Wednesday, November 29, 2006
"We've Always Been at War with Eastasia, We've Never Been at War with Eurasia"
Ah, Orwell's Memory Hole. . . am I the only one who wishes that this fictional account of dystopia had stayed just that?! In the TeamBush era, its doubtful.
Now we learn, courtesy of Atrios and The General, just a tad bit more than we didn't want to know. It would seem that the nice folks at the White House have recently, and one would think quite intentionally, cropped the 'Mission Accomplished' banner out of archival footage of Bush's now-infamous speech aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln.
No harm, No foul, eh?
Ah, Orwell's Memory Hole. . . am I the only one who wishes that this fictional account of dystopia had stayed just that?! In the TeamBush era, its doubtful.
Now we learn, courtesy of Atrios and The General, just a tad bit more than we didn't want to know. It would seem that the nice folks at the White House have recently, and one would think quite intentionally, cropped the 'Mission Accomplished' banner out of archival footage of Bush's now-infamous speech aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln.
No harm, No foul, eh?
Where Are They Now?
A clever enough 'yearbook style' epitaph, perhaps, but a painful reminder to all Americans that the people who cheer led, promoted, and misled our nation into a disaster are all pretty much still living high off the (often government) hog.
My favorite quote, courtesy of Richard "Prince of Darkness" Perle:
“And a year from now, I’ll be very surprised if there is not some grand square in Baghdad that is named after President Bush. There is no doubt that, with the exception of a very small number of people close to a vicious regime, the people of Iraq have been liberated and they understand that they’ve been liberated. And it is getting easier every day for Iraqis to express that sense of liberation.” [Perle, 9/22/03]
Right on the money, Dick. How could the rest of us been so dumb?!
A clever enough 'yearbook style' epitaph, perhaps, but a painful reminder to all Americans that the people who cheer led, promoted, and misled our nation into a disaster are all pretty much still living high off the (often government) hog.
My favorite quote, courtesy of Richard "Prince of Darkness" Perle:
“And a year from now, I’ll be very surprised if there is not some grand square in Baghdad that is named after President Bush. There is no doubt that, with the exception of a very small number of people close to a vicious regime, the people of Iraq have been liberated and they understand that they’ve been liberated. And it is getting easier every day for Iraqis to express that sense of liberation.” [Perle, 9/22/03]
Right on the money, Dick. How could the rest of us been so dumb?!
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
America's New Dawn- Part Deux
or
Will Pelosi and effete John Kerry really change the national language to French?
Answer: Mais oui
A few weeks ago I asked about what this new America in Washington DC would look like and asked for implications for policy and direction. I would like to quote from Bill Maher and William Greider. Ok, so neither got in touch with me directly, but I kinda stumbled upon them as they were pondering the same issue.
I guess the consensus at this point to answer this pressing questions is "unclear, ask again later."
Bill Maher's piece in the Boston Globe points out the obvious:
"Let's not delude ourselves into thinking that this election brought new thinking to Washington. It didn't. It brought Democrats, who are often just Republicans slowed down a step by a sense of shame. But they're not revolutionaries, and they're not really diverse."
Greider takes it even further, laying out specific pitfalls and problems the newly-elected Congress faces:
"Republicans lost, but their ideological assumptions are deeply embedded in government, the economy and the social order. Many Democrats have internalized those assumptions, others are afraid to challenge them. It will take years, under the best circumstances, for Democrats to recover nerve and principle and imagination--if they do.
But this is a promising new landscape. Citizens said they want change. Getting out of Iraq comes first, but economic reform is close behind: the deteriorating middle class, globalization and its damaging impact on jobs and wages, corporate excesses and social abuses, the corruption of politics. Democrats ran on these issues, and voters chose them."
Read both articles. Maher's is clearly the funnier of the two, but then again he's a comedian. Both try to get to answers left unformulated at this time. Can the Dems really convince the American people that liberal or leftist policies actually benefit the majority of them and begin to have that majority begin to self-identify as liberals? Greider's right when he says the whole political landscape has been dominated by the GOP for so long that Dems tend to think in their frames (thanks, Lakoff). Consider this quote from Bill Scher's book, Wait! Don't Move to Canada from his liberal oasis website:
Oh well, at least it's our party. We can always cry of we want to.
or
Will Pelosi and effete John Kerry really change the national language to French?
Answer: Mais oui
A few weeks ago I asked about what this new America in Washington DC would look like and asked for implications for policy and direction. I would like to quote from Bill Maher and William Greider. Ok, so neither got in touch with me directly, but I kinda stumbled upon them as they were pondering the same issue.
I guess the consensus at this point to answer this pressing questions is "unclear, ask again later."
Bill Maher's piece in the Boston Globe points out the obvious:
"Let's not delude ourselves into thinking that this election brought new thinking to Washington. It didn't. It brought Democrats, who are often just Republicans slowed down a step by a sense of shame. But they're not revolutionaries, and they're not really diverse."
Greider takes it even further, laying out specific pitfalls and problems the newly-elected Congress faces:
"Republicans lost, but their ideological assumptions are deeply embedded in government, the economy and the social order. Many Democrats have internalized those assumptions, others are afraid to challenge them. It will take years, under the best circumstances, for Democrats to recover nerve and principle and imagination--if they do.
But this is a promising new landscape. Citizens said they want change. Getting out of Iraq comes first, but economic reform is close behind: the deteriorating middle class, globalization and its damaging impact on jobs and wages, corporate excesses and social abuses, the corruption of politics. Democrats ran on these issues, and voters chose them."
Read both articles. Maher's is clearly the funnier of the two, but then again he's a comedian. Both try to get to answers left unformulated at this time. Can the Dems really convince the American people that liberal or leftist policies actually benefit the majority of them and begin to have that majority begin to self-identify as liberals? Greider's right when he says the whole political landscape has been dominated by the GOP for so long that Dems tend to think in their frames (thanks, Lakoff). Consider this quote from Bill Scher's book, Wait! Don't Move to Canada from his liberal oasis website:
"[President Bill] Clinton's deficit reduction plan [which included higher taxes]
worked. In 1996 the deficit had been cut by 60 percent and the economy improved,
creating 10 million jobs. Republicans who had been preaching that Clinton's tax
policy would bring about economic apocalypse looked foolish.
That's the kind of sea-changing development that can be used to reframe a debate.
Instead of continuing to accept the Republican frame, Clinton could have articulated that Democrats support levels of taxation that are fair to people at all income
levels and adequate enough to carry out the responsibilities that the people ask
of their government. Republicans, on the other hand, support inadequate
taxation, so our government can't properly function, with unfair tax giveaways
to their corporate donors and those who make more than $200,000 each
year.
That's a frame consistent with the principle of representative,
responsive, and responsible government. It does not say that tax cuts are always
good, or that tax increases are always good. It simply makes the commonsense
point that a responsible level of taxation, properly financing our government,
is healthy for our overall quality of life. However, Clinton did not seize the opportunity. He stuck with the Republican frame and continued to argue that
tax cuts are the path to economic growth.
At an October 1995 fundraiser, Clinton told the crowd, "I think I raised [taxes] too much." He then campaigned for re-election on another promise of tax cuts, though he distinguished his plan from his opponent's by promising fiscally prudent "targeted tax cuts," as opposed to a "risky $550 billion tax scheme" which would lead to cuts in
Medicare and Social Security. It became a debate over whose tax cuts were
better, and with a good economy at his back, Clinton won.
The same debate repeated itself in 2000. Then-Texas governor George W. Bush honed the argument against targeted tax cuts by accusing Al Gore of being a "pick and chooser," while Bush would cut taxes for "everybody who pays taxes." This was no knockout punch -- again, Bush's arguments did not win him the most votes -- but it did find the rhetorical weakness in the case for "targeted tax cuts." If tax cuts
were so wonderful, why shouldn't everybody get them?And so, after three
elections in a row where one professed tax cutter faced off against another,
President Bush was unabashed at claiming a mandate for huge cuts. Democrats,
having accepted the benefit of tax cuts, had no principled foundation with which
to fight back. Bush quickly rammed a tax cut bill through Congress with
bipartisan support.
Even though Clinton put the nation on sound fiscal footing, he left his handiwork extremely vulnerable by not articulating the guiding principles that got the job done. Bush took full advantage and put Clinton's balanced budget in the shredder."
State Sponsored Terrorism: Now and Then
Former KGB/FSB (Federal Security Bureau) operative Alexander Litvinenko is lying in a London hospital after being poisoned in a case reminiscent of Cold War-era John LeCarre novels. The former-spy turned Putin critic has by living in asylum in England since 2000, from where he has continued to be a thorn in the side of the Kremlin. Doctors now think he was poisoned with a radioactive thallium, which will be virutually impossible to trace at this stage. Even though he was rushed to the hospital, doctors give him a 50-50 chance of survival.
Litvinenko was poisoned during a meeting at a London sushi restaurant with a contact who reportedly gave him the names of the killers of Russian investigative reporter Anna Politkovskaya (AHU October 20), who herself was investigating Russian atrocities in Putin's-own-War-on-Terror in Chechnya. The Kremlin denied any responsibility for the poisoning, calling the notion "nothing but sheer nonsense" and refusing to even entertain questions about it. This despite the fact that "Other Russian dissidents in Britain also blamed the Kremlin for Litvinenko's condition. "Permission to assassinate abroad can only be given from the top," Oleg Gordievsky, former deputy head of the KGB at the Soviet Embassy in London told the Associated Press. "How can it not be state-sponsored?"'
Scotland Yard is said to be vigorously investigating. We'll see how the lame-duck Blair and Bush administrations deal with this crime. The track record isn't too good, but it seems this is not only blatant but has the potential to draw a number of strings together tied to Vladimir Putin.
How did the Russian media respond to all of this? Only independent raido station Ekho Moskvy has reported consistently on the attack. Other staions have shunned the story, which makes sense since they're all controlled by the same folks who likely committed the crime. Look for Ekho Moskvy to lose its license or have a key representative gunned down in the next few weeks. Par for the course in 'free, capitalist' Russia these days.
Speaking of Cold War and State Sponsored Terror, we learned today that Janet Ray and members of another family have been awarded $91 million dollars in frozen Cuban assets for the deaths of two Americans killed in the Bay of Pigs operation in 1961. Now I'm sorry about the loss these people have suffered this whole time (Ray was 6 when her dad was killed), but, c'mon now people!!
Our CIA was invading a sovereign country which at the time was flirting with but not yet staunchly committed to the Soviets--and we were doing so mainly to get back assets that supporters of the ruthless Batista regime and US corporations had had seized following the revolution (The anti-pinko stuff of Three Days in October was still in the future). It was a covert and ill-fated attack, but one in which the US government was clearly backing rightist Cuban elements, in fact, the state-sponsored terrorists. So funny that "(t)he plaintiffs used a 1996 law that allows victims of designated terrorist states to sue for damages."
Wow. And the start of a nice cottage indutry for American families of CIA/NSC operatives stretching back decades. Maybe someone could sue Nicaragua or Guatemala for the deaths of covert operatives who invaded those countries, killed its (often innocent civillian) citizens while intentionally trying to overthrow those governments.
Now that's justice.
Former KGB/FSB (Federal Security Bureau) operative Alexander Litvinenko is lying in a London hospital after being poisoned in a case reminiscent of Cold War-era John LeCarre novels. The former-spy turned Putin critic has by living in asylum in England since 2000, from where he has continued to be a thorn in the side of the Kremlin. Doctors now think he was poisoned with a radioactive thallium, which will be virutually impossible to trace at this stage. Even though he was rushed to the hospital, doctors give him a 50-50 chance of survival.
Litvinenko was poisoned during a meeting at a London sushi restaurant with a contact who reportedly gave him the names of the killers of Russian investigative reporter Anna Politkovskaya (AHU October 20), who herself was investigating Russian atrocities in Putin's-own-War-on-Terror in Chechnya. The Kremlin denied any responsibility for the poisoning, calling the notion "nothing but sheer nonsense" and refusing to even entertain questions about it. This despite the fact that "Other Russian dissidents in Britain also blamed the Kremlin for Litvinenko's condition. "Permission to assassinate abroad can only be given from the top," Oleg Gordievsky, former deputy head of the KGB at the Soviet Embassy in London told the Associated Press. "How can it not be state-sponsored?"'
Scotland Yard is said to be vigorously investigating. We'll see how the lame-duck Blair and Bush administrations deal with this crime. The track record isn't too good, but it seems this is not only blatant but has the potential to draw a number of strings together tied to Vladimir Putin.
How did the Russian media respond to all of this? Only independent raido station Ekho Moskvy has reported consistently on the attack. Other staions have shunned the story, which makes sense since they're all controlled by the same folks who likely committed the crime. Look for Ekho Moskvy to lose its license or have a key representative gunned down in the next few weeks. Par for the course in 'free, capitalist' Russia these days.
Speaking of Cold War and State Sponsored Terror, we learned today that Janet Ray and members of another family have been awarded $91 million dollars in frozen Cuban assets for the deaths of two Americans killed in the Bay of Pigs operation in 1961. Now I'm sorry about the loss these people have suffered this whole time (Ray was 6 when her dad was killed), but, c'mon now people!!
Our CIA was invading a sovereign country which at the time was flirting with but not yet staunchly committed to the Soviets--and we were doing so mainly to get back assets that supporters of the ruthless Batista regime and US corporations had had seized following the revolution (The anti-pinko stuff of Three Days in October was still in the future). It was a covert and ill-fated attack, but one in which the US government was clearly backing rightist Cuban elements, in fact, the state-sponsored terrorists. So funny that "(t)he plaintiffs used a 1996 law that allows victims of designated terrorist states to sue for damages."
Wow. And the start of a nice cottage indutry for American families of CIA/NSC operatives stretching back decades. Maybe someone could sue Nicaragua or Guatemala for the deaths of covert operatives who invaded those countries, killed its (often innocent civillian) citizens while intentionally trying to overthrow those governments.
Now that's justice.
Tense, people, tense!
I opened up my browser this morning to see this alarming factoid posted by msn.com: Who was Engelbert Humperdinck? Was?! Could it be true that in my hectic life I was too otherwise engaged to note the passing of the former Gerry Dorsey, the "King of Romance"?
Fyoosh! Turns out the folks at msn.com are just a bit verb-tense challenged. The big man is still with us. . . and he still hates Tom Jones (albeit in a showbiz kinda way).
Could be the english deficient pop-quiz-meisters were in fact referring to the original Engelbert Humperdinck, but if so you think they would've linked to his wikipedia page and not that of the modern pop crooner. One interesting factoid--the heirs of the original E.H. (a German operatic Wagner-wannabe best known for penning the opera version of Hansel and Gretel) sued the heartthrob for copyright infringement, thus in Germany and Austria he is known only as Engelbert.
Friday, November 10, 2006
Spiritual Restoration: The Fix is In
Well Praise the Lord and pass the Cheez Whiz, deflocked-if-not-defrocked Pastor Ted Haggard is about to start the road to recovery. I guess for some folks that would mean admitting his long-standing homosexual desires--the ones that led him to champion virulent anti-gay legislation because to normalize it in the eyes of the law or society would mean he couldn't stay in his own secure and tormented world. He could recover from leading a life where he was forced to use crystal meth, an illegal, highly addictive, and dangerous drug to open himself up to the gay encounters with male prostitutes which his body and spirit told him were right but his upbringing condemned as sinful.
Uh, but that ain't the way its playing out. No, the Good Reverend is going through some hokey process detailed by a number of news outlets including Paula Zahn on last night's CNN broadcast. Zahn and the religion correspondent discussed this process and the graphic detailing it was attributed to the Busby Ministries, apparently the source of Pastor Ted's renewal. Cindy and Rick Busby, pictured above, have a website that mocks them better than I or anyone else ever could. Who is this crap written for? My guess is desperate people in South Carolina. But worse, how could CNN use them as a source on a major news program? It's like NPR citing AllHoppedUp for Chrissakes!
But I must admit, Cindy must have something going on. . . because my years in Texas taught me one thing about evangelicals--"The Bigger the Hair, The Closer to God." Oh, and by the way, Pastor Ted was used to only the best (what with that big mansion and loads of tithers and flying in private jets for frequent meetings with W in the White House), so his restoration might get kinda costly. So maybe you can help Cindy and Rick out by buying her inspirational tunes. They're right thinkin' and toe tappin'!
Post Election Wrap-Up
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!! Ok, look folks, six years of TeamBush blundering covered up by a generally compliant, mostly GOP Congress I think gives me the right to be at least a bit of a smug little shit.
Now back to the regularly scheduled rant:
Since Webb finally declared himself the victor in Virginia and gave the Senate to the Dems (for now, watch out for Lieberman, he's a slippery one) I feel like I can finally breathe. There was actually a little post-election tempest brewing in the VA teacup that I think had alot to do with the outcome. Allen (aka horse-head mailbox stuffing Macaca Boy) hired some serious dirty tricksters who targeted mostly urban, mostly black (just like the ol' college days!) voters with phone messages either telling them their polling place had changed (when it hadn't) or that they'd be jailed if they tried to vote in VA since they were registered in another state (also false). The VA govt has already asked the FBI to look into this, hence any months-long protracted recount would give Dems the chance to dig up callerIDs and be able to tie those shenanigans back to Allen. It remains to be seen whether he'll still face charges over this or will be allowed to slink home where he can shed his white hood, forgive his mother her secret semitism, find a nice minyan to join and have that adult bris he so richly deserves. May his mohel have a dull blade, a videocamera, and a YouTube account!!!
Of course there was much to cheer about locally, too. Ricky went down (pronounce that 'dahn', as I'm sure now that he's no longer forced to live exiled in that Virginia gated-community mansion he'll be moving right back to Penn Hills), as did Crazy Curt, not to mention a slew of others regionally and across the country as Americans finally got tired of TeamBush's shtick.
But what will this New Dawn in America look like? Well, despite saying otherwise (L-word!), Rummy got tossed to the trashbin of history faster than you can say, "Heck of a job, Brownie."
Bush himself choked on a bit of crow, and it looks like his Papa finally stepped in to bail him out. The talking points have already been laid out. GOP men from Mehlman (Adios!) to Coulter (couldn't resist) have painted their losses as 'typical' and 'no big deal'. The second strategy is to talk about how 'centrist and conservative' many of these new Dems in the House are.
That's only minorly true: sure some of them represent places that are pro-gun, anti-choice and quake in fear over the thought of a 'San Francisco Agenda'. But that's mostly irrelevant for two reasons. First, there are so many things to fix in this country that even baby steps to the center or (gasp!) left would be a helpful start and a vast departure from the TeamBush playbook that was thoroughly repudiated by the voters on Novemebr 7th. Secondly, and more importantly, you simply aren't going to see any major fissures in their solidarity because the Dems now control the agenda in both houses. For the next two years no Democrat, wherever they may fall on the ideological spectrum, will be forced to vote for any classic GOP wedge issues like abortion, flag burning, gun issues, or the like, because folks like Nancy Pelosi or Loiuse Slaughter will make certain they never come up for a vote.
But where do we start? As a modest proposal I'd suggest looking at a few of Steven Hill's suggestions in his book 10 Steps to Restore American Democracy. Some of these things may same arcane, but they're really needed.
I'd also like opinions, too. If anyone out there reads this stuff let me know what you'd like to see the 110th Congress either achieve or bring into the national spotlight.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!! Ok, look folks, six years of TeamBush blundering covered up by a generally compliant, mostly GOP Congress I think gives me the right to be at least a bit of a smug little shit.
Now back to the regularly scheduled rant:
Since Webb finally declared himself the victor in Virginia and gave the Senate to the Dems (for now, watch out for Lieberman, he's a slippery one) I feel like I can finally breathe. There was actually a little post-election tempest brewing in the VA teacup that I think had alot to do with the outcome. Allen (aka horse-head mailbox stuffing Macaca Boy) hired some serious dirty tricksters who targeted mostly urban, mostly black (just like the ol' college days!) voters with phone messages either telling them their polling place had changed (when it hadn't) or that they'd be jailed if they tried to vote in VA since they were registered in another state (also false). The VA govt has already asked the FBI to look into this, hence any months-long protracted recount would give Dems the chance to dig up callerIDs and be able to tie those shenanigans back to Allen. It remains to be seen whether he'll still face charges over this or will be allowed to slink home where he can shed his white hood, forgive his mother her secret semitism, find a nice minyan to join and have that adult bris he so richly deserves. May his mohel have a dull blade, a videocamera, and a YouTube account!!!
Of course there was much to cheer about locally, too. Ricky went down (pronounce that 'dahn', as I'm sure now that he's no longer forced to live exiled in that Virginia gated-community mansion he'll be moving right back to Penn Hills), as did Crazy Curt, not to mention a slew of others regionally and across the country as Americans finally got tired of TeamBush's shtick.
But what will this New Dawn in America look like? Well, despite saying otherwise (L-word!), Rummy got tossed to the trashbin of history faster than you can say, "Heck of a job, Brownie."
Bush himself choked on a bit of crow, and it looks like his Papa finally stepped in to bail him out. The talking points have already been laid out. GOP men from Mehlman (Adios!) to Coulter (couldn't resist) have painted their losses as 'typical' and 'no big deal'. The second strategy is to talk about how 'centrist and conservative' many of these new Dems in the House are.
That's only minorly true: sure some of them represent places that are pro-gun, anti-choice and quake in fear over the thought of a 'San Francisco Agenda'. But that's mostly irrelevant for two reasons. First, there are so many things to fix in this country that even baby steps to the center or (gasp!) left would be a helpful start and a vast departure from the TeamBush playbook that was thoroughly repudiated by the voters on Novemebr 7th. Secondly, and more importantly, you simply aren't going to see any major fissures in their solidarity because the Dems now control the agenda in both houses. For the next two years no Democrat, wherever they may fall on the ideological spectrum, will be forced to vote for any classic GOP wedge issues like abortion, flag burning, gun issues, or the like, because folks like Nancy Pelosi or Loiuse Slaughter will make certain they never come up for a vote.
But where do we start? As a modest proposal I'd suggest looking at a few of Steven Hill's suggestions in his book 10 Steps to Restore American Democracy. Some of these things may same arcane, but they're really needed.
I'd also like opinions, too. If anyone out there reads this stuff let me know what you'd like to see the 110th Congress either achieve or bring into the national spotlight.
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
Kerry's a Candyass Douchebag
I can't believe this crap. Seriously, its apparently all the rage to bash Kerry for his comments about US soldiers, or rather, the US Army sometimes being the occupation of last resort. Hey folks, it is!! Jee-zus Christmas. OK, yes we all know someone who has joined up for the most altruistic and patriotic of reasons. But here's the rub, the US military has simply run out of those folks. That's one reason why recruiting is down. Well, that and the all-volunteer army has some benefits, like education you couldn't otherwise afford--but that tends to dry up when you realize that to get those bennies you'll have to pull a few tours in our own self-created hell-on-earth that is Iraq.
Let's just look at West Virignia's most famous and infamous Iraq War vets, Jessica Lynch and Lynndie England. I think one sentence in England's bio says it all, "England joined the Army Reserve in Cumberland in 2001 while she was a junior at Frankfort High School near Short Gap, to escape from a night job in a chicken-processing factory in Moorefield and to earn money so she could go to college to become a storm chaser."
So if one is poor, undereducated, and has very few if any other opportunities to try to shed a miserable backwater or inner-city existence for at least a fleeting chance at another life, the military just might be your only career move. Is there really any argument with that?
OK, now let's look at Iraq in particular. Since 2001 there are numerous reports, official and anecdotal, of the lowering standards the US military has been forced to employ to keep up the number of recruits needed. A comprehensive list can be found here. Lets look at three categories:
Dummies- Brad Knickerbocker of the Christian Science Monitor noted, "The Army has had to recruit more soldiers from the 'lowest acceptable' category based on test scores, education levels, personal background, and other indicators of ability." Even Undersecretary of Defense Chu admitted in July that almost 40% of all military recruits scored in the bottom half of the Armed Forces' own aptitude test.
Crazies- Last year, the New York Times reported that two Ohio recruiters were quick to sign up a recruit "fresh from a three-week commitment in a psychiatric ward even after the man's parents told them he had bipolar disorder -- a diagnosis that would disqualify him." After senior officers found out, the mentally ill man's enlistment was canceled, but in "[i]nterviews with more than two dozen recruiters in 10 states," the Times heard others talk of "concealing mental-health histories and police records," among other illicit practices.
Criminals- In February of this year, the Baltimore Sun wrote that there was "a significant increase in the number of recruits with what the Army terms 'serious criminal misconduct' in their background" -- a category that included: "aggravated assault, robbery, vehicular manslaughter, receiving stolen property and making terrorist threats." From 2004 to 2005, the number of those recruits had spiked by over 54%, while alcohol and illegal drug waivers, reversing a four-year downward trend, increased by over 13%.
And the poster child for all of the above was Steven Green. He was the fresh-faced young American liberator high-school dropout who planned the rape of a 14 year-old Iraqi girl who caught his eye (hey, I'm sure dressed in that headscarf and long robe she was just askin' for it), who killed her parents and 5 year old sister, then gang-raped the girl with his pals, shot her in the face when he was done, then finally set her on fire to destroy the house and crime scene. Green "had been "a high-school dropout from a broken home who enlisted to get some direction in his life, yet was sent home early because of an 'anti-social personality disorder.'" Recently, Eli Flyer, a former Pentagon senior military analyst and specialist on "the relationship between military recruiting and military misconduct" told Harper's Magazine that Green had actually "enlisted with a moral waiver for at least two drug- or alcohol-related offenses. He committed a third alcohol-related offense just before enlistment, which led to jail time, though this offense may not have been known to the Army when he enlisted."
And Kerry should apologize?!
Maybe Bush and Cheney should apologize for making our military a dumping ground for the less savory in our society just to provide IED-fodder for convoy runs and patrols in Al Anbar Province. Its these people who are giving our military a black-eye--they shouldn't be there and wouldn't be under any other circumstances. Maybe the corporate-run government should apologize for limiting educational and future options for so many middle- and lower-income Americans that the military is their only option, even during a futile and bloody war with no end in sight.
But no, instead of defending the very, very defensible (at least with a bit of explanation) Kerry gets into some lame "I blew a Bush joke" shtick instead of laying bare the truth. What a pussy.
I can't believe this crap. Seriously, its apparently all the rage to bash Kerry for his comments about US soldiers, or rather, the US Army sometimes being the occupation of last resort. Hey folks, it is!! Jee-zus Christmas. OK, yes we all know someone who has joined up for the most altruistic and patriotic of reasons. But here's the rub, the US military has simply run out of those folks. That's one reason why recruiting is down. Well, that and the all-volunteer army has some benefits, like education you couldn't otherwise afford--but that tends to dry up when you realize that to get those bennies you'll have to pull a few tours in our own self-created hell-on-earth that is Iraq.
Let's just look at West Virignia's most famous and infamous Iraq War vets, Jessica Lynch and Lynndie England. I think one sentence in England's bio says it all, "England joined the Army Reserve in Cumberland in 2001 while she was a junior at Frankfort High School near Short Gap, to escape from a night job in a chicken-processing factory in Moorefield and to earn money so she could go to college to become a storm chaser."
So if one is poor, undereducated, and has very few if any other opportunities to try to shed a miserable backwater or inner-city existence for at least a fleeting chance at another life, the military just might be your only career move. Is there really any argument with that?
OK, now let's look at Iraq in particular. Since 2001 there are numerous reports, official and anecdotal, of the lowering standards the US military has been forced to employ to keep up the number of recruits needed. A comprehensive list can be found here. Lets look at three categories:
Dummies- Brad Knickerbocker of the Christian Science Monitor noted, "The Army has had to recruit more soldiers from the 'lowest acceptable' category based on test scores, education levels, personal background, and other indicators of ability." Even Undersecretary of Defense Chu admitted in July that almost 40% of all military recruits scored in the bottom half of the Armed Forces' own aptitude test.
Crazies- Last year, the New York Times reported that two Ohio recruiters were quick to sign up a recruit "fresh from a three-week commitment in a psychiatric ward even after the man's parents told them he had bipolar disorder -- a diagnosis that would disqualify him." After senior officers found out, the mentally ill man's enlistment was canceled, but in "[i]nterviews with more than two dozen recruiters in 10 states," the Times heard others talk of "concealing mental-health histories and police records," among other illicit practices.
Criminals- In February of this year, the Baltimore Sun wrote that there was "a significant increase in the number of recruits with what the Army terms 'serious criminal misconduct' in their background" -- a category that included: "aggravated assault, robbery, vehicular manslaughter, receiving stolen property and making terrorist threats." From 2004 to 2005, the number of those recruits had spiked by over 54%, while alcohol and illegal drug waivers, reversing a four-year downward trend, increased by over 13%.
And the poster child for all of the above was Steven Green. He was the fresh-faced young American liberator high-school dropout who planned the rape of a 14 year-old Iraqi girl who caught his eye (hey, I'm sure dressed in that headscarf and long robe she was just askin' for it), who killed her parents and 5 year old sister, then gang-raped the girl with his pals, shot her in the face when he was done, then finally set her on fire to destroy the house and crime scene. Green "had been "a high-school dropout from a broken home who enlisted to get some direction in his life, yet was sent home early because of an 'anti-social personality disorder.'" Recently, Eli Flyer, a former Pentagon senior military analyst and specialist on "the relationship between military recruiting and military misconduct" told Harper's Magazine that Green had actually "enlisted with a moral waiver for at least two drug- or alcohol-related offenses. He committed a third alcohol-related offense just before enlistment, which led to jail time, though this offense may not have been known to the Army when he enlisted."
And Kerry should apologize?!
Maybe Bush and Cheney should apologize for making our military a dumping ground for the less savory in our society just to provide IED-fodder for convoy runs and patrols in Al Anbar Province. Its these people who are giving our military a black-eye--they shouldn't be there and wouldn't be under any other circumstances. Maybe the corporate-run government should apologize for limiting educational and future options for so many middle- and lower-income Americans that the military is their only option, even during a futile and bloody war with no end in sight.
But no, instead of defending the very, very defensible (at least with a bit of explanation) Kerry gets into some lame "I blew a Bush joke" shtick instead of laying bare the truth. What a pussy.
