As I've said here before -- "Our young people get it!"

There Is No Future in War: Youth Rise Up, a Manifesto

(Statement written by Ben Norton, Tyra Walker, Anastasia Taylor, Alli McCracken, Colleen Moore, Jes Grobman, Ashley Lopez)

A peace sign printed on the American Flag is raised during a protest against the Vietnam War in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Archive / History Channel)

Once again, US politicians and pundits are beating the drums of war, trying to get our nation involved in yet another conflict. A few years ago it was Iran, with “all options on the table.” Last year it was a red line that threatened to drag us into the conflict in Syria. This time it’s Iraq.

We, the youth of America, have grown up in war, war war. War has become the new norm for our generation. But these conflicts—declared by older people but fought and paid for by young people—are robbing us of our future and we’re tired of it.

There is no future in war.

We, the youth of America, are taking a stand against war and reclaiming our future.

War does not work. Period.

War does not work from an economic perspective

In 2003 US politicians orchestrated the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq based on blatant lies—lies that have cost the American people over $3 trillion.

Imagine what we could have done with this money:

With $3 trillion dollars, we could have guaranteed free higher education for all interested Americans. Instead, we are wallowing in over $1 trillion in outstanding college loan debt.
With $3 trillion, we could have created a system of universal health care. Instead, affordable health care is still out of reach for many Americans and we have no idea if there will even be a Medicare system when we are old enough to retire.
With $3 trillion we could have renovated our decrepit public schools and crumbling public infrastructure, giving us the kind of foundation we need for a thriving nation in the decades to come.
With $3 trillion we could have created a national energy grid based not upon environmentally destructive fossil fuels, but upon renewable energy sources--something that our generation cares passionately about.
Our true foes—those endlessly gunning for war—have been waging an economic war against us. Our foes are the ones who say we must increase Pentagon spending while we cut food stamps, unemployment assistance, public transportation, and low-income housing. They are the ones who want to destroy the social safety net that past generations have worked so hard to build. They are the ones who underfund our public schools - which are more segregated today than they were under Jim Crow - and then privatize them. They are the ones who throw hundreds of thousands of young people in prison, thanks to the racist and classist war on drugs, and then privatize the prisons to exploit and profit off of incarcerated citizens who make close-to-zero wages.

Throwing money at war does nothing to address the real issues we face. We, the youth of our country, are the ones who will feel this pain. The cost of war is sucking us dry; it is burdening us with debts we will never be able to pay back.

And war doesn’t even work to create jobs. Politicians say they can’t cut the Pentagon budget because the weapons manufacturers create much-needed jobs. Yes, our generation need jobs. But if members of Congress really wants to use federal spending to help us find employment, the military is the worst investment. A $1 billion investment in military spending nets 11,600 jobs. The same investment in education reaps 29,100 jobs. Whether it’s education, healthcare or clean energy, investments in those sectors create many more job opportunities than the military. The military-industrial complex does a great job lining the pockets of politicians; it does a lousy job creating an economy that works for all.

War does not work from a national security and defense perspective

The war apologists claim war makes our future “safer” and “freer.” But since the tragic 9/11 attack, the US military response has made the world a more dangerous place. The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, the NATO bombing of Libya, the use of predator drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen, and countless other examples of military operations have only increased violence and hatred. Iraqis and Afghans are certainly no safer and freer; we are certainly no safer and freer.

We refuse to let our brothers and sisters, both here and abroad, die for access to cheap Persian Gulf oil. The Iraqis, the Afghans, the Iranians, the Libyans, the Somalis, and the people of any other country our military circles like vultures, are not our enemies. They oppose terrorism more than we do; they are the ones who must bear its brunt. We must oppose US intervention not because we don’t care about them, but because we do.

War does not work from an environmental perspective.

War is not environmentally friendly. It never has been, and it never will be. Bombing destroys the environment. It damages forests and agricultural land. It ravages ecosystems, endangering species, even forcing some into extinction.

Bombing contaminates water and soil, often leaving it unsafe to use for centuries, even millennia. This is especially true with nuclear and chemical weapons, such as those dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or the missiles containing depleted uranium the US used in Iraq. And because of weapons like these, infant mortality, genetic mutation, and cancer rates are exponentially higher in the civilian areas targeted. Children in Fallujah, Iraq, a city hit hard by these weapons, are born without limbs and missing organs.

The environmental costs of war are clearly not limited to isolated moments; they persist for many lifetimes. Heavy military vehicles, in conjunction with deforestation and climate change, lead to the emission of toxic dust from the ground. Even if their homes and livelihoods haven’t been destroyed by bombs, citizens who inhale these toxins are much more susceptible to a wide variety of diseases and health problems.

The US Department of Defense has long been the country’s largest consumer of fossil fuels. Military vehicles consume obscene quantities of oil for even small tasks. If we truly care about reversing, or at least mitigating, anthropogenic climate change—what many scientists recognize as a literal threat to the future of the human species—eliminating war would be an incredibly effective first step.

War does not work from a human rights perspective

The world isn’t any safer and freer for the million Iraqi civilians who died. How is freedom supposed to come at the tip of a bomb?

The debate rages back and forth; “specialists” fill the TV airwaves, repackaging the same tired excuses we’ve heard for years. Most of these “experts” are old white males. The people actually affected by our bombs and our guns--mostly young people of color--are nowhere to be seen. Their voices are silenced, their voices shouted over by the corporate media, by hawkish politicians, and by the profit-hungry military contractors.

War does not work from a historical perspective

War has never been about freedom and liberation; war has always been about profit and empire. American historian Howard Zinn once said “Wars are fundamentally internal policies. Wars are fought in order to control the population at home.”

Military intervention gives US corporations free reign in the countries we destroy. We bomb the country, targeting public infrastructure, and our corporations build it back up again. Fat cat CEOs make millions, even billions; the country, the people of the country, are left with mountains of debt. Our corporations own their infrastructure, their industrial capital, their natural resources. War is always a lose-lose for the people. Economic and political elite in both countries will make a fortune; the people of both countries will be the ones who have to pay for this fortune.

Defenders and purveyors of war have always done empty lip service to ideals like “freedom” and “democracy”; they have always repeated tired, vacuous tropes about “assisting,” or even “liberating” peoples.

How can we trust a country that says its brutal military invasion and occupation is “humanitarian,” when, at the same moment, it is supporting repressive dictators around the world? Saddam Hussein was on the CIA payroll since the 1960s. While we were invading Iraq to “overthrow tyranny” and “free” the Iraqi people, we were supporting the King Fahd’s theocratic tyranny in Saudi Arabia, the brutally repressive Khalifa family in Bahrain, and Mubarak’s violent regime in Egypt, among countless other unsavory dictators.

When we invaded Afghanistan to “free” the Afghan people from the Taliban, the corporate media failed to mention that Ronald Reagan had supported the Mujahideen, who later became the Taliban, and the Contras throughout the 1980s. He called the latter “the moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers,” while they were disemboweling civilians in a campaign of terror.

These historical events are absolutely pertinent to contemporary discussions of war. We must learn from them, as to not repeat them in the future, as to not fall for the same past political tricks.

Our naysayers say we are against the troops. We are not against the troops. US troops are disproportionately from less-privileged backgrounds. Military recruiters target impoverished communities of color, and there are many recorded instances of them using deceptive tactics to get young citizens to sign long binding contracts. These are the troops that die in US military operations. They are not our enemies. We refuse to let our brothers and sisters be cannon fodder. The real people against the troops are the ones who send our country’s poor to die in rich people’s wars.

How many times do we have to be lied to, how many times do we have to be tricked, how many times do we have to be exploited until we say enough is enough? We are tired of war! War accomplishes nothing. War only fattens the wallets of economic and political elites, leaving millions dead in its wake. War only leads to more war, destroying the planet and emptying the national treasury in the process.

We, the youth of the United States of America, oppose war.
We oppose war not because we don’t care about the rest of the world; we oppose war precisely because we do.
We oppose war not because we don’t care about our security; we oppose war precisely because we do.
We oppose war not because we don’t care about our troops; we oppose war precisely because we do.
We oppose war not because we aren’t concerned with our future; we oppose war precisely because we do.

There is no future in war.  (HT CodePink)

Now -- if only OUR old asses would listen...

How many more of your "Wounded Warriors" are you willing to sacrifice for this confused and used fool as he ramps up going to war against ISIL/ISIS (or whatever name the West chooses to call them on any given day anyway)?  And WHAT is Cheney talking about with his "our "inability to shape events" -- what has the alleged United States of America been doing BUT shaping events the world over???

Related:
- “STOP HITTING YOURSELF”
- Say ‘No’ to War and Media Propaganda
- Neocons Revive Syria ‘Regime Change’ Plan
- The Islamic State (ISIS) Used to Justify Renewed U.S. “Humanitarian Bombings” in Iraq and Syria
- The Islamic State, the “Caliphate Project” and the “Global War on Terrorism”
- Mid-East In Depth: Did the U S "Engineer" the ISIS Attack on Iraq from Syria?

From cannon fodder to forever vegetables - courtesy of the good ole U.S. of A.

Congress to Investigate Pentagon Decision to Deny Coverage for Brain Injured Troops.  They need an investigation?  What the hell for?  So they can continue to cherry-pick the results?  And how long will this investigation take?  Until those returning - damaged within or without - die?  Until their families are destitute?  Or both?  Given what it's costing, and has cost, these returning injured and their families - does it matter what it costs the damned government, or Tricare?

A key congressional oversight committee announced today that it was opening an investigation into the basis of a decision by the Pentagon's health plan to deny a type of medical treatment to troops with brain injuries.

Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., the chairman of the subcommittee on contracting oversight, said she wanted to examine a contract issued by Tricare, an insurance-style program used by soldiers and many veterans, to a private company to study cognitive rehabilitation therapy for traumatic brain injury. Such injuries are considered among the signature wounds of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The study, by Pennsylvania-based ECRI Institute, found insufficient or weak evidence to support the therapy. Often lengthy and expensive, cognitive rehabilitation programs are designed to rewire soldiers' brains to conduct basic life tasks, such as reading books, remembering information and following instructions. ECRI's findings ran counter to several other studies, including ones sponsored by the Pentagon and the National Institutes of Health, which concluded that cognitive rehabilitation was beneficial.

In a letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, McCaskill cited an investigation by ProPublica and NPR in December, which found that top scientific experts had questioned the Tricare-funded study in confidential reviews, calling it "deeply flawed" and "unacceptable."

"If true, these reports raise significant questions regarding the Department's award and management of the contract with ECRI Institute, and may have profound implications for hundreds of thousands of injured service members and their families," McCaskill wrote. "We owe it to our brave service members to find the truth." (emphasis mine)

Ya think Claire??

Now, since I haven't read the entire Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as all of you in Congress commencing this investigation surely have [insert eyeroll here], could somebody explain to me where exactly does traumatic brain injury fit into these pre-existing condition eligibility requirements?  Now it could just be me, but it seems that the active-duty, military person with a traumatic brain injury, now insured by Tricare - is stuck between a rock and a hard place in this master plan.

While the swooners continue to champion the Changeling's health INSURANCE reform bill (which only fattens the pockets of the health insurance industry by giving them a guaranteed pool of people to milk insure through his mandate), the number of  those needing real health "CARE" reform continues to mount.  Guess they'd rather spend up to $50,000/each for domestic use of aerial drones by law enforcement, than $50,000 per patient on cognitive rehabilitation therapy for traumatic brain injury for their wounded "warriors." {smdh}

UPDATE:  Per this Politico piece, "White House beefs up support for military families."

Along with career counseling for retiring service members and broader availability of services for spouses and dependants, the initiative includes enhanced mental health programs along with safeguards to protect military families from predatory lenders and financial scams, he said. (emphasis mine)

So why the "investigation" again?"

UPDATE II:  In Houston, Rep. Giffords Could Receive Brain Injury Treatment Thousands of Troops Do Not

Alleged - "Combat" Troop - withdrawal would have happened regardless!

I try to keep my posts about the Changeling to a minimum, since I REALLY dislike him - and respect him even less.  But given his little speech yesterday, the field Negro in me kept screaming, "Man!  That mofo is a real piece of work ain't he?!  He'll co-opt any-damned-body or any-damned-thing to make himself look good - even Shrub!  And what?  You ain't sayin' shit for posterity's record??!!

I always listen to the "field" in me, so - here I go, briefly.

After spending the entire time since his inauguration - blaming Shrub et. al - for any and everything he had no clue how to handle - NOW, mum's the word?  Well, he couldn't resist one last jab on this war - piling it on and then, making it look like HE righted the ship!:

"From this desk, seven and a half years ago, President Bush announced the beginning of military operations in Iraq. Much has changed since that night. A war to disarm a state became a fight against an insurgency. Terrorism and sectarian warfare threatened to tear Iraq apart. Thousands of Americans gave their lives; tens of thousands have been wounded. Our relations abroad were strained. Our unity at home was tested."...

..."So tonight, I am announcing that the American combat mission in Iraq has ended. Operation Iraqi Freedom is over, and the Iraqi people now have lead responsibility for the security of their country.  This was my pledge to the American people as a candidate for this office. Last February, I announced a plan that would bring our combat brigades out of Iraq, while redoubling our efforts to strengthen Iraq's Security Forces and support its government and people. That is what we have done." (emphasis mine) 

Makes his, "He-r-re, I come to save the day!" sound almost plausible - unti-l-l-l you realize he said, "A" plan, not "my" plan - without ever saying "whose" plan (too funny!) 

Anyway, right-leaning or not, this CNSNews.com piece has a big, damned point for that simple yet oft-avoided concept - truth.  Obama, in Announcing End of Combat in Iraq, Does Not Credit the Timetable Put in Place by the Bush Administration.  Of course, Kool-Aid drinkers far and wide, in an effort to continue padding this empty suit's "List of Achievements," are now crowing about how, "He did what he said he would do!" 

Please.  Don't they get that "Reading Is Fundamental?!"

In case they might, here is the entire, Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq.

Maybe they'll recognize that the Changeling is only doing what he's always done - follow his handler's orders.

But, if that pesky thing is just too long, or involved, for some of "ye, of short attention spans" - maybe this Cliff's Notes version will be easier - July 13, 2009, Council on Foreigh Relations report, prepared for members and committees of Congress after the first, "combat forces" withdrawal deadline of June 30, 2009.  Here are a few important points:

The withdrawal agreement signed on November 17, 2008, is included by reference as part of the larger strategic agreement and although it is titled differently, it is commonly referred to as the SOFA. As indicated above, there are no formal requirements as to the content, detail or length of a SOFA, but many agreements share the same basic framework, and this one is no different. Rules and procedures related to such issues as carrying weapons, the wearing of uniforms, entry and exit into Iraq, taxes, customs, and claims, among other operational concerns, are addressed in the agreement. While there are many similarities between this and other SOFAs concluded by the United States, most do not have an expiration date, but this agreement is set to expire on December 31, 2011.

Withdrawal Timeline

SOFAs have been drafted in the past for specific exercises and/or events, but including a date for the withdrawal of all forces from a foreign territory appears unique to this agreement. The withdrawal is a two-phase process. The first requires the withdrawal of all U.S. combat forces from Iraqi cities, villages, and localities no later than June 30, 2009; the second requires the withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Iraqi territory no later than December 31, 2011. The JMOCC, created to coordinate military operations, will establish the areas and facilities where U.S. forces will be stationed between June 30, 2009, and December 31, 2011.  Additionally, the agreement recognizes the sovereign right of Iraq to request the departure of U.S. forces at any time and also the right of the United States to withdraw its forces at any time.  In an April, 2009, interview, General Odierno, Commanding General of Multi-National Force Iraq, stated that U.S. forces may not meet the June 30, 2009, deadline to withdraw from Iraqi cities.  However, on June 30, 2009, General Odierno announced that U.S. combat forces had completed the withdrawal from Iraqi cities in accordance with the agreement. Even though the term of the agreement is three years, and either party may cancel the agreement with one-year notice, both countries retain the right to remove U.S. forces independent of the agreement. However, because the agreement requires the removal of all U.S. forces no later than December 31, 2011, if any U.S. forces were to remain in Iraq in support of security training, or other programs, the withdrawal agreement will need to be extended or replaced with a peacetime SOFA. (emphasis mine)

Don't get it twisted - I have even less respect for Shrub (crook and liar that he is).  But, after the Changeling's evoking of his name so often since his selection in order to cover his ass, I just thought it appropriate to put the credit where it belonged and let Obama & Co. get their own shit to crow about.

Why are the Brits still - Inquiring??

Let's be clear, the extent to which those in power will continue to go, in order to avoid accountability for their hawkish behavior regarding Iraq, is absolutely mind-boggling and disgusting.  How many more inquiries will it take for the UK to admit that they let Shrub & Co. suck them into a war that nobody wanted - except Shrub & Co.??

As a weekly columnist for a small, daily paper in South Florida, I wrote the following column in March 2003 (I'd link to it, but that's a whole 'nother post - and a huge lesson learned).  I've added a couple links and the emphasis to the original column:

######

An informed populace can change 'the best laid plans of mice and men'

I don't know about you, but for the early part of my "grown up" life, I'd just been trying to live. Actually; live it up is more like it. I went to college, learned a little, partied a lot and graduated with a dream that I took to Washington, D.C. - a dream for which I quickly discovered 1 had not very well prepared myself. Apparently others had partied less and, learned way more than I did.

So, the dream was deferred as I went about the business of supporting myself and exploring my new home, excited anyway that I was finally living in "the big city." After two jobs in two years, I decided the dream had waited long enough and with my newfound maturity, I enlisted in the Navy to get serious about that preparation.

As a result, a whole new world opened up as I found myself tremendously comfortable in a school environment again. The challenge to learn as much as they were willing to teach was easily met. I kind of had my priorities in order this time. I still partied (after all I WAS still in my early 20s), but I was "handlin' my business" like my mother always demanded we do.

I did, however, slip trip and fall quite rapidly, for a quiet, cute, little Navy guy who was back for an intermediate Spanish class. And my world took on yet another face. Partnering with my husband to provide a decent, safe living for our family, working hard to build something to fall back on in our "golden years" and doing the best we could to raise our sons to be honest, honorable men - hopefully sooner rather than later - became more important and I was, again, just trying to live.

The process of accomplishing these goals certainly involved a measure of social consciousness and civic duty tempered with good, old-fashioned "gold-en rule" beliefs. But I had not spent an inordinate amount of time saturating my brain with the global implications of political strategies or the effects of our culture on other cultures of the world and vice-versa. Those doors were merely ajar as I just tried to live.

But the more I worked among others who were on that particular track, I realized that I had to push those doors wide open and begin looking behind them to learn what was going on in the world. But once I peeked, I could never find a way to shut it out again. Today I find myself a voracious reader, news follower, commentary listener, documentary watcher - you name it, I try to get my nose into it.

With current world events in mind and the need to understand for myself how we got here and where we're headed, I decided to go back a bit. You see, I depend on my nosiness to help me make informed decisions about where and for whom to cast my very valuable vote. Here's a thumbnail of what I stumbled upon and if you're half as nosy as I am, you may want to do some of your own digging to help you decide what to do with your very valuable vote in 2004.

It seems that as early as 1991, a small group of Republicans felt that America "didn't finish the job" in the Middle East with the Gulf War, so they set out to plan a strategy to not only accomplish that task, if and when they were again in power, but began drawing up a blueprint for America's nation building and spreading of democracy - one country at a time. The result was the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), founded in 1997 during the Clinton presidency.

PNAC describes itself as, "A non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions:  that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle; and that too few political leaders today are making the case for global leadership."

In a letter to then President Clinton dated Jan. 26, 1998, eighteen PNAC members publicly pushed for unilateral U.S. action against Iraq because "we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition" to enforce the inspections regime.

Curiously, of the 18 people who signed the letter, 10 are now in very influential positions in the Bush administration. They include, Vice President Dick Cheney; Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his Deputy at the Pentagon, Paul Wolfowitz; Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage; John Bolton, who is Undersecretary of State for Disarmament; and Zalmay Khalilzad, the White House liaison to the Iraqi opposition and Richard Perle, chairman of the advisory Defense Science Board to name a few along with William Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard magazine.

ln that same 1998 letter, the group stated, "The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibillty that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy."

Where we are now is a result of what happened in late 1997 while most of us were either just trying to live or were enjoying the fruits of a robust economy with it's billions of surplus dollars. I urge you to become your own type of political policy wonk. Read, listen, watch and dig. Go to PNAC's web site and read for yourself, in their own words, what plans lay ahead for our country. Be as informed a voter as possible as you head for the polls in 2004.

If you don't, just trying to live will be all you have.

######

I'm sure you'll recognize the rest of the "usual suspects" who put their John Hancock on that letter to Bill back then.  As I said in the piece I'm nosy, so it took me hardly any time at all to find that letter back in 2003 when I started digging.  If I could find it, you gotta know that the "powers-that-be" in England also knew or could ferret out The Plan.  Hell, in this recent Guardian piece - Iraq war inquiry: Britain heard US drumbeat for invasion before 9/11 - seems top Intel guy, Sir Peter Ricketts had at least an inkling (if no cojones):

According to previously leaked documents, Ricketts, political director at the Foreign Office at the time, described the US in 2002 as "scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and al-Qaida", a link that was "so far frankly unconvincing". He told Jack Straw, then foreign secretary: "We have to be convincing that the threat is so serious/imminent that it is worth sending our troops to die for. Regime change does not stack up. It sounds like a grudge match between Bush and Saddam."

Seems they should've ignored Shrub & Co.'s bullshit smarmy praise at that "cojones meeting" back in September 2002 and stuck to that grudge match theory - and stayed the hell out of Iraq.

"13/30" - The Damaged within - Part 2

UPDATE:  Covering their ass is what Congress does best,  This just in:  S1963: Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2010 - a bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to provide assistance to caregivers of veterans, to improve the provision of health care to veterans, and for other purposes - was passed in the Senate 12 days after the Ft. Hood killings.  Would those 12 day have mad a difference for Mahor Hassan?

  Watching the early stages of CNN's coverage of the shooting at Ft. Hood with my son and husband, I asked aloud - already knowing the answer, "Why's it gotta be a terrorist attack, or possible gang activity before they even know what the hell is going on???"

And when the "lone" shooter was identified - with that "funny-sounding" Middle Eastern name and they began the "terrorist" speculation in earnest (still not knowing what the hell was going on!) - I asked, again already knowing the answer, "Why can't it be that this guy - a CARE-DAMN-GIVER for the legions of soldiers returning from war zones, suffering the effects of having seen some horrific shit - be suffering some PTSD of his own??"  Or, "Why can't it be that some people (military troops ARE people) are just damned tired of fighting, killing, dying, losing limbs and worse - for wars in which there are no rational explanations!!"

The answers to my first questions are pretty clear: - He is Muslim.  And the MSM puts more stock in "being first with a story" way more than they do in being first with facts.  Such is the current mindset of America's Fourth Estate.  And the answers to the second set of questions?  He is Muslim.  And the MSM has long been in bed with politicians who'd rather fan the persistent fears of the "other" upon which this country was founded.  But more importantly, this country is a patriarchy, immersed in the language of manliness - Real soldiers can't be broken.

Though we, as a country, are doing a little better (and that's VERY little!) with domestic violence, violence against women, child abuse and sexual abuse, we - and that includes some of the "experts" - are a terribly long way from understanding a simple, yet important fact - TRAUMA IS TRAUMA no matter its origins and if its effects are left untreated, it not only threatens those sharing the sphere with the perpetrators - but the perpetrators themselves.  As a country, we just can't seem to get that through our, I'm-okay-so-you-must-be-okay consciousness, even though the manifestations of that bass-ackward thinking have been swirling around us from 1619 to today.

We function as if our branches of government, our corporations, our banking industry, our churches and certainly our military services - all those seats of perceived power - are not all bastions of "manliness" and intolerance - still.  And if we're honest, that women have managed to break into them and/or advance up any of those chains-of-command has not made one bit of difference over all.  Conversely, the complicit female presence has pretty much maintained the status quo, or made it worse - all in the name of feeling powerful themselves.  So where do the "damaged within" go for real help?

Chris Hedges explains where, in Stop Begging Obama and Get Mad:

"The soldiers and Marines who return from Iraq and Afghanistan are often traumatized and then shipped back a few months later to be traumatized again. This was less frequent in Vietnam. Veterans, when they get out, search for the usual escape routes of alienation, addictions and medication. But there is also the escape route of violence. We risk creating a homegrown Freikorps, the demobilized German soldiers from World War I who violently tore down the edifice of the Weimar Republic and helped open the way to Nazism.

The Afghanistan and Iraq wars have unloaded hundreds of thousands of combat troops, suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder or major depression, back into society. According to joint Veterans Affairs Department - University of San Francisco study published in July, 418,000 of the roughly 1.9 million service members who have fought in or supported the wars suffer from PTSD.

 
As of August 2008, the latest data available, about a quarter-million military veterans were imprisoned on any given day-about 9.4 percent of the total daily imprisoned population, according to the National GAINS Center Forum on Combat Veterans, Trauma and the Justice System. There are 223,000 veterans in jail or prison cells on an average day, and an unknown number among the 4 million Americans on probation. They don't have much to look forward to upon release. And if any of these incarcerated vets do not have PTSD when they are arrested, our corrections system will probably rectify the deficiency. Throw in the cocktail of unemployment, powerlessness, depression, alienation, anger, alcohol and drugs and you create thousands, if not tens of thousands, who will seek out violence the way an addict seeks out a bag of heroin." (emphasis mine) All of you, screaming that Maj. Hasan had never been deployed so he couldn't possibly be suffering PTSD, need to re-read the highlighted portion above.  Are we so blinded by his Muslim-ness, or too caught up in that "Real soldiers can't be broken" manliness, or that, "I'm-okay-so-you-must-be-okay" craziness to put two and two together and come up with four?

According to Hedges (and I concur), the answer is a resounding Yes!:

"There is a yawning indifference at home about what is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan. The hollow language of heroism and glory, used by the war makers and often aped by those in the media, allows the nation to feel good about war, about "service." But it is also a way of muzzling the voices that attempt to tell us the truth about war. And when these men and women do find the moral courage to speak, they often find that many fellow Americans turn away in disgust or attack them for shattering the myth. The myth of war is too enjoyable, and too profitable, to be punctured by reality. And so these veterans nurse their fantasies of power. They begin to hate those who sent them as much as they hate those they fought. Some cannot distinguish one from the other."  (emphasis mine)

In what little the media did get right about the major, it seems the Army, through the use of a "bad performance review," could have been doing some "muzzling" of it's own while he was stationed at Walter Reed, the facility about which the lack of real treatment and, in some instances, abusive treatment have been copiously reported.  But of course, that's not how it's being spun.

Without even knowing what was in the review, I challenge - any of you - to make some damn sense of what was just said in that video!  If the review was so bad, why didn't it affect Maj. Hasan's promotion and subsequent transfer to Ft. Hood?  Was it a toe-the-line-and-shut-the-hell-up-you-ungrateful-bastard-or-you'll-lose-everything warning (muzzling) to the major?  What was it's purpose??

If he was unable or unwilling to continue to provide poor, or no treatment to his patients after hearing, for the last six or so years, what they had been, and continued to go through, why was he still there?  Even Greta seemed to be sidling up to that question!  Call me stupid, but that twisted logic, along with that pesky Stop-loss policy Congress created, is nothing but a recipe for the disaster that happened at Ft. Hood.

Fort Hood, written on the body,  by Mary Elizabeth Williams at Salon, is an interesting and prescient piece about the soon to be aired documentary about our "fighting men" - at Ft. Hood, set to begin airing on PBS starting November 8 at 9:30 p.m.:

"Much will be written in the days to come of the mind-set of the alleged Fort Hood shooter Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, a psychiatrist who counseled military personnel and was reportedly distressed over his own imminent deployment. Though Schiesari's film predates the horrifying violence at the fort yesterday, it reveals a military culture rarely seen. By following both returning and deployment-bound young soldiers and the stories told on their bodies, she gets under their skin." (emphasis mine)

The trailer alone is, or should be, enlightening:

This is something with which I am intimately familiar.  My youngest was deployed to Iraq for a year as soon as he went into the Army in search of a better life - in his own control - at 21 years old.  Yeah, as young kids increasingly do these days, he had a couple tattoos already (my husband's and my name among a couple others).  But he got this rosary tattoed around his neck during his MOS training before deploying overseas.----->

Because I try, everyday, to live in the light of truth,  I had to ask his permission to tell this part of his story - I thought it only fair.  He gave it.

Since stop-loss was catching so much flack during the time he was in, the Army instead convinced many kids to reenlist while in-country with the lure of "the bonus."  The  son certainly could already see the new car he planned to buy.  But, as soon as they set foot back on U.S.terra firma., he and some of his buddies in his platoon sought out some of that "medication" Hedges talked about above, not realizing that they'd be tested the next day.  The "sting" (for lack of a better word) netted quite a few of them.  But he wanted to stay, and I resolved to help him because the choice was his, not mine.  After a lot of back and forth between me, his female commander and his First Sergeant, in writing and by telephone, it was decided he could. 

But his commander went on maternity leave before he got the official all-clear, replaced by yet another female.  And  he was caught "disobeying a lawful order from a Superior Commissioned Officer" (I shit you not, that is the exact wording in the letter she sent in response to our bullshit congressman's inquiry).  His crime?  He was caught operating a motor vehicle on post after his on-post driving privileges had been suspended - pending determination of a disputed charge levied by the Ft. Bragg police department who had jurisdiction over open roadways leading into, and out of the post.  He was sent home with a General Under Honorable Conditions discharge, and a bill to repay the Army for the bonus he'd received - both of which continue to wreak havoc on his life as he tries to move forward.

Trust me, he understands how he got here from there and beats himself up about it way more than he needs to.

Am I excusing what he did?  Nope.  I'm understanding how he got there.  That being said however, it all changed him - though he continues to swear up-and-down that it didn't.  He's gone from being the sweetest, most compassionate, helpful, loving, grateful kid (I save everything!  He was in middle and high school respectively when he wrote and left these notes for me) - to this angry, often hostile and short with me (and many others), young man, that I rarely recognize a lot of the time.  And it  hurts - deep in my heart.

But like many of us, considered "collateral damage" by the government and the military, we "soldier on" (no pun intented), hoping that eventually, we'll get it right.  We're still soldiering.

Like everybody else, I'm waiting to see what the major has to say about the whys and wherefores.  But unlike most who wait, I wait with discernment.

"13/30" - The Damaged within - Part 1

Major Nidal Malik Hasan, a 39 year-old Army psychiatry resident  - tasked with helping soldiers suffering the debilitating psychiatric effects of having been deployed to a war zone, at both Walter Reed Army Hospital in DC and later at Ft. Hood -  has been identified as the alleged lone perpetrator of the latest incident of violence against U.S. military troops - on U.S. soil.

Will this Democratic POTUS, with his Democratic Congress in the majority, finally take a stand against War?

According to the Army Times piece, "Major named as Fort Hood shooter:" 

Greg Schannep, an aide to Rep. John Carter, R-Texas, told the Austin American-Statesman that he was on the Army post to attend a graduation service. He said that as he neared the entrance of a building where the service was being held, a soldier with blood on his uniform ran past him and said a man was shooting.

Per news reports, this could have been a whole lot worse than it was - seeing as the building directly adjacent to the the graduation service is where the "killing fields" were.

*******************

I've pretty much sworn off watching the "celebrity news" on television - especially CNN!  Once I get caught up in all their s'posed-to-be news, my blood pressure tends to shoot right through the damn roof!  But, raised blood pressure notwithstanding, I watched the coverage of the shooting pretty much non-stop and what I saw unfolding was tragic in more ways than one.

Why is the fact that this happened on U.S. soil so amazing to everyone.  Because Ft. Hood is a closed military post?  Because this was an act of "terrorism," on American soil as CNN and others first tried to imply? Because there has been, according to CNN, a lot of reported "gang activity" on Ft. Hood?  I don't think it's amazing at all, given we've been involved in two wars - of our own making- for the last eight years on someone else's soil.  Anyway you slice it, this has brought the war home in a way that pictures of flag-draped caskets arriving at Dover never could.

I was watching this exchange on Larry King live and thought, "What the Hell!!" This is clearly illustrative of the dichotomy in this country surrounding the discussion of what are now, Obama's wars, that makes this so decidedly "un-amazing" to me:



I know Dr. Phil was the purported "expert" on the panel, but there was no better expert among them than sister, Shoshana Johnson, former Army Specialist and POW (tried to upload a photo of her when she was released from captivity but apparently, due to the upcoming release of her book, all the photos I could find have been copyrighted and I couldn't). 

And yes, I'm so very proud of her for calling former JAG Officer, Tom Kenniff out on his racism, elitism and sheer ignorance (did this guy learn to pronounce terror and terrorism from Shrub or something?).  Props to Dr. Phil for his two cents, but he's never been to war, never been shot in both ankles, never been captured and held for some 22 days.  This sister of Panamanian descent did what has heretofore been taboo in both Black and white society - she stood up, speaking her truth - out loud (and yeah, there was some neck-workin' going on) - to one who can definitely be considered a poster boy for the White Supremacist Capitalist Patriarchy.  Good for her, and Blacks/Browns (had to add the "Browns" here.  I don't want any of my people in the diaspora to think I intentionally forgot them.)  in general - but for sisters in particular.

Other military members have died ON POST in this country - at the hands of fellow military members:

- From a July 2009 cbsnews.com piece, Was Navy Sailor Killed For Being Gay?

The 29-year-old Houston native was found dead Tuesday at Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, north of San Diego. Roy said the family was told that Provost was shot three times, had his hands and feet bound, his mouth gagged, and body burned.

- From an October 2009 hamptonroads.com piece, Family of sailor slain in Newport News seeks court-martial:

In February, in a new apartment complex for Navy sailors, Mackie, a sailor on the amphibious assault ship, Kearsarge, put a gun to the back of Trask's head and pulled the trigger.

- From an October 2008 NY Daily News piece, Army to probe five slayings linked to Colorado Brigade:

Three other members of the unit were accused in the slaying of two soldiers.

- From a July 19 ABC News piece, Reports Clears Army in Gay Soldier's Death:

At Glover’s trial, soldiers testified that Winchell had been relentlessly taunted with anti-gay slurs in the months leading up to his slaying.

- From the 1956 St. Petersburg Times piece Sailor Killed in Race Fight at Naval Base:

A Navy spokesman said the riot broke out Friday night outside the recreation hall at Ford Island, the naval air station in the middle of Pearl Harbor.

And I would certainly be remiss, particularly as a Black Navy veteran, if I didn't list the 1944 Port Chicago Mutiny:

...many black divisions were being bet upon by the whites commanding them.  White officers were wagering whose division could load the most ammunition in the least amount of time. This atmosphere of speed-above-safety put the loaders in further peril.

 Probably the best source I've seen on the type of killing that happened at Ft. Hood,  is Salon's excellent and  in-depth, Coming Home series.  Check it out.  It's definitely worth the read.  Also, here's a short list of Some other military slayings from the Austin-American Statesman.

It just boggles the mind the way people are acting like Ft. Hood is some kind of anomaly, initially blaming it on terrorism, or some possible gang activity.  This is totally irresponsible on the part of what passes for media in this country, particularly because it allows the military, Obama & Co. and the rest of the country to continue burying their heads in the sand regarding what war does to people - deployed or not.

Kinfolk, skinfolk and bratty "Tit-for-Tat"

The Changeling's upcoming visit to Germany is not being called an "official state visit." Instead, he and the crew are billing it as a "search for some family history." Too funny! (Man, if looks could kill, he'd be a dead somebody!)

Some in the German media said, "Okay. We'll print that. But we're also going to say what we think is really going on - and it aint' pretty." On May 6, Spiegel Online International framed the visit this way - Obama to Trace Family History in Germany. It opens like this:

US President Barack Obama is coming to Germany again in June, but he won't be visiting Berlin. Instead, he is planning a more personal trip to Dresden and the concentration camp Buchenwald in search of his family history. There will be no photo op with Merkel in the Chancellery -- a deliberate move on Obama's part. (emphasis mine)

Guess he wants to shore up his facts about that great-uncle, Charles Payne, whose service he used on the campaign trail to bamboozle Jewish and veteran voters. You remember him don't you?

Poor Baby, even being President of the United States doesn't help get that which you truly seek now does it? It must really suck, or be really Machiavellian - or both - to have to piece together a "family" story for people to like and/or accept you.

In any event, "Mr. Charlie" (wonder if he's married to "Miss Ann?") obviously missed that memo. And I'm still not sure if he's gotten a copy based on what he said about his kinfolk's upcoming visit in this May 26 Spiegel Online article:

SPIEGEL: Mr. Payne, early in June your great-nephew, President Barack Obama, will visit the former concentration camp Buchenwald, which you helped liberate at the end of the war. Will he be travelling in your footsteps?

Charles Payne: I don't buy that. I was quite surprised when the whole thing came up and Barack talked about my war experiences in Nazi Germany. We had never talked about that before. This is a trip that he chose, not because of me I'm sure, but for political reasons.(emphasis mine).

He was hardly the old, "uncle in the attic" about whom Obama so "unknowingly" spoke. During this interview, he was quite clear on who he is/has been to the Changeling - and who the Changeling is/has been to him. Quite interesting.

Spiegel mentions the whole search-for-family-history thing in this May 29 piece: Obama's Itinerary Irks German Government. But clearly, it's about the snub:

In Germany, Obama plans to skip the capital in Berlin and instead visit the eastern states of Thuringia and Saxony. And even there, the German government has had little influence over his itinerary. The White House has so far blocked the wishes of the German government, which would like to see the president appear side-by-side with Merkel and local dignitaries and attract massive publicity during his stops in Dresden and Weimar...But Obama's advance team rejected the suggestions, SPIEGEL has learned.

If this is about her not wanting him with his faux-Doric columns all up on the Brandendburg Gate during his "Magical Mystery Tour" as "SENATOR, I'm-not-president-of-a-damn-thing-yet, Obama" last year, he's shallower, and more megalomaniacal than I thought. Either that or 2 years old! (Cinie, your "Magical Mystery Tour" description still cracks me up! Where's that post so I can link to it?)

This tour will be much more subdued. He even plans to visit soldiers and their families at bases in Ramstein and Landstuhl. Hmm-m-m, wonder how far those bases are from where André Shepherd, one of his skinfolk, awaits word on his petition for asylum - as I type - from----wait for it-----Ms. Merkel and her government! Talk about tit-for-tat!

You have to admit, it'd be just a little embarrassing for him to show up in Germany, snub Ms. Merkel in Berlin, then have Ms. Merkel grant asylum to this very outspoken brotha' who, in fighting the Army against serving in what he feels is an unjust and illegal war, sought assistance from a foreign government rather than his own - a first, in all the cases of this kind.

In Soldier Seeking Asylum: 'I Want to Be Able to Atone', it's obvious 32 year-old Shepard isn't expecting a visit from the Changeling and he talks about why:

Elsa Rassbach: Do you think President Obama is going to change any of this?

Shepherd: No. Obama has the backing of the international corporations. And the people who gave him the most money are the ones whose interests are going to be served first. And it's quite obvious. He won't go after the prior administration for the war crimes; he won't pull out of Iraq. He's leaving 50,000 soldiers to conduct combat missions in Iraq. That means the war is continuing. He wants to escalate the war in Afghanistan. He wants to keep pushing for AFRICOM, the U.S. command for Africa based in Stuttgart, and he's pushing for the missile shield to try to encircle Russia and Iran. These things show me that Barack Obama is not going to change anything. And Obama is only one guy. He still has to deal with the entire Congress, the court system, the Pentagon. The military has been around for over 220 some years, and they're not going to change overnight just because there's a new Commander-in-Chief. They're still arresting people who refuse to fight. They're still putting them in jail, giving them dishonorable discharges, and some are facing possible felony convictions. But Obama has yet to speak of the growing number of soldiers refusing to fight for him - well, first Bush, and now him. So I don't see President Obama granting anyone clemency until the entire "war on terror" is finished, and Afghanistan and Iraq are part of the same war. (emphasis mine - h/t to Joseph at Cannonfire for that right-on-time rendition!)

It's an interesting piece in which he also talks about why he went to the Germans instead of following his own U.S. chain-of-command, about not being able to expect any help from within the military. The case of Hawaiian-born, Lt. Ehren Watada who, just last month, won against the military for trying to pull the double-jeopardy thing comes to mind. He still, however, has two charges pending which the military, so far has refused to dismiss. Well beyond his discharge date due to the trials, he is being held in an administrative position, until they decide. He has been fighting from within since 2006.

Like Shepherd, Lt. Watada believes the war in Iraq is both unjust and illegal. They believe the previous administration should be held accountable for their lies and torturous behavior. Since the Changeling's foisted that huge defense budget on taxpayers to keep it, and the war in Afghanistan going, they're his wars now - and I don't think he wants to deal with any of that on this little stroke-me-some-more mini-tour.

Sen. Clinton hoodwinked and bamboozled?

I didn't think Sen. Clinton should have taken the Secretary of State position when the Changeling offered it. It just didn't feel right. It still doesn't.

Unless she did some serious wheeling and dealing during that "private meeting"in Washington last June (all those ex-Clintonistas in the Changeling's cabinet maybe?) - complete with Obama signing his name in blood - I just don't understand why she accepted the Changeling's offer.

The sexism and misogyny of the Obama campaign was palpable and it didn't just disappear because their guy won. Remember Obama speechwriter, Jon Favreau and this little grown-up display of manhood (pic courtesy of Kitty at AROO)? Do you think this kind of thing just goes away? It doesn't. Especially when their guy wins.

Personally, I think the Boys Club played her. Signs of the patriarchy are all over this move, "Senator Biden's trip raises concerns."

And not unexpectedly (since patriarchy is patriarchy no matter the race or party), the Bush Administration knew about this before it happened. The article states:

Biden first ran the South Asia trip idea by Bush administration officials several weeks ago, said Bush spokesman Gordon Johndroe. “We discussed the trip and reviewed it in advance with them,” Johndroe said. “We are facilitating the trip administratively where necessary.”

Wonder if they gave the presumptive Secretary of State a heads-up?

This is the reason he took so long to resign his seat - so his trip could seem "legitimate" as the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. This swill insults the intelligence of both the people and Sen. Clinton - not that I believe they care about that. With this act, "the guys" have signaled to the cadre of other testosterone-filled world leaders, who the "bosses" really are and sets Sen. Clinton up for an inevitable fall.

In hindsight, this exchange, from the Democratic debate in Philadelphia last April, is very telling:

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: So you would extend our deterrent to Israel? SENATOR OBAMA: As I've said before, I think it is very important that Iran understands that an attack on Israel is an attack on our strongest ally in the region, one that we -- one whose security we consider paramount, and that -- that would be an act of aggression that we -- that I would -- that I would consider an attack that is unacceptable, and the United States would take appropriate action. MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Clinton, would you? SENATOR CLINTON: Well, in fact, George, I think that we should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel. Of course I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States, but I would do the same with other countries in the region.

His stuttering blather about defending Israel notwithstanding, I believe he means to go the diplomacy route (why else send Biden?). And should she get confirmed, I'm sure these words, so forcefully spoken by a woman jockeying to be America's first female president, will be used against her as Secretary of State when they advise her she will no longer be serving - at the pleasure of the President.

Bombs and banks - and a complicit Congress

I was watching David Sanger on CNN talking about this, U.S. Rejected Aid for Israeli Raid on Iranian Nuclear Site and thought, "They want us to give them more weapons just to use on Iran. Right." Then I thought, "All out war on Iran - over Iraq?" What the hell??? Involved in WWIII because they don't trust Shrub to "handle" Iran before he leaves and no confidence in any return on all those AIPAC dollars they gave the Changeling once he gets in.

Then, I went to AROO and read this, "The Bag Lady's Lament", which led me to this:

"Life savings gone, 'Madoffed' best-selling writer back at work", which led me surprisingly to this:

"Madoff investors may get money back" Those fleeced by $50 billion fraud may be able to retrieve funds from Securities Investor Protection Corp in a few months, Congressional non-profit says. In which I found this: "SIPC is a non-profit agency set up by Congress to maintain a fund to help investors who had accounts at brokerage firms that failed."

Congress set this up? Did they set anything up for anybody else who lost their shirts in this Ponzi scheme of a bailout to the same banks that caused them to lose their shirts in the first place with all their mortgage schemes and not-representing-any-real-money-credit default swaps/derivatives games?

Gotta do something for all those AIPAC dollars spent I guess.

Pot calling the kettle black??!!

Как шально это??!! (How crazy is this??!!)

Condoleeza Rice stood before those television cameras and said, "This is not 1968 (and the invasion of Czechoslovakia) where Russia can threaten its neighbors, occupy a capital, overthrow a government and get away with it. Things have changed." What things have changed? WE get to do it with impunity?? Everything she accuses Russia of doing is exactly what we've done in Iraq and then some (let's not forget we not only sanctioned, but were complicit in the murder of Saddam Hussein)!!

Does anybody really think, given Russia's current economic standing compared to ours, that Putin or Medvedev (same thing) really care about threats from NATO countries - especially the United States? Please!!!

No matter the amount of "international condemnation" or indefinite suspensions of the NATO-Russia Council meetings, European countries particularly, are well aware on which side their "energy bread" is buttered. Which is why NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said yesterday, ""the future will depend on concrete actions from the Russian side," but he was forced to add that "no specific decisions on programs or projects (with Russia) have been taken." As hard as we are pushing them, they know good and damn well that if push comes to shove, we do not have the resources to help them mount a defense, much less an offense against Russia.

Poland is playing a dangerous game agreeing to partner with the U.S. on this missile defense system on their soil and so are we. With only our participation in play, it looks like aggression on our part - plain and simple. Can we afford the appearance of aggression against a country like Russia? Will, no - can, any of those NATO allies stand with us militarily should Russia decide to "protect themselves" from what they no doubt perceive as western aggression? Can we stand alone? I doubt it.

Down to the proverbial wire, the Bush Administration continues to muck-up international relations as they bluster about what we will or won't put up with from Russia. As they sashay on into revisionist history, the next president will definitely have his hands full all around. H-m-m-m, now which of the current presidential candidates do you think will be able to dig us out of this quagmire?

Iraq - 5 Years Later...

Lest we forget... The Washington Post - "Faces of the Fallen"