just sort of ... disappear quietly (they hope).

Because Jason was Mia Farrow's nephew, I hope the manner of his death does not 'disappear' but sticks like a fish bone in the craw of the Bush cabal. They have never given a shit about the soldiers. Supporting the troops means making them fight in Iraq forever. If they die rather than survive to be a burden on our broken veteran's health system, it will be cheaper that way.

Time to reuse this picture:

12,000? Twelve THOUSAND??

WASHINGTON – The Department of Veterans Affairs lied about the number of veterans who have tried to kill themselves, Sen. Patty Murray said Wednesday, citing internal e-mails that put the number at 12,000 a year while the department was publicly saying it was fewer than 800.

“The suicide rate is a red alarm bell to all of us,” the Washington state Democrat said. She added that the VA’s mental health programs are overwhelmed by Iraq and Afghanistan veterans even as the department seeks to downplay the situation.

“We are not your enemy, we are your support team, and unless we get accurate information we can’t be there to do our jobs,” Murray said.

VA deputy secretary Gordon Mansfield acknowledged the numbers discrepancy and apologized during a Senate Veterans Affairs Committee hearing, telling Murray and other senators he didn’t think there was any deliberate attempt to mislead Congress or the public.

But Murray remained skeptical, saying the VA has shown a pattern of misleading Congress when it comes to the increasing number of soldiers who served in Iraq and Afghanistan seeking help and putting a strain on Defense Department and VA facilities and programs.

This is supporting the troops in what way, exactly?

The best worsts of the week

Of these ten.

Look at number six and guess who it is:

- Voted AGAINST an amendment providing $20 billion to the VA's medical facilities. (5/4/06)

- Voted AGAINST providing $430 million to the VA for outpatient care "and treatment for veterans," one of only 13 senators to do so. (4/26/06)

- Voted AGAINST increasing VA funding by $1.5 billion by closing corporate loopholes. (3/14/06)

- Voted AGAINST increasing VA funding by $1.8 billion by ending "abusive tax loopholes." (3/10/04)

- Voted AGAINST a $650 million increase in veterans' medical care funding. (8/1/01)

Which politician is so against supporting our troops that (s)he would vote like this?? Obviously some dirty rotten liberal Demo..... uh..... Republican?

How could this be?



crossposted at American Street

Because of the Senate vote, MoveOn.org raises $500,000

Via John Aravosis at Americablog:

From Eli Pariser, the Executive Director of MoveOn.

Dear MoveOn member,

Yesterday, an amazing thing happened. After the Senate's shameful vote, and after President Bush called MoveOn "disgusting," our email started to fill up with messages like this one:

I'm currently in Iraq. I do not agree with this war, and if I did support this war, it would not matter. You have the RIGHT to speak the truth. We KNOW that you support us. Thank you for speaking out for being our voice. We do not have a voice. We are overshooted by those who say that we soldiers do not support organizations like MoveOn. WE DO.

YOU ARE OUR voice.

And then came the donations. By midnight, over 12,000 people had donated $500,000—more than we've raised any day this year—for our new ad calling out the Republicans who blocked adequate rest for troops headed back to Iraq.

The message from MoveOn members was loud and clear: Don't back down. Take the fight back to the issues that matter.

So today we're shooting for a very ambitious goal: Reach $1 million so we can dramatically expand the campaign we launched yesterday going after politicians who support this awful war. Can you chip in $25 toward our goal?

It's not like golf, Georgie.

The low numbers mean you are losing not winning.

Attaturk at Rising Hegemon catches the polling:

U.S. TROOP LEVELS IN IRAQ SHOULD BE…?

Now
Increased -- 6%
Kept same -- 21%
Reduced -- 39%
Remove all troops -- 29%

Pre-speech, 9/4-8/2007
Increased -- 11%
Kept same -- 19%
Reduced -- 35%
Remove all troops -- 30%

By the way, on the Michael Ledeen "Real Americans versus UnAmericans" front...

President Bush’s overall job approval rating remains at 29 percent, similar to what it was a week ago. His rating on handling the war in Iraq is holding at 25 percent.

And nobody wanted to listen to Bush talking:

Another response to General Petraeus

Clinton fought two wars and won them both

Just a reminder for those loyal Bushies who are trying to blame Clinton for breaking the military.

Bush broke the military.

Bush started two wars and is losing both of them through hubris and incompetence.

Bush wants to start a war with Iran.

Bush will lose that one too.

Are the Democrats able to support the troops

By bringing them home like we asked?

Via jurassicpork at Welcome to Pottersville,

Paul Krugman:

There are five things I hope Democrats in Congress will remember.

First, no independent assessment has concluded that violence in Iraq is down. On the contrary, estimates based on morgue, hospital and police records suggest that the daily number of civilian deaths is almost twice its average pace from last year. And a recent assessment by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office found no decline in the average number of daily attacks.

So how can the military be claiming otherwise? Apparently, the Pentagon has a double super secret formula that it uses to distinguish sectarian killings (bad) from other deaths (not important); according to press reports, all deaths from car bombs are excluded, and one intelligence analyst told The Washington Post that “if a bullet went through the back of the head, it’s sectarian. If it went through the front, it’s criminal.” So the number of dead is down, as long as you only count certain kinds of dead people.

Oh, and by the way: Baghdad is undergoing ethnic cleansing, with Shiite militias driving Sunnis out of much of the city. And guess what? When a Sunni enclave is eliminated and the death toll in that district falls because there’s nobody left to kill, that counts as progress by the Pentagon’s metric.

Second, Gen. Petraeus has a history of making wildly overoptimistic assessments of progress in Iraq that happen to be convenient for his political masters.

I’ve written before about the op-ed article Gen. Petraeus published six weeks before the 2004 election, claiming “tangible progress” in Iraq. Specifically, he declared that “Iraqi security elements are being rebuilt,” that “Iraqi leaders are stepping forward” and that “there has been progress in the effort to enable Iraqis to shoulder more of the load for their own security.” A year later, he declared that “there has been enormous progress with the Iraqi security forces.”

But now two more years have passed, and the independent commission of retired military officers appointed by Congress to assess Iraqi security forces has recommended that the national police force, which is riddled with corruption and sectarian influence, be disbanded, while Iraqi military forces “will be unable to fulfill their essential security responsibilities independently over the next 12-18 months.”

Third, any plan that depends on the White House recognizing reality is an idle fantasy. According to The Sydney Morning Herald, on Tuesday Mr. Bush told Australia’s deputy prime minister that “we’re kicking ass” in Iraq. Enough said.

Fourth, the lesson of the past six years is that Republicans will accuse Democrats of being unpatriotic no matter what the Democrats do. Democrats gave Mr. Bush everything he wanted in 2002; their reward was an ad attacking Max Cleland, who lost both legs and an arm in Vietnam, that featured images of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.

Finally, the public hates this war and wants to see it ended. Voters are exasperated with the Democrats, not because they think Congressional leaders are too liberal, but because they don’t see Congress doing anything to stop the war.

In light of all this, you have to wonder what Democrats, who according to The New York Times are considering a compromise that sets a “goal” for withdrawal rather than a timetable, are thinking. All such a compromise would accomplish would be to give Republicans who like to sound moderate — but who always vote with the Bush administration when it matters — political cover.

And six or seven months from now it will be the same thing all over again. Mr. Bush will stage another photo op at Camp Cupcake, the Marine nickname for the giant air base he never left on his recent visit to Iraq. The administration will move the goal posts again, and the military will come up with new ways to cook the books and claim success.

One thing is for sure: like 2004, 2008 will be a “khaki election” in which Republicans insist that a vote for the Democrats is a vote against the troops. The only question is whether they can also, once again, claim that the Democrats are flip-floppers who can’t make up their minds.

Move America Forward

By gripping the back of the neck and propelling it down the road, yelling,"There's nothing to see in Iraq because only patriots want our soldiers to keep fighting because obviously they need to die overseas so they don't come back over here to tell the truth about Iraq and cost us money with hospital bills!" Melanie Morgan is ready to do battle with evil Democrats who just don't know how to love this country.

Ripley of Zen Cabin has the details.

Support the troops

Until they say something you don't agree with. Then you get to publicly dump on them.

Matt at Think Progress:

On MSNBC’s Tucker yesterday, host Tucker Carlson attempted to refute a recent New York Times op-ed, entitled “The War As We Saw It,” authored by members of the 82nd Airborne Division finishing up a 15 month deployment to Iraq. They wrote that “recent press coverage” of Iraq has “neglected the mounting civil, political and social unrest we see every day.”
[snip]
While Carlson claims to have respect for people serving in a war zone, he appears to have no hesitations in calling out the credibility of soldiers when they present a viewpoint that doesn’t confirm his own.

Tell me again. Has Tucker served?

Supporting the troops

By sending them back again and again:

Soldiers getting ready to go on leave would talk about things they planned to do at home with tones of relief and elation. Soldiers returning to their units would move about anxiously and hope for delays in their returns back to the line. When details of their returns were received, and when all hope of delay had been exhausted, their muscles visibly tightened and their movements became jolted, almost angry, and they began to speak of their hopelessness, the friends they had seen killed. They began to question and criticize the war, late into the night on their cots in the darkness. In the morning, they would be gone, their empty cots a reminder of them, and of where they would be by now. Often when we spoke to them, we wondered secretly if they would become one more of those we had talked with who might later appear on a memorial flier before us, an inverted rifle and bayonet, a Kevlar, a pair of boots, and dog tags, a typed message naming who they left behind back home.

One soldier who had been back too many times:

"No, sir, I don't really sleep. Well, maybe an hour or two, then I get up. I don't want to dream," the soldier said to us. His name was Staff Sgt. Johnson. He was a good soldier, and you could tell when you spoke to him. He was a man of honor. He was ashamed to be speaking with us, but his leaders had insisted. He had served three combat tours as a squad leader in a line unit. His body and his hands shook during pauses in his speaking and he stared at us, and sometimes past us, with a wide-eyed look of hyper alertness. He had just returned from leave and two guys in his squad were killed days before his return.

"You know, I think I thought, or...you would think, that each time you lose someone in combat it would be easier, but it's not. It's not." He shook his head and looked away from Maj. Johns and down at the floor. "It's not," he repeated as he stared at the floor. He looked back up at me nervously, still shaking his head. When he finally stopped shaking his head, his body erupted into a tiny tremor as he tried to keep still. He pressed and rubbed his palms against his knees as he sat, presumably to try and stop his hands from shaking. "Every time someone dies, I relive all of the other deaths. Over and over." He shook his head and looked back down at the floor and the tremor began again.

"That's a very normal response," Maj. Johns said. I nodded and Staff Sgt. Johnson nodded back at us sadly, and then looked away.

"You know, I think going home on leave really told me how bad I was."

"What happened on your leave?" Maj. Johns asked.

"Well, not too much really. Well, the first few days were good."

"What did you do the first few days?"

"I checked into a nice hotel and got a bottle of scotch and I didn't come out for about four or five days. It was great. I didn't get drunk. I just sipped, you know?"

"What were you doing in there all that time?" Maj. Johns asked.

"Just staring at the wall really," he answered, and then drifted his gaze past us as if remembering. "I didn't turn on the TV or anything. I just stared at the wall. Well, for the first three days anyway. I know it sounds weird but it was really great."

"Then what happened?"

"Well, then my girlfriend came. And don't get me wrong. I love her and she's a great girl and all but it just wasn't the same after she came. She's great though. She's so understanding."

"How did things go with your girlfriend? Did you get along okay?"

"Oh yah, we didn't fight at all. No, we got along. But..." he looked from Maj. Johns toward me and hesitated.

"But what, man?" I asked.

"Well, I couldn't do it, you know? I mean sex. We didn't have sex at all. Her skin just felt really weird. You know what I mean?" He sort of squinted and cocked his head to the side slightly when he asked if we knew what he meant.

"No, not exactly. What did her skin feel like to you? Describe it to us," Maj. Johns replied.

"Like rubber, like an animal," he crinkled his cheeks as he remembered, as if it were repulsive to him. "Like she wasn't real."

We talked with Staff Sgt. Johnson for a while longer. He was one of the worst we had ever seen. When we mentioned the thought of him taking his squad out again he simply said, "I can't. I won't. I won't load another body onto that chopper. I can't. I won't."

Supporting the troops to Bush

Means keeping them lean, mean, hungry and poor. John at Americablog:

Yep. The Democrats are giving the troops .5% more of a raise than the Bush White House asked for, so the Bush administration is now opposing the legislation. Yeah, I mean it's not like the troops have earned a little extra over the past five years.

Tax cuts for the rich and big business? No problem. But if you're a soldier or a Marine, forget about it.

Hmm. Multiple deployments, sending the wounded back to Iraq, cutting funds for brain damage studies, privatizing Walter Reed and housing our soldiers in filty rooms.....

Sounds like Bush supports the troops by using them up and throwing them out.

Quick! Quick! Gimme the money fer our troops!

Those poor troops! Look at'em! All sad and stuff. Gimme the money now! Don't think about, don't ask questions now now now.... aw shit.

Think Progress:

The Associated Press has a major story out confirming that President Bush has been hyping a false Iraq spending deadline.

For weeks, the Bush administration has been trying to force Congress to abandon its support for an Iraq withdrawal timeline by claiming that a “clean” Iraq spending bill must be signed by mid-April or U.S. troops will suffer. In one speech, President Bush warned Congress that “the clock is ticking for our troops in the field“:

BUSH: Congress continues to pursue these [withdrawal] bills, and as they do, the clock is ticking for our troops in the field. Funding for our forces in Iraq will begin to run out in mid-April. Members of Congress need to stop making political statements, and start providing vital funds for our troops.

[snip]

But now, the AP reports, the CRS numbers have been confirmed by the Pentagon:

The Pentagon says it has enough money to pay for the Iraq war through June, despite warnings from the White House that troops are being harmed by Congress’ failure to quickly deliver more funds.

The Army is taking a series of “prudent measures” aimed at making sure delays in the bill financing the war do not harm troop readiness, according to instructions sent to Army commanders and budget officials April 14.

Tell me again who supports the troops?

Crooks and Liars quotes The Nation:

Eventually the rocket shrapnel was removed from (Spc. Jon) Town's neck and his ears stopped leaking blood. But his hearing never really recovered, and in many ways, neither has his life. A soldier honored twelve times during his seven years in uniform, Town has spent the last three struggling with deafness, memory failure and depression. By September 2006 he and the Army agreed he was no longer combat-ready.

But instead of sending Town to a medical board and discharging him because of his injuries, doctors at Fort Carson, Colorado, did something strange: They claimed Town's wounds were actually caused by a "personality disorder." Town was then booted from the Army and told that under a personality disorder discharge, he would never receive disability or medical benefits.

Town is not alone. A six-month investigation has uncovered multiple cases in which soldiers wounded in Iraq are suspiciously diagnosed as having a personality disorder, then prevented from collecting benefits. The conditions of their discharge have infuriated many in the military community, including the injured soldiers and their families, veterans' rights groups, even military officials required to process these dismissals.

They say the military is purposely misdiagnosing soldiers like Town and that it's doing so for one reason: to cheat them out of a lifetime of disability and medical benefits, thereby saving billions in expenses.

It all comes down to money. The Republicans should feel so proud of themselves.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Senator Jim Webb

Reminding us what real governing involved:

"Keeping a promise he made on the campaign trail in 2006, Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) did more for the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan on his first day in the Senate than the man he ousted, George Felix Allen, did in the entire previous Congress.

Going unnoticed in the frenzy of Democrats assuming control of Capitol Hill and George W. Bush seeking to plunge the country deeper into the Iraq quagmire, Webb introduced the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2007, legislation that will provide the newest Veterans with educational benefits like those received by men and women who served in the three decades following World War II.