Tea-Publicans in Congress were tripping all over themselves to get to a microphone on Tuesday to trumpet a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report that the conservative media entertainment complex, and its enablers in the corporate "lamestream" media either did not read or purposefully misrepresented with headlines like this in the Washington Post: CBO: Health law to mean 2 million fewer workers.
The [Washington Post’s "Fact Checker"] Glenn Kessler today published a fact-checking post breaking some news: No, he wrote, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) never, ever reported that Obamacare would somehow or other kill more than 2 million U.S. jobs.
Okay, to say that Kessler broke this news is a rhetorical exaggeration to highlight the point that many-o-many media outlets misconstrued the CBO findings. For a while this morning, the Internet was hopping with job-killing hype, when in fact the truth was vastly different. Obamacare’s impact, the CBO concluded, would lessen the supply of labor by encouraging certain folks not to work: “The estimated reduction stems almost entirely from a net decline in the amount of labor that workers choose to supply, rather than from a net drop in businesses’ demand for labor, so it will appear almost entirely as a reduction in labor force participation and in hours worked. . . .”
For someone approaching retirement, notes Kessler, Obamacare could well mean that they needn’t hold onto a bad job just to keep health insurance. That’s a far different dynamic from job-killing.
A new Republican candidate wants to see if he can outmaneuver GOP favorite Martha McSally for the chance to take on U.S. Rep. Ron Barber in Congressional District 2 this year. Meet Chuck Wooten:
Chief Master Sergeant, U.S. Air Force (Retired) Chuck Wooten is announcing his candidacy for the Arizona Congressional District 2 (CD2) on the Republican ticket.
Chuck Wooten is seeking the Republican nomination to challenge Democratic Congressman Ron Barber.
Wooten has achieved certain notoriety with his Open Letter to Congressman Paul Ryan regarding the reduction of military retirement payments in the Ryan-Murray Budget that was passed into law in late December 2013. [More about that Open Letter below.]
Wooten is running on a platform that includes steadfast, conservative positions on issues regarding border security, jobs for southeastern Arizonans, healthcare reform and reducing the federal deficit. Wooten offers a clear, common-sense alternative in his approach as compared to the other Republican candidates.
“I deliberately chose a campaign slogan that echoes loud and clear the message that southern Arizona conservatives have identified as the top qualities they demand in their representatives, “Trust. Leadership. Guts.” These qualities are my hallmark and my commitment to deliver to them when I earn their votes,” said Wooten.
Wooten will be making a formal announcement for his candidacy for Arizona Congressional District 2 on Monday, February 3, 2014, at 12:00 Noon on the steps of El Presidio Park, 160 W. Alameda Street in down town Tucson.
I've had the good fortune of knowing a fair number of Canadians in my time. When I was stationed in Japan in the Navy twenty years ago (!) I hung out with a pack of expats in Tokyo most weekends, several of whom were Canucks. From 1995 to 1997, I was stationed at Keyport, Washington where I was part of a unit that did weapons training ops, mostly off the coast of Vancouver Island. We spent most of our off duty time in a town called Nanaimo, hanging out with locals. I developed a fondness for Tim Horton's that I still have to this day.
Based on my experience, there are a couple of generalizations about Canadians I can safely make: 1. they think our for-profit health care system is insane and 2. they think we are completely batshit crazy with the all guns and the shootings down here, eh.
All states are now processing benefits for same-sex National Guard spouses after several holdouts found ways to implement the policy without violating their constitutional bans on the recognition of gay marriage.
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said in an announcement Friday that same-sex spouses in every state can now obtain the military ID cards required to receive benefits for wives and husbands of service members.
“All of [the Department of Defense] is committed to pursuing equal opportunities for all who serve this nation, and I will continue to work to ensure our men and women in uniform as well as their families have full and equal access to the benefits they deserve,” Hagel said.
A handful of states, including Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Georgia, refused to process ID applications for gay spouses after the Pentagon issued a directive requiring the military to treat all legally married couples equally for purposes of federal benefits. The states told same-sex couples they could only apply at federal installations, though heterosexual spouses could submit their paperwork at state facilities.
Hagel directed the chief of the National Guard Bureau in late October to work with state officials to reach compliance with the Defense Department’s new policy. The policy came in response to a landmark Supreme Court decision in June overturning a key provision in the Defense of Marriage Act.
Slowly, the holdout states and the National Guard Bureau found workarounds to ensure equal treatment of service members without allowing their employees to process same-sex benefits.
North Vietnamese Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap died last month at the age of 102. The news stories reporting the general's demise brought back memories of the distant rumble of artillery, illumination flares hanging in the night sky, helicopter rides and the clatter of small arms fire. And the chilly remembrance that the situation in Vietnam was far more convoluted than we had been led to believe. Gen. Giap's strategic decisions affected America's 8.2 million Vietnam era veterans in one way or another, especially the nearly 2.6 million that served in the country. By the time U.S. troops departed in 1973, American losses in Vietnam totaled over 58,000 killed and more than 153,000 seriously wounded.
Giap became active in politics in the 1920s, studied law and political economy. At one time, he taught history. He worked as a journalist in the 1930s. A ferocious nationalist, he joined the Communist Party of Vietnam in 1931. Although lacking formal training, Giap began his military exploits resisting the Japanese occupiers in the latter stages of WW II. In a landmark campaign during the First Indochina War in 1954, Gen. Giap overwhelmed the French forces at Dien Bien Phu. His 55,000 troops occupied the surrounding mountains, dismantled artillery pieces were hauled up the steep slopes by hand. The astonishing and complex effort was supported by the toil of 260,000 laborers.
If Tea-Publicans do not care about taking food out of the mouths of children, the elderly and disabled, then how about a group of Americans they profess to care about: active duty military service members and veterans?
The Tea-Publican House action that stripped food stamp funding from a massive farm
bill threatens vital assistance for about 5,000 military families,
mostly from the junior enlisted ranks. DoD: 5,000 Military Families Losing Food Stamps:
A Department of Agriculture report last year showed that more than
5,000 of the 48 million Americans receiving Supplementary Nutritional
Assistance Program (food stamps) listed their employment status as
"active duty military," the Pentagon officials said.
"Military members who receive SNAP tend to be made up of members in
junior pay grades with larger than average household sizes," said Navy
Lt. Cmdr. Nate Christensen, a Defense Department spokesman.
* * *
"It's a small population but it's a vulnerable population," Joye Raezer,
executive director of the National Military Families Association, said
of the active duty military families receiving food stamps.
* * *
Last year, $99 million in food stamps were cashed in at bases by
military families, disabled vets and others with military
identification, and more than $53 million in food stamps were cashed in
this year through June, according to Defense Commissary Agency data
provided to the Huffington Post.
And then there are the veterans for whom Tea-Publicans seem to think it is sufficient to say "Thank you for your service." You owe them more than an insincere "thank you." Nearly 1 Million Vets Face Food Stamps Cut:
About 900,000 veterans and 5,000 active duty troops face cuts in
their food stamp benefits beginning Thursday as $5 billion is
automatically trimmed from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
(SNAP) program for low-income families.
Several "Red States" have had their national guard units refuse to process requests for same-sex partner benefits, despite the Department of Defense (DoD) having brought its rules and regulations into compliance in September with the U.S. Supreme Court decision in U.S. v. Windsor, striking down Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
Apparently these "Red State" Neo-Confederates have decided to engage in massive resistance to the Supreme Court's decision, much the way some of these same states did in response to the Supreme Court decision ending segregation in public schools in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. It took Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson nationalizing state guard units to enforce Supreme Court decisions for the desegregation of public schools. There is no reason to believe that President Obama will not faithfully execute the laws of the United States in the same manner if necessary.
Last night, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel gave a speech to the Anti-Defamation League in which he addressed this "Red State" refusal to comply with DoD rules and regulations regarding same-sex partner benefits. Secretary Hagel's address to the ADL (excerpt):
The balance between security and civil rights sends an important message to the world. At the Department of Defense, we work to preserve America’s individual liberties as well as defend our freedom.
When the Supreme Court issued its decision on the Defense of Marriage Act this summer, the Department of Defense immediately began working on providing the same benefits to all eligible spouses, regardless of sexual orientation. We did it because everyone who serves our country in uniform should receive the full benefits they earned, fairly and in accordance with the law. Everyone’s rights must be protected.
This means that all spouses of service members are entitled to DoD ID cards, and the benefits that come with them. But several states are refusing to issue these IDs to same-sex spouses at National Guard facilities. Not only does this violate the states’ obligations under federal law, their actions have created hardship and inequality by forcing couples to travel long distances to federal military bases to obtain the ID cards they’re entitled to.
This is wrong. It causes division among the ranks, and it furthers prejudice, which DoD has fought to extinguish.
Now that the Iraq war has been "ended" by Obama's draw down of active combat troops (I scare quote here because of the thousands of embassy personnel and private defense contractors still in country), and the ten year anniversary of the invasion is upon us, it is perhaps time to try for a little perspective on this passage in American political history.
I continue to view the invasion and occupation of Iraq as a massive crime of control fraud perpetrated by the Bush junta to extract hundreds of billions from the public fisc to line the pockets of the corporate welfare state wards known collectively as the defense industry. But the historical treatment of that fraud and its long-term impact on American government and politics is what I think deserves more discussion.
As I write, a concerted effort at historical revision by many of the key players in the Iraq fraud is underway throughout the media. People who perpetrated and participated in the Bush Administration's national security follies now seek to cast the Iraq fraud as a successful, if costly, mission to free the Iraqi people from tyranny.
That effort is a subtle poison undermining American security.
Remember the Super Congress? It was a gimmick that Congressional Republicans came up with after the huge debt ceiling and budget battle in August 2011.
The Super Congress was supposed to balance the US budget during the fall of 2011, but they failed to do so. As a result, the country is now facing "sequestration"-- a fancy name for automatic budget cuts and tax increases that were trigger by the Super Congress' failure and the regular Congress' failure to negotiate and agree on humane budget cuts coupled with revenue-generating and economy-growing measures.
Thanks to Congressional foot-dragging, sequestration is upon us. The biggest budget that is up for trimming is the military budget. Although hawks are wringing their hands over potential cuts, the US military budget is by far the largest in the world. In fact, in 2011, the US spent more on the military than the next 13 countries combined! Wonkblog has provided great charts and background information on military spending-- perfect ammunition for anyone who in more invested in peace than war. Check out it out after the jump.
No, this is not a picture of the Peace Ball. I was just trying to get your attention. That's Barack and Michelle, of course.
After the jump, check out Loneprotestor's video of the Peace Ball.
You've gotten hand it to Code Pink. They're everywhere (1, 2, 3) protesting for peace and an end to corporate domination of our country. Check out the video of their flash mob protest over inauguration weekend after the jump.
Republican Congressional candidate Col. Martha McSally says
she has been “fighting for women’s rights and women’s equality [her] whole
life.”
McSally is well known as the first woman combat pilot and
the Air Force officer who fought against a government rule requiring US service
women to wear Arab garb when they leave the base.
Does this make her a champion for women’s rights? Let’s look
beyond these headlines to answer that question.
More on McSally's stances on choice, women's health, equal pay, and the War on Women after the jump...
Choice
Although McSally bristles when called a “cookie
cutter” Republican candidate, her stances on women’s issues are in
lock-step with Congressional
War on Women stalwarts like Republican Vice Presidential candidate Paul
Ryan and fellow Arizonan Jeff
Flake, who is running on the Republican ticket for US Senate against Dr.
Richard Carmona.
McSally’s
website says she believes in “the sanctity of every human life”. This
right-wing code for saying that she agrees with the Republican Party’s
anti-abortion platform. Ironically, small-government McSally
believes that the government should dictate when American women have children.
Not supporting a woman’s right to make decisions governing her own body is a deal
breaker for many women.
In a 2010 CBS News interview
about Sarah Palin, Katie Couric asked feminist icon Gloria Steinem if one could
be a “conservative feminist”—as
Palin claimed to be, despite her disagreement with traditional feminist views.
“Yes, you can be a feminist who says that you don’t agree
with abortion and wouldn’t have an abortion,” Steinem answered, “but you can’t
be a feminist who says that other women can’t [have an abortion] and [who] criminalizes
abortion. One in three American women needs an abortion at some time in her
life. To make that criminal and dangerous is not a feminist act.”
Women’s Health
In addition to her anti-choice stance, McSally is in the repeal-and-replace camp
when it comes to the Affordable Care Act (ACA)--even declaring that she would
vote to strike down the ACA as one of her first acts in Congress. This also
reflects her anti-woman views.
The ACA includes many hard-fought benefits for women: coverage
for preventive services like mammograms and PAP smears; coverage for maternity
care—a benefit that McSally’s former boss Arizona Senator Jon Kyl
infamously mocked; coverage for
contraception and family planning—a benefit 98% of American women need at some
point in their lives; and an end to insurance
premium price discrimination against women.
Pay Equity
The first bill that President Barack Obama signed into law
as president was the Lilly
Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which makes it easier for women to sue employers
for wage discrimination. Historically, American women have made less than male
counterparts doing the same work. A 2010 study showed that American women earn
about 80
cents per every dollar earned by a male worker. This not only translates to
a smaller paycheck, but over a lifetime in the workforce, this results in a
significantly smaller retirement income. Republican Presidential candidate Mitt
Romney has declared that he would not have signed the fair pay act into law.
Where does McSally stand on equal pay for equal work? Who
knows? The “Jobs & Economic
Opportunities” paragraph on her website focuses on cutting corporate taxes
and regulations—with no mention of equal pay or workers’ rights.
“…You want to talk about a war on women? Walk in my shoes down
the streets of Kabul. Walk in my shoes down the streets of Riyadh; where women
have to be covered up. Where they’re stoned, where they’re honor killed if
they’ve been raped , where they can’t drive and they can’t travel without the
permission of a male relative.
That’s a war on women…”
To American women, McSally’s comment is a slap in
the face because it discounts dismisses our struggles here at home. Yes,
definitely, the way women are treated in Afghanistan and other fundamentalist
countries is deplorable. Women in more progressive countries are fighting for
the rights of our oppressed sisters around the world.
We are able to fight because of the rights and
freedoms we have won here at home—the right to free public education, the right
to vote, the right to equal pay for equal work, the right to control our own
bodies, the right to affordable healthcare for ourselves and our families, the
right to love and marry whomever we want.
McSally’s record and
public statements show that she is not a feminist and that she does not stand
with American women in our struggles.
P.S. I included a still life of my recipe box, my 1972 edition Betty Crocker Cookbook, a few kitchen knick-knacks, and my favorite chocolate chip cookie recipe to show that you can be a feminist and still cook and own recipe cards.
Consequently, I know what search results you get when you Google her name different ways, since I used the following search strings multiple times: "martha mcsally," "martha mcsally gay," "martha mcsally husband," "martha mcsally washington post" and "donald f henry."
Before I posted the story debunking her feminist claims, debunking her denial of being a "cookie cutter" Republican candidate, revealing that she was afraid to meet with constitutents and answer questions, and calling for transparency related to accusations about a sham marriage while she was in the Air Force, one would get pages of Google results for any of the searches above. (Of course, in Google's own quirky way, not all of the stories were relevant but many were. For the record, it looked as if Henry-- her ex-- had already been scrubbed from the Internet, except for a reference in an old Air Force magazine.)
Yesterday and today, when I Googled "martha mcsally," it looked as if someone was trying to push my BfAZ story off of the first page of Google results. Now what you get -- instead of news-- is her campaign website (which always comes up first), but now it is followed by generic background like her Wikipedia entry, a link to her background, and a non-story based upon old comments related to burkas and the War on Women in the Middle East. Real news has been pushed down. Yesterday, when I Googled "martha mcsally gay," I got three entries-- all old and referring to her anti-gay statements but not including the BfAZ story, which had been at the top of a string of links on Sunday and Monday. Hmmm... Today-- thanks to a new comment on that story-- it's on page one again.
McSally needs to stop playing games-- like a "cookie cutter" Republican would do-- and answer the questions raised in that story. Why did she get married in Pima County in 1997 and then travel to Santa Cruz County at the end of 1999 to have the marriage annulled? Her lawyer's office is two miles from the Pima County court. Why drive 90 miles? Did it have something to do with that promotion she got to Senator Jon Kyl's office in 1999? What is she hiding? (For images of the court documents and more background, go here.)
We need to put pressure on McSally for a statement on these issues. It's a matter of truthfulness, transparency, and integrity-- values she says she stands for as a "warrior."
Whose legacy would better serve Southern Arizona? That of a right-wing, anti-woman, every-man-for-himself, war-monger who never ventured south of his Tucson Foothills office or that of a reasoned, pro-choice, pro-public health Blue Dog who wasn't afraid to meet constituents?
As a long-time resident of Giffords' district, my experiences yesterday made up my mind. Yesterday, I thought I was going to meet the Warrior Woman who hopes to take the CD2 seat-- you know, the one who says she "resemble[s] Gabby Giffords more than the man who worked for her”-- but she was a no show.
McSally is no Gabby Giffords
Giffords was not afraid to face constituents and answer tough questions. McSally apparently doesn't have the nerve to answer questions that are not softballs from right-wing commentators. (Sounds like something Jon Kyl would do, huh?)
I had a scheduled interview with McSally to discuss women's issues (since she now claims to fight for women's rights, while being anti-choice); the multiple inconsistencies in her platform (believing in the "sanctity of life", while flying 325+ hours as a bomber) pilot; and rumors circulating about her two-year marriage to Donald Henry in 1997 (what's up with that annulment in Santa Cruz County, when you were married and lived in Pima County).
When I showed up at her office, video gear in tow, I was given mush-mouth excuses from her press secretary and campaign manager. "Gosh, she's so busy." (My guess is they Googled me and said, Yikes-- we're not talking with her!)
Not surprised that McSally bailed on a video interview with a feminist who wanted to ask about women's issues, I went to her constituent event at Nimbus, down the street. I waited with about 30 old white folks on the Nimbus patio for 45 minutes. Eventually, McSally staffers said, "Gosh... she's so busy. She doesn't have time to come and talk with you all today. Scheduling conflicts, you know... blah, blah, blah." Since when does a politician in a tight race not have time for a meeting with rich, old white folks? (Was it something I tweeted?)
More unanswered questions about Martha McSally after the jump.
Rep. Jeff Flake voted for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and to put those wars on the nation's credit card, not asking any sacrifice from Americans to pay for those wars. The only sacrifice asked was from the approximately one percent of Americans who serve in the United States Armed Forces. And how did Jeff Flake thank them for their sacrifice and service to their country? Flake has consistently voted against veterans bnenefits, Representative Jeff Flake - Voting Records - Project Vote Smart, as laid out in this ad from VoteVets.org. Description of VoteVets Arizona Ad - Uniform:
Jeff Flake Voted for Iraq Use-of-Force Resolution. On October 10, 2002, Jeff Flake voted for H J Res 114, a resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq. The resolution, however, required the administration to report to Congress that diplomatic options had been exhausted diplomatic options no later than 48 hours after military action had begun. The president was also required to submit a progress report to Congress at least every 60 days. The House passed the resolution 296-133. [Roll Call 455, S 114, 10/10/2002]
Flake Voted for Budget That Cut Veterans Benefits. In 2003, Congressman Jeff Flake voted for a budget that called for cutting $15 billion from veterans' benefits, including veterans' pensions, compensation, education and other benefits, over 10 years. [Letter from Edward R. Heath, National Commander, Disabled Veterans of America (Congressional Record, page H2547), 3/17/03; H. Con. Res. 95, Vote 82, 3/21/03]
Flake One Of Twelve Members To Vote Against New GI Bill, Increased Education Benefits For Veterans. According to Washington Post, "In a pair of bipartisan votes, the House yesterday approved $162 billion to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan well into 2009 and a separate measure that would allow veterans returning from those battlefields to receive increased education benefits. The domestic spending measure, approved 416 to 12, also includes a 13-week extension of unemployment insurance for laid-off workers who have used all 26 weeks of their current benefits, and $2.65 billion for Midwest flood relief. [...]Under the program, often called the new GI Bill, veterans would receive enough money to pay even the most expensive state university tuition." [Roll Call 432, HR 2642, 6/19/08; Washington Post, 6/20/08]
Flake One of Three Members to Vote Against Providing On-Job and Vocational Training for Post 9/11 Veterans. According to the Associated Press, "A measure aimed at improving educational assistance for veterans since Sept. 11, 2001 awaits President Barack Obama's signature after passing the U.S. House of Representatives. The bill was introduced by U.S. Sen. Daniel Akaka of Hawaii, who said Thursday that education of veterans is a vital part of the nation's commitment to members of the armed services. The bill provides for less complex programs for veterans who have served on active duty since Sept. 11, 2001, pays benefits for on-job and vocational training, and makes service members eligible for an annual book allowance. The measure passed the Senate on Monday before clearing the House on Thursday." [HR 3447, Vote 642, 12/16/10; Associated Press, 12/17/10]
David Safier posted The latest Carmona ad, "Lived It," yesterday. Apparently Arizona's angry old man, Sen. John McCain, proving once again that he is the partisan hack he has always been -- only his base, the media, ever believed that B.S. about him being a "maverick" -- came to the defense of the corporate lobbyist chickenshit hiding in the bunker who will not debate Dr. Carmona, Rep. Jeff Flake.
The Carmona campaing has responded to Grampy McCrankypants yelling "get off my lawn!" with this press release:
Carmona to McCain: Flake's record on veterans is clear
Dr. Richard Carmona released the following statement in response to Sen. John McCain:
"Senator McCain is a leader I've always respected, even when I've disagreed with him, but Congressman Flake's record on veterans' issues is clear. Congressman Flake has voted against health, education and job training benefits for veterans. Congressman Flake even opposed the post-9/11 GI Bill and combat bonuses for troops who were fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan."
"I understand that Senator McCain wants to support a member of his party, but his statement is a reflection only of his partisan politics and not the facts. Both Senator McCain and Congressman Flake know this ad is accurate -- and my campaign posted the source documents to this ad to back it up. Congressman Flake is trying to run away from his record, but the 12-year Congressman is going to find that facts are a tough thing to hide from."
BACKGROUND: In 2004, Flake Voted In Favor Of Budget That Provided $1.1 Billion Less That Needed To Maintain Current Service. In 2004, Rep. Flake voted in favor of a budget that was strongly opposed by major veterans’ organizations. A coalition of veterans groups, including the AMVETS, Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States was vehemently opposed to the bill. “For veterans' discretionary programs, primarily veterans' medical care, H. Con. Res. 393 would provide $1.1 billion below the minimum amount of funding determined necessary by the House Veterans' Affairs Committee…With the level of appropriations in the House budget resolution, VA will be required to delay medical care for some veterans, and deny it altogether for other sick and disabled veterans, just to enable it to meet inflationary costs, including increases in employee wages” the groups said. The budget resolution passed 215-212. [Letter to Members, 3/23/04; HCR 393, Vote 92, 3/20/04] In 2005, Flake Voted In Favor Of Budget Which Called For $800 Million In Cuts To Veterans’ Programs. Jeff Flake voted in favor of a Budget resolution which read: The House Committee on Veterans' Affairs shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct spending for that committee by $155,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2006 and $798,000,000 in outlays for the period of fiscal years 2006 through 2010.” [H Con Res 95 (as passed by the House) 3/17/05; Vote #88, 3/17/05] In 2003, Flake Voted In Favor Of A Budget That Called For $15 Billion In Cuts To Veterans Programs. In 2003, Rep. Flake voted for a budget that called for cutting $15 billion from veterans’ benefits, including veterans’ pensions, compensation, education and other benefits, over 10 years. The budget read: “The House Committee on Veterans' Affairs shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct spending for that committee by $449,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2004, $4,221,000,000 in outlays for the period of fiscal years 2004 through 2008, and $14,626,000,000 in outlays for the period of fiscal years 2004 through 2013.” [H. Con. Res. 95 (as passed by the House), Vote 82, 3/21/03] 2005 House Budget Cut Funding $14 Billion Below Level Needed To Maintain Existing Services. Minority Leader Pelosi said on the floor of the House that the House GOP budget would set funding level $14 below what was necessary just to maintain current funding levels. CBO projected that spending at the VA would need to hit $37.7 billion per year by 2010 to maintain services, while the GOP budget projected only $30 billion in funding. [H Con Res 95 (as passed by the House) 3/17/05; Vote #88, 3/17/05; CBO, 3/1/05; Speaker Pelosi Release, 3/17/05]
Flake Voted For FY07 Budget That Set Funding $6 Billion Below Level Necessary To Maintain Current Services. In 2006, Rep. Flake voted in favor of a $2.8 trillion budget that was fiscally reckless and harmful for America’s working families. The budget added hundreds of billions to the already record budget deficit and includes a provision to increase the debt limit by $653 billion to $9.6 trillion. It cuts key programs like education, health and veterans’ programs. The budget cuts veterans’ healthcare beyond 2007. Despite an initial boost in veterans’ health spending for 2007, over five years (from 2007- 2011), the Republican budget resolution actually cut funding for veterans’ appropriated programs by $6 billion below the level that CBO estimates is needed to maintain current services. Additionally, the Republican budget resolution included significant increases in TRICARE costs for military retirees under 65. In fact, healthcare fees will triple for retired officers, double for retired senior enlisted personnel, and increase by 40 percent for junior enlisted retirees. The budget passed 218-210. [House Budget Committee, Minority Staff Analysis of the FY 07 Budget, 10/6/2006] Flake Opposed Bonuses for Troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. In 2003, Rep. Flake voted against an amendment to provide $1,500 bonuses for each service member serving in Iraq ad Afghanistan in fiscal 2004. The measure would have taken $265 million out of an account paying for Iraqi petroleum imports and put it into a military personnel fund to pay for the bonuses. According to the Congressional Research Service, the energy firm Halliburton could be overcharging the U.S. as much as $249 million for importing fuel into Iraq. The amendment was defeated 213-213. [New York Times, 10/22/03; HR 3289, Vote 554, 10/17/03]
Their Obama Derangement Syndrome has reached such a fevered pitch that Tea-Publicans in the U.S. Senate, some of whom participated in drafting this bipartisan veterans jobs bill, voted against the very bill they helped to draft with a GOP filibuster. They are insane, and this is unforgiveable. Vet jobs bill knocked out in Senate:
Legislation to put veterans to work preserving and restoring national
parks and other federal, state and local lands was defeated Wednesday
afternoon when Senate Republicans successfully blocked the bill’s
advance with a budgetary point of order.
The largely party-line Senate vote of 58-40 fell two votes
short of the three-fifths majority needed to overcome the procedural
objection. Republicans said the Veterans Job Corps bill violated the
Budget Control Act by adding a new program that would increase the
deficit. [$1 billion price tag for the program over five years, i.e., $200 million per year -- pocket change in Washington.]
[These are the same people who would readily add $5 trillion to the deficit over the next decade by making the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans permanent.]
* * *
Democrats charged that Republican opposition stemmed from a refusal to support an initiative
that originated in the White House. The corps, loosely based on the
Civilian Conservation Corps created during the Great Depression, would
employ veterans in conservation, resource management and historic
preservation projects on public lands. The legislation would also
provide for hiring veterans as police officers and firefighters.
Senate
Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said the measure would have
“sailed” through the Senate in past years but had been derailed by
partisanship. “Blocking a veterans’ jobs bill is a new low,” he said in a
statement.
Go ahead, word search his speech for "troops," "service," "veterans," "Afghanistan." I'll wait.
In his acceptance speech, Willard "Mittens" Romney never mentioned the war in Afghanistan, never acknowledged the service of men and women serving their country in the U.S. Armed Forces, nor our veterans. Not once. Romney mentioned the "military" only once, but in reference to sequestration budget cuts.
If a Democrat did this, there would have been an instantaneous firestorm of howling criticism from the mighty Wurlitzer of the right-wing noise machine. This slight to our Armed Forces and veterans went largely unnoticed by the media villagers and Beltway bloviators in their post-speech commentary.
I think we know what would happen under such a scenario. McCain,
Kristol, Krauthammer, Limbaugh, Cheney, et al, would reach an
unavoidable conclusion: there's simply no way this Democrat has a
credible claim to be Commander in Chief during a time of war.
* * *
When was the last time there was a major-party nominating convention
held during a war in which the presidential candidate decided not to
mention the conflict or those fighting on our behalf? Has this ever happened?
For
that matter, can anyone say with confidence what Romney's position on
the war is? Or how he intends to execute this war if he's president in
five months?
Are McCain, Kristol, Krauthammer, Limbaugh, Cheney, et al, on board with this?
[Note: Bloody Bill Kristol was not pleased with Romney's failure to mention the troops, veterans, or Afghanistan.]
* * *
If Romney takes the oath of office in January, he'll have tens of
thousands of American troops on the ground in Afghanistan. Does anyone
have the foggiest idea what he intends to do with those troops and/or
how long he intends to keep them there? Does he?
So continues the drip, drip, drip of unsavory snippets from Mitt's past. You could see this coming a mile away. Mitt has not been careful with his activities and statements, financial and otherwise, his entire life, all the way up to 2010, when he was stupid enough to leave investments in Switzerland and the Caymans for all to see when he released his tax return. He has done and said whatever worked best for hinm at the time, with little regard for long=term implications. Thus, he was a moderate when it suited his desire to be the Governor of Massachusetts, but "severely conservative" when he wanted Tea Partiers to choose him over Rick Santorum. He largely could avoid major damage on this front when he was running against a bunch of cash-strapped right wingers whose Presidential ambitions never were all that serious and who didn't bother to do quality oppo research. But now he's playing in an entirely different leage. Quite clearly, the Obama team took its opposition research seriously and we're going to see a steady release, item by item, from an oppostion research book they've that is probably four inches thick. The Bain Capital chapter of that book is perhaps the longest, but it's certainly not the only chapter. We've already heard a little about his Cranbrook High exploits.
Think about it. If we're hearing about Stericycle and Cranbrook HIgh now, what will we be hearing about in September? Will the release of any one item be devastating to Romney? No. But each item impacts a pool of voters uniquely and places that pool beyond Romney's reach. For example, most voters aren't going to vote against Romney because they learned that he was a bully in high school. But bullying victims, their parents, children and siblings will have a lot of trouble voting for Romney. In addiion, the cumulative effect of the opposition research on Romney, come November, will be substantial.
If the economy tanks, all bets of course are off. Otherwise, the Obama campaign strategy appears impressive. First, use Romney's campaign statements and record at Bain and as Mass Gov to define him as elitist, far right, out of touch, and a flip-flopper, while letting Romney handle the unlikeable part for himself. Second, define the election as a choice between Romney's reinstitution of Bush's failed policies and the policies Obama has implemented to put us back on the right track. Third, run up the score with voting blocks where Romney is weak -- Latinos, LGBT, single women, etc. And fourth, use all that opposition research to turn random voters and keep Romney on defense far more than he wants to be.
Though an early supporter of the Vietnam War, Romney avoided military service at the height of the fighting after high school by seeking and receiving four draft deferments, according to Selective Service records. They included college deferments and a 31-month stretch as a "minister of religion" in France, a classification for Mormon missionaries that the church at the time feared was being overused. The country was cutting troop levels by the time he became eligible for the draft, and his lottery number was not called.
* * *
[B]ecause Romney, now 65, was of draft age during Vietnam, his military background — or, rather, his lack of one — is facing new scrutiny as he courts veterans and makes his case to the nation to be commander in chief.
* * *
Romney's recollection of his Vietnam-era decisions has evolved in the decades since, particularly as his presidential ambitions became clear.
He said in 2007 — his first White House bid under way — that he had "longed in many respects to actually be in Vietnam." But his actions, Selective Service records and previous statements show little interest in joining a conflict that ultimately claimed more than 58,000 American lives.
* * *
Political rivals, military veterans among them, suggest that Romney's own decision not to serve in the military is in conflict with his pro-military rhetoric.
"He didn't have the courage to go. He didn't feel it was important enough to him to serve his country at a time of war," said Jon Soltz, who served two Army tours in Iraq and is the chairman of the left-leaning veterans group VoteVets.org.
Critics note that the candidate is among three generations of Romneys — including his father, former Michigan Gov. George Romney, and five sons — who were of military age during armed conflicts but did not serve.
I spent Memorial Day puttering around on the back patio and listening to KXCI. At noon, Democracy Now began as it does on most weekdays. Although Democracy Now is always thought-provoking, yesterday's broadcast was particularly poignant-- a Memorial Day special: "Honor the Dead, Heal the Wounded, Stop the Wars."
Instead of honoring the fallen by glorifying war, the show aired audio footage from a recent protest in which dozens of Afganistan and Iraq War veterans returned their military medals and called for an end to war.
Here is a snipet...
AMY GOODMAN: Today we bring you a Memorial Day special, "Honor the Dead, Heal the Wounded, Stop the Wars." That was the demand of veterans who gathered in Chicago May 20th at the site of the largest NATO summit in the organization’s six-decade history. The veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as well as women from Afghans for Peace led a peace march of thousands of people to the summit gates. Iraq Veterans Against the War held a ceremony where more than 40 veterans hurled their war medals toward the gates of the NATO summit...
ALEJANDRO VILLATORO: At this time, one by one, veterans of the wars of NATO will walk up on stage. They will tell us why they chose to return their medals to NATO. I urge you to honor them by listening to their stories. Nowhere else will you hear from so many who fought these wars about their journey from fighting a war to demanding peace. Some of us killed innocents. Some of us helped in continuing these wars from home. Some of us watched our friends die. Some of us are not here, because we took our own lives. We did not get the care promised to us by our government. All of us watched failed policies turn into bloodshed. Listen to us, hear us, and think: was any of this worth it?
CROWD: No!
ALEJANDRO VILLATORO: Do these medals thank us for a job well done?
CROWD: No!
ALEJANDRO VILLATORO: Do they mask lies, corruption, and abuse of young men and women who swore to defend their country?
CROWD: Yes! ALEJANDRO VILLATORO: We tear off this mask. Hear us.
IRIS FELICIANO: My name is Iris Feliciano. I served in the Marine Corps. And in January of 2002, I deployed in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. And I want to tell the folks behind us, in these enclosed walls, where they build more policies based on lies and fear, that we no longer stand for them. We no longer stand for their lies, their failed policies and these unjust wars. Bring our troops home and end the war now. They can have these back...
ERICA SLONE: My name is Erica Slone. I’m from Ohio. I served in the Air Force from 2002 to 2008. I’m an Iraq veteran. In the military is where I learned what integrity meant, and I believe I served with integrity. And at this point in my life, if I want to continue to live with integrity, I must get rid of these.
GREG MILLER: My name is Greg Miller. I’m a veteran of the United States Army infantry with service in Iraq 2009. The military hands out cheap tokens like this to soldiers, servicemembers, in an attempt to fill the void where their conscience used to be once they indoctrinate it out of you. But that didn’t work on me, so I’m here to return my Global War on Terrorism Medal and my National Defense Medal, because they’re both lies.
JERRY: My name is Jerry. I’m from New York City. I served in the Army from 2005 to 2009. I fought in Iraq in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. I, today, am giving back my Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, because I realized that after a while that it was just nothing but an idea made by a bunch of politicians, money-hungry politicians in Washington who will do nothing and have a complete disregard for human life and will do anything in their power to just make more money in the end. Now, if it’s just an idea, then therefore it was just an idea that sparked two wars that I had to fight in. And I don’t want any part of it anymore. And I choose human life over war, militarism and imperialism.
SCOTT KIMBALL: My name is Scott Kimball. I’m an Iraq war vet. And I’m turning in these medals today for the people of Pakistan, Iraq, Palestine, and all victims of occupation across the world. And also, for all the servicemembers and veterans who are against these wars, you are not alone!
CHRISTOPHER MAY: My name is Christopher May. I left the Army as a conscientious objector. We were told that these medals represented, you know, democracy and justice and hope and change for the world. These medals represent a failure on behalf of the leaders of NATO to accurately represent the will of their own people. It represents a failure on the leaders of NATO to do what’s right by the disenfranchised people of this world. Instead of helping them, they take advantage of them, and they’re making things worse. I will not be a part of that anymore. These medals don’t mean anything to me, and they can have them back.
TY: Hello. My name is Ty, and thank you all for coming out. I’m letting go and releasing this medal because love is the most powerful force that we can employ as human beings on this planet, and we cannot love holding weapons.
ASH WOOLSON: My name is Ash Woolson. I was a sergeant. I was in Iraq in '03, and what I saw there crushed me. I don't want us to suffer this again, and I don’t want our children to suffer this again, and so I’m giving these back!
MAGGIE MARTIN: My name is Maggie Martin. I was a sergeant in the Army. I did two tours in Iraq. No amount of medals, ribbons or flags can cover the amount of human suffering caused by these wars. We don’t want this garbage. We want our human rights. We want our right to heal...
DAVID VAN DAM: I’m David Van Dam. I was in the U.S. Navy. I’m a GI resister. I got a other-than-honorable discharge. And I want to say that their policies are other than honorable. And I’m honorable, and all the GI resisters that refuse to fight in unjust wars are honorable. This is in solidarity for all GI resisters of unjust wars!
For the full transcript of the show and a video, click here.
As President Obama noted in his remarks at the Vietnam War Memorial this Memorial Day, there are 1,666 Americans still missing in action (MIA) from the Vietnam War. Of course, there are still many Americans MIA from all previous wars.
A memorable made for television movie by CBS, Sole Survivor (1970) -- for some reason never released on VHS or DVD or available today on television -- tells the story of a B-25 Mitchell bomber crew that crashes in the Libyan desert after becoming lost following a bombing raid over Italy. The crew survives the crash, only to die from exposure wandering in the Saharan Desert. The ghosts of the crew have made their way back to the wreckage of the aircraft where they have spent the next seventeen years in a type of limbo state, playing baseball and longing for repatriation back to their home country, which can only occur if their bodies are recovered.
The plane is eventually discovered by an oil surveying aircraft. A team of Air Force investigators is sent to the crash site. The ghost of each crewman suddenly vanishes as their bodies are discovered and recovered, their spirits apparently forced to accompany their remains back to the United States. The exception being Tony, who had stayed with the plane. The film ends with a solitary Tony at the plane, but with a glimmer of hope as the pilot's log is found, mentioning Tony's return to the plane. One final visit to the crash site is decided upon by investigators.
The film is loosely based on a 1959 discovery of the remains of a B-24 Liberator bomber, "Lady Be Good" in the Libyan desert, which crashed following a bombing raid on Naples in 1943.
While this movie is not available in VHS or DVD, you can view a poor quality video of Sole Survivor on Google Video. There are clips on YouTube (also poor quality video).
I have often thought of this movie whenever I am reminded of servicemembers who are still MIA. How many servicemembers are still waiting to be found and to return home?
CBS should digitally remaster this film for release on DVD, or an actor who does substantial work with veterans groups like Gary Sinese, through his Gary Sinise Foundation, may want to remake this film and dedicate it to the veterans organizations who work to find MIA servicemembers to bring them home.
President Obama offered a message to veterans across the country Monday by noting the day "holds special significance because it marks the beginning of the 50th anniversary of the Vietnam War." PBS:
"After Vietnam, our veterans didn't always receive the respect and thanks they deserved. At times they were neglected and even shunned, which was a national shame. We've pledged many times since Vietnam that we would never let that happen again, and that we would give our veterans, especially our Vietnam Veterans, the respect and honor they deserve. This 50th anniversary is our opportunity to do it right," Mr. Obama wrote in an op-ed for Stars and Stripes.
A man visits the Vietnam Memorial Wall in Washington, D.C., on May 28. Photo by Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images.
[O]ne of the most painful chapters in our history was Vietnam -- most particularly, how we treated our troops who served there. You were often blamed for a war you didn't start, when you should have been commended for serving your country with valor. (Applause.) You were sometimes blamed for misdeeds of a few, when the honorable service of the many should have been praised. You came home and sometimes were denigrated, when you should have been celebrated. It was a national shame, a disgrace that should have never happened. And that's why here today we resolve that it will not happen again. (Applause.)
And so a central part of this 50th anniversary will be to tell your story as it should have been told all along. It's another chance to set the record straight. That's one more way we keep perfecting our Union -- setting the record straight. And it starts today. Because history will honor your service, and your names will join a story of service that stretches back two centuries.
Let us tell the story of a generation of servicemembers -- every color, every creed, rich, poor, officer and enlisted -- who served with just as much patriotism and honor as any before you. Let's never forget that most of those who served in Vietnam did so by choice. So many of you volunteered. Your country was at war, and you said, "send me." That includes our women in Vietnam -- every one of you a volunteer. Applause.) Those who were drafted, they, too, went and carried their burden -- you served; you did your duty.
The Sierra Vista Herald provided thorough reporting on the veterans Issues forum this past Saturday in Sierra Vista. Unfortunately, the Herald put it behind a "premium member" wall. While I do have the full report, there is no way for me to summarize this lengthy report on the candidates' responses to some nine questions. Suprisingly, the candidates were in general agreement on veterans issues -- the candidates differed when they ventured into other related issues.
I will give you the free part of the article and you can decide for yourself whether you want to be a "premium member" of the Sierra Vista Herald. Or maybe you can convince Bill Hess to post the full article in the interest of better informing the public -- or maybe he could make it available to his sister publication, the Tucson Weekly, for republication. Barber, Kelly address veterans’ concerns | The Sierra Vista Herald:
SIERRA VISTA — While the Republican and Democratic candidates for the special Congressional District 8 election answered questions pertaining to veterans issues, they were able to incorporate their stump speeches into their responses on Saturday.
Surprisingly Republican Jesse Kelly and Democrat Ron Barber agreed in many cases in the answers they provided on some of the questions.
It was how they worked in their campaign comments where the differences were noted.
You must be a premium member to read the rest of this story. To become a member, please click here.
Today Tucson did something very commendable. And it was not the city government that did it - it was the people of Tucson. They came together to throw a welcome home parade for the men and women who served their nation in war over the last dozen years in Afghanistan and Iraq, but also in prior conflicts.
So, I’m treating myself to a Sunday morning of reading the Times and my first read was about a blog kept by Sergeant Bales’ wife of all their trials and tribulations. I remarked to Tammy about how it seemed that Bales’ horrific acts may simply have been the product of war injuries, separation from his family, financial struggles, and the horrors of war. In other words, this may be the case of a completely decent human being reaching his breaking point and committing a horrific act.
So, can we continue to deny that in order to accomplish its military objectives, the American empire, run by self-centered plutocrats entirely devoid of social conscience, is recklessly and callously destroying the bodies and brains of its poor and lower middle class “volunteers?”
by Jeff Latas Recently, Russell Pearce did introduce some legislation that will affect the public good and benefit those in need. His legislation on the Military Family Relief Fund is sound, logical, and solves problems encountered by grieving military family members financially struggling after extremely traumatic events that would devastate anyone’s life.
Ironically, the legislation was so good that the Arizona Democratic Veterans' Caucus held a press conference calling on the Arizona legislature to pass SB 1176, a bill that will deliver much needed assistance to Arizona's military families who suffer from hardships presented when a loved one is injured or killed while serving our country. There is still room for improvement. The bill only addresses those who died in a theater of combat. I have voiced my recommendations to make this legislation less exclusive by including those who sustained injures in combat but died outside the combat zones.
The press conference, held yesterday, was very successful, with three network TV stations, two newspapers, and one radio station covered the event. Special thanks goes out to Sen. Manny Alverez and Rep. Patricia Fleming of District 25, Rep. Chris Dechene, USMC veteran, of District 2, and Rep. Daniel Patterson of District 29. Also, two notable veterans from the Arizona Democratic Veterans Caucus deserve credit for their part in recognizing the benefits of good legislation over partisan quarrelling. Matt Capalby and Ruben Gallego did a good job speaking and representing the Caucus in support of SB1176.
Another example of good legislation that was severally disparaged by Democrats at a federal level was a bill introduced by Senator McCain. When Senator Jim Webb introduced the New GI Bill, McCain and Senator Lindsey Graham instead introduced a competing bill that sought to improve current Montgomery G.I. Bill benefits. The battle came down to which was better instead of seeing the merits which both would have. Democrats supported Webb’s bill, also introduced by Congressman Harry Mitchell, and blasted the McCain/Graham bill. However, there was huge benefit to many in improving the Montgomery bill. One of the benefits was that the Montgomery Bill benefited those who don’t qualify for the New GI Bill. There was no reason why both the New GI Bill, introduced by Webb/Mitchell (a very good bill that I fully supported), and the needed changes to the Montgomery Bill, introduced by McCain and Graham, couldn’t have happened. Why not both?
There is yet another example of showing our true values by supporting legislation introduced by someone we all know here at BFA. Those who know me know I love my dogs. I have three pit bulls that were rescued from certain death. Two were pulled from the dungeon-like conditions seen at the Pima Animal Control facility. Every year nearly 20,000 dogs and cats are put to death in Pima County at a cost of around $250 per animal ($5 million). That’s some big money we Pima citizens fork out to support status quo killing. Many communities have adopted “no-kill” policies that have had major reductions in costs to taxpayers and in saving lives. Where am I going with this? Senator Al Melvin introduced a bill that would make Arizona a no-kill state, SB1446. Although not perfect, it’s a step in the progressive direction and the first in the nation. The bill benefits both the taxpayers and the animals. My wife, Oro Valley Councilmember Salette Latas, has met with Sen. Melvin to suggest amendments that would strengthen the legislation.
We need to be careful not to demonize good legislation based on who introduced it. I don’t support Melvin, Pearce, or McCain based on their total record, but occasionally they do have progressive moments. So please, let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water.
The rest of the country is finally learning what Arizonans have known for 26 years: John McCain can’t be trusted.
At the September 26 Presidential Debate, McCain claimed, “The veterans know I’ll take care of them.” Americans stand together in honoring John McCain as a veteran himself, but his negligent record in the US Senate reveals that McCain doesn’t stand with veterans. In fact, McCain’s legislative record of taking care of veterans is abysmal. The non-partisan Disabled American Veterans (DAV) gives McCain a 20% rating of his performance on veterans’ issues in the Senate (Barack Obama earns a DAV score of 80%...here's the DAV website to check the details for yourself: http://capwiz.com/dav/keyvotes.xc/?lvl=C).
What can veterans expect from would-be President McCain? His Senate record displays his lack of trustworthiness.
Barack Obama, on the other hand, has consistently and powerfully represented veterans – both as an Illinois legislator as well as United States Senator. As evidenced by his legislative record, Obama keeps faith with our veterans.
Here are just a few of the candidates’ votes on key veterans’ issues, contrasting the two candidates’ trustworthiness on veterans’ issues:
- Obama was one of 57 co-sponsors (along with Joe Biden) of the Webb GI Bill, signed into law this past June 30. In contrast, McCain not only failed to support the bill, claiming that it was too generous; he didn’t even show up in the Senate to vote on it.
- Obama introduced a bill in April 2007 to provide housing for low-income veterans (Homes for Heroes Act). Again, McCain didn’t show up for the vote. This version of the Homes for Heroes Act died, though a similar follow-up bill fortunately awaits a new vote in the Senate.
- In 2006, Obama voted for two amendments to increase funds for veterans’ medical care by $1.5 billion and expand funding for Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) outpatient treatment by $450 million. McCain voted no on both; the veterans’ medical care amendment died; the outpatient treatment amendment passed.
- In 2005, Obama voted for an amendment to increase funding for veterans medical care by $2.8 billion in 2006, and setting aside $10 million for veterans counseling services. Again, McCain voted no; this amendment died.
McCain’s claims that he’ll take care of veterans are contradicted by his record as a Senator. We need a President who will honor our veterans, not someone who glibly double-talks on the campaign trail.
Those who risk their lives to defend our country deserve Americans’ support when they come home. Barack Obama’s record shows that he is someone who consistently supports veterans’ issues, but most important, Obama has kept a bond of trust with veterans to honor their service.
And after all, isn’t trust that the most important criterion for us to consider as we select our next President?
We have seen the past two weeks the best presentation of our Party’s message in Denver, contrasted with the best presentation the Republicans could muster in St. Paul. The results are starkly impressive.
Let’s consider some of the questions posed about our two Campaigns just a few short weeks ago...and answered so well by the duelling Conventions.
Can our Democratic Party unite? Honestly, can anyone who watched the collective leadership of our Party speak at Denver seriously question whether we are united today?
Does our Party have the national security credentials to keep America safe in this dangerous world? Not only did we put national security issues -- and endorsements of veterans, military leaders, and national security policymakers -- front-and-center last week in Denver, but it’s clear once again from McCain’s bellicose and feckless rhetoric on Georgia these past weeks that he has neither the temperament nor the strategic sense to deal with the critical questions of war and peace.
Barack Obama’s national security message at Denver was three-fold, highlighting his judgment, competence, and most of all trustworthiness in addressing American national security. Barack knows that American national security is related to both the strength and intelligence with which America addresses complex challenges of this century. And Barack knows we need to muster all elements of our national power, including a strong, ready military, but reserving it for the last resort, after we’ve tried diplomacy and all the other tools at our disposal. For their part, veterans know, as is obvious from the numerous powerful endorsements in Denver, that they can trust Barack Obama to honor their service when they come home. Growing thousands of national security experts, veterans and family members, many of whom were out front in Denver, are adding their enthusiastic endorsement of Barack as our next Commander-in-Chief.
Contrast this with the central message of John McCain…that the belligerent and reckless strategy of the Bush Administration over the past eight years should not only be continued, but that it was too timid. If you listened to McCain pop off in Fall 2001, we should have attacked Iraq, Iran and Syria in response to 9-11. If you listened to McCain in 2003, our adversaries included France and Germany in addition to Iraq. John McCain wants to keep American troops in Iraq for as much as 100 years. And John McCain actually jokes publicly about bombing Iran. Simply speaking, John McCain lacks strategic sense, and lacks the temperament befitting a Commander-in-Chief.
And what about McCain’s allegations these past months that Barack lacks experience? Well, John McCain must have had a senior moment last Friday when he settled on Sarah Palin’s resume.
Again, nothing is more important for a President than the decisions on war and peace…and for this reason alone, McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin is alarming. Yes, as the renowned Fox News scholar Steve Doucy has said, she is the governor of Alaska which is next to Russia. Some recommendation.
Palin is truly a foreign policy blank slate, ripe for neocon engraving.
Actuarial tables and American history tell us that Palin has a nearly even chance of acceding to the Presidency…in McCain’s first term. In selecting Palin, John McCain confirmed once again that his judgment is seriously impaired.
So truly, we Democrats had a great Convention…full of substance and full of energy. We are fired up and ready to go!
We have a powerful, compelling message for the American people and the world, that addresses the real challenges Americans face at home and abroad. We have brilliant, convincing nominees in Barack Obama and Joe Biden…and they’re out front in the polls as well as in the electoral vote forecasts.
We’re going to coast to victory in November, right?
Unfortunately, assuming victory at this stage is absolute lunacy.
Not only are the stakes far too high to take anything for granted, but we can expect the Republicans to do whatever they have to do to retain the White House. They will pull out all the stops.
And the greatest enemy we face is not the Republicans, but voter apathy.
The real lesson of the duelling Conventions, for this first-time Delegate, is that now more than ever, it’s important to take the energy, the enthusiasm, the issues, and the facts back home to our neighborhoods here in Arizona. The work that good Democrats do every day, the canvassing, the phone-banking, the discussions with your friends and neighbors…that hard work is what will get us to victory in November.
Our hard work will bring John McCain “home”, wherever that is, because we must not let him occupy the White House.
And only our hard work will elect Barack Obama the next President of the United States.
We will win this election, not because the polls and pundits say we will, but because of the hard work of everyone in the Party, pulling together these next few weeks. For my part, I’m looking forward to marching with you, to our battle with the Republicans, and to our victory in November.
Dateline Denver...on Tuesday evening the Party launched a blistering attack on John McCain...if Monday was about who we are as Democrats, Tuesday was about taking the offensive -- together -- to defeat John McCain and the Republicans this Fall.
As an Arizona Delegate, I couldn't have been more proud of our Governor who delivered one of the sharpest, most direct attacks of the evening against John McCain. Granted, we in Arizona have the misfortune of hosting his "home state offices" (though of course, he's as absent from business on the part of his constituency as he is from the Senate floor). But as Janet Napolitano said last night, we're not sure what home he'll return to in Arizona, but we know we can't let McCain take up residence at the White House.
Her speech, followed by several other eloquent, rousing attacks against John McCain, culminated in a magnificent call to action by Hillary Clinton...I heard many remark after the speech that if she had spoken that powerfully during the primaries, the results might have been different. But no question about it, her speech and her inspiration pulled in the entire Convention Hall last night, leaving no-one in any doubt about the imperative to drive the Republicans out of the White House, send John McCain out to pasture, and elect Barack Obama as our Commander-in-Chief.
Being a gathering of elected officials, party activists, politico's, and just-plain-interested from across the country and around the world, you can imagine the number of off-site gatherings in Denver. Of particular interest to me as a Veteran are the number of national security events in and around the Convention. Yesterday was a treasure...the opportunity to participate in a small group discussion with Barack Obama's chief foreign policy advisor, Dr. Susan Rice, on the issue of the Georgia-Russia conflict; to attend a seminar discussion with former Secretary of Defense William Perry, former Secretary of the Navy (and national security advisor to Barack Obama) Richard Danzig, and to participate in the formal Veterans and Military Family Members Caucus at the Convention. I can tell you that two themes dominated all our discussions: 1) our need to elect Barack Obama as our President, a Commander-in-Chief who understands the 21st Century challenges facing our country, and 2) our need to prevent John McCain, a man whose only consistencies are his reckless and dangerous policies, from entering the White House.
A couple of impressions from participants and observers of the Convention:
- Omar Adams, Delegate from Minnesota: "Just being here is a family event...it helps that my mother is here as a Delegate too. But after last night's speech by Michelle, and the gathering of the Kennedy, Clinton, and Obama families, we're all feeling a sense of family unity as we get ready for the next two months."
- A friend of more than 30 years who currently works in the Office of the Secretary of Defense in the Pentagon: "Great to see the Party go on the attack on Day 2. We've got to keep Mad John from getting to the White House. As bad as the current policies are for the United States, he'll make our situation much worse. After the blow-up in Georgia, we in the Pentagon are dealing with the aftermath of his bellicose and useless rhetoric about Russia, when we need to focus on how best to deal with a serious challenge. But that's McCain shooting from the hip as usual."
- Yane Kone, immigrant from Mali, met outside the Pepsi Center: "I'm excited about Barack Obama. My family and I came from Mali six years ago, I've got a job, and we're just getting by in Denver. We know Barack Obama would be good for this country and good for the world. But I'm concerned that there may be some people who say they'll vote for Barack Obama but will not do so in the end. I want to believe that America can elect an African-American, but I hope I won't be disappointed."
Kone reminded me that what we're doing here, celebratory though it is, has absolutely serious global impact. We are here in Denver as part of a larger struggle for those who are doing their best just to make it day-to-day, perhaps not even able to participate in our political process, but who place their faith in us, the voting citizens of the United States, to actually follow through on our pledge to seize change.
For my part, I assured Mr. Kone that the energy and enthusiasm I and so many other Americans is real -- that Barack Obama is the best leader we have seen in decades and we really mean it when we say we want change. But I also know, especially after the adversity that Mr. Kone has encountered in his own journey, that he's still wary.
We must not disappoint Yane Kone, nor ourselves. As Hillary Clinton so eloquently charged us last night, it's up to us to follow-through, to work to elect Barack Obama as our next President.
Dateline Denver...the gavel goes down tomorrow afternoon in the Pepsi Center.
Already there's huge energy building. A rousing speech by National Chair Howard Dean welcomed the Delegates, honoring those who have suffered so much under the Bush Administration, and motivating us Delegates throughout all fifty states -- yes, especially Arizona! -- to work for victory this Fall, to take our country back.
A few brief observations:
- Great hospitality...everyone I met in the city was friendly and welcoming. Denver's red carpet is out.
- Lots of security, everywhere. Police from throughout Colorado are in Denver to keep the peace. I like that just fine.
- Cool architecture downtown. Like downtown Bisbee only bigger.
- Great spirit within the Arizona Delegation...forward-looking, ready to battle with the Republicans.
As I took the measure of the Convention scene today, the most moving experience I had was meeting Laura Dempsey, the Founder and Co-Chair of an organization of military spouses who support Barack for President, Blue Star Families for Obama.
Blue Star Families for Obama is a grass-roots organization of military spouses and family members. Like the troops themselves, military families have sacrificed much these past years. Like our troops, they have done their duty...steadfastly supporting their husbands, wives, parents, and children who serve us all so well.
No one can impugn the courage and dedication of our military. They serve our Constitution with honor, determined to do their duty to the best of their ability. And they have performed magnificently.
Our troops are not responsible for the wrong-headed ideology that led us into the misadventures in Iraq. On the contrary, our troops deserve immense credit for their heroism and their devotion to the Constitution.
And our troops' families serve as well, supporting, upholding, and sacrificing their own lives, families, and well-being for the cause of defending our national security. Our troops' families know the costs of a war that should never have been fought. They also know that we need a strong military, a military that can preserve our national security. They want their sacrifices to be honored, and certainly not taken for granted.
Laura Dempsey and the hundreds of members of Blue Star Families for Obama are dedicated to electing a president who honors their sacrifices, who understands that we need a strong military, who will respect our troops, and who will guard our national security.
Our troops' family members are real heroes, as are our troops. Meeting Laura Dempsey, and seeing the dedication of Blue Star Families for Obama, inspired me today as our Convention begins.
This week in Denver, the Democratic National Convention will honor our troops and their families, conveying respect and appreciation for all they have done. The Convention will feature several events to highlight Barack Obama's plan to restore American security after the destruction of the Bush Administration. And central to restoring our security is honoring the sacrifices of our troops and their family members. Indeed, we must honor the sacrifices of those who serve our country...and in contrast to John McCain's casual disregard for our veterans and our national security, Barack Obama will keep faith with our military and their families.
Barack Obama will restore our national security.
Blue Star Families for Obama is growing by the day...as more and more family members of our military realize that America's national security has been squandered by the wrong-headed Bush strategy, and that the Bush Administration has not only mortgaged American national security, but disrespected our military as well. And John McCain promises more of the same.
Our troops and their families yearn for the change that Barack Obama will give as our Commander-in-Chief...he will privilege America's security first, and he will honor the sacrifices of those who defend our country.
As for me, I'm moved by the dedication of these young military spouses of the Blue Star Families for Obama, forging a grass-roots movement on their own dime, and doing wonderful outreach to other military families to accelerate our movement for change. Blue Star Families for Obama members are my heroes.
If you're a military family member, please join Star Families for Obama and join this growing movement for change, and for respect for our military. Their website is:
...It's Sunday, the day before the DNC gavel goes down...we're just getting started with staging our assault on the Republicans who have wrought such carnage on the American people. With Barack Obama as our next President, we are going to take our country back.
Critical to Democratic prospects in November, as well as to our country’s future, is keeping the commitment to the American people to end the war in Iraq. Yet there exist so-called “democratic realists” (some of whom are also Democrats, cousins of the “neoconservatives”…you know, those guys who wanted to “liberate” Iraq and “democratize” the broader Middle East) who consider Iraq their base for future mischief in the region, continue to enjoy billions of dollars in contractual profits, and want to occupy Iraq indefinitely. Although Barack Obama has always forthrightly opposed invading and occupying Iraq, we must not allow the “realists” to undercut his determination to end the war. He will keep the promise to the American people, but we need to have Barack's back.
And we who have a voice here at home, in this critical election, need to bring our brave troops home safely and now. We need to honor their sacrifices.
We need to have our troops' backs.
Tacking to the center on Iraq is analogous to scuttling the ship.
Fortunately, the recently completed draft Democratic Party Platform’s plank on Iraq reflects Obama’s determination to end the war rather than the so-called realists’ – and John McCain’s -- determination to remain. In the paragraph entitiled “Ending the War in Iraq," the Platform calls for:
“bring(ing) the Iraq war to a responsible end.”
“re-center(ing) American foreign policy by responsibly redeploying our combat forces from Iraq and refocusing them on urgent missions.”
“giv(ing) our military a new mission: ending this war and giving Iraq back to its people.”
“remov(ing) our combat brigades at the pace of one to two per month and expect(ing) to complete redeployment within 16 months.”
“keep(ing) a residual force in Iraq to perform specific missions: targeting terrorists; protecting our embassy and civil personnel; and advising and supporting Iraq’s Security Forces, provided the Iraqis make political progress.”
"mak(ing) clear that we seek no permanent bases in Iraq."
Of course, there’s much more in the Platform…and more that we all need to focus upon, both analytically and with energetic political advocacy. But this represents a solid plank on the war in Iraq.
And we must remember that no matter how sweet the Platform, only the ultimate policy results count.
We invaded and continue to occupy Iraq based on false pretenses. We took our eyes off Al Qaeda, and instead attacked a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 (have we forgotten the Iraq WMD sham?)
Those who wanted to invade Iraq in the first place have not lost their dream of having American troops based in Iraq -- accompainied by multi-billion dollar sweet deal contracts.
How many brave American lives must be lost in a war which makes America less safe?
How many more billions must be wasted in Iraq while our own economy suffers?
How many more young lives will be shattered fighting a war that should never have been fought?
If we want to make our country more prosperous and the world safer, we must:
Bolster our Party’s stated determination to end the war in Iraq.
Elect Barack Obama in November, giving him a clear mandate to end the war.
Following the election, guard against the machinations of the so-called foreign policy and national security realists as they do whatever they can to maintain our occupation of Iraq indefinitely.
Nothing is more important to American security and prosperity than ending the nightmarish misadventure in Iraq.
One of the units of the 82nd Airborne returned back to Fort Bragg earlier this month. Most of us would expect them to receive a hero’s welcome back to their base in North Carolina after a 15 month deployment. Of the 31 soldiers, 20 had been involved in Improvised Explosive Devise (IED) detonations near or on their vehicles as they convoyed to and from their very remote outpost. they endured months with out bathing on several occasions and lived on rations while under constant attack only a few miles from the Pakistan border. What they returned to was disgraceful.
Before I continue on the plight of this unit, I have to share my own experience as a father of a soldier who experienced unacceptable conditions, both in theater and when he returned home to Walter Reed.
Jesse, my son, deployed to Iraq in August 2005. He arrived at Camp Anaconda, an airbase just north of Baghdad known as Balad. After being there for about a month, we started to hear of the conditions he was experiencing.
Jesse was a truck driver, although he spent most of his time on the convoys as a guard. The infamous Kellogg Brown and Root (KBR) contracted most of the driving duties. These civilian drivers make six-figure incomes, compared to the trained soldier drivers like my son who made less than $19,000 per year.
Since Jesse was assigned out of his reserve unit to supplement another unit, he needed to have new patches sewn on his uniform. The civilian contractors charged him $52 to sew on two patches.
Jesse lived in a converted shipping container. Internet access was available from--you guessed it--civilian contractors, and it cost $1,200 per shipping container for hookup, and $300 per month for service.
I was pushed into action when I heard he had no water to shower on many occasions even though the contracted Burger King and Pizza Hut had plenty of buns and pizza crust, for which my son risked his life hauling across the hostile sands of Iraq.
I contacted Senators McCain and Kyl and Congressman Kolbe. One month later, I actually received a call from a McCain staffer who was a reserve officer. He told me he would look into this problem. Unfortunately, my son relapsed with childhood leukemia shortly after this.
After being medically evacuated through Germany with 52 severely wounded fellow soldiers who came under attack the day he was diagnosed with his relapse, he returned to Walter Reed. This was about 17 months before the Washington Post broke the story of the appalling conditions our returning wounded veterans had to put up with in this once prestigious facility.
I arrived one day after Jesse had been admitted to Walter Reed. I entered an incredibly overcrowded facility, full of soldiers not much older than high school students who were missing arms and legs, were blind, or had head injures. It was a mass of recovering wounded, and it was blatantly obvious there was something wrong.
Katrina had just destroyed New Orleans and the lack of competent government management was showing up in our military medical operations just like it was in FEMA.
I went directly to my son’s room in the cancer ward. My son had no white blood cells, so he required a sterile environment; however, the conditions in his room were anything but clean. Bloody bandages were on the floor of his room, a greasy dust similar to that you would see in an old diner exhaust fan covered the top of shelves and moldings. The room was so hot from a broken thermostat that the window had to remain open, allowing dust and mold from the outside to contaminate my son’s compromised immune system.
This was nearly three years ago and now I hear another father’s story, which is only two weeks old.
I ask you all to watch the YouTube video and remind you this is not an isolated situation:
Three years ago, I contacted our Congressional delegation with only one reply from Sen. John McCain’s staff. Obviously he chose to stick with the incompetence of the Bush administration and avoid correcting any discrepancies in living conditions of returning military members.
Now, I will contact our new Congress member, Rep. Gabby Giffords, to see if she can influence and rectify the appalling conditions recorded on this video. She sits on the House Armed Services Committee (HASC), a powerful and appropriate committee to address why this is allowed to continue.
Questions I want to know is when Major General David Rodriguez, Commanding Officer of the 82nd Airborne, will face the HASC to explain why he should keep his job.
Why did the commanding officers of this unit allow those men into a facility in such conditions and why are they not being replaced? Where does the allocated money for maintaining and replacing these facilities go? Here is the chain of command that is responsible for this disgusting treatment of our returning warriors. Why should any of them keep their jobs?
If you are in Arizona CD-8, join me with your own question to Rep Giffords.
Harry Mitchell sits on the Veterans Affairs committee and is our representative from Arizona CD-05. He should also be questioned on why these conditions exist. He was the freshman Congressional member who led the Congressional inquiry into the Walter Reed investigation, and Fort Bragg should be next.
Sen McCain and Kyl both have been asleep the wheel for the last seven years and have shown their incompetence to correct the blunders on how we treat our returning veterans. Why should they keep their jobs or be promoted to a higher elected position?
by John Adams
Jennifer Longdon interview on Canadian TV
I've had the good fortune of knowing a fair number of Canadians in my time. When I was stationed in Japan in the Navy twenty years ago (!) I hung out with a pack of expats in Tokyo most weekends, several of whom were Canucks. From 1995 to 1997, I was stationed at Keyport, Washington where I was part of a unit that did weapons training ops, mostly off the coast of Vancouver Island. We spent most of our off duty time in a town called Nanaimo, hanging out with locals. I developed a fondness for Tim Horton's that I still have to this day.
Based on my experience, there are a couple of generalizations about Canadians I can safely make: 1. they think our for-profit health care system is insane and 2. they think we are completely batshit crazy with the all guns and the shootings down here, eh.
Continue reading "Jennifer Longdon interview on Canadian TV" »
Dec 16, 2013 9:57:13 PM | Activism, Arizona Congressional Delegation, Commentary, Crime, Donna Gratehouse, Gun Policies, Law Enforcement, Legislation, Lobbying, Military, Veterans