What New Veterans Are Grateful For

This Thanksgiving, Hear What New Veterans Are Grateful For

Huffington Post

Paul Rieckhoff– Exec. Director of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA)

Posted: November 25, 2009 06:38 PM

It’s time once again for that seasonal blend of gratitude and that deep longing for the familiar –family, health, pumpkin pie, turkey, and the Detroit Lions getting blown-out on National TV.

Eight years of war have brought tremendous challenges for our military, our veterans and their families. And just a few weeks ago, the military community was tested yet again by the terrible tragedy at Fort Hood.

Despite these obstacles, our men and women in uniform continue to soldier on. And this year, they have more than a few things to give thanks for. In 2009, we’ve seen some big victories for Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. Just last month, advanced funding for VA health care was signed into law. A top priority for leading veterans groups for decades, this reform will transform veterans’ health care forever.

In 2009, we also saw the implementation of the new GI Bill, a historic measure which will send thousands of young men and women in uniform to college. And, we saw the new veterans movement grow and take hold across the country. From the largest Veterans Week celebrations ever to a thriving Community of Veterans, Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are coming together and showing one another that they have each other’s backs.

I know I am thankful for all of the above, but also for the support I’ve seen from people around the country for our veterans. I also think back to my Thanksgiving in Germany at CMCT, and I am grateful that I am not in the mud freezing my butt off. And I think back to my Thanksgiving in Baghdad, and I am grateful that all the men in my platoon came home alive. I am also grateful for those like Milo Ventimiglia who are taking USO trips overseas to see our troops. And, I am grateful for the inspiration of a true American hero, J.R Martinez, and the 60 kids from P.S. 22 who taught us that Rihanna can be a very powerful anthem.

Read Full Post »

Republican Opposition To Health Care Reform

The Republican Way: Keeping Everything The Way It Is

Huffington Post- Alec Baldwin

Posted: November 24, 2009 12:10 PM

Didn’t you know, all along, that the goal of U.S. policy in Iraq was about accessing oil?

Not oil as in those production levels at the onset of the Bush era incursion in March, 2003. But newer, stronger, American-style production levels. American oil companies had been forbidden from exploring and developing new oil fields since the nationalization of Iraq’s reserves in 1972 and those American oil companies have long contended that Iraqi estimates of their potential reserves are grossly underestimated, by perhaps as much as a couple of hundred billion barrels.

Likewise, didn’t you know all along that Republican opposition to current health care reform is about maintaining the unconscionable monopoly that insurance companies have in the American economy. Why? For the same reason Bush went to war in Iraq, spent money we didn’t have, pushed the country into financial ruin and did more to threaten our long term national security than any modern president. The GOP needs contributions. I would never contend that the GOP is alone in this practice. When an administration awards contracts to some supporter, they anticipate more support. But no group, in the history of this country, has ever done this to such an extent. Remember, I am always careful to separate the leadership of any party from its rank and file. So when I level such a charge against “Republicans”, I am referring to their leadership on Capitol Hill. But, I think it’s safe to say now that the war in Iraq was started to provide U.S. oil companies with the opportunity to develop new oil fields there in return for the massive campaign contributions those oil companies will make to the Republicans in 2010 and, especially, 2012 in their effort to unseat President Obama.

The same is true for the health care industry, and insurance companies in particular. They don’t want reform. The current system works quite well for them. If an excess of Americans die due to insufficient health care, so what. Republican leaders argue that health care reform will lead to a big, fat, incompetent bureaucracy that will gobble up billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars and provide little accountability. But wait. Isn’t the Pentagon a big, fat, incompetent bureaucracy that gobbles up…? Well, you get it.

MORE HERE

Read Full Post »

Investigate Top Officials, not Just CIA Interrogators

Doug Bandow, The Huffington Post, Aug 24, 2009

Buzz up!

Attorney General Eric Holder is appointing a special prosecutor to review CIA interrogations of terrorist suspects. However, the investigation shouldn’t stop at the agency. No one should be above the law, especially top policymakers.

Investigating Bush administration policies and officials is bound to be controversial. President George W. Bush and his aides undoubtedly did what they thought was right. However, much of it was wrong. The Iraq war was foolish and unnecessary.

Continues >>

---

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

• Carter: Bush Administration “does torture” prisoners
• Will Bush Officials Face War Crimes Trials? Few Expect It
• Prosecuting the Bush Team?
• Obama: Defense of Marriage Act ’Discriminatory’

Read Full Post »

Americans are ruled by oligarchs

By Paul Craig Roberts | Counterpunch, Aug 19, 2009

“In a little time [there will be] no middling sort. We shall have a few, and but a very few Lords, and all the rest beggars.” R.L. Bushman

“Rapidly you are dividing into two classes–extreme rich and extreme poor.” “Brutus”

Americans think that they have “freedom and democracy” and that politicians are held accountable by elections. The fact of the matter is that the US is ruled by powerful interest groups who control politicians with campaign contributions. Our real rulers are an oligarchy of financial and military/security interests and AIPAC, which influences US foreign policy for the benefit of Israel.

Have a look at economic policy. It is being run for the benefit of large financial concerns, such as Goldman Sachs.

Continued >>

---

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

• Why Congress Was Reading Obama’s Speech
• Say Ahh, Poor Yorick

Read Full Post »

Eager to Tap Iraq’s Vast Oil Reserves, Industry Execs Suggested Invasion

Jason Leopold | Global Research | July 11, 2009

Two years before the invasion of Iraq, oil executives and foreign policy advisers told the Bush administration that the United States would remain “a prisoner of its energy dilemma” as long as Saddam Hussein was in power.

That April 2001 report, “Strategic Policy Challenges for the 21st Century,” was prepared by the James A. Baker Institute for Public Policy and the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations at the request of then-Vice President Dick Cheney.

In retrospect, it appears that the report helped focus administration thinking on why it made geopolitical sense to oust Hussein, whose country sat on the world’s second largest oil reserves.

“Iraq remains a de-stabilizing influence to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East,” the report said.

“Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export program to manipulate oil markets. Therefore the U.S. should conduct an immediate policy review toward Iraq including military, energy, economic and political/diplomatic assessments.

“Like it or not, Iraqi reserves represent a major asset that can quickly add capacity to world oil markets and inject a more competitive tenor to oil trade.”

The advisory committee that helped prepare the report included Luis Giusti, a Shell Corp. non-executive director; John Manzoni, regional president of British Petroleum; and David O’Reilly, chief executive of ChevronTexaco.

James Baker, the namesake for the public policy institute, was a prominent oil industry lawyer who also served as Secretary of State under President George H.W. Bush and was counsel to the Bush/Cheney campaign during the Florida recount in 2000.

Ken Lay, then chairman of the energy-trading Enron Corp., also made recommendations that were included in the Baker report.

At the time of the report, Cheney was leading an energy task force made up of powerful industry executives who assisted him in drafting a comprehensive “National Energy Policy” for President George W. Bush.

Read more…

Read Full Post »

Governor Bush told Houston Journalist: If Elected. “I’m Going to Invade Iraq”

Sherwood Ross | Global Research, June 2, 2009

Two years before the 9/11 attacks on America, George W. Bush told a Houston journalist if elected president, “I’m going to invade Iraq.”

Bush made the comments about starting an aggressive war to veteran Houston Chronicle reporter Mickey Herskowitz, then working with Bush on his book “A Charge To Keep,” later brought out by publisher William Morrow.

This disclosure was uncovered by Russ Baker, an award-winning investigative reporter when he interviewed Herskowitz for his own book, “Family of Secrets” (Bloomsbury Press) about the Bush dynasty. However, Baker says, when he approached The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times with the potentially devastating story to President Bush prior to the 2004 presidential election, they declined to publish it.

Continued >>

Read Full Post »

Blair aides DID know Britain was not in imminent danger of attack from Saddam, memo reveals

UK Daily Mail | Friday, March 13, 2009

Revealed: Blair's aides were told that Iraq was not able to attack within 45 minutes

Secret emails suggesting that Britain was duped into war in Iraq were released yesterday, renewing calls for a full-scale public inquiry into the conflict.

Documents released under freedom of information laws show Government officials pressed intelligence chiefs to strip out caveats about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction.

Agents complained that the Government’s infamous dossier making the case for war suggested Saddam’s biological warfare programme was more advanced than they believed to be the case.

They also privately mocked claims about Iraq’s nuclear programme, joking that atomic specialists the document suggested had been assembled in Iraq must be ‘Dr Frankenstein’.

The 2002 dossier, which helped convince many MPs of the case for war, contained the now-discredited claim that Saddam Hussein had chemical and biological weapons which could be deployed within 45 minutes.

An inquiry headed by Lord Hutton, widely seen as a whitewash, concluded that spy chief Sir John Scarlett, who compiled the document, could have been ’subconsciously influenced’ by political pressure while drawing up the report.

Yesterday’s documents showed Sir John was directly instructed to make the conclusions as firm as possible.

Full article here

Read Full Post »

President Obama Sending More Troops To Afghanistan

Obama approves deployment of more than 10,000 troops to Afghanistan.»

Think Progress- By Amanda Terkel at 5:20 pm

This afternoon, the White House released a statement by President Obama announcing the deployment of additional troops to Afghanistan. Noting that the “situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan demands urgent attention and swift action,” Obama said that he “approved a request from Secretary Gates to deploy a Marine Expeditionary Brigade later this spring and an Army Stryker Brigade and the enabling forces necessary to support them later this summer.” Various media outlets are reporting that he will be sending roughly 12,000 troops to Afghanistan. The Progress Report has more on the challenges remaining in Afghanistan.

Obama’s full statement below:

There is no more solemn duty as President than the decision to deploy our armed forces into harm’s way. I do it today mindful that the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan demands urgent attention and swift action. The Taliban is resurgent in Afghanistan, and al Qaeda supports the insurgency and threatens America from its safe-haven along the Pakistani border.

To meet urgent security needs, I approved a request from Secretary Gates to deploy a Marine Expeditionary Brigade later this spring and an Army Stryker Brigade and the enabling forces necessary to support them later this summer. This increase has been requested by General McKiernan and supported by Secretary Gates, the Joint Chiefs and the Commander of Central Command. General McKiernan’s request for these troops is months old, and the fact that we are going to responsibly drawdown our forces in Iraq allows us the flexibility to increase our presence in Afghanistan.

This reinforcement will contribute to the security of the Afghan people and to stability in Afghanistan. I recognize the extraordinary strain that this deployment places on our troops and military families. I honor their service, and will give them the support they need.

This increase is necessary to stabilize a deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, which has not received the strategic attention, direction and resources it urgently requires. That is why I ordered a review of our policy upon taking office, so we have a comprehensive strategy and the necessary resources to meet clear and achievable objectives in Afghanistan and the region. This troop increase does not pre-determine the outcome of that strategic review. Instead, it will further enable our team to put together a comprehensive strategy that will employ all elements of our national power to fulfill achievable goals in Afghanistan. As we develop our new strategic goals, we will do so in concert with our friends and allies as together we seek the resources necessary to succeed.

Update– Yglesias’s take on the announcement:

To remain effective in Afghanistan, we desperately need to reduce the civilian death toll. That means less airstrikes. Which probably means more boots on the ground. And hopefully more boots on the ground can also reduce civilian exposure to death-by-Taliban. That’d be how you get the job done.But success of this venture is contingent not so much on the additional troops as on the adoption of a different strategy—one more focused on population security and less reliant on air power. It would be nice to learn some more details so as to really evaluate what’s happening.

####

Update– Bloomberg is reporting that the order signed by Obama boosts U.S. troop strength in Afghanistan “by 17,000 combat and support personnel.”

#####

Update—VoteVets called Obama’s announcement “most welcome,” praising the new administration for promoting “not just a military boost, but a strengthening of our diplomatic and political efforts there.”

Read Full Post »

Iraq’s Shocking Human Toll

Iraq’s Shocking Human Toll: About 1 Million Killed, 4.5 Million Displaced, 1-2 Million Widows, 5 Million Orphans

By John Tirman, The Nation. Posted February 2, 2009.

Now that Bush is gone, perhaps we can honestly face the damage we have wrought and the responsibilities we must accept from it.

We are now able to estimate the number of Iraqis who have died in the war instigated by the Bush administration. Looking at the empirical evidence of Bush’s war legacy will put his claims of victory in perspective. Of course, even by his standards — “stability” — the jury is out. Most independent analysts would say it’s too soon to judge the political outcome. Nearly six years after the invasion, the country remains riven by sectarian politics and major unresolved issues, like the status of Kirkuk.

We have a better grasp of the human costs of the war. For example, the United Nations estimates that there are about 4.5 million displaced Iraqis — more than half of them refugees — or about one in every six citizens. Only 5 percent have chosen to return to their homes over the past year, a period of reduced violence from the high levels of 2005-07. The availability of healthcare, clean water, functioning schools, jobs and so forth remains elusive. According to Unicef, many provinces report that less than 40 percent of households have access to clean water. More than 40 percent of children in Basra, and more than 70 percent in Baghdad, cannot attend school.

The mortality caused by the war is also high. Several household surveys were conducted between 2004 and 2007. While there are differences among them, the range suggests a congruence of estimates. But none have been conducted for eighteen months, and the two most reliable surveys were completed in mid-2006. The higher of those found 650,000 “excess deaths” (mortality attributable to war); the other yielded 400,000. The war remained ferocious for twelve to fifteen months after those surveys were finished and then began to subside. Iraq Body Count, a London NGO that uses English-language press reports from Iraq to count civilian deaths, provides a means to update the 2006 estimates. While it is known to be an undercount, because press reports are incomplete and Baghdad-centric, IBC nonetheless provides useful trends, which are striking. Its estimates are nearing 100,000, more than double its June 2006 figure of 45,000. (It does not count nonviolent excess deaths — from health emergencies, for example — or insurgent deaths.) If this is an acceptable marker, a plausible estimate of total deaths can be calculated by doubling the totals of the 2006 household surveys, which used a much more reliable and sophisticated method for estimates that draws on long experience in epidemiology. So we have, at present, between 800,000 and 1.3 million “excess deaths” as we approach the six-year anniversary of this war.

MORE HERE

Read Full Post »

i wear a size 8 ladies

by betmo

i have been on hiatus from blogging regularly.  i don’t have all that much to comment on these days- not much has really changed and we are all in waiting mode.  my personal thought- the holiday season won’t start until january 20, 2009.  which brings me to today’s hot story- shoes.  i read suzie q every day and i also read bob cesca- another contributor here at suzie’s blog– dare i say religiously?  in light of the shoe throwing incident in iraq, bob took a dissenting view- and i do agree with him in theory- but you can’t rationalize emotions.

bob’s overall thought was that the shoe throwing was a violent act directed at the president of the united states and it should be treated accordingly.  i agree- and my first thought was- ‘why did it take so long for secret service to intervene?’ now, i realize that it was only seconds- but the secret service are right there next to the president- and i just wonder at their response time.  but i digress…

i guess i don’t need to explain to bob why so very many people worldwide are cheering for the shoe wielding journalist rather than bush.  mr. al-zaidi knew the repercussions of his actions but stood and did what he did anyway-and it’s what all of us want too- to show bush that the entire world does not approve.  it is 8 years of frustration for americans and 5 years of devastation for the iraqis packaged in 2 men’s shoes.  and the fact that bush did not initially know what it meant to have a shoe thrown at you in an arabic nation- one we invaded and whose people we have horribly mistreated- well, it’s representative of the last 8 years.

still, bob goes on to explain about the office of the presidency being separate from the occupant- and he does a damned fine job- and again, i agree.  politics aside- the office of the presidency should be held to a high standard and should be protected to the fullest- and as much as we may agree with mr. al-zaidi we cannot believe that violence towards an american president can be tolerated.  but, i guess the iraqis are smarter than most americans give them credit for– they aren’t charging mr. al-zaidi with throwing shoes at bush- but at mr. al-maliki.  we all know he was referring to bush as the dog- but this saves face for everyone and hopefully spares mr. al-zaidi.  most iraqis look at him as a hero (and so does the left here in america) and many iraqis have good reason not to trust american politicians from the bush administration.

as for bush, well, apparently, he has good reflexes and remains good natured (at least in public) about the whole thing.  he said that he thought it was a ‘sign of a free society’– and since america is still partially free- there are going to be several peace rallies in washington on wednesday– featuring, of course, shoes.

Read Full Post »