So, what's this about?

Why did Bush want war in Iraq!

2008-06-25T14:23:00.000-07:00

Here is the answer given by Russ Baker based on interviews with people who know George Bush.

Bush wanted a war so that he could build the political capital necessary to achieve his domestic agenda and become, in his mind, “a great president.” Blair and the members of his cabinet, unaware of the Herskowitz conversations, placed Bush’s decision to mount an invasion in or about July of 2002. But for Bush, the question that summer was not whether, it was only how and when. The most important question, why, was left for later.

The Downing Street Memos clearly establish that he wanted to invade Iraq as early as March, 2002. There are news reports that he wanted to invade Iraq days after 9/11 even before the perpetrators of 9/11 were clearly identified.Russ Baker in an earlier article reported that Mickey Herskowitz, a well-known Houston reporter and ghostwriter for celebrities told him the following based on Herskowitz’ 1999 interview with G. W, Bush:

“He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999,” said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. “It was on his mind. He said to me: ‘One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.’ And he said, ‘My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.’ He said, ‘If I have a chance to invade….if I had that much capital, I’m not going to waste it. I’m going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I’m going to have a successful presidency.”Herskowitz said that Bush expressed frustration at a lifetime as an underachiever in the shadow of an accomplished father. In aggressive military action, he saw the opportunity to emerge from his father’s shadow. The moment, Herskowitz said, came in the wake of the September 11 attacks. “Suddenly, he’s at 91 percent in the polls, and he’d barely crawled out of the bunker.”

This explains the very poor and clearly contrived reasons given for the invasion of Iraq, even though the invasion drew resources needed badly in Afghanistan. The invasion of Iraq was clearly a decision made to take advantage of the opportunity that 9/11 gave Bush. The reasons presented for the invasion have obviously been dredged up after the decision was made.It explains the timing of the Iraqi invasion. It was more than just the need to influence the 2002 elections. It was part of a larger plan. It explains the refusal to deal with other nations or the UN to try to resolve the problems with Iraq. Such solutions would not lead to Glory for Bush as President.The only argument against such motivations are that no normal human being could be so insane as to start an unnecessary war in order to be viewed as a successful President. The insanity, horror, and stupidity of such an idea makes it immediately obvious that such a war in Iraq for domestic political reasons could not possibly succeed.Nothing in Bush’s history indicates that he would view it like a normal human being would. His choice of Dick Cheney as his vice President and his isolation from normal people in fact suggest that this is an idea that Bush would easily adopt. It would suggest that he suffers from a level of grandiosity that is truly psychopathic.But I don’t think he intended for Iraq to be a large war. Russ Baker also reports in his earlier article:

The notion that President Bush held unrealistic or naïve views about the consequences of war was further advanced recently by a Bush supporter, the evangelist Pat Robertson, who revealed that Bush had told him the Iraq invasion would yield no casualties. I see no reason at all to doubt this article. It explains too much.

Bush Wanted War

2008-06-25T14:04:00.000-07:00

By Richard CohenThursday, March 30, 2006; 12:00 AM
It is my firm belief that if, say, a few dozen people simultaneously did an Internet search for the words "Bush lied," computers all over the country would crash and the energy grid would buckle, producing a rolling blackout that would begin somewhere around Terre Haute, Ind., and end in Barnstable, Mass. So common is the statement "Bush lied" that it seems sometimes that I am the only blue-state person who does not think it is true. Then, last week, the indomitable Helen Thomas changed all that with a single question. She asked George Bush why he wanted "to go to war" from the moment he "stepped into the White House," and the president said, "You know, I didn't want war." With that, the last blue-state skeptic folded.
I would not go so far as to say that Bush wanted war from Day One in the White House, but there was plenty of evidence he had Saddam on his mind and in his sights from the very moment he got the news of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. We have it from Richard Clarke, formerly the White House's chief anti-terrorism official, that within a day of the attacks Bush was inquiring if Saddam might have had a hand in them. When told no -- "But, Mr. President, al-Qaeda did this," Clarke told him -- it became instantly clear that this was not the answer Bush wanted. "'Look into Iraq, Saddam,' the president said testily," Clarke writes in his book, "Against All Enemies."
Similarly, Bob Woodward says in his book, "Plan of Attack," that not only was Bush fixated on Iraq, but by Thanksgiving of 2001, he already had told Don Rumsfeld to prepare a plan for the invasion of that country. "Let's get started on this," the president said, cautioning the defense secretary not to tell anyone. Rumsfeld said that eventually he would have to take CIA Director George Tenet into his confidence. "'Fine."' Woodward quotes Bush as saying -- "but not now."
As for myself, I was told by a European intelligence official that after flying to Washington right after the 9/11 attacks, he was stunned to discover that talk had already turned to Iraq. This was particularly true at the Pentagon, where Paul Wolfowitz was obsessed with Iraq, and that seems to have been true of the White House as well. And now we know from various British accounts that close aides to Prime Minister Tony Blair recognized early on that Bush was going to go to war -- and that Blair, his poodle at obedient heel, would follow along. More recently we learned -- again from British sources -- that even though Bush went back to the United Nations for yet another resolution condemning Iraq, he was determined to make war almost no matter what.
None of this necessarily means that Bush doctored U.S. intelligence to make a purposely false case that Iraq was seething with weapons of mass destruction. There is plenty of evidence that others in the administration -- Dick Cheney, in particular -- exaggerated such that their pants must have caught fire, but nothing so far proved that Bush knew he was making a false case. Indeed, foreign intelligence sources were in agreement with Bush on Iraq's WMD and so were Clinton administration officials who had seen some of the same intelligence. Even within the Bush administration, critics of the war -- and there were some -- were just as convinced that Saddam had WMD. Colin Powell, you may recall, soiled his stellar reputation with a United Nations speech that is now just plain sad to read. Almost none of it is true.
There remains, though, the little matter of what was in Bush's gut -- not his head, mind you, but that elusive place where emotion resides. It was there, in the moments after 9/11, that Bush truly decided on war, maybe because Saddam had once tried to kill George H.W. Bush, maybe because the neocons had convinced him that a brief war in Iraq would have long-term salutary consequences for the entire Middle East, maybe because he could not abide the thought that a monster like Saddam might die in his sleep -- and maybe because he heard destiny calling.
Whatever Bush's specific reason or reasons, the one thing that's so far missing from the record is proof of him looking for a genuine way out of war instead of looking for a way to get it started. Bush wanted war. He just didn't want the war he got.

What are we fighting for?

2008-02-20T11:43:00.000-08:00

Posted on February 06, 2008 by pmacdonald
Written by Peter Macdonald 465 Packersfalls rd Lee NH 03824 603-659-6217
All have my permission to print my Name, address, phone # and e-mail NH.Red.Sox.@gmail.com
“What Are We Fighting For, Next Stop Is Vietnam”. Navy Seals Nate Hardy from Durham NH and M. Koch from Pa were killed by small arms fire in Iraq yesterday. Talk in the local restaurant this morning was how sad the families must feel. Many families across the U.S. have or will be feeling this same way as long as innocent kids fight on the no experience politicians egos (orders). Don’t get me wrong I am not against the war. War is necessary to protect the rights of the individual. If someone attacks the U.S. or it’s citizens, we should wipe out that entire country. No mercy. On the other hand if our elected officials wage war on another country to create a legacy for themselves we should abolish that President. Why should innocent American kids die, why not people from another country that was unwilling to fight for themselves. There are no innocent people in a war zone and attached us.
These Veterans that are lucky enough to come back, will be discharged into a nation that has no idea or even cares about the medical or physical condition of these hero’s. These Veterans will be so happy to be back in the “world” U.S. they will not realize the demons growing in their heads. These Veterans will go back to their families only to find nothing is the same. Separating the mind controlling lessons drilled into you at boot camp, then demonstrated in service that you committed with out mercy from the cruel but lawful society of the U.S. is easy at first. Family and friends happy to see you home tolerate and rationalize the happenings you create. They laugh when you duck at loud noises. They get mad when you do something harsh or speak at people with out feelings. Society feels sorry for the Veterans that come home with no arms, legs or other (visual or not) disabilities but fails to give medial aid. Aid will cost to much or the politicians don’t care because the election is to far away for self benefit. Were these the lucky Veterans that died?
Suicide while in service or after discharge is one solution. I have thought of it many times and come close some of the times. I am told that I have no feelings but the feelings I have goes out to these families. We fought to protect and defend our Constitution for equal treatment of the law for all. Now we lose our families, jobs, friends and become homeless to keep you safe from the demons maturing in our heads. These Navy Seals as all that gave their lives for the people of the United States of America have my gratitude and I thank them all. We are fighting for our country and it’s citizens.
Peter Macdonald Sgt USMC Semper Fi

The Plight of American Veterans

2007-11-12T13:37:00.000-08:00

New York Times
November 12, 2007
Editorial

As an unpopular, ill-planned war in Iraq grinds on inconclusively, it can be a bleak time to be a veteran.
There is little outright hostility toward returning military personnel these days; few Americans are reviling them as “baby killers” or blaming them for a botched war of choice launched by the White House. Indeed, both Congress and the White House have been hymning their praises in the run-up to Veterans Day. But all too often, soldiers who return from Iraq or Afghanistan — and those who served in Vietnam or Korea — have been left to fend for themselves with little help from the government.
Recent surveys have painted an appalling picture. Almost half a million of the nation’s 24 million veterans were homeless at some point during 2006, and while only a few hundred from Iraq or Afghanistan have turned up homeless so far, aid groups are bracing themselves for a tsunamilike upsurge in coming years.
Tens of thousands of reservists and National Guard troops, whose jobs were supposedly protected while they were at war, were denied prompt re-employment upon their return or else lost seniority, pay and other benefits. Some 1.8 million veterans were unable to get care in veterans’ facilities in 2004 and lacked health insurance to pay for care elsewhere. Meanwhile, veterans seeking disability payments faced huge backlogs and inordinate delays in getting claims and appeals processed.
The biggest stain this year was the scandalous neglect of outpatients at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center and a sluggish response to the needs of wounded soldiers at veterans clinics and hospitals. Much of this neglect stemmed from the Bush administration’s failure to plan for a long war with mounting casualties and over-long tours of duty to compensate for a shortage of troops.
Thus far, more than 4,000 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq or Afghanistan, many more than died in the almost-bloodless Persian Gulf war, but only a fraction of the body counts in Vietnam (58,000) or Korea (36,000). A higher percentage of wounded soldiers are surviving the current conflicts with grievous injuries, their lives saved by body armor, advances in battlefield medicine and prompt evacuation. A study issued last week estimated that the long-term costs of their medical care and disability benefits could exceed the amount spent so far in prosecuting the war in Iraq.
To their credit, Congress and the administration have poured billions of added dollars into veterans’ programs and streamlined procedures in a scramble to catch up with the need. That is only appropriate. The entire burden of today’s wars has been carried by a voluntary military force and its families. The larger public has not faced a draft, paid higher taxes or been asked to make any other sacrifice. The least a grateful nation should do is support the troops upon their return.

Inntegrity, Honor And Loyalty: Healing And The Fog Of War At Home

2007-11-12T13:10:00.000-08:00

"As a disabled Vietnam Veteran, I watch in anguish as this administration, by the acquiescence of Congress, perpetuates another endless war for its own self-serving purposes."By Granville Angell October 30, 2007As a disabled Vietnam Veteran, I watch in anguish as this administration, by the acquiescence of Congress, perpetuates another endless war for its own self-serving purposes. This is an administration and society that (unlike Vietnam days) says, "Support Our Troops," but that is not happening. This administration, backed by Congress, has been following policies that fail to provide adequate infrastructure for combat operations; policies that overwhelm and exhaust our troops; policies that punish our troops for their exhausted mistakes in the heat of battle; policies that do not adequately support new veterans upon their return home and policies that selfishly and dishonorably sacrifice our troops for a questionable cause that was initiated upon lies and deception. It is a war, once declared "won" that continues to escalate among an Iraqi leadership and citizenry that has yet to take adequate responsibility for its own governance. Iraqi lawmakers take extended vacations while blood-thirsty factions are more interested in killing their way to supremacy than negotiating a fledgling democracy. Through it all, our troops continue to be maimed and killed. And, trust me, the days of their feeling betrayed by their country are coming. Far more than can ever be predicted on the face of it, our troops’ realization of that betrayal will cripple lives.I don’t know another Vietnam Veteran who doesn’t share my perception that the combat dynamics and psychological pressures of this war are virtually identical to Vietnam. Change the jungle for the desert and you have it. Change Vietnamese culture for Iraqi culture and you have it again: nobody knows who the enemy is – until he or she blows you up. But what do the chickenhawks in Washington know?In Vietnam, I experienced the horror of war as a helicopter ambulance pilot. I saw firsthand how it felt to be in daily combat situations without the moral and logistical support of the leaders in the war effort. I volunteered as the son of a WWII veteran and Pearl Harbor survivor, but then – as now – the leadership of the country was not supporting us for a noble cause. At age 20, I finished growing up in Vietnam, feeling completely betrayed by my leaders and everything they stood for. Branded as a "baby killer," I was one of many veterans who spent a lifetime unable to acquire decent employment – not even after working myself through college on an inadequate GI Bill. To this day, I do not know where my pathology – my PTSD – ends and the pathology of our society begins. Now, we are breeding a whole new crop of betrayed veterans. These are among the best, brightest and most patriotic of our youth who left our shores willing to make the ultimate sacrifice. What they are discovering is they have been sacrificed, body and soul, to a cause known only to the clandestine pursuits of our present nefarious administration – sold out in the pursuit of a ruse, then manipulated to remain in this God-forsaken setting, hoping – as we did in Vietnam – that they will not be the last to die for a mistake. In today's war, however, the last one to die would not be dying for a mistake, but a lie – a treacherous lie! Added to this, after neglecting diplomacy and throwing the rock into the hornets’ nest by electing to fight the wrong war, we are now less safe than we were after 9/11. As a psychotherapist, I honestly wonder whether we are dealing with insanity or psychopathy. I am reminded of some clichés commonly used by people who are actually working on recovery from their addictions and afflictions: “We are only as sick as the secrets we keep.” Then there’s that great definition for those who are out of touch with reality: “Insanity is repeating the same mistakes and expecting different results.” However, add together lies, disrespect for the law, self-interest repeatedly elevated to lethal consequences, along with lack of remorse and we have the formula for psychopathy. Also, the catalyst for turning troops into cannon fodder, as history will confirm.The percentage of troops returning alive from this war, but maimed for life due to war wounds, PTSD, or both, will be greater than previous wars – thanks to more advanced battlefield medicine. However, even battlefield medicine has its limits. Will our troops be psychologically stranded on the battlefield, as they were in Vietnam? It will be the personal experience of our troops – in terms of the value they experience being put upon them and the long-term reception they receive upon their return home – that will determine their ability to "come home" to live the rest of their lives. It all begins with not asking unnecessary sacrifices.There were no weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein is dead and our continuing military presence inspires daily enlistments into Al Qaeda and the insurgencies. Based upon continuing needless sacrifice of our troops, how can our troops possibly feel valued? Many of them may not be aware now – but they will grow up in war, as I did, and they will realize how little value they have in the eyes of this country's chickenhawk leadership!What does such betrayal do to the adjustment of veterans, returned from the war? Speaking for myself and many Vietnam Veterans, plus veterans of the current war I have had exposure to, many of us feel we have been lied to, manipulated, conned – and in many ways, we were – and are. The stories of decaying medical facilities, vets returning to non-existent jobs and media references to “crazy Iraq Vets” is just the beginning for this era. This is an administration that cuts funds for veterans' services even as it ups the ante in our current war effort! Further, it is an outrage that the Department of Veterans Affairs, many of its dedicated staffers veterans themselves, gets the blame when its well-planned programs are not properly funded. Weeks ago, as the Senate prepared for filibuster debates, MoveOn.org sent me an email, asking me if I would share my story as a veteran. The substance of my message is this document. What I am seeing every day is my story! I see Vietnam all over again – only worse in many ways. At least folks in our era were honest in their intentions not to give us "baby killers" support on our return. I anguish over how little support follows the lip service about supporting our troops. I especially anguish over how our exhausted troops have their tours extended or are returned to combat duty without proper rest and recovery. Over the years since this war began, I have lain awake at night in silent vigil for our new generation of forsaken warriors, have flown Iraq Dust Off missions in my nightmares and anguished at the growing disparity between the rising number of casualties and the depletion of justifiable reasons for this war.It is said that 58,000 died in Vietnam and at least that many veterans have died since at their own hand. In this new era of war, we are setting the stage for another round of destroyed lives – not just outright combat casualties, but another generation of veterans who will come home to a country that does not support them in recovering from an unjustified war, alienated from themselves and their families due to untreated PTSD, and subjugated to endless lip service backed by under-funded programs. We all face the consequences of this warfare dilemma together – not just our leadership – and our troops most of all. They must be honored for their sacrifices and the honor to be found in service to country. On the other hand, it is not realistic to expect to completely end with honor an enterprise that was initiated on the basis of lies and deception. As a nation, we must return to a state of honor and integrity – worthy of the troops who defend us. We can take our country back from self-serving political parties and corporate lobbyists. We can demand accountability of our leadership, return to the rule of law, and reinstate balance of power in government. However, change of leadership is the only way we can expect to bring integrity, honor and healing to our fractionated country – both in our eyes and the eyes of the world. Our country’s immediate change of leadership may be the most decisive act to end the “war on terror.” The evidence has accumulated indicating impeachment as the most appropriate and immediate vehicle of accountability. We have already declared victory in Iraq, as far as overthrowing a dictator and ascertaining an absence of weapons of mass destruction are concerned. We can now declare that our military role is over and bring our troops back home to a country with a renewed leadership that values diplomacy over military solutions, and the needs of human beings over corporate globalization, in international relations. If we continue to pursue a military solution in Iraq, we – as a country – will face a fate more destructive than the enemy of terrorism. We will completely fracture ourselves and split away from the qualities that built this country in the first place: honor, integrity, freedom and justice for all.Overseas, our military sons and daughters are putting their lives on the line for this country. Is it too much to ask for a Congress that will take the comparatively milder risk to stand up to a corrupt administration for the sake of our country and those who are willing to die for it?

Presidential Commission's Reports on Walter Reed Scandal

2007-08-09T18:00:00.000-07:00

By Col. David Hunt
The President's Commission On Care for America's Returning Wounded Warriors — led by Sen. Bob Dole and former Secretary of Health and Human Services, Donna Shalala — has just reported back on their findings on how this nation cares for its wounded heroes.The short answer is, we don’t.The presidential commission was very politically correct and would not name names or blame anyone for the disaster that we witnessed a few months ago at Walter Reed. Only seven people were fired. We are also told that it was "just a coincidence" that the president went running with heroic amputees around the White House on the day the report was written … hmmm.Can we just stop all this bull? Can we just look straight into the camera and say, "We suck, we apologize and now we are now going to fix it?" And, perhaps give the wounded warriors, and you, their families, a free cell phone with unlimited minutes ... one that has one number to dial, that is manned by U.S. citizens — not Pakistanis — who will answer and help you with you medical issues? Can we give the press complete open access to the problem as they uncover it? Can we not just look in the camera and say, "In 30 days I will come back out here and keep coming every 30 days until every damn service members medical problem is fixed?"We had a deal with these soldiers — you fight for us and we will take care of your wounds. That means all of your wounds — physical and emotional — that you got while serving, for the rest of your life, quickly and efficiently. The soldiers kept their end of the deal they always do. We have been lying scum-buckets. We have used soldiers for backdrops to make political points — we have said how much we love soldiers … basically a “thanks for your service.” I gotta tell you, when you are missing a body part, or have such emotional and or mental problems that you lose your family, "thanks" just does not cut it.We can go to the moon, we can go to Iraq, we can worry about Lindsay Lohan’s life, we can cry with Paris Hilton … but how about we fix this massive betrayal of our service men and women. Not tomorrow. Today.
-----Colonel David Hunt, U.S. Army (Ret.), is a FOX News military analyst and the author of the New York Times bestseller They Just Don’t Get It. He has extensive operational experience in counterterrorism, special operations, and intelligence operations. He has trained the FBI and Special Forces in counterterrorism tactics, served as the security adviser to six different Olympic Games, testified as an expert at many major terrorist trials, and lectured at the CIA, the FBI, and the National Security Agency.

Why I Cry for Jonathan Shulze

2007-08-03T17:23:00.000-07:00

by Adam Charles Kokesh Tue, 03/20/2007 - 1:44am

It is 0230 and I should be asleep. Instead, I am crying my eyes out as I sit in front of my computer, reading again the story of Marine Jonathan Schulze. I am glad that I am crying. I feel like a real human again.
The past week has been incredible for me. I only joined IVAW a month ago. I joined because I had no choice. I didn’t even really know that they existed, but I went online to find something I could do, not even knowing what I was looking for. When I finally came across ivaw.org, I couldn’t deny that that was me: I was a veteran, and goddamnit if I didn’t know from the bottom of my heart that I was against the “war.” As Dante said, “The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in times of great moral crises maintain their neutrality.” It dawned on me that even if you only want to bring the troops home for one reason, you should be ashamed not to do what you are called upon to do to speak out in whatever capacity you can. It is thus by the authority of my soul that I had no choice but to join IVAW and become a part of the cause.
I eagerly accepted “speaking gigs” before panels at University of Maryland and Howard University. I was interviewed by the BBC for a segment on Fallujah. I got to introduce Michael Franti and Spearhead at their sold out show at the 9:30 club, and then sit behind him onstage at our benefit. I got interviewed by Al Arabia that night, and early again the next morning so that they could get a shot of me with a crowd in the frame. Then I was treated to no less than ten cameras pointed at me for hours as I marched behind our banner and in front of the thousands of marchers that came to support our message and to march on the pentagon.
It was also by the authority of my soul that I participated in Operation First Casualty. I walked point in our squad as we patrolled Washington to bring home the truth of the war and call attention to our cause. I didn’t want to do it. I was scared. I feared that violating the sanctity of the Marine Corps utility uniform would be sacrilege. I think if I was still on active duty right now, and was watching fellow former Marine Sergeant and IVAW member Liam Madden marching through the capitol in his utilities, I probably would have called him a “shit-bag.” But to not participate when perfectly able would have been to betray myself. In light of the stakes, making a parody of military operations is the pettiest of transgressions.
What we did was a little bit crazy, and you have to be a little screwy to do something like this. But we’re the lucky ones. We are among the relatively safe and sane of the returning vets. Take the case of Jonathan Schulze who killed himself after being turned down twice at a VA hospital after telling them twice that he was suicidal. How many more vets need help that don’t even know that they need help? We are starting to see the first homeless vets of this war trickling into shelters. This disgrace is the best proof that our elected officials are only paying lip service to the idea of supporting the troops. But then there are the real crazies, whose ranks I once was a part of, who want to go back to Iraq. I wanted to go back because I didn’t get a purple heart the first time. That is not a normal thought for a human being to have. Had I told any mental health professional outside of the military that I wanted to go back to get injured, I would have been committed.
For better or for worse, this sentiment is somewhat typical in the service. The dedication of our all-volunteer army is the best weapon of defense this country has. The guys in the rear resent being, “one of the guys that didn’t go to Iraq.” And the guys like me look up to the recipients of the purple heart and say, “those are the guys that really sacrificed.” And the guys with the purple hearts say, “Man, I didn’t do shit. The guy standing two feet away from me didn’t make it home in one piece.” The people that feel this way do so because they love their country and they want to lay down the lives for our safety and security. That was why I served.
Towards the end of Operation First Casualty, former Army Sergeant Aaron Hughes, a member of our squad of veterans, pointed out to me that “people are just done,” as we were walking towards Arlington Cemetery for our memorial service. I had suggested we continue to move in a tactical column, as we had been all day, instead of just mobbing over “like a bunch of nasty civilians.” It was then that I realized, standing between fields of crosses stretching into the horizon, that I was done. And I lost it and couldn’t stop crying. At the service, it was all I could do to keep from falling out of formation. Previously as a reservist, I had served on flag details at funerals and on twenty-one gun salute teams. I had always been able to take the tragedy and put it away and not even think about it. Now I am able to cry about it – the way that an ordinary human would if faced with such tragedy. I cry for Jonathan Shulze, a Marine I never knew, because I nearly was him. Maybe I was one incident away. Maybe it could have been your son. Maybe it could have been your friend from high school. Or maybe it was just another stranger who had taken an oath to risk his life when called upon in order to defend your quality of life. Maybe I’m still a little crazy as I go through the process of becoming human again. Maybe I’m just a little riled up from what we did today. But I would have to be fucking nuts to not do anything.

PATRIOTIC SITE

2007-06-08T09:14:00.000-07:00

http://patriotfiles.org/

Beyond Walter Reed: the Tragedy of Lessons Unlearned from Vietnam to Iraq: by Raymond Scurfield

2007-05-21T14:04:00.000-07:00

Does the widespread reaction to the recent expose at Walter Reed and the neglect of some of our nation’s physically wounded Iraq veterans indicate that our nation has had a wake-up call to what the full impact of war entails -- and what is required to address it? As a Vietnam veteran with a 25-year leadership career with the VA, please forgive my skepticism. The underlying institutional problems go far beyond any benefits from sacking high-ranking officials; cosmetic cover-up and pest control treatment at one military facility; and renewed time-limited Congressional oversight that eventually dissipates.
Walter Reed characterizes one of over 30 lessons unlearned about our nation’s treatment of war casualties over many decades: Our country sends us to war. Our military uses us in war. And our country forgets us after war. This unlearned lesson is compounded by a second lesson. When our nation sends us off to war, a sacred covenant is made -- in return for going into harm’s way and putting our lives and our comrades-in-arms’ lives and health at risk, the nation promises to honor our sacrifices and provide humane and timely war-related financial benefits, health and medical/mental health services. When this sacred covenant is broken, despair, isolation, rage, and alienation cascade in turbulent waves over our war-wounded and their families.
The wounded languishing at Walter Reed reflect the plight of many veterans who have been, are, or will return to find themselves warehoused too often in sub-par facilities and inattention in the limbo of “medical hold” status at numerous military installations. Just check out medical holds at Ft. Benning, Ft. Dix, Ft. McClellan -- or elsewhere. As one mother of a severely wounded Iraq veteran said, “When he was no longer of use to the military, they forgot about him.”
These physically wounded are a fraction of a much greater number of casualties even more forgotten -- those suffering post-traumatic stress and other serious mental health problems. Various studies indicate mental health problem prevalence rates of up to 30 percent or as many as over 400,000 uniformed Americans who have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan to date! And this number will grow exponentially, because the acute psychiatric casualty rates of war always are much less than the longer-term casualty rates.
And then, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the object of several recent investigations, epitomizes more unlearned lessons. The head of the VA is a political appointee; thus, VA officials typically echo what the White House stance is and not necessarily act as vigorous advocates for veterans’ interests (Max Cleland was a notable exception)…another unlearned lesson. When a “new” war is being conducted, veterans of prior wars, their families and programs are pushed to the bottom of the priority list. In the midst of the emotionally charged climate to support our forces in harm’s way, perhaps this is somewhat understandable -- understandable, but absolutely not acceptable.
A related unlearned lesson: pro-military political forces are not necessarily pro-veteran; too often they consider funding for veterans’ programs to be detrimental to funding the enormous costs to sustain the DOD in (or out of) war. And veterans’ programs suffer. It was the case before and during my leadership of several VA national and regional PTSD programs, and it is the case today.
One recent example: a McClatchy Newspaper study revealed that some 100 local VA clinics provided essentially no mental health care in 2005! And this is to a veteran population that includes still as much as well over a half million veterans from the Vietnam War alone with war-related mental health problems -- the unseen or hidden casualties of war. And both physical and mental health casualties and their families are left, by and large, alone during the ensuing decades to fight the unglamorous, unbelievably courageous daily battles with lifelong, unremitting severe chronic pain, disabilities, disfigurement, impairment and/or anguish from seemingly indelible horrific war trauma memories. Research reveals that those wounded are among the highest at risk to develop PTSD -- a double whammy.
Another lesson unlearned is the collusion to not tell us all that studies since WW II consistently demonstrate a very strong linear relationship between exposure to combat and the development of mental health problems, e.g., those who encounter the heaviest combat, have extended or multiple deployments are at higher risk to develop war-related problems. This is exactly what is happening today. The costs and implications for war policies and taking care of our own now and later are enormous -- and lest we forget or not care, for tens if not hundreds of millions of Iraqis.
Furthermore, in Iraq, the increasing nastiness of and prolonged exposure to horrific combat conditions are combined with the increasing polarization and divisiveness about the war in Iraq and the growing specter of no honorable way out. These factors fuel a perfect storm of anguish and malaise that may well engulf untold legions of yet another era of wounded warriors and families.
Do not let Walter Reed be only a wake-up call; insist that our nation rallies to support the full range and duration of physical, psychological and social casualties of war and fully honors that sacred covenant that has been forged in blood and sacrifice. And yet...the experiences of innumerable Vietnam and (still counting) Iraq and Afghanistan veterans and their families keep intruding and pulling at my heart, whispering loudly to me, “You know that this, too, shall pass and if history tells us anything, it is that, once again, selective amnesia will eventually envelop yet another era of veterans and their families.
Dr. Raymond M Scurfield, recognized internationally for his expertise in war-related trauma, has written a trilogy of books about war’s impact. The most recent is "War Trauma. Lessons Unlearned From Vietnam to Iraq." He also has several writings about the impact of Hurricane Katrina. He is a professor and director of the Katrina Research Center at The University of Southern Mississippi Gulf Coast and can be contacted at raymond.scurfield@usm.edu . More information about Scurfield is found online at: http://www.usm.edu/gc/gchealth/scurfield/index.html .

""We Talk About the Truth, And That's Hard for People to Accept Sometimes."

2007-05-14T13:06:00.000-07:00

By Ron JacobsCounter Punch, April 14, 2007When I was in high school, I lived on a military base and socialized and worked with GIs opposed to the war in Vietnam. These guys weren't very different from me--we liked rock and soul music and we liked to get high--yet most of them had experienced war. That was something I was not interested in doing, and was but one of many reasons that I opposed the war. Many of today's GIs are in the same boat as my GI buddies back then. They are just like their countrymen and women--except they've experienced war.

A group of antiwar vets who did time in Iraq and Afghanistan have been making their presence known for the past couple of years in the US and, like their predecessors that organized Vietnam Veterans Against the War, these men and women have formed an antiwar group known as Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW). According to an article in a publication titled North Carolina at War published by the Institute for Southern Studies, IVAW has members in at least 41 states and on some military bases overseas. I recently got in touch with some of its members. What follows is a transcript of a hopeful and occasionally heartrending exchange I had with these three folks.-Ron

Ron: If you don't mind, can you provide your name, and what branch and where and when you served in the military. And what you're doing now (besides working with IVAW)?

Adrienne Kinne, US Army (1994-1998), US Army Reserves (1998-2004, activated 10/01-10/03), Arabic linguist (military intelligence). I now work for the VA in White River Junction as a research health science specialist (MS in psychology).

Cpl Matt Howard. Served with 1st Tank Battalion 1st Marine Division during the initial invasion Basra to Baghdad and a year later transferring equipment from Kuwait to Fallujah.I'm currently looking at schools to Study Oriental medicine.

My name is Drew Cameron, I served from August 2000-04 on active duty in the US Army as a field artillery soldier out of Fort Sill, OK. After that I re-enlisted into the Vermont National Guard for two years as a patient administration specialist and ended my time there in August 2006. I served in Iraq from April-Dec 2003 and our base of operations was Camp Ananconda. Since I got out of Active duty I started going to school full-time, I recently transferred to the University of Vermont where I study forestry. I am on the board for the Vermont Peace and Justice Center and run a small artist collective called the Green Door Studio here in Burlington. Vermont. I make paper and books, and host openings, get the occasional small commission, it helps ya know.

Ron: What caused you all to take the step and join IVAW? Was it an easy choice or a difficult one for each of you? How many sympathizers would you guess you have in the military?

Adrienne: I had heard about IVAW a couple of years ago. Though I supported what they stood for, I didn't really think that I would have a place in IVAW because I served my entire enlistment stateside, and I'd been out of the military for a while by then. Instead I was active with other organizations. I signed petitions, donated, and had just started to get more active last election cycle (Get Out the Vote calls, etc.).

Matt: I joined IVAW the second I found out about it. It was hardly a choice more of a moral imperative. And I take comfort in knowing that for every one of us speaking out, there are hundreds who share our views but have not yet found their voice.

Drew: The choice wasn't an easy one for me, after I got out of active duty, really after I got back from Iraq I just wanted to forget about everything and move on. The problem I didn't understand is that one can't reconcile and deal unless you approach and work through it. So I spent two years of being numb, distant and sometimes self-destructive or angry. I used to get anxiety, like a wave of anxiety for no reason, but mostly didn't really connect with anyone even my girlfriend. After awhile it came to a point where I wanted to do something, so I went to a protest in January 2006 and met another veteran, he told me about IVAW and what it was all about. It really blew me away the immediate connection and friendships that comes from talking truthfully about what we did and being active towards ending the repression of military servicemembers who are being used by the warmakers. I know that there are a lot of folks that feel the same way, I have met so many of them. Both my buddies from the Army and veterans that I meet at different events, they know what's up, they know that there is no justification for being over there, but its a conflicting feeling to be open and public about it. We have a right to do so, after all we are the ones who are paying the highest price over there, us and the people of Iraq. Why shouldn't we be able to speak truthfully and dissent? The whole military mission-first mindset is a hard one to relinquish even once you get away from it and can take a breath.

Adrienne: When I heard that Bush was going to escalate the US force level in Iraq this January, part of me just snapped to be honest. I couldn't believe that after the elections, and all that had happened, he could just go so brazenly against the will of the people. I was fortunate to get on a (Burlington, VT.) Peace and Justice Center bus, and I headed to DC for the January 27th March on Washington, my first rally. I decided to wear my desert uniform, which was also a first for me (it felt really odd too, wearing my uniform out of uniform, by myself until I got to DC, but it seemed right). When I got to DC, I headed over to the area where I knew veterans would be forming up, and I saw the IVAW table, and I signed up that day. Someone asked me where I was from, and I said Vermont, and he said, hey, here's another Vermonter. I looked up, and saw Matt and Drew, and that was the beginning for me on pretty much every real level.I have no idea how many sympathizers we have in the military. That there are more soldiers resisting, and choosing jail over service is telling. That there are 3,000-5,000 estimated AWOL soldiers is also telling. I think this is the beginning of active duty soldiers standing down and resisting. Time will tell.

Ron: How do you think active duty GIs and Marines perceive the organization?

Adrienne: I don't think that I could answer this question. It's been too many years for me. I have a brother who is in the reserves and he is being sent to Iraq for the first time this summer with his unit. I think that part of him wants to shut out groups like us, so he can focus on what he thinks is his mission. There are many soldiers who want to believe that what our military is doing in Iraq is good. I wish we could let them know what we have found out, that it is all a lie and that our presence there is what is making Iraq such a disaster right now, a never-ending cycle. I guess some things a soldier has to find out for him or herself. Matt: The military is organized insanity. I think an organization like IVAW gives service members inspiration that they are not alone in how they feel. That alters the reality they now find themselves in is, in fact, (and reminds them that that reality is) not normal.Adrienne: It's unfortunate that soldiers are still being put in this position - kind of damned if you do, damned if you don't. Congress needs to step up and get us out of Iraq, and take the burden from our soldiers. Drew: I think that active-duty guys think that it may be a bit too radical for what they are used to. I remember looking at the website when I was still in and getting all worried that it was illegal or something. There is this huge false perception that you can't have political views or free speech in the military, that is totally not true under UCMJ. People have a right to do what they want, remember we are supposed to be protecting the constitution, right? So that misperception definitely plays a part, and of course the Hooah! Like getting all amped up for a tour is a way to deal with it, but more and more active duty are getting sick and tired of getting sent over there. They've been there, more than likely already twice and know that another year out there is a heavy burden that they'd rather see end. So if we are struggling to end it, I bet some folks hope we succeed. The interesting part is that people on active duty are part of it too, they are the ones that are about to go back to hell. Some of us in IVAW face re-activation but we talk about what we did, I don't even want to know what it feels like to be about to go again. They are facing an increasingly dire situation, unjustly occupying and waiting to get hit, and the vast majority of servicemembers know the mission is a farce, its just about taking that next step and saying "No, I won't die for your lies.

"Ron: What do you think antiwar civilians (who aren't vets) think of you all? And, as a follow up, what do you think of them and their attempts to end the war?

Drew: It's been really great to meet a lot of organizers and activists that were struggling to stop this war when I was over there. Here they are still working to end this injustice, now more critically than ever with escalation on the mindset of the Bush regime. It's such a resounding feeling of encouragement to be a part of the movement and all of the diverse groups and individuals, including students, who are involved. I wouldn't be here if it weren't for these great people, I owe my friends, my fellow peacemakers a huge debt of gratitude. Its funny too they say the same thing about the vets who are speaking out.

Adrienne: My experience has been that "anti-war civilians" value what we have to say a lot. The bus tour with Cindy Sheehan was very life changing. So many people came up to us afterward and thanked us for speaking out. That's how it's been every step of the way. I don't think I would have been able to do this, if it wasn't for the support that Vermonters have shown us. As far as what I think of the "antiwar civilians," I'm somewhat in awe of them. Part of me wonders why they care and what makes them go the extra step toward action, when so many Americans can't be bothered to do either. It seems as if even a majority of those who agree with the anti-war movement don't go the next step toward action. It's very frustrating. So many people have this sense that nothing they could do will make a difference. The movement needs to start doing more to break this barrier.

Matt: Everywhere I go I get absolutely great responses, but it's a weird place to be. Because at the end of the day, I am getting this positive attention for ultimately participating in something extremely negative. One day I hope to live in a world where we don't need veterans to tell people violence never brings about peace. Having said that, the support has been overwhelming. That has meant a lot, because I was worried at first at being perceived as the enemy. After all, I took part in something very wrong. There is a clear distinction between government policy and the people on the ground in the movement. This of course is abused by the war mongers who say we don't care about the 'troops'. We care more about the lives of these people serving more than anyone- certainly more than their commander in chief. We want them home and alive this very minute!

Ron: Speaking of war, are you opposed to both the involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan? If so, why? If not, why?

Matt: I am opposed to all war. Violence only begets more violence. These wars are living proof of that. We can talk policy and motives until we are blue in the face, but it all boils down to the cyclical nature of violence. A Marine's buddy dies right next to him, so the next time they are hit with an IED he sprays machine gun fire in every direction. Now we have dead Iraqis. They pick up arms to avenge the loss of innocent life. And it just goes on and on and on. An occupation has never been 'won'. We can't be fooled by the 'good war' propaganda either. Go back and look at the history of Afghanistan, look at our policy decisions. Its about empire - money and power. And no, that country is not better off. Far from it.

Adrienne: I was in the reserves when 9/11 happened. I remember hearing about the news from one of my professors and not believing him. I drove home and was glued to the tv for the next few weeks. I was waiting to be activated (which came October 3rd). I remember having a hollow pit in my stomach every time Bush came on TV, and started talking about invading Afghanistan. I remember thinking that it wasn't the people of Afghanistan who attacked us on 9/11, so why should they be made to suffer. In the end, part of me could understand the fact that we sent troops into Afghanistan (if it was really to find bin Laden, but it wasn't).

Drew: Definitely, they are two fronts on the same war, the same agenda and plan to dominate the Middle East. What would have happened if the government would've actually tried to identify the reasons that people would be so compelled to send a desperation cry over how they are being treated by US foreign policy. What if, instead of war, the US gave them peace, inclusion and a place at the decision making table? Not Al Qaida, but the people of Afghanistan, those are the ones who have been killed and bombed and subjugated and tortured, right along with the people of Iraq. The whole idea about building democracy is a farce. If the US government was determined to establish democracy than why won't they listen to the people? I would argue that its about domination, imperialism and control the decisions and resources in that reason so the US can stay on top. It's bad over there, getting worse, and it's no wonder that people don't like to be invaded and live under a martial law and foreign military regardless of how the public relations and politicians spin it.

Adrienne: I was always opposed to our invading Iraq. I knew Bush was manipulating 9/11 from the start. It was very frustrating, and continues to be so. The media totally dropped the ball. I suppose that's because the vast majority of our media is owned by three men who have ties to Bush and their own motivations for wanting us to invade Iraq (though I didn't understand the threat of media consolidation and corporate interests back then).

Ron: Despite the fact that our culture is very military inundated--you know flyovers at baseball and football games, Army sponsorship of NASCAR teams, Rolling Stone and other such magazines running ads for the military next to their editorials about how screwed up the war is--why does it seem like enlisted men and women are viewed as somehow different (if not outright outcasts) by many citizens? Or is your experience different?Adrienne: It's very odd, the public's relationship with the military. In the south (I was stationed in Georgia my entire military career outside of training), they were supportive on the one hand because there are so many large posts down that way. The military is a part of their way of life. On the other hand, it was very transparent support. Support based on the idea of patriotism, and not the reality of what we were doing in Iraq or Afghanistan. In Augusta and Savannah, Georgia, in the year after 9/11, soldiers were invited to make appearances in various places, hockey games, Irish festivals, etc., always in uniform, marching with flags, singing the anthem, rappelling from the ceiling of the hockey rink as they unraveled an American flag draped from on high. Quite the spectacle of support, but really, it was so meaningless. All show and very little substance. Kind of like how people in the south displayed flags all over their vehicles, especially post-9/11 but certainly even before then... their gas guzzling vehicles that they don't need (based on my observations, more people in the south drive oversized trucks, SUVs, and Hummers, than anywhere else in the country, probably because gas is so much cheaper and oversized vehicles are seen as being more "American"). They don't even connect the fact that we are in Iraq largely because of our dependence on oil. Maybe that's the problem. Maybe for our society to really come to terms with what our military is doing in Iraq, Americans would have to admit that their own reliance on oil is connected and that they need to look at what role they have to play in all of this. Unfortunately, Americans have been taught that they have a right to buy whatever they want. Capitalism and patriotism are synonymous in our society, a fact that frees us all from taking personal responsibility for many things.Matt: Well it's hard for many who feel this war is wrong to identify with those involved. Like, who would do that? Its hard for myself sometimes to believe that I did that. I think its important to realize that there are a lot of good people in the military caught in a horrible situation. And also maybe because the military is just so fundamentally different. What passes for normal human behavior in the military would absolutely not be tolerated in your average work setting - obviously in combat but in garrison too. Its a completely different world.

Drew: I never felt like an outcast, just like I knew a big secret that I could never explain no matter how hard I tried. I would say that it's more of a curiosity and misunderstanding, not judgment.Ron: Do you ever miss the military? If so, what aspect?

Matt: I miss the people I served with. It's a tough process to go through, realizing that some days you can miss something you hated so much. As time goes on, some of the better memories have returned. I had a blast in Japan - but that was always far, far from base. Yet even that was tainted. Imagine if another country had military bases in the US. I always felt bad for being there in that capacity.Adrienne: Yes. I most miss the camaraderie of the military, the sense of belonging. I joined the Army when I was 17, and so I kind of grew up in the military. I suppose I work at the VA now because part of me needed to maintain that connection somehow. To be honest, I loved the Army, for the first two years I was on active duty. I wanted to make it a career, and I was very certain about it. My illusions concerning what it meant to be a soldier were somewhat shattered soon after I reached my first duty assignment, when I realized that the military doesn't really care about its soldiers. The bottom line is always, do they have enough bodies to fill the positions, period. Barracks quality, food quality, health care quality, it mattered little. We worked shift work, and they didn't care that rotating between days and mids every week for over two years was basically turning us all into insomniacs and wreaking havoc on our bodies. In 1997-1998, I counted down the days of my last year on active duty (as did most of my unit, retention was atrocious). Nonetheless, part of me still wanted to stay in. I even decided to sell back my 60 days of annual leave, instead of getting off active duty 2 months early, because it was so hard to let go and say goodbye to my friends and what had been my purpose in life for the past 4 years, even though I hated it. I reasoned that maybe it was just my unit that sucked, maybe the rest of the Army was different, so I decided to hedge my bet and I joined the reserves instead of just ditching the whole thing. In 2002, I volunteered for a second year of mobilization, instead of just ditching the whole thing then and there. My eight year contract was up, so I think I would have been off scotfree (though there was still a stop-loss, so I probably would have been reactivated three months later with the other reservists that chose not to volunteer for the second year - they were sent to Iraq). I was very unhappy with what our country was doing under Bush's "leadership." Every time I heard the phrase "shock and awe," it made me want to puke. But I chose to stay for that second year, how screwed up is that? I just couldn't let my fellow reservists down. I couldn't let our soldiers stationed in Kuwait and Iraq down. I chose to stay, because part of me still thought we had to make the most of the situation Bush had thrown us into Hell, I even tried to reenlist in the reserves at the end of our second year (2003), but when my unit had problems finding the proper paperwork, I took that as a sign that I wasn't meant to stay in. Thank god for small miracles. Drew: Yes, there were certain aspects that were rewarding, but mostly frustrating and seemingly wasteful. I did like having a tight platoon, you know a team that could perform our missions really well, whether it be in training or in combat. Basically the sacrifices far outweigh the benefits for an individual, for a family, for a community. I mean what other "job" rather lifestyle would have you put into the situation to have you sent to far away lands to be violent for peace? To get treated like an idiot and always being told what to do, all the way down to when to eat, sleep, work, rest, go, jump, die.Ron: Now, for some movement type stuff. What have you all been doing in the past few months in terms of organizing? I know you give talks and appear on panels about the wars? Have you been doing outreach into communities not necessarily familiar to antiwar debate? If so, what has been your reception? Are you able to get into high schools and talk with students?

Adrienne: We've been doing a lot in Vermont, going to the State House, trying to get a word with any of our representatives who will listen. We've driven to the war resisters chafe outside of Ft. Drum, and we're trying to maintain an active connection with that. We went to DC in January and March. We had a large group of IVAWers here for the rally in Burlington, and we're trying to strengthen our connection with other IVAWers in the Northeast region. I know that Matt has been very active with counter-recruitment. I've been trying to to spread awareness to my hometown in Utica, NY. Utica is very conservative (as is a lot of upstate NY), and there isn't a very strong anti-war presence there yet that I'm aware of, but I think it's growing. So the last few trips out that way I wore my IVAW t-shirt everywhere, a small gesture, but I received a lot of positive feedback. I guess I have to start somewhere. I even wore my IVAW t-shirt to a somewhat fancy charity wine tasting event out that way last weekend. That got me a lot of odd looks, but it also started a few very interesting conversations - only one guy was negative towards me, and he apologized later on. So, that was a fairly successful outing in my book. I handed out IVAW flyers at a coffeeshop, and I've been raising awareness with my family, passing out bumper stickers and keeping them informed of what's going on in Vermont. Actually, I've been emailing everyone I know all over the country about what's been going on in Vermont and what IVAW is all about. I'm not sure what the next step will be for me outside of IVAW events and what's going to be happening in Vermont. I do want to get Utica more in the loop, so I'll have to start looking into what groups are already out there and start making contact. Matt: We have been going around giving talks, yes. I would love to talk to more high school kids, especially those thinking of joining. Recruiters lie, plain and simple. I think counter recruiting is very important. Sometimes it's tough. In many ways we are preaching to the choir. I mean, republicans don't come to anti war rallies, you know what I'm saying? So that's the real work, figuring out how to reach those who are for the war and having some real dialogue. Many say that's not possible. The next tier down are the people that know it's wrong but believe we have some responsibility to stay and 'fix' it. I've seen people really change when they find out we are the cause of the problems, not the solution.Drew: The biggest success has been with establishing and building the VTCAN , Vermont Campus Anti-War Network, There are eight schools that are a part of this and we collaborate, activate and build for actions and events. Most recent was a large demonstration in Burlington, VT on the 24th of March. We had the largest IVAW contingent in VT ever, seven of us, all of the represented schools and community members, over four hundred came out for that, its huge for Vermont. Next up is our first statewide conference in the first part of May. We are strategizing for the summer and how to maintain and continue the momentum that we have established over this school year. In my recent travels over the past few months, we have been around Vermont, every time there is always an overwhelming number of people who are interested to hear and listen to our messages, sure there are pro-war folks as well, but their arguments turn to personal attacks and denigrating our service. We talk about the truth and its hard for people to accept sometimes, its really horrible what the government is doing to people.

Ron: If you could bend the ear of the antiwar movement, what would your suggestions be for the next several months? How do you think we can move the apparent anger and frustration at the continuation of the war to a point where the warmakers and their enablers have to listen? I don't know about you, but I am pretty tired of every effort to end the war NOW ending up with another check being written by Congress to continue the damn thing.Drew: I think a lot of what the "World Can't Wait" speaks to is true, we have to coalesce our differences, mass the people and disrupt the status quo. The politicians listen to business and economics, if we are able to put aside small differences in tactics and approaches and push the movement into a persistent, non-violent civil disobedience on a massive scale we can really effect change. It's worked before and we can learn from our heroes of the past and change our society for the better. It comes from an organized movement, in large part we are still building that force, but encouragingly more and more students are coming together and our demands are being heard and respected with a renewed authority that we have always had. Empowerment and action, that is what we need to realize.

Matt: I don't have all the answers. It seems we have exhausted all political routes. We have a Congress that got to power because they said they would end the war. And like you said, the checks just keep on coming. So where does this leave us? Mass civil disobedience? I don't know.

Adrienne: I've been very frustrated as well. I thought that Vermonters voting for impeachment on town meeting day would mean something. I thought Vermont's State reps would have done something by now to take it to the next level, vote on their own resolutions maybe. I expected Vermont Congressman Peter Welch to stand up and start impeachment in DC. I'm very sick of Congress's failure to act more decisively. Bush has used our soldiers to spy on Americans and to torture. He has lied to the American public to get Americans to support an illegal and immoral war, which I believe makes him guilty of the murder of all of our fallen soldiers and Iraqi civilians. I believe that he needs to be held accountable for his actions. I believe that Congress needs to stop whining about Bush's threats to veto their withdrawal bills. They are using Bush as an excuse for their failure to act and get us out of Iraq, when they could be impeaching him right now. It's all related. We need to support our troops by getting rid of their corrupt commander-in-chief and getting them out of this winless situation. We aren't even supposed to win in Iraq, Iraqis should be the winners, it's their country for crying out loud. We're the invaders. And that situation needs to be brought to the public's attention. We need to get all of our supporters-in-theory (those who say they agree with the anti-war movement but who don't do a thing about it) to be participating members of the movement. Whether the support through writing letters to the editor, donations, signing petitions, calling their representatives, attending rallies, attending speaking events, wearing a pin, buying a gas efficient vehicle and slapping a bumper sticker on... the possibilities are endless. We need to start stepping things up and remind our representatives that they work for us, the people. The next step is civil disobedience, and I think we're getting closer to that phase.

Ron: What's next for IVAW?

Adrienne: Organizing, trying to get the word out to soldiers and veterans, attending events. To be honest, I've been mostly zeroed in on what's going on in Vermont, and my IVAW membership has been only a small part of that so far. Drew is much more plugged in to IVAW than I am. I will be attending an IVAW retreat next weekend and so I hope to get more involved in what IVAW will be doing as a whole.

Drew: We continue to build, advocate and speak truth. One main reason that I am doing all of this is to reach veterans like I was embraced. So we can make sense of all of this, it comes from reconciliation, together, and working to make sure nobody ever has to be put through this again, war is failure and the costs are too heavy to bear.

Ron: One more question, if you could share one aspect of your experience from soldier to antiwar vet with a GI or Marine currently in Iraq or Afghanistan, what would that be?Adrienne: I would encourage all soldiers to question everything they have taken for granted as being the truth as told to them by their unit, their president, and their country/media and to start thinking for themselves. I would also suggest that they shouldn't let some abstract feeling of loyalty to the military override their own morals and consciences. I would encourage them to watch the Ground Truth and other related documentaries, and to start reading books such as Anthony Arnove's, "Iraq: the logic of withdrawal," or Howard Zinn's, "A People's History of the US," or former Marine Major General Smedley Butler's short book, "War is a Racket" (available for free here: http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm). I would also encourage soldiers to start talking to one another, really talking, about their experiences. I've been listening to soldiers who were over there for the past few months, and even though I knew it was bad, until I heard their stories, I had no idea how truly god awful the situation has become. It's very hard for soldiers to break free of the hold the military has over us - the military's had centuries to perfect its methods of manipulation. But in order to make the transition from soldier/veteran to resister/activist, we all have to be open to the concept that everything we thought we knew about reality could be wrong or only half-truths. This has been very hard for me to deal with over the past few months, especially with things happening so quickly over a very short period of time. I consider myself to be very fortunate to have found the IVAW and to have found my way back to the Northeast (and specifically in Vermont) at this stage of the game. Active duty soldiers will need our support, they will need to know that should they decide to resist, we will stand by them. It is very crucial for the movement to make its support of our soldiers felt by them.

Drew: Its impossible to deal with this alone, you know that things are different and its hard to even identify why. Coming together with other vets that feel the same way makes you realize so overwhelmingly how we are all still connected, and always will be. What we remember, our stories and ideas that we share with each other is really empowering, because you realize that you are not alone. Things can get better, but you have to come out of the woodwork, come out and talk with other vets, its an important part of the process to remember and resolve, you know, and listen, like friends are supposed to.

Matt: (All I would say is), just be honest with yourself. Ask yourself what would you do if this occupation was going on in our country? The state of affairs in Iraq, does this really make you proud? The truth can hurt, but it must be faced.Ron: Thanks, y'all.Ron Jacobs is author of The Way the Wind Blew: a history of the Weather Underground, which is just republished by Verso. Jacobs' essay on Big Bill Broonzy is featured in CounterPunch's collection on music, art and sex, Serpents in the Garden. His first novel, Short Order Frame Up, is forthcoming from Mainstay Press. He can be reached at: rjacobs3625@charter.net

"Why are you a patriot only if you believe we need to have war to determine our national identity?"

2007-05-14T12:46:00.000-07:00

"Why are you a patriot only if you believe we need to have war to determine our national identity?"
By Sgt. Kevin BendermanChoice Of America, May 13, 2007

We have allowed a group of people who want to use our military and economic resources on an ill-begotten war of choice to convince a lot of us that we are not patriotic if we do not believe everything they say about this war. I want you to read the following mission statement and then take a good look at the names below this statement.June 3, 1997"

American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century. We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership. As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests? We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead. We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities. Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership. Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:- we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;- we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;- we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;- we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity and our principles.Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.Persian GulfIn the decade since the end of the Cold War, the Persian Gulf and the surrounding region has witnessed a geometric increase in the presence of U.S. armed forces, peaking above 500,000 troops during Operation Desert Storm, but rarely falling below 20,000 in the intervening years. In Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other neighboring states, roughly 5,000 airmen and a large and varied Fleet of Air Force aircraft patrol the skies of Operation Southern Watch, often complemented by Navy aircraft from carriers in the Gulf and, during the strikes reacting to Saddam Hussein's periodic provocations, cruise missiles from Navy surface vessels and submarines. Flights from Turkey under Northern Watch also involve substantial forces, and indeed more often result in Combat actions. After eight years of no-fly-zone operations, there is little reason to anticipate that the U.S. air presence in the region should diminish significantly as long as Saddam Hussein remains in power. Although Saudi domestic sensibilities demand that the forces based in the Kingdom nominally remain rotational forces, it has become apparent that this is now a semi-permanent mission. From an American perspective, the value of such bases would endure even should Saddam pass from the scene. Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region.

"Elliott Abrams; Gary Bauer; William J. Bennett; Jeb Bush; Dick Cheney; Eliot A. Cohen; Midge Decter; Paula Dobriansky; Steve Forbes; Aaron Friedberg; Francis Fukuyama; Frank Gaffney; Fred C. Ikle; Donald Kagan; Zalmay Khalilzad; I. Lewis Libby; Norman Podhoretz; Dan Quayle; Peter W. Rodman; Stephen P. Rosen; Henry S. Row; Donald Rumsfeld; Vin Weber; George Weigel; Paul Wolfowitz.(Project for the New American Century - PNAC)

Both of these statements should give you a clearer picture of just what these people are up to. These people, in their desire to rule the world, are getting good Americans killed who have served this country to defend it. I have to ask; is this the way we want to handle ourselves as Americans? Is this what we really want for our nation?When I enlisted in the military it was to defend the ideals of the Constitution and country from attack by anyone who would attempt to violate our constitutional rights and our home. This current administration has done more to undermine the foundation of our country than any made-up terrorists ever could. The American people need to realize they have the authority to run this country and the government workers, to include the president and congress, are the employees of the citizenry of the United States. This authority is given to them by the United States Constitution;Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution. Ratified December 15, 1791. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified December 15, 1791. Note: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.The federal and state governments are, by the law of this land, subservient to the people of the United States. The people we hire to manage our business have managed to make most of us believe they are the ones who know better than the rest of us and that we should let them guide us "lesser beings" because they know what is good for us. I challenge Americans to stand up and take back their responsibility for running this country from the career politicians and demand they run the country within the laws of the Unites States Constitution. If we stand by and let these people pervert our country then we have no right to complain about what they are doing.It is a sad day in America when more people vote for the contestants of American Idol than in the last presidential election. Everyone seems to want to have all the benefits of being American and none of the responsibility. Well, I say you cannot have it both ways, either you accept the responsibility or you should not expect any of the rights.There seems to be a large segment of our nation who is afraid to do the right thing and I do not understand this about the people of our nation, who have descended from the pioneers who had to face much harder living conditions than we now do. there are people here who have descended from the slaves and we all know that the slaves had to endure much more harsh conditions than we now do and yet they fought with all of their being to be free of the madness they were faced with.Are you asking me to believe that modern Americans with all of their conveniences cannot pull themselves up enough to stand up for what is right? Are we so spoiled and out of touch with what is going on around us that we cannot see when we are being lied to outright?Are we going to create another committee to talk about what is wrong or are we going to find it within ourselves to stand up and be counted for what we believe?I, for one, have a much better vision of what we should be in this country and it is nothing like we have allowed ourselves to become in recent history. I am going to continue to try and prevent our country from getting any worse than it is now. I may not be able to affect a large scale change, but I am going to do what I can. How about you, want to help?

Sgt. Kevin Benderman is a US Army veteran who served a combat tour in Iraq and who was recently released from prison after serving over one year for his outspoken opposition to this and all wars of choice. Please visit www.BendermanDefense.org to learn more.

Kevin may be reached at info@BendermansBridge.org

INJURED TROOPS SHIPPED BACK INTO BATTLE

2007-04-13T13:45:00.000-07:00

Military doctors determined that he should not be allowed around
weapons because of his PTSD symptoms. His medical
records show that doctors had "highly recommended"
he not be deployed.

Mark Benjamin of Salon was the first to report on the conditions at Walter Reed.
Story here... http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/04/09/injured_soldiers/
Story below:
---------------
Injured troops shipped back into battle
Salon has uncovered further evidence that the military sent soldiers with acute post-traumatic stress disorder, severe back injuries and other serious war wounds back to Iraq.By Mark Benjamin
On March 9, Army Spc. Thomas Smith was ordered to board a plane from Fort Benning, Ga., to deploy back to Iraq, even though he was known to be suffering from chronic post-traumatic stress disorder from a previous tour there. Only weeks prior, military doctors determined that Smith should not be allowed around weapons because of his PTSD symptoms, which included bouts of sudden, extreme anger. Smith's medical records, obtained by Salon, also show that doctors had "highly recommended" that Smith not be deployed because of his condition.But that did not stop Smith's commanders from ordering him to Iraq as his unit, the 3,900-strong 3rd Brigade of the 3rd Infantry Division, was rushing to move out as part of President Bush's so-called surge plan for securing Baghdad."I was told to have my bags in at midnight that night," for the flight, Smith said. "I was sitting there looking at these letters in my hand from my doctors," he recalled in a telephone interview. In order to follow the doctors' recommendations, Smith said, "I had to check myself into the hospital." He avoided the flight by just a few hours. Smith's condition was serious enough that the doctors there kept him hospitalized for nearly two weeks.On March 11, two days after Smith checked himself in, Salon reported on claims by numerous soldiers from Smith's brigade that commanders were pressing injured troops to deploy to Iraq. Soldiers at Fort Benning said that two doctors from the division met with 75 injured soldiers, including Smith, on Feb. 15, in what the troops said was an effort to reevaluate -- and downgrade -- their health problems so that they could be deployed with the rest of the unit. In several cases, medical records provided to Salon supported those allegations, showing the soldiers to be healthier, on paper, than they were prior to that meeting.It remains unclear how many injured troops from the 3rd Brigade were deployed last month. But others continue to come forward who, like Smith, had serious medical problems and narrowly avoided being shipped back to Iraq. The concern of these soldiers is not only that they could worsen their injuries by being deployed, but that they could also be a danger to themselves and the soldiers around them. Their stories add new evidence to accusations that brigade commanders, in desperate need of more troops for the surge were willing to deploy broken soldiers.Hunter Smart, who until recently was a captain in the 3rd Brigade, has experience preparing unit status reports. These detailed accounts showing how many soldiers in a unit are able to deploy to a war zone, make their way up to decision makers in the Pentagon. Smart says he believes brigade commanders were manipulating the reports and pressing injured soldiers to deploy to Iraq. "The unit status report is a big deal," Hunter explained in a phone interview. "You list by name and number the number of soldiers that are hurt and non-deployable," he said. "There was a concerted effort to keep those numbers down."Smart was caught up in those efforts himself. He had suffered a back injury during a previous tour in Iraq when his Bradley Fighting Vehicle crashed, and his injuries were so severe, the Army finally allowed him medical retirement last month, after determining he was no longer fit to serve.Medical retirement from the Army is a lengthy, paperwork-intensive process, one that had started for Smart last December. But to his astonishment, Smart's commanders pushed to deploy him in March, even as the paperwork for his medical retirement was working its way through the bureaucracy. "They were definitely wanting me to be deployed," Smart said. "Up until a few weeks ago, I was set to go on a plane," he said.Smart saved an e-mail exchange in which his battalion commander, Lt. Col. Todd Ratliff, suggests that if the paperwork for Smart's medical retirement was not complete when the unit deployed, Smart might be forced to come along. "If for some reason you are still around when we deploy there is a chance we may take you to support us in Kuwait," Ratliff wrote in an e-mail to Smart on Feb. 16.Smart fought against his redeployment, using the resources available to him as an officer to carefully shepherd his medical retirement papers through the Army bureaucracy just in time. But the experience left him worried about injured enlisted soldiers who were not so lucky -- and left him furious at those in charge. Military commanders "could care less about the soldier's physical and mental welfare, as long as they can shoot straight," Smart said. "Our military is stretched to its breaking point," he added. "Commanders are being backed into a corner in order to produce units that on paper are ready to deploy. They are casting the moral and ethical implications -- and soldiers -- to the side."Smith, the enlisted soldier who was hospitalized, began noticing symptoms of his PTSD within months of returning from Iraq in January 2005, a tour that included significant time in Ramadi, a hotbed of the insurgency. It was nasty, face-to-face work, Smith said, which included a lot of "kicking down doors."Smith's medical records are sadly typical of soldiers beset by PTSD. His doctors have documented agitation, irritability, anxiety, nightmares, flashbacks and a heightened startle response. He has a hard time going out in public. "My family had noticed some big differences with me," after his tour in Iraq, he recalled, including his sudden, intense anger. "They said, 'Hey, you need help.'"Smith sought treatment, and doctors soon diagnosed chronic PTSD. He is now heavily medicated, taking anti-psychotic pills and antidepressants.His records show him struggling with his symptoms as the brigade was gearing up to deploy. On Feb. 8, several military doctors completed a "report of mental status evaluation" on Smith. "It is highly recommended that patient be placed on non-deployable status and have no access to weapons," the doctors wrote. On Feb. 20, another doctor circled "violence risk" on another of Smith's health-assessment forms.But two weeks after that violence-risk notation, Smith found himself just hours away from stepping on to a plane to Iraq. He was running out of time and options. His company commander had already gone to bat for him, with no luck. Smith claims that on two separate occasions, his company commander took his doctors' notes to the brigade commander, Col. Wayne W. Grigsby Jr., in an effort to persuade Grigsby to leave Smith behind in doctors' care. "I've got to hand it to my company commander for trying," Smith said. But Smith said his company commander told him that Grigsby wouldn't budge. Smith resorted to checking himself into the hospital.Privacy rules restrict what Army commanders can say about an individual soldier's medical file. Public affairs officials for the 3rd Infantry Division did not respond to questions for this report on the plight of soldiers who were deployed with injuries. The division surgeon, Lt. Col. George Appenzeller, confirmed in an interview last month that medical officials met with 75 soldiers on Feb. 15. However, Appenzeller maintained that it was to conduct medical exams, update paperwork and make sure injured troops were getting the best healthcare possible.Grigsby, the 3rd Brigade commander, said in an interview last month that the well-being of his soldiers was among his top priorities. He did not deny deploying injured troops, but he asserted that the injured soldiers who were deployed were to be confined to relatively safe jobs. He said those troops would work in a capacity that strictly followed each soldier's "physical profile," a document prepared by doctors spelling out a soldier's physical limitations.But one injured soldier who was deployed to Iraq in March wrote in an e-mail to Salon that her back condition has worsened significantly. "Now my left leg has started to go numb and they are telling me to double up on my meds, which I can't," she wrote. "They are not putting us in safe jobs at all. I still wear all of my gear and by the end of the day the pain is more than unbearable," she added. "I break my [physical] profile pretty much on a daily basis. At this point I will either go back [home] in a wheel chair or paralyzed or worse.""Do what you can," she pleaded in the e-mail, "for the [injured soldiers] that come after me."As Salon revealed in a second report on March 26, the commanders of the 3rd Brigade shipped dozens of injured soldiers to Fort Irwin, Calif., in January as the brigade conducted a month of desert-warfare training. The injured soldiers were put up in two large tents, doing odd jobs and biding their time. Some military experts said they believed commanders were attempting to artificially boost manpower statistics by making it appear that a healthier percentage of the brigade was out in the desert training for Iraq deployment.Both Smith and Smart were among the dozens of soldiers who spent weeks in those tents. Neither could properly train. Smith had already been diagnosed with PTSD at that time, and would awaken at night agitated by the sound of mortars going off in the desert that were used for training. Neither Smith nor Smart was treated for his medical problems while in the desert.In Smart's case, that went directly against the recommendations of his doctors. "I believe taking a month off from his treatment plan will be detrimental to his condition," one chiropractor wrote in Smart's file in late December. "Lack of treatment for this prolonged period of time could cause a setback in his condition that may be difficult to recover."Military families are angered by the treatment of injured soldiers based at Fort Benning. Janie Smith, Thomas' mother, says she was horrified that the Army tried to send her ailing son back to Iraq, which prompted her to contact the media about his predicament.She described him as an outgoing, personable boy. But the 26-year-old man who came back from Iraq is quiet, withdrawn and sometimes suddenly, frighteningly angry, she says. In a restaurant, he sits facing the door, ready to confront an enemy at any moment. His hands constantly shake. "He is an entirely different person," Janie explained in a phone interview.Janie said she was glad when her son first joined the Army. "I was really proud of him," she recalled. But while she is still proud of her son, her feelings for the Army have changed. "They don't care," she said. "I don't know what I'm going to do now."The Army's inspector general and the Government Accountability Office have both launched inquiries since Salon first reported on the deployment of injured troops. There is no indication of when either will issue its findings.
--------------- Larry Scott --

Iraq Veteran tells it like it is!

2007-04-05T15:50:00.000-07:00

Why I Cry for Jonathan Shulze
by Adam Charles Kokesh Tue, 03/20/2007 - 1:44am

It is 0230 and I should be asleep. Instead, I am crying my eyes out as I sit in front of my computer, reading again the story of Marine Jonathan Schulze. I am glad that I am crying. I feel like a real human again.
The past week has been incredible for me. I only joined IVAW a month ago. I joined because I had no choice. I didn’t even really know that they existed, but I went online to find something I could do, not even knowing what I was looking for. When I finally came across ivaw.org (Iraq Veteran’s Against the War), I couldn’t deny that that was me: I was a veteran, and goddamnit if I didn’t know from the bottom of my heart that I was against the “war.” As Dante said, “The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in times of great moral crises maintain their neutrality.” It dawned on me that even if you only want to bring the troops home for one reason, you should be ashamed not to do what you are called upon to do to speak out in whatever capacity you can. It is thus by the authority of my soul that I had no choice but to join IVAW and become a part of the cause.
I eagerly accepted “speaking gigs” before panels at University of Maryland and Howard University. I was interviewed by the BBC for a segment on Fallujah. I got to introduce Michael Franti and Spearhead at their sold out show at the 9:30 club, and then sit behind him onstage at our benefit. I got interviewed by Al Arabia that night, and early again the next morning so that they could get a shot of me with a crowd in the frame. Then I was treated to no less than ten cameras pointed at me for hours as I marched behind our banner and in front of the thousands of marchers that came to support our message and to march on the pentagon.
It was also by the authority of my soul that I participated in Operation First Casualty. I walked point in our squad as we patrolled Washington to bring home the truth of the war and call attention to our cause. I didn’t want to do it. I was scared. I feared that violating the sanctity of the Marine Corps utility uniform would be sacrilege. I think if I was still on active duty right now, and was watching fellow former Marine Sergeant and IVAW member Liam Madden marching through the capitol in his utilities, I probably would have called him a “shit-bag.” But to not participate when perfectly able would have been to betray myself. In light of the stakes, making a parody of military operations is the pettiest of transgressions.
What we did was a little bit crazy, and you have to be a little screwy to do something like this. But we’re the lucky ones. We are among the relatively safe and sane of the returning vets. Take the case of Jonathan Schulze who killed himself after being turned down twice at a VA hospital after telling them twice that he was suicidal. How many more vets need help that don’t even know that they need help? We are starting to see the first homeless vets of this war trickling into shelters. This disgrace is the best proof that our elected officials are only paying lip service to the idea of supporting the troops. But then there are the real crazies, whose ranks I once was a part of, who want to go back to Iraq. I wanted to go back because I didn’t get a purple heart the first time. That is not a normal thought for a human being to have. Had I told any mental health professional outside of the military that I wanted to go back to get injured, I would have been committed.
For better or for worse, this sentiment is somewhat typical in the service. The dedication of our all-volunteer army is the best weapon of defense this country has. The guys in the rear resent being, “one of the guys that didn’t go to Iraq.” And the guys like me look up to the recipients of the purple heart and say, “those are the guys that really sacrificed.” And the guys with the purple hearts say, “Man, I didn’t do shit. The guy standing two feet away from me didn’t make it home in one piece.” The people that feel this way do so because they love their country and they want to lay down the lives for our safety and security. That was why I served.
Towards the end of Operation First Casualty, former Army Sergeant Aaron Hughes, a member of our squad of veterans, pointed out to me that “people are just done,” as we were walking towards Arlington Cemetery for our memorial service. I had suggested we continue to move in a tactical column, as we had been all day, instead of just mobbing over “like a bunch of nasty civilians.” It was then that I realized, standing between fields of crosses stretching into the horizon, that I was done. And I lost it and couldn’t stop crying. At the service, it was all I could do to keep from falling out of formation. Previously as a reservist, I had served on flag details at funerals and on twenty-one gun salute teams. I had always been able to take the tragedy and put it away and not even think about it. Now I am able to cry about it – the way that an ordinary human would if faced with such tragedy. I cry for Jonathan Shulze, a Marine I never knew, because I nearly was him. Maybe I was one incident away. Maybe it could have been your son. Maybe it could have been your friend from high school. Or maybe it was just another stranger who had taken an oath to risk his life when called upon in order to defend your quality of life. Maybe I’m still a little crazy as I go through the process of becoming human again. Maybe I’m just a little riled up from what we did today. But I would have to be fucking nuts to not do anything.

The Verdict's In on Bush

2007-04-01T12:33:00.000-07:00

Robert Scheer

Stop him before he kills again. That is the judgment of the American people, and indeed of the entire world, as to the performance of our President, and no State of the Union address can erase that dismal verdict.
President Bush has accomplished what Osama bin Laden only dreamed of by disgracing the model of American democracy in the eyes of the world. According to an exhaustive BBC poll, nearly three-quarters of those polled in 25 countries oppose the Bush policy on Iraq, and more than two-thirds believe the US presence in the Middle East destabilizes the region.
In other words, the almost universal support the United States enjoyed after the 9/11 terrorist attacks has been completely squandered, as a majority of the world's people now believe that our role in the entire world is negative.
"The thing that comes up repeatedly is not just anger about Iraq," said Steven Kull, the director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, which helped conduct the global poll. "The common theme is hypocrisy. The reaction tends to be: 'You were a champion of a certain set of rules. Now you are breaking your own rules, so you are being hypocritical.' "
More depressing, that judgment is shared by those who know us best: our allies in Britain, the only country still willing to share our sacrifices in Bush's once ballyhooed "Coalition of the Willing." Despite British Prime Minister Tony Blair's dogged support of his American chum, fully 81 percent of Britons told the BBC they are opposed to US actions in Iraq, while a scant 14 percent still believe the United States is a stabilizing force in the Mideast.
But it is not just our failure in that all-important region that disgraces us. Those around the world who still believe we play a positive global role has dropped to a miserable 29 percent, strikingly similar to Bush's overall performance numbers at home, according to the most recent CBS poll. So it's true: Bush is "a uniter, not a divider"--uniting people across the world in their opposition to his policies.
With a whopping 71 percent saying in an ABC-Washington Post poll that the country is seriously off track, the Post called it "the highest such expression of national pessimism in more than a decade." And that's at a time when the economy, presumed to be the all-important bellwether, is in halfway decent shape.
It's the war, stupid, and ending it is the major concern of most Americans, while all other issues are in single digits of importance to them.
In a shocking twist, Americans are now turning to the Democrats in Congress for leadership on foreign policy. "Three in 5 Americans trust congressional Democrats more than Bush to deal with Iraq, and the same proportion want Congress to try to block his troop-increase plan," reported the Post. That is a mandate the Democrats ignore at their own peril.
Even an increasing number of congressional Republicans, most recently Sen. John Warner of Virginia, have made it clear that ending this disastrous adventure is vital to their electoral future. Warner, along with several moderates in both parties, proposed legislation on Tuesday opposing Bush's sending of 21,500 additional troops to Iraq.
In fact, it seems as if everyone gets it except the President and those still hunkered down with him in the White House. "They've backed themselves into a tough corner," GOP pollster Tony Fabrizio told the Post, "and the problem is his continued insistence for the troop increase, which flies in the face of what 70 percent of Americans want."
He added that it makes Bush seem to say, "I'll listen to you, but I'll do what I want anyway." Hardly the message that the leader of the world's greatest experiment in representative democracy should be sending to the world. It is a message voters in the midterm election soundly rejected, along with the association of this great country with torture and chicanery, and it is the basis of what the Post calls a mainstream America "honeymoon" with the Democrats.
Americans understand in their gut that the long-term consequences of disillusionment with democracy, here and abroad, would be disastrous. In the same way Congress repudiated an out-of-control President three decades ago, the House and Senate must show the world today that our celebrated system of checks and balances is not just a fanciful mirage.
Spreading the ideal of democracy throughout the world remains a compelling obligation of those who enjoy freedom, making this an excellent occasion to demonstrate that we still possess a system capable of holding a deceitful and egomaniacal leader accountable.

From Those Who've Walked the WalK!

2007-03-23T13:45:00.000-07:00

IRAQ VETERANS AGAINST THE WAR

Q: Why are veterans, active duty, and National Guard men and women opposed to the war in Iraq?
A: Here are 10 reasons we oppose this war:
The Iraq war is based on lies and deception. The Bush Administration planned for an attack against Iraq before September 11th, 2001. They used the false pretense of an immanent nuclear, chemical and biological weapons threat to deceive Congress into rationalizing this unnecessary conflict. They hide our casualties of war by banning the filming of our fallen military's caskets when they arrive home, and when they refuse to allow the media into Walter Reed Hospital and other Veterans Administration facilities, which are overflowing with maimed and traumatized veterans.For further reading: www.motherjones.com/bush_war_timeline/index.html
The Iraq war violates international law. The United States assaulted and occupied Iraq without the consent of the UN Security Council. In doing so they violated the same body of laws they accused Iraq of breaching.For further reading:http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/imtconst.htm http://www.westpointgradsagainstthewar.org/
Corporate profiteering is driving the war in Iraq. From privately contracted soldiers and linguists to no-bid reconstruction contracts and multinational oil negotiations, those who benefit the most in this conflict are those who suffer the least. The United States has chosen a path that directly contradicts President Eisenhower's farewell warning regarding the military industrial complex. As long as those in power are not held accountable, they will continue... For further reading:http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0714-01.htm http://www.publicintegrity.org/wow/
Overwhelming civilian casualties are a daily occurrence in Iraq. Despite attempts in training and technological sophistication, large-scale civilian death is both a direct and indirect result of United States aggression in Iraq. Even the most conservative estimates of Iraqi civilian deaths number over 100,000. Currently over 100 civilians die every day in Baghdad alone.For further reading: http://www.nomorevictims.org/http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1338749,00.html http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70A1EF73C5A0C758DDDA10894DE404482
Soldiers have the right to refuse illegal war. All in service to this country swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. However, they are prosecuted if they object to serve in a war they see as illegal under our Constitution. As such, our brothers and sisters are paying the price for political incompetence, forced to fight in a war instead of having been sufficiently trained to carry out the task of nation-building.For further reading:http://thankyoult.live.radicaldesigns.org/content/view/172/http://youtube.com/watch?v=Qa6ZHYcG_EM http://youtube.com/watch?v=1dAXQeH7y9g&mode=related&search=http://girights.objector.org
Service members are facing serious health consequences due to our Government's negligence. Many of our troops have already been deployed to Iraq for two, three, and even four tours of duty averaging eleven months each. Combat stress, exhaustion, and bearing witness to the horrors of war contribute to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), a serious set of symptoms that can lead to depression, illness, violent behavior, and even suicide. Additionally, depleted uranium, Lariam, insufficient body armor and infectious diseases are just a few of the health risks, which accompany an immorally planned and incompetently executed war. Finally, upon a soldier's release, the Veterans Administration is far too under-funded to fully deal with the magnitude of veterans in need.For further reading:http://www.ncptsd.va.gov/http://www.vets4vets.us/
The war in Iraq is tearing our families apart. The use of stop-loss on active duty troops and the unnecessarily lengthy and repeat active tours by Guard and Reserve troops place enough strain on our military families, even without being forced to sacrifice their loved ones for this ongoing political experiment in the Middle East.For further reading: http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_loss_092704,00.html
The Iraq war is robbing us of funding sorely needed here at home.$5.8 billion per month is spent on a war which could have aided the victims of Hurricane Katrina, gone to impoverished schools, the construction of hospitals and health care systems, tax cut initiatives, and a host of domestic programs that have all been gutted in the wake of the war in Iraq. For further reading:http://www.costofwar.com
The war dehumanizes Iraqis and denies them their right to self-determination.Iraqis are subjected to humiliating and violent checkpoints, searches and home raids on a daily basis. The current Iraqi government is in place solely because of the U.S. military occupation. The Iraqi government doesn’t have the popular support of the Iraqi people, nor does it have power or authority. For many Iraqis the current government is seen as a puppet regime for the U.S. occupation. It is undemocratic and in violation of Iraq’s own right to self-governance. For further reading:http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/
Our military is being exhausted by repeated deployments, involuntary extensions, and activations of the Reserve and National Guard.The majority of troops in Iraq right now are there for at least their second tour. Deployments to Iraq are becoming longer and many of our service members are facing involuntary extensions and recalls to active duty. Longstanding policies to limit the duration and frequency of deployments for our part-time National Guard troops are now being overturned to allow for repeated, back-to-back tours in Iraq. These repeated, extended combat tours are taking a huge toll on our troops, their families, and their communities.For further reading: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-military12jan12,0,7198945.story?coll=la-home-headlines
Q: Why do Iraq Veterans Against the War call for the immediate withdrawal from Iraq?
A: There are several reasons why immediate withdrawal is the critical first step toward solving the problems in Iraq.
The reasons and rationale given for the invasion were fraudulent. There were no Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq during the time of the invasion according to US officials and former chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix. The idea that Al Qeada and the 9/11 terrorist attacks were connected to Saddam Hussein and the Baath party were proven false in the 9/11 Commission Report. Members of the Bush Administration have admitted that they “misspoke” in the run up to the war.
The presence of the US military is not preventing sectarian violence.The US occupation of Iraq has proven to be unable to prevent sectarian violence and halt an escalation towards a civil war. Despite having an average of 140,000 troops in country since the occupation began, internal violence and attacks against civilians and Iraqi security forces have been on a steady incline.
The occupation is a primary motivation for the insurgency and global religious extremism.The insurgency can be broken down into many individually named factions with various goals, beliefs, and techniques. However, our membership of veterans believe that the occupation of Iraq is the primary thing encouraging the insurgency and giving it legitimacy in the eyes of many Iraqis. Likewise, other people of the Islamic faith are encouraged to resist America ’s policies internationally based on how they perceive our military operations in the Middle East.
We can no longer afford to fight this war of choice.The financial burden is destroying our domestic programs that could be used to protect us from natural disasters, provide medical programs, or help improve education. We are jeopardizing the US economy and putting strains on the budgets of important government agencies like the Veterans Affairs Department.
National security is compromised.Funds that could be used to protect our ports and transportation are being stripped away while our National Guard units are on constant deployments instead of being used to protect and defend us here at home.
The world is becoming more dangerous.International terrorist attacks have increased and it has become more dangerous for Americans to travel abroad. Approval for US policy has decreased and the dislike of Americans has increased.
Our national “moral authority” is being undermined.The US has lost credibility to much of the world as the defender of liberty and freedom and our national identity is eroding. We can no longer deploy our armed forces for peace keeping measures with the good faith of the international community. We need to regain the respect and faith of the global community. This begins by withdrawing our troops from Iraq and helping the Iraqi people rebuild their country and society.
The majority of American citizens, Iraqi citizens and US military would like to see an immediate end to the war in Iraq. If we are truly a democracy and we aim to create a democracy in Iraq our leaders will represent the will of the citizens and lead according to their wishes.
The military is broken.We are abusing the small population of armed service members with multiple deployments while using inadequate vehicles and equipment. Less than one half of a percent of the American population is serving in the active armed forces, which is the least amount in the last century. Only 25% of the troops in Iraq are there for their first tour, while 50% are there on their second tour, and the remaining 25% are there three times or more. We continue to involuntarily extend soldiers with Stop-Loss, recall them repeatedly for additional service using the Individual Ready Reserve, and send soldiers with diagnosed medical problems into combat.
http://www.ivaw.org/faq

Unbelievable

2007-03-18T19:57:00.000-07:00

Vet must prove injury BY STEVE WALSH Post-Tribune staff writer

When a roadside bomb detonated in front of his Humvee, Steve Foss' body armor saved his life. But nothing seems able to save him from the mountain of paperwork he faces after leaving the Indiana National Guard.
A fragment from the explosion pierced his shoulder and lodged near the base of his neck. He was rushed to a field hospital just outside of Tal Afar, Iraq, in December 2005, where doctors removed frayed muscle and skin and sent him back to his unit.As odd as it sounds, Foss is now having difficulty proving to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs that his wound is related to combat. He recently received a letter from the VA asking for more documentation, after he had filed a claim with the VA in November in which he included all the documents he has from his service record.He folded his arms, shook his head and pointed to the lines where the VA asked for notes from nurses and doctors, documenting his injury. When he was carried into the hospital in December 2005, the field hospital had just opened inside a tent on a wind-swept base in northern Iraq, a few miles from the Syrian border. The doctors told him he was the first American they had treated."I don't know what else they want. I gave them all the paperwork they gave me at the hospital in Iraq," said Foss, who works for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and lives in Michigan City with his wife and three children. In October, he retired from the military with 21 years of service.He's not uniqueFoss is not alone. Many returning wounded veterans have become casualties of an overburdened VA system -- a system that hasn't seen a significant number of combat veterans since the mid-1970s. According to experts and the VA's own data, the system is backlogged and understaffed. Troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan see mounting delays in receiving benefits."The Department of Defense is focused on fighting a war and once you can no longer help them fight a war, you drop off of their radar screen. Six years ago, I wouldn't have said that but now I do," said Jerry Manar, deputy director of national veterans services for the Veterans of Foreign Wars, who worked 31 years for the VA.The backlog is enormous. As of Monday, the VA had 403,989 cases pending; nearly 30 percent of those cases were more than six months old. The same VA report shows Indiana has 8,436 cases pending, 29.4 percent of them being more than six months old. Unlike the previous three decades, many of claims are coming from newly wounded soldiers.In many ways, the VA has lost the funding battle since the war began. The agency did not receive approval to hire new caseworkers to clear away what was destined to be the largest influx of new combat veterans since Vietnam.In 2003, Congress deadlocked on a Bush administration request to hire 35 new caseworkers for regional offices. In the current budget, the president has asked for 450 new caseworkers. The House has increased the request to 1,100 people, though so far the budget has not passed, said Manar, who works with veterans having difficulty with the VA claim process, including helping with appeals.The VA went to a mainly electronic health record system beginning in the late 1990s. The Department of Defense started similar initiatives but it has been slower. The world's most high-tech military still uses many paper records, which are shipped with soldiers as they move from field hospitals in Iraq to Army medical facilities in Kuwait, Germany and the United States. The electronic medical histories that do exist are not accessible to the VA, Manar said."They are still years away from being able to talk to one another," Manar said.Troops like Foss, who finished his service in the Indiana National Guard, have a particularly difficult time. All health records for active duty military personnel go to the national archives in St. Louis. But files of guardsmen and reservists may be with hospitals or the individual units, wherever they are located around the county, Manar said.At times during the war in Iraq, guardsmen and reservists made up half the personnel serving. The large number of tough-to-find records adds to the VA's backlog of cases, he said."The Department of Defense does not do as good of a job keeping track of records for guard and reserves. If he was in the Army, they'd know where to look but with guard and reserves there are 1,000 different places. Sometimes they can locate them, sometimes they cannot," Manar said.Moving forwardThe VA officials believe they are improving as the war goes into its fourth year. The process is being streamlined. The Defense Department and the VA are working on projects, like merging the patient care at Great Lakes Naval Base north of Chicago, with Hines VA Hospital in Maywood, Ill., said Ryan Steinbach, VA public affairs person for the Great Lakes Region."A vet needs to be their own best advocate as much as possible," said Steinbach, who was an Illinois National Guard troop, injured in a 2004 training exercise in Kuwait, as his unit prepared to be deployed to Balad, Iraq.He said his own experience with VA care was fairly seamless, taking just under four months to complete the paperwork, from when he was released from a military hospital in Fort Knox, Ky.He kept all of the paperwork given to him by military doctors, as he passed through the system.Steinbach said the VA also recommends soldiers use the advocates offered by veterans organizations like the American Legion and VFW, to help them navigate the two bureaucracies.Foss said he also turned in all the paperwork he received, when he went through surgery outside Tal Afar. He became the first of at least 43 Purple Hearts issued to the 113th Engineer Battalion during its year in northern Iraq.As an Army Ranger he fought in the original Gulf War. Some of his claims to the VA covered incidents from his active-duty military career. But it is the VA's continued questioning of the wound he received in Tal Afar during a roadside attack of his convoy that bothered him, he said.He is working with a retired VA officer who lives down the block to come up with new documents to highlight his injury, though he is not giving up."I don't want to taint my 21 years of military service with what may seem like whining," Foss said. "I have to believe that if I have given honest service, that if I'm owed something, I'll be given it."

2007-03-06T12:20:00.001-08:00

How could the Army's premier hospital, Walter Reed, have mold, mildew,mice, and cockroaches? How could conditions get so bad at the Army MedicalCenter in Washington, DC?Support services at Walter Reed underwent a competitive sourcing studyunder OMB Circular A-76. In September 2004 the in-house bid won thecompetition. IAP Worldwide Services, however, protested the award. TheArmy Audit Agency was directed to re-evaluated the in-house bid. Itreportedly withdrew its certification and unilaterally raised the in-housebid by $7 million, making it higher than IAP's bid. The Army then reversedits determination and awarded the work to IAP. Employees seeking tochallenge this ruling were not permitted to make their case. Alan King,the Deputy Garrison Commander at Walter Reed, filed a protest with GAO, butunder the A-76 rules in place at the time, federal employees had nostanding to object to the determination. Thus, there was no re-evaluationof the IAP bid proposal.Skilled maintenance personnel and workers with specific knowledge of WalterReed's system and infrastructure left in droves. By the time IAP took oversupport services only about 60 out of some 300 employees remained on thejob....And yes, there is a link between IAP and Halliburton.Also see the House Oversight and Reform Committee's March 2nd letter toMajor General Weightman.Józef J. DrozdowskiNFFE Forest Service Council R9 VPTX: 989-739-0728 x 3017FX: 989-739-0347House VA Committee is Chaired by Bob Filner, D-CA. His press release is athttp://veterans.house.gov/news/110/03-02-07.shtml. Might be worth pointingout to him the problem was not with Walter Reed management, but in the A-76privatization. See http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1195, the firsttwo links under "Documents and Links" toward the bottom of the page. Basedon the news articles I've skimmed, it sounds a lot like the FS Serco story.Walter Reed management was against it, it was pushed down their throats byhigher-ups for political reasons, and the resulting and inevitable failurewas ignored as fastidiously as the fact that the emperor's new clothes werenothing but air. More links on this:http://www.unbossed.com/index.php?itemid=1354 http://www.unbossed.com/index.php?itemid=1358Mark W Davis/FPL/USDAFS

Bush's Intent Befor 9/11

2007-02-26T11:57:00.000-08:00

Published on Thursday, October 28, 2004 by GNN.tv
Two Years Before 9/11, Candidate Bush was Already Talking Privately About Attacking Iraq, According to His Former Ghost Writer
by Russ Baker

HOUSTON -- Two years before the September 11 attacks, presidential candidate George W. Bush was already talking privately about the political benefits of attacking Iraq, according to his former ghost writer, who held many conversations with then-Texas Governor Bush in preparation for a planned autobiography.
"He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. "It was on his mind. He said to me: 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He said, 'If I have a chance to invade·.if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency." Herskowitz said that Bush expressed frustration at a lifetime as an underachiever in the shadow of an accomplished father. In aggressive military action, he saw the opportunity to emerge from his father's shadow. The moment, Herskowitz said, came in the wake of the September 11 attacks. "Suddenly, he's at 91 percent in the polls, and he'd barely crawled out of the bunker."
That President Bush and his advisers had Iraq on their minds long before weapons inspectors had finished their work - and long before alleged Iraqi ties with terrorists became a central rationale for war - has been raised elsewhere, including in a book based on recollections of former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill. However, Herskowitz was in a unique position to hear Bush's unguarded and unfiltered views on Iraq, war and other matters - well before he became president.
In 1999, Herskowitz struck a deal with the campaign of George W. Bush about a ghost-written autobiography, which was ultimately titled A Charge to Keep : My Journey to the White House, and he and Bush signed a contract in which the two would split the proceeds. The publisher was William Morrow. Herskowitz was given unimpeded access to Bush, and the two met approximately 20 times so Bush could share his thoughts. Herskowitz began working on the book in May, 1999, and says that within two months he had completed and submitted some 10 chapters, with a remaining 4-6 chapters still on his computer. Herskowitz was replaced as Bush's ghostwriter after Bush's handlers concluded that the candidate's views and life experiences were not being cast in a sufficiently positive light.
According to Herskowitz, who has authored more than 30 books, many of them jointly written autobiographies of famous Americans in politics, sports and media (including that of Reagan adviser Michael Deaver), Bush and his advisers were sold on the idea that it was difficult for a president to accomplish an electoral agenda without the record-high approval numbers that accompany successful if modest wars.
The revelations on Bush's attitude toward Iraq emerged recently during two taped interviews of Herskowitz, which included a discussion of a variety of matters, including his continued closeness with the Bush family, indicated by his subsequent selection to pen an authorized biography of Bush's grandfather, written and published last year with the assistance and blessing of the Bush family.
Herskowitz also revealed the following:
In 2003, Bush's father indicated to him that he disagreed with his son's invasion of Iraq.
Bush admitted that he failed to fulfill his Vietnam-era domestic National Guard service obligation, but claimed that he had been "excused."
Bush revealed that after he left his Texas National Guard unit in 1972 under murky circumstances, he never piloted a plane again. That casts doubt on the carefully-choreographed moment of Bush emerging in pilot's garb from a jet on the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln in 2003 to celebrate "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq. The image, instantly telegraphed around the globe, and subsequent hazy White House statements about his capacity in the cockpit, created the impression that a heroic Bush had played a role in landing the craft.
Bush described his own business ventures as "floundering" before campaign officials insisted on recasting them in a positive light.
Throughout the interviews for this article and in subsequent conversations, Herskowitz indicated he was conflicted over revealing information provided by a family with which he has longtime connections, and by how his candor could comport with the undefined operating principles of the as-told-to genre. Well after the interviews-in which he expressed consternation that Bush's true views, experience and basic essence had eluded the American people -Herskowitz communicated growing concern about the consequences for himself of the publication of his remarks, and said that he had been under the impression he would not be quoted by name. However, when conversations began, it was made clear to him that the material was intended for publication and attribution. A tape recorder was present and visible at all times.
Several people who know Herskowitz well addressed his character and the veracity of his recollections. "I don't know anybody that's ever said a bad word about Mickey," said Barry Silverman, a well-known Houston executive and civic figure who worked with him on another book project. An informal survey of Texas journalists turned up uniform confidence that Herskowitz's account as contained in this article could be considered accurate.
One noted Texas journalist who spoke with Herskowitz about the book in 1999 recalls how the author mentioned to him at the time that Bush had revealed things the campaign found embarrassing and did not want in print. He requested anonymity because of the political climate in the state. "I can't go near this," he said.
According to Herskowitz, George W. Bush's beliefs on Iraq were based in part on a notion dating back to the Reagan White House - ascribed in part to now-vice president Dick Cheney, Chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee under Reagan. "Start a small war. Pick a country where there is justification you can jump on, go ahead and invade."
Bush's circle of pre-election advisers had a fixation on the political capital that British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher collected from the Falklands War. Said Herskowitz: "They were just absolutely blown away, just enthralled by the scenes of the troops coming back, of the boats, people throwing flowers at [Thatcher] and her getting these standing ovations in Parliament and making these magnificent speeches."
Republicans, Herskowitz said, felt that Jimmy Carter's political downfall could be attributed largely to his failure to wage a war. He noted that President Reagan and President Bush's father himself had (besides the narrowly-focused Gulf War I) successfully waged limited wars against tiny opponents - Grenada and Panama - and gained politically. But there were successful small wars, and then there were quagmires, and apparently George H.W. Bush and his son did not see eye to eye.
"I know [Bush senior] would not admit this now, but he was opposed to it. I asked him if he had talked to W about invading Iraq. "He said, 'No I haven't, and I won't, but Brent [Scowcroft] has.' Brent would not have talked to him without the old man's okaying it." Scowcroft, national security adviser in the elder Bush's administration, penned a highly publicized warning to George W. Bush about the perils of an invasion.
Herskowitz's revelations are not the sole indicator of Bush's pre-election thinking on Iraq. In December 1999, some six months after his talks with Herskowitz, Bush surprised veteran political chroniclers, including the Boston Globe 's David Nyhan, with his blunt pronouncements about Saddam at a six-way New Hampshire primary event that got little notice: "It was a gaffe-free evening for the rookie front-runner, till he was asked about Saddam's weapons stash," wrote Nyhan. 'I'd take 'em out,' [Bush] grinned cavalierly, 'take out the weapons of mass destruction·I'm surprised he's still there," said Bush of the despot who remains in power after losing the Gulf War to Bush Jr.'s father·It remains to be seen if that offhand declaration of war was just Texas talk, a sort of locker room braggadocio, or whether it was Bush's first big clinker. "
The notion that President Bush held unrealistic or naïve views about the consequences of war was further advanced recently by a Bush supporter, the evangelist Pat Robertson, who revealed that Bush had told him the Iraq invasion would yield no casualties. In addition, in recent days, high-ranking US military officials have complained that the White House did not provide them with adequate resources for the task at hand.
Herskowitz considers himself a friend of the Bush family, and has been a guest at the family vacation home in Kennebunkport. In the late 1960s, Herskowitz, a longtime Houston Chronicle sports columnist designated President Bush's father, then-Congressman George HW Bush, to replace him as a guest columnist, and the two have remained close since then. (Herskowitz was suspended briefly in April without pay for reusing material from one of his own columns, about legendary UCLA basketball coach John Wooden.)
In 1999, when Herskowitz turned in his chapters for Charge to Keep, Bush's staff expressed displeasure -often over Herskowitz's use of language provided by Bush himself. In a chapter on the oil business, Herskowitz included Bush's own words to describe the Texan's unprofitable business ventures, writing: "the companies were floundering". "I got a call from one of the campaign lawyers, he was kind of angry, and he said, 'You've got some wrong information.' I didn't bother to say, 'Well you know where it came from.' [The lawyer] said, 'We do not consider that the governor struggled or floundered in the oil business. We consider him a successful oilman who started up at least two new businesses.' "
In the end, campaign officials decided not to go with Herskowitz's account, and, moreover, demanded everything back. "The lawyer called me and said, 'Delete it. Shred it. Just do it.' "
"They took it and [communications director] Karen [Hughes] rewrote it," he said. A campaign official arrived at his home at seven a.m. on a Monday morning and took his notes and computer files. However, Herskowitz, who is known for his memory of anecdotes from his long history in journalism and book publishing, says he is confident about his recollections.
According to Herskowitz, Bush was reluctant to discuss his time in the Texas Air National Guard - and inconsistent when he did so. Bush, he said, provided conflicting explanations of how he came to bypass a waiting list and obtain a coveted Guard slot as a domestic alternative to being sent to Vietnam. Herskowitz also said that Bush told him that after transferring from his Texas Guard unit two-thirds through his six-year military obligation to work on an Alabama political campaign, he did not attend any Alabama National Guard drills at all, because he was "excused." This directly contradicts his public statements that he participated in obligatory training with the Alabama National Guard. Bush's claim to have fulfilled his military duty has been subject to intense scrutiny; he has insisted in the past that he did show up for monthly drills in Alabama - though commanding officers say they never saw him, and no Guardsmen have come forward to accept substantial "rewards" for anyone who can claim to have seen Bush on base.
Herskowitz said he asked Bush if he ever flew a plane again after leaving the Texas Air National Guard in 1972 - which was two years prior to his contractual obligation to fly jets was due to expire. He said Bush told him he never flew any plane - military or civilian - again. That would contradict published accounts in which Bush talks about his days in 1973 working with inner-city children, when he claimed to have taken some of the children up in a plane.
In 2002, three years after he had been pulled off the George W. Bush biography, Herskowitz was asked by Bush's father to write a book about the current president's grandfather, Prescott Bush, after getting a message that the senior Bush wanted to see him. "Former President Bush just handed it to me. We were sitting there one day, and I was visiting him there in his office·He said, 'I wish somebody would do a book about my dad.' "
"He said to me, 'I know this has been a disappointing time for you, but it's amazing how many times something good will come out of it.' I passed it on to my agent, he jumped all over it. I asked [Bush senior], 'Would you support it and would you give me access to the rest of family?' He said yes."
That book, Duty, Honor, Country: The Life and Legacy of Prescott Bush , was published in 2003 by Routledge. If anything, the book has been criticized for its over-reliance on the Bush family's perspective and rosy interpretation of events. Herskowitz himself is considered the ultimate "as-told-to" author, lending credibility to his account of what George W. Bush told him. Herskowitz's other books run the gamut of public figures, and include the memoirs of Reagan aide Deaver, former Texas Governor and Nixon Treasury Secretary John Connally, newsman Dan Rather, astronaut Walter Cunningham, and baseball greats Mickey Mantle and Nolan Ryan.
After Herskowitz was pulled from the Bush book project, the biographer learned that a scenario was being prepared to explain his departure. "I got a phone call from someone in the Bush campaign, confidentially, saying 'Watch your back.' "
Reporters covering Bush say that when they inquired as to why Herskowitz was no longer on the project, Hughes intimated that Herskowitz had personal habits that interfered with his writing - a claim Herskowitz said is unfounded. Later, the campaign put out the word that Herskowitz had been removed for missing a deadline. Hughes subsequently finished the book herself - it received largely critical reviews for its self-serving qualities and lack of spontaneity or introspection.
So, said Herskowitz, the best material was left on the cutting room floor, including Bush's true feelings.
"He told me that as a leader, you can never admit to a mistake," Herskowitz said. "That was one of the keys to being a leader."
Research support for this article was provided by the Investigative Fund of The Nation Institute .
Russ Baker is an award-winning independent journalist who has been published in The New York Times ,The Nation ,Washington Post ,The Telegraph (UK), Sydney Morning-Herald , and Der Spiegel , among many others.
© Copyright 2004 gnn.tv
###

Was Bush AWOL, or a deserter?

2007-02-26T11:33:00.000-08:00

Is the President of the United States a military deserter? You decide!"By Phil VargasAugust 25, 2005I know, I know, it’s all been said before. But maybe it hasn’t. And it may be worthwhile to revisit our President’s military record in view of the deaths and maiming of thousands of Americans and the billions we have paid and are paying for his war in Iraq.It is nearly two and a half years since our military invaded and occupied a country that did not present a threat to us or its neighbors. That has been confirmed time and time again. And in view of the fact that 1,858 Americans have died, 13,877 Americans have been maimed, and 26,705 Iraqis reported killed – and still counting! (22 US soldiers were killed this week, August 11-17, 2005) -- in Bush’s dishonorable, ignoble, illegal (in clear violation of the US Constitution and international law), unnecessary, self-serving and extremely costly war in Iraq, it is indeed very appropriate to reconsider the following important aspects of our President’s military record. But it is of special importance that we take another look at our President’s military record because of his having deceived us and the entire world into that war, and that includes the supporting lies of our highest US government officials, viz., Vice President Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzalez, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, and Karl Rove amongst others, who led us into a horrendous international relations blunder which has disgraced our good country and made it the most hated country in the world and us Americans – you and I -- the most hated people in the world!In 1972, Lt. George W. Bush, a commissioned officer in the Texas National Guard, requested a transfer to a unit in the Alabama National Guard. Thereafter “...no one could officially account for [his whereabouts] for a whole year, from May 1, 1972 through April 30th, 1973.” (Paul Lukasiak, “Deserter: The Story of George W. Bush After He Quit the Texas Air National Guard,” at: http://www.glcq.com/bush_at_arpc1.htmFor that entire year there is no record of Bush having reported for duty – DURING A TIME OF WAR! “The only record tying Bush to the Alabama Air National Guard’s 187th Tactical Reconnaissance Group is a dental exam at the group’s Montgomery base in January 1973.” (Bush’s National Guard File Missing Records,” Associated Press, September 05, 2004.) In his conclusion to a chapter titled: “Bush, the Air National Guard and the Air Force, the Records of a Deserter,” Mr. Lukasiak wrote:“When you compare the Bush records to the United States Statutes, Department of Defense Regulations, and Air Force policies of the 1970’s, only one conclusion can be reached: that 30 years ago, George W. Bush shirked his sworn duty as a member of the United States Armed Forces to the national security of the United States of America. However, Bush’s DESERTION from the Armed Forces thirty years ago is not terribly relevant. Lots of people make mistakes in their early twenties, and those mistakes do not necessarily reflect on the character of individuals when they are in their fifties. What are relevant are Bush’s continued lies about his service, and his insistence upon presenting his service in the United States military as ‘honorable’. It was not. Bush simply blew off his last two years of required service, and was able to get away with it because he came from a politically prominent family. There is no other explanation for Bush's records. None!” (P. Lukasiak, DESERTER, at pp. 16-17.) (My emphasis.)In his exhaustive examination of Bush’s military records and the applicable regulations, Mr. Lukasiak reached a “single conclusion: George W. Bush was considered A DESERTER BY THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE.” (My emphasis.)Of critical importance is that whatever Lt. Bush did at that time was during a time of war, the Vietnam War. Accordingly the United States Uniform Code of Military Justice (USCMJ, 1972) applies to his conduct and actions and it holds as follows:“Subchapter X, Section 886, Article 86. ABSENCE WITHOUT LEAVE: Any member of the armed forces who without authority – (1) fails to go to his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed; [or] (3) absents himself or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty at which he is required to be at the time prescribed, shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.“Subchapter X, Section 885, Article 85. DESERTION: Any member of the armed forces who – (1) without authority goes or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to remain away there from permanently; ... [and] ... (2) quits his unit, organization, or place of duty, with intent to avoid hazardous duty or to shirk important service, or (3) without being regularly separated ... from the armed forces ... [and] ... without fully disclosing the fact that he has not been regularly separated, ... except when authorized by the United States; is guilty of desertion. [And] (b) Any commissioned officer ... who ... quits his post of proper duties without leave and with intent to remain away there from permanently is guilty of desertion.... [and] ... (c) Any person found guilty of desertion or attempt to desert shall be punished, if the offense is committed IN TIME OF WAR, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct...” (My emphasis.)Had the applicable military laws and regulations been applied, as required, in the case of Lt. Bush, as they should have been, and had he been charged for his long absence, he would have been charged for DESERTION, for it was DURING A TIME OF WAR! (My emphasis.)As shown above, pursuant to the USCMJ, desertion during at time of war is a capital offense and may be “punishable by death” if the violation occurred during a time of war, as was the case in Lt. Bush’s situation. In which case the statute of limitations may still be in effect and President Bush’s violations are still open and he may still be liable to be charged accordingly.The fact remains, however, that George W. Bush is, pursuant to the above applicable military laws and regulations, a deserter in fact in that he was absent without leave and without proper authorization for lengthy periods of time. Bush is, by that very fact, a deserter from the Armed Forces of the United States.From all the information that is in the public domain, Lt. George W. Bush did fail to report to his post at the appointed time, and he did fail to serve at his appointed place of duty and at the time prescribed for quite a long period of time, DURING A TIME OF WAR! He thereby did dishonor his military obligations and his solemn oath “to preserve, protect, and defend the United States Constitution and our country during a time of war and against all enemies.”As the evidence shows, in the case of Lt. Bush the controlling military laws and regulations were deliberately ignored by his superiors. From the evidence available it is amply clear that his privileged status has indeed been a powerful means for his circumventing laws and avoiding hazardous military service. Bush, without question has been the recipient of favored treatment throughout his life, first getting into the Texas National Guard to avoid serving in Vietnam, and most egregiously when his gross transgressions and violations of military laws were patently and deliberately ignored by Bush and his superiors.And of great importance at this time when our country has invaded and occupied another country and when American soldiers and marines and airmen are dying there daily, President Bush must be held accountable for his past conduct on the basis that he has sent thousands of young men and women to risk their lives and limbs in an illegal, unnecessary, and extremely costly war. And it is far from over! On that basis alone -- plus the fact that he is our commander-in-chief -- it is imperative that President Bush be held accountable for his past conduct to the American people and most specially to all those who have served honorably and have sacrificed so much for our country based on Bush’s deceptions and lies!Furthermore, there is evidence in the public domain that President Bush had wanted to invade Iraq as early as 1999, when he was still the Governor of Texas and was contemplating a run for the US presidency, because he wanted to be a strong war leader, a strong commander-in-chief. Hence, in interviews conducted with a journalist and biographer of the Bush family who was working with Bush on “a ghostwritten memoir said that an Iraq war was always on Bush’s brain. ‘He was thinking about invading Iraq,’ said author and Houston Chronicle journalist Mickey Herskowitz. It was on his mind. He said, ‘One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief. And he said, ‘My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.’ He went on, ‘If I have a chance to invade,...if I had that much capital, I’m not going to waste it. I’m going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I’m going to have a successful presidency.’” (Russ Baker, “Why George Went To War,” TomPaine.common sense (Tompaine.com), June 20, 2005.)According to Mr. Baker: “Bush apparently accepted a view that Herskowitz...,says was a common sentiment that no president could be considered truly successful without one military ‘win’ under his belt. ... Herskowitz’s revelations illuminate Bush’s personal motivation for invading Iraq and, more importantly, his general inclination to use war to advance his domestic political ends.”All this has now been backed up by the Downing Street Memorandums which some brave UK public servant released to The London Times. These “Top Secret” documents make clear that a great deception has been perpetrated by the leaders of our respective countries of the US and the UK. Thus, our invasion of Iraq was based on outright lies and to aggrandize his power and enhance the political ambitions of George W. Bush, not to bring democracy to the people of Iraq! Or any other reason he has invented to cover his you know what. What could be more criminal? I know, lying about having sex with an intern.Finally, for the record, my family sacrificed three sons during the Vietnam War and I spent my 18th year in the Korean War, following my compatriots from the villages and pueblos in New Mexico who have fought and died in many battlefields for our great nation. A relative, Joe Martinez, a native of Taos, New Mexico, was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor during World War II.Phil Vargas is a veteran of the Korean War.