The Blue State

Pentagon vows to no longer treat soldiers like animals

Disturbing, sickening, horrifying and abhorrent are words I would use to describe this:

The Pentagon is recommending changes in the handling of troops' remains, after it was revealed that a crematorium contracted by the military handles both human and animal cremations.

A military official said there have been no instances or charges that human and pet remains were mixed. But officials are now recommending that troops' remains be incinerated only at facilities that are dedicated entirely to humans, in order to avoid any appearance of a problem. Or, officials said, families can opt to have a relative's remains sent to a local funeral home for cremation, which would be paid for by the military.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates believed the earlier situation was "insensitive and entirely inappropriate for the dignified treatment of our fallen," said Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell.

It's a matter that deals with the American conservative philosophy in general, which sells our government to the highest bidder, even if the work that contractors do is substandard.

Pentagon under-reports brain injuries

The number of troops that sustained brain injuries in Iraq and Afghanistan is 20,000 more than what the Pentagon claims:

At least 20,000 U.S. troops who were not classified as wounded during combat in Iraq and Afghanistan have been found with signs of brain injuries, according to military and veterans records compiled by USA TODAY.

The data, provided by the Army, Navy and Department of Veterans Affairs, show that about five times as many troops sustained brain trauma as the 4,471 officially listed by the Pentagon through Sept. 30. These cases also are not reflected in the Pentagon's official tally of wounded, which stands at 30,327.

Very sad that is takes a newspaper to audit the federal government for this information to come out.

Marines want out of Iraq

What will it take to end the war, you ask?  Robert Gates has proved he doesn't have the courage to do it.  The Democratic Congress can't either.  Other than waiting for the next president to act, it might take someone from the inside to pressure for a course correction. 

It appears that the Marines want out of Iraq, and wish to be sent to Afghanistan instead:

The Marine Corps is pushing to redeploy its forces from Iraq to Afghanistan to take the lead in combat operations there and essentially leave Iraq to the Army, The New York Times reported Thursday.

The commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen. James T. Conway, raised the issue with Defense Secretary Robert Gates last week, the Times reported. Senior military and Pentagon officials said supporters of the proposal, including some in the Army, believe that such a realignment could allow both services to operate more efficiently in the face of strains on the separate forces.

No major Marine units are among the 26,000 U.S. forces in Afghanistan while 25,000 Marines are among the 160,000 U.S. troops there, the paper noted.

The Marines are at their very best when their job is to capture territory, which they are more efficient at than any other force in the world.  But when they are told to sit and play defense, and be subjected to an urban insurgency, it goes against what their role has historically been.

Black military enlistment down 58%

Between 2000 and 2005, the last year these statistics were available, the number of black military enlistees dropped sharply by 58%.  Among whites, they declined 10%.  Among Hispanics, it was 7% over that same period.  The Boston Globe reports:

Defense Department statistics show the number of young black enlistees has fallen by more than 58 percent since fiscal year 2000. The Army in particular has been hit hard: In fiscal year 2000, according to the Pentagon statistics, more than 42,000 black men and women applied to enlist; in fiscal year 2005, the most recent for which a racial breakdown is available, just over 17,000 signed up.

The decline in enlistment applications among blacks is by far the fastest of any demographic group. Between fiscal 2000 and 2005, white applicants declined by more than 10 percent. Hispanic applicants dropped by almost 7 percent.

"African-Americans have been such a key part of the modern military," said Michael O'Hanlon, military analyst for the liberal-leaning Brookings Institution. "There's obviously been a degree where the black community in the United States has seen [military service] as culturally valuable and promoted it. That whole culture and value system is at risk in the black community. That is a big, big change. To me, it portends the possibility of a longer-term loss of interest. It can be tough to get it back."

Yes, the system certainly is at risk, that is for sure.  Also, being that we have an all-volunteer army, what health incentive do young volunteers have to put their bodies on the line with a right-wing reactionary in the Oval Office?

Supporting the Troops via Welfare.

I am getting sick and tired of listening to the Republicans (politicians) and conservative tv and radio commentators saying the democrats and liberals do not support the troops, when in reality it's the war we don't support. There seems to be a catch 22 that goes along with the words "support the troops". For the republicans it only counts while they are engaged in combat, and for the democrats it's just a matter of getting them home. What about the soldiers that are standing on line for food stamps? or the 3.5% raise the Bush admin didn't want to give the soldiers ($40.00 a month)?

Well get ready for a parade,  the first comprehensive review of veteran's disability benefits after 51 years is coming to town! A 25 percent immediate increase is being recommended for "the most severely disabled" (now THAT'S a whole lotta support goin' on)

The first comprehensive review of veterans’ disability benefits in 51 years recommends that Congress and the Bush administration support an immediate increase in compensation levels – of up to 25 percent for the most severely disabled – to recognize monetarily their reduced quality of life.

The Veterans Disability Benefits Commission’s thick report, reflecting more than two years of work (Comment: we should all have to wait 51 years plus 2 for a raise) , also wants all disabled veterans made eligible for “concurrent receipt” of both disability pay and an annuity based on years spent in service.

Let's take a look and see how our disabled vets are doing. Currently a vet that's 100% disabled, with a spouse and 5 children receives $35,892 per year ($690 per week). 100% disabled, this guy isn't changing diapers, mowing the lawn, painting the house, washing the car etc.(70% Disabled with 5 children and a spouse? $18,996)

Let's take a look and see how retired congressman are doing.

According to the Congressional Research Service, 413 retired Members of Congress were receiving federal pensions based fully or in part on their congressional service as of Oct. 1, 2006. Of this number, 290 had retired under CSRS and were receiving an average annual pension of $60,972. A total of 123 Members had retired with service under both CSRS and FERS or with service under FERS only. Their average annual pension was $35,952 in 2006.

Congressman make more when they retire, than a 100% disabled vet does. Most congressmen and senators are very comfortable prior to retirement. Whether it's from a business they own, a law firm, speaking engagements, (LOBBYISTS!), etc. I'll bet it didn't take 2 years to make that happen. Current salaries HERE.

Paying someone to keep a secret from you

Billions in tax money goes towards military contractors.  Yet, what they do is none of your business:

The State Department, which pays Blackwater hundreds of millions of dollars to protect U.S. diplomats in Iraq, has stringent rules barring the private security contractor from discussing with the media the details of its work, according to those familiar with the arrangement.

However, there is light at the end of the tunnel.  This week the House passed a resolution 389-30 that "would bring all United States government contractors in the Iraq war zone under the jurisdiction of American criminal law," according to the New York Times.  That means the FBI would investigate any wrong-doing, and any allegations would be open to the public.  Depending on how the Senate votes, a Bush veto on this issue would likely get overridden.

Richardson blasts Edwards, Hillary and Obama

In a much anticipated foreign policy speech at Georgetown University, Bill Richardson helped himself by taking a position that most Democratic activists agree with, and could vault him up a notch in Iowa and New Hampshire.  More importantly, if he does become a top-tier candidate, his popular view on the war may force Obama, Hillary and Edwards to take a more dovish position.  Richardson is the only major candidate in either party with a clear plan to get all troops out of Iraq.

Here is what I think was the best part of his speech today.  He starts with the issue of military contractors:

   We must also remove the private mercenaries.  As  President, I will no longer privatize and outsource American security! By utilizing contractors who are not subject to the rules of war or the regulations of armed forces, George Bush has further undermined America's reputation and global leadership.

And then he zeroed in on the other contenders:

After seven years of this Administration, we have come to expect that George Bush will make the wrong call on the important issues.

   However, I expected more -- much more -- from my fellow Democrats  in this race.

Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards have said we have to wait and see how things go before we can know how many troops to bring out and how quickly. I say there has been enough waiting and seeing. If you haven't seen enough to know that we need to get all the troops out then you aren't watching the same war that I and the rest of America are seeing. I don't think just changing the mission is enough -- we need to end the war.

Lastly, he exposed the fact that Clinton's Iraq plan would leave troops in Iraq for up to nine years:

Senator Clinton has reportedly said that she might well have troops still in Iraq at the end of a second term -- 9 years from now. Senator Obama and John Edwards are unwilling to commit to removing all of the troops by the end of their first term -- that's 5 years from now. I am opposed to 5 years or 9 years or any more years of our troops dying. My colleagues are wrong.

   Military analysts have said that Senator Clinton's plan  could require leaving up to 75,000 troops in Iraq.

   That's changing  the mission, not ending the war.

Maybe a question for Edwards, Obama and Hillary in the next debate should be how would leaving ANY combat troops in Iraq help our overall situation AT ALL?  I want to listen to them try and defend that.

Obama is probably the closest to Richardson's position.  However, for Obama, it's not enough to say, "I was against the war before it started."  The past is history.  What do you want to do now?  How would keeping US combat troops in Iraq decrease terrorist recruitment throughout the world over the next generation?  Answer it, please.

In related news, Time Magazine's Karen Tumulty explains that with the retirement of Republican Pete Domenici in Mexico, Bill Richardson could possibly decide to withdraw from the presidential race and run for that Senate seat instead.

REAL soldier takes issue with Limbaugh

VoteVets.org takes exception with Limbaugh.  This is a REAL soldier, whether Limbaugh wants to believe it or not.

BRIAN MCGOUGH: Until you have the guts to call me a phony soldier to my face, stop telling lies about my service.

Something tells me that won't happen.

Democrats propose war tax

With the exception of all the military families, none of us have either fought or paid for this war.  The money goes straight to the national debt, while the bodies of brave soldiers come home in planes.  If Iraq truly is about September 11th, then telling Americans to go shopping does not cut it. 

This war tax proposal would help offset the more than $12 billion per month that gets added to the debt as a result of the war.  And yes, the tax is steep.  If you don't like it, then end the war!:

The plan unveiled today by House Appropriations Committee Chairman David R. Obey, Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman John P. "Jack" Murtha and Rep. Jim McGovern would spread the sacrifice among all taxpayers by tacking a "war surcharge" on top of the federal income tax. Americans would pay up to 15 percent more on their taxes in order to raise the $150 billion needed annually to keep the war going.

"If you don’t like the cost, then shut down the war," Obey said today.

Again, I don't think any of us would like this extra income tax.  But as far as reality is concerned, the Iraq war adds to the birth tax, which future generations will pay for.  The GOP talks a lot about the unborn.  Well OK -- Let's stop shouldering the burden to unborn children.  How about we, as living human beings, take responsibility and either pay for this war or end it (no question mark needed, because that wasn't a question).

Rush Drops the "S" from his "Phony Soldiers" comment

Barack Obama said: "We've got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops that we are not just air raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there"....He didn't mean the soldiers were doing this on purpose, he was referring to the "cluster-F**K" that was going on, and it needs to be handled.

John Kerry said: "Education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. And if you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."...He didn't mean the soldiers were stupid, his reference was to George Bush, figuratively speaking Bush IS stuck in Iraq (and is about as sharp as a bowling ball). Kerry supports the troops in an unconsciously competent way (he doesn't have to even think about it) 

When you listen to the conservative commentators and media, they usually paraphrase it as "Obama said our soldiers are bombing and killing innocent people" and "Kerry called our troops dumb" (Sean Hannity practically ANY night of the week)

Now let's take a look at Limbaugh's "phony soldiers" remark. I think we need to pick this apart to try and get an understanding of who Limbaugh was referring to.

CALLER: No, it's not. And what's really funny is they never talk to real soldiers. They pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and spout to the media.

RUSH: The phony soldiers.

CALLER: Phony soldiers. If you talk to any real soldier and they're proud to serve, they want to be over in Iraq, they understand their sacrifice and they're willing to sacrifice for the country.

RUSH: They joined to be in Iraq.

The caller is clearly talking about actual soldiers. The "phony soldiers" appear to be soldiers that don't agree with the war, or veterans that speak out against the war. Conservative commentators may have spoke too soon when they say Rush was referring to the people that aren't or weren't soldiers at all, but scammers. I say spoke too soon because according to Rush (even though he did say "soldiers) what he meant was:

LIMBAUGH: I was not talking, as Contessa Brewer said here, about the anti-war movement generally. I was talking about one soldier with that "phony soldier" [Comment: he dropped the "s"] comment, Jesse MacBeth. They had exactly what I'm going to play for you. This is Michael J. Fox all over again. Media Matters had the transcript, but they selectively choose what they want to make their point. Here is -- it runs about 3 minutes and 13 seconds -- the entire transcript, in context, that led to this so-called controversy.

Note is drops the plural. He refers to the transcript running about 3 minutes and 13 seconds...Rush edited 1 minute and 35 seconds out of it. Listen to his edited radio broadcast HERE (transcript can also be read at the same link). For any conservatives that would like to cross reference the typed transcript, it can also be found at Rush's site, or from the conservative blog Wake Up America.

I truly believe Rush meant any serving soldier or veteran that is against the war and speaks out against it as one of the "phony soldiers". I say this because it seems to be a trend among conservative commentators, radio show hosts etc. For example Melanie Morgan, when she was on The News Hour with Jim Lehrer and subsequently got banned from that show for her viciousness towards Jon Soltz. The post with videos can be viewed at 'Melanie Morgan banned from 'The News Hour with Jim Lehrer'.

Once again, listen to the broadcast Rush replayed and read along either HERE (shows where edit starts and ends), HERE or HERE.