George Bush’s 2004 New Year’s Resolutions (and Get Them Done Before November!)

1. If Iraq is over too soon, I need to start at least one new war with the “axis of evil”, sometime in late summer. Include 10 new countries in the axis of evil.
2. Raise the Terror Code to Red for all of 2004.
3. Have a public book burning of all almanacs seized by the Justice Dept.
4. Invite Ken Lay to speak to Wall Street on the subject of “The Ethics of a CEO – How to Stay Out of Jail”
5. Make sure Dick Cheney stays away from Newsweek reporters.
6. Make sure Dick Cheney stays away from ALL reporters.
7. Make sure Dick Cheney just stays away.
8. Be sure to thank Enron, Halliburton, and Boeing for their campaign contributions.
9. Be sure to thank Fox news for their fair and balanced reporting.
10. Be sure to thank O’Reilley, Hannity, Hume, Limbaugh (well, maybe not him publicly), and all of those other fair and balanced reporters on CNN, MSNBC, Fox, ABC, NBC, and CBS.
11. Oh, and make sure PBS gets no more public funding. And while we are at it, find some way to shut down The Washington Post, The New York Times, The L.A. Times, The Seattle Post-Intelligencer etc.etc. (Note: see if any of them publish almanacs!)
12. Issue a terror alert on anyone carrying a Koran.
13. Issue a terror alert on anyone using a phone book.
14. Issue a terror alert on anyone using the Internet.
15. Issue a terror alert on any reporter asking “trick questions”.
16. Issue a terror alert on Howard Dean if he gets ahead in the polls.
17. Issue a terror alert on anyone renting the movie Finding Nemo (Hah, they think I don’t know that the movie is intended to make fun of me because we haven’t found Osama).
18. Issue a terror alert on anyone with a French or German surname.
19. Issue a terror alert on anyone who makes or owns a Bush Action Figure (Hah, they think I don’t know that these “toys” were made with me to look like a fool, dressed in my flight suit saluting with my left hand instead of my right!)
20. Issue a terror alert on Terror Alerts.
21. Issue a terror alert on anyone who thinks I’m paranoid.
22. And the coup-de-gras: Bring Osama out of hiding from my ranch and capture him in October.

HAPPY NEW YEAR EVERYBODY!

- posted by a Vet @ 9:21 AM -

 
A Tribute to the Fallen

At year's end, it's worth making a New Year's resolution that we will not forget the more than 500 that have fallen in Iraq and the many more hundreds of wounded, nor the administration's bait-and-switch tactics for getting us into a pre-emptive war, that in fact has not made us safer from terrorism. In case you missed it this week, as Gov Dean confirmed this fact, and was getting hammered on all the networks for saying so, all of them had to break off to announce that the country had elevated its terror alert to "orange." Interesting isn't it, that not one of them commented on this irony afterwards?
- posted by a Vet @ 1:20 PM -

 
Finally the Real WMDs are Discovered - Do We Now Go to Code Red???

The FBI is warning police nationwide to be alert for people carrying === almanacs===, cautioning that the popular reference books covering everything from abbreviations to weather trends could be used for terrorist planning...It urged officers to watch during searches, traffic stops and other investigations for anyone carrying almanacs, especially if the books are annotated in suspicious ways.


Let's see, in my new 2004 World Almanac (please don't report me to John Ashcroft!), there are the usual vital statistics, news from the past year, world history, science and technology etc. etc. - nothing too scary there. Then there are some benign articles on Baby Boomers, Antartica, Libraries in Today's World, and Finding the Right College. Also, there is a listing of notable Obituaries, but those folks no longer have anything to be scared about. Wait, now here's something scary: a whole section on Taxes and the IRS! Omigosh, the Fear Factor is increasing - here's a whole section devoted to the Bush Administration!

Oh no, I just realized I've made notes in my Almanac!

And, on page 5, the first picture in the Almanac is that of George W. Bush!

Now that's scary.

- posted by a Vet @ 12:02 AM -

 
"Stop-Loss" Aggravates Lack of Strategic Planning

As noted several times on this blog (most recently Tues Dec 16 below), it looks like Mr. Rumsfeld is unwilling or unable to recognize the need for additional military manpower (other than the draft), the need to rework the composition of manpower specialties, and the equally imperative need to revamp our active duty, reserves, and national guard force mix.

These needs were evident before the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive warfare began in Irag early this year. They were aggravated when Mr. Rumsfeld refused to listen to his own Army Chief of Staff, once war was declared. And now Mr. Rumsfeld seems to be unable to remove his blinders, compounding the problems of available military personnel for the near and far term.

Army Stops Many Soldiers From Quitting
Orders Extend Enlistments to Curtail Troop Shortages
By Lee Hockstader

"...thousands of soldiers (are) forbidden to leave military service under the Army's "stop-loss" orders, intended to stanch the seepage of troops, through retirement and discharge, from a military stretched thin by its burgeoning overseas missions.

"It reflects the fact that the military is too small, which nobody wants to admit," said Charles Moskos of Northwestern University, a leading military sociologist.

To the Pentagon, stop-loss orders are a finger in the dike -- a tool to halt the hemorrhage of personnel, and maximize cohesion and experience, for units in the field in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

Through a series of stop-loss orders, the Army alone has blocked the possible retirements and departures of more than 40,000 soldiers, about 16,000 of them National Guard and reserve members who were eligible to leave the service this year.

By prohibiting soldiers and officers from leaving the service at retirement or the expiration of their contracts, military leaders have breached the Army's manpower limit of 480,000 troops, a ceiling set by Congress.

In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee last month, Gen. Peter Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, disclosed that the number of active-duty soldiers has crept over the congressionally authorized maximum by 20,000 and now registered 500,000 as a result of stop-loss orders.

In a recent profile of an Army infantry battalion deployed in Kuwait and on its way to Iraq, the commander, Lt. Col. Karl Reed, told the Army Times he could have lost a quarter of his unit in the coming year had it not been for the stop-loss order. "And that means a new 25 percent," Reed told the Army Times.

To many of the soldiers whose retirements and departures are on ice, however, stop-loss is an inconvenience, a hardship and, in some cases, a personal disaster. Some are resigned to fulfilling what they consider their patriotic duty. Others are livid, insisting they have fallen victim to a policy that amounts to an unannounced, unheralded draft.

"I'm furious. I'm aggravated. I feel violated. I feel used," said Eagle, 42, the targeting officer, who has just shipped to Iraq with his field artillery unit for what is likely to be a yearlong tour of duty. He had voluntarily postponed his retirement at his commander's request early this year and then suddenly found himself stuck in the service under a stop-loss order this fall. Eagle said he fears his fledgling business in West Virginia may not survive his lengthy absence. "Unfair. I would not say it's a draft per se, but it's clearly a breach of contract. I will not reenlist."

The military's interest in halting the depletion of its ranks predates the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. American GIs in World War II were under orders to serve until the fighting was finished, plus six months.

Congress approved the authority for what became known as stop-loss orders after the Vietnam War, responding to concerns that the military had been hamstrung by the out-rotations of seasoned combat soldiers in Indochina.

But the authority was not used until the buildup to the Persian Gulf War in 1990 when Richard B. Cheney, then the secretary of defense, allowed the military services to bar most retirements and prolong enlistments indefinitely.

Often in the past year, the Army has allowed active-duty soldiers to retire and depart but not Guard and reserve troops, many of whom have chafed at the disparity in policies. Some Guard troops and reservists complain their release dates have been extended several times and they no longer know when they will be allowed to leave.

Some military officials have acknowledged that stop-loss is a necessary evil. When the Air Force announced it was imposing a stop-loss rule last spring, an official news bulletin from Air Force Print News noted: "Both the secretary [James G. Roche] and the chief of staff [Gen. John P. Jumper] are acutely aware that the Air Force is an all-volunteer force and that this action, while essential to meeting the service's worldwide obligations, is inconsistent with the fundamental principles of voluntary service."

More frequently, the military response to griping about stop-loss is bluntly unsympathetic. "We're all soldiers. We go where were told," said Maj. Steve Stover, an Army spokesman. "Fair has nothing to do with it."

"Stop-Loss" has been used in past conflicts, and the DoD would have us believe that again this is just a temporary stop-gap measure. But this time there is clear evidence that the actions are not short term in nature.

And again, look for the draft to start up sometime early in 2005 if Mr. Bush is re-elected. The numbers show that there is no way around it using the Bush/Rumsfeld "thinking." We need new thinking about our military force structure - not based primarily on pre-emptive warfare and Vietnam era mistakes. Old ideas don't fit new needs - and we need a new White House that knows what it's doing now, and for the future.

- posted by a Vet @ 9:03 AM -

 
Holiday Season Open Thread

For the next few days, here is another opportunity to give thanks and appreciation to our Veterans and our military folks here and around the world. For those of you who have been there, being away from family this time of year is especially tough, no matter how many communications or "care packages" are getting through. You are welcome to leave your thoughts about your family members or friends here as well. We appreciate them all. Just hit the "comment" link below.
- posted by a Vet @ 9:38 AM -

 
New Color Code Scheme?

The government is sick and tired of your complaints about their color code warning system, and your constant questions about why they can't be more specific.

What is the matter with you that you don't understand the conflicting statements coming from the Dept of Homeland Security that we are in serious danger, but to go ahead and enjoy yourself anyway while you travel?

A more detailed color code warning system is easily available, but the grinches in the government are unlikely to have any sense of humor after being barraged and badgered by the media and your emails this weekend.

No one envies their task, and the possibility of attacks is no joke, but the pounding they've taken this weekend may cause them to rethink how the color code system should work.

We're never going to use the colors blue or green anyway, as long as this administration is in power.
- posted by a Vet @ 12:02 AM -

 
Time Magazine Pays Tribute to Our Military - Their "Persons of the Year"

Gov Dean has his national security priorities right. And Time magazine has just named The American Soldier as its Person of the Year.

Our troops are the best in the world, and we need to make sure that doesn't change. And it's important to keep the distinction between the troops and their current commander in chief who misuses them and who has also broken his contract with our veterans. The troops continue to do their job superbly, regardless. Here in part is what Time had to say:

...And who delivered this gift (Saddam), against all odds and risks? The same citizens who share the duty of living with, and dying for, a country's most fateful decisions. Scholars can debate whether the Bush Doctrine is the most muscular expression of national interest in a half-century; the generals may ponder whether warmaking or peacekeeping is the more fearsome assignment; civilians will remember a winter wrapped in yellow ribbons and duct tape.

But in a year when it felt at times as if we had nothing in common anymore, we were united in this hope: that our men and women at arms might soon come safely home, because their job was done. They are the bright, sharp instrument of a blunt policy, and success or failure in a war unlike any in history ultimately rests with them.

It is worth remembering that our pilots and sailors and soldiers are, for starters, all volunteers, in contrast to most nations, which conscript those who serve in their armed forces. Ours are serving in 146 countries, from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe. The 1.4 million men and women make up the most diverse military in our history, and yet it is not exactly a mirror of the country it defends.

The unstated promise is that soldiers are sent to war only as a last resort, to defend their country from harm. But while the threat posed by Saddam was chief among the stated justifications, George W. Bush's war was always about more than the weapons that have yet to be found. The son of the President who had trouble with the Vision Thing offered a vision so broad it bent the horizon: this was nothing less than a "battle for the future of the Muslim world," an expression of American idealism in all its arrogant generosity. Once again, we thought we could liberate a country just by walking in the door. The President could move this immense fighting machine halfway around the world, and call old allies cowards who don't stand for anything, for leaving it to us to rescue a captive country.

If diplomacy normally involves the disguising of discord, Bush's policy meant inflaming it. NATO and the U.N. were divided; so was our own government, as State, the Pentagon and the CIA grappled in a three-way tug-of-war.

But for all the dissension, no one was blaming the soldiers: antiwar demonstrators argued they were fighting to defend our troops against an ill-conceived mission based on distorted intelligence.

Of course, there are no magic bullets, and it isn't what the soldiers carry that determines whether they win the day; it's who they are and who they have become. The fight for peace demands different skills of the soldiers: not just courage but constancy; not just strength but subtlety.

Liberty can't be fired like a bullet into the hard ground. It requires, among other things, time and trust, and a nation scarred by tyranny and divided by tribe and faith is not going to turn into Athens overnight. A force intensely trained for its mission finds itself improvising at every turn, required to exercise exquisite judgment in extreme circumstances

They debate how much to tell their loved ones back home, who listen to each news report of victories won and lives lost with the acute attention that dread demands. They complain less about the danger than the uncertainty: they are told they're going home in two weeks, and then two months later they have not moved.

When the Pentagon announced that instead of six months abroad the troops would be spending a year, it began rotating them home for a two-week leave to rest and recharge. Some turned the offer down; they said it would be too hard to go back when the 14 days were up. Some went home to meet their babies for the first time. They flush the toilet over and over, just because they can, celebrate a year's worth of birthdays in 14 days, meet the new neighbors, savor rain.

Troops come home to a Heroes' Parade; towns don't call it a Victory Parade, because they know it's not over yet.

It now falls to the Iraqis themselves to decide what they are willing and able to do with the chance they have been given, and the rest of the world to decide how to help. Freedom's consequences, intended and otherwise, will determine whether the world is safer for having been forcibly rearranged, and how long it will be before the soldiers can come marching home for good.

This time the media mostly got it right. A well-deserved recognition to Time's Persons of the Year!
- posted by a Vet @ 12:04 AM -

 
We Have to be Different

Earlier this week, Ed, a retired Lt. Colonel from California wrote to this blog, prophetically saying in part,"I have been very concerned on the way the Bush Administration appears to be undermining the US Military and the protections of the Geneva Conventions. I fear the loose statements by the administration about abiding by the Geneva Convention, then backing down, then bringing it up again will endanger our troops in Iraq and future conflicts. Overall, our treatment of the combatants in Cuba began this trend."

The U.S. Court of Appeals agreed with Ed yesterday:

The Bush administration suffered two big legal setbacks Thursday as a pair of federal appeals courts ruled against the way the government is handling terror suspects. In both cases, the courts decided the administration was denying the suspects their rights.

First, reports CBS News Correspondent Jim Stewart, came an order from the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to release accused "dirty bomber" Jose Padilla from a military prison, or charge him in a civilian court.

Padilla, an American citizen and former gang member before he allegedly joined Al Qaeda and plotted to set off a radiological bomb in the U.S., was arrested last year trying to re-enter the country.

Designated an "enemy combatant" by Mr. Bush, Padilla has never been charged and has met only briefly with a lawyer.

The ruling said "presidential authority does not exist in a vacuum, and this case involves not whether those responsibilities should be aggressively pursued, but whether the president is obligated, in the circumstances presented here, to share them with Congress," it added.

The White House called the Padilla order "troubling and flawed" and vowed to fight it.

"Let's remember what we're talking about. We're talking about an individual who was involved in seeking to do harm to the American people," said White House spokesman Scott McCellan.

Then, less than three hours later, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' in San Francisco weighed in on the terrorist detention center at Guantanamo Bay, ordering that the 660 prisoners there should have access to lawyers and the American court system.

And that was on top of a recent decision by the Supreme Court to hear arguments on similar questions. Put it all together, say analysts, and it's a huge legal defeat.

"The courts are beginning to really step up to the plate and question the legitimacy of these very broad assertions of power on behalf of the government," said David Cole of Georgetown Law School.

It's been an especially embarrassing week, too, for Attorney General John Ashcroft, who was personally rebuked by a Detroit federal judge for violating a gag order in a terror trial there.

Judge Gerald Rosen "sanctioned" Ashcroft for his statements, calling them "serious transgressions." Ashcroft apologized.

Almost lost in the mix was a Syracuse University study which found the Justice Department has "tried 184 people on terrorism charges since 9-11," but has managed to get a "median prison term of just 14 days", and in "some cases, no jail time at all."

Civil libertarians are calling the Padilla ruling especially "historic" but admit it's not conclusive and no one expects him to walk free soon.

The ruling could have ramifications for the so-called "20th hijacker," Zacarias Moussaoui.

A federal court has ruled the administration must allow Moussaoui to interview Al Qaeda operatives in U.S. custody, whom he says might clear him of capital charges. The government refuses, citing national security concerns.

If higher courts uphold Moussaoui's right to question al Qaeda detainees, it is possible the government will name him an enemy combatant and remove him from the civilian courts.

The ruling on the Guantanamo detainees comes on a petition from a relative of a Libyan the U.S. military captured in Afghanistan. The court said the Bush administration's indefinite detention of the men runs contrary to American ideals.

"Even in times of national emergency - indeed, particularly in such times - it is the obligation of the Judicial Branch to ensure the preservation of our constitutional values and to prevent the Executive Branch from running roughshod over the rights of citizens and aliens alike," Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote for the majority.

"We cannot simply accept the government's position," Reinhardt continued, "that the Executive Branch possesses the unchecked authority to imprison indefinitely any persons, foreign citizens included, on territory under the sole jurisdiction and control of the United States, without permitting such prisoners recourse of any kind to any judicial forum, or even access to counsel, regardless of the length or manner of their confinement.''

The Supreme Court last month agreed to decide whether the Guantanamo detainees, picked up in Afghanistan and Pakistan, should have access to the courts. The justices agreed to hear that case after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the prisoners had no rights to the American legal system.

The talking heads on the right say that the judges are not interested in preserving this country and that these rulings support the terrorists more than they do our citizens - and finally that treating all these "detainees" as enemy combatants is the answer because they don't deserve any rights - this is war.

Problem #1 - We have declared a "War on Terrorism". Using the term "detainees" after more than two years is ridiculous - they are prisoners, period. Prisoners of war have rights under the Geneva Conventions.

Problem #2 - as Ed points out above, we are setting exactly the wrong precedent for the future for any Americans who become prisoners of war: What will be our defense when they are mistreated or held incommunicado for years, or worse, tried or executed?

The military tribunal solution provides a legal sleight of hand for the President who would "be acting in his Commander in Chief role, not in his Chief Executive role."

But here is the point regarding our enemies (if indeed all 600+ prisoners are our enemies): If the executive branch also makes the law and carries out the judgment of the law, then who, Mr. President, will want our form of democracy? And, it may be more expedient, Mr. Attorney General, to deal with them swiftly and ruthlessly, as they might have dealt with us, but, once again, you have found out that the ends do not justify the means.

- posted by a Vet @ 7:13 AM -

 
Supporting Our Troops Over the Holidays

Gov Dean's statement on BlogforAmerica.com today:

Our troops are in harm's way this holiday season. Hundreds of thousands of American soldiers won't be home for the holidays -- but we can still let them know how proud we are of the finest military in the world. There are two ways you can show American troops how grateful their fellow citizens are for their sacrifice.

Many Americans want to send care packages to the troops, but have no idea how to do it. By visiting this site you can get information about sending a care package to one of our troops in the field:

http://www.anysoldier.us

The site provides information about what our troops need us to send and where we can send it. Many of our men and women in uniform endure the harshest conditions -- even the most basic food items or personal hygiene products can make a huge difference. They also need help with supplies like gloves and flashlights to help them complete their missions. Click here to send a soldier the supplies she or he needs on the ground:

http://www.anysoldier.us

Some soldiers will almost make it home for the holidays. Each day more than 470 soldiers arrive home on short notice for two-week R&R stints -- but the military only takes them part of the way. Servicemen and -women are flown to Germany or one of three airports in the United States -- from there they are on their own to get home.

You can donate your airline frequent flyer miles to Operation Hero Miles to bring them all the way home. Twelve major airlines will accept donations as part of this program, started by Congressman Dutch Ruppersberger, Democrat of Maryland:

http://www.heromiles.org

Because the last-minute notice the troops receive, they are forced to pay very expensive fares to finish their journey. Your miles can bring an American soldier home to his or her family for the holidays:

http://www.heromiles.org

Many of you, like me, did not support a unilateral war in Iraq. But the brave women and men of the U.S. military deserve our support and gratitude even as we seek to change the policies that put them in danger. Please join me in supporting our troops this holiday season -- and in wishing them a safe return home.

Yours sincerely,
Governor Howard Dean, M.D.

Please use the links above, and if you have any further questions, go to the official blogforamerica site and email them directly. Thanks for your support.
- posted by a Vet @ 3:35 PM -

 
...And Also Today - Another Example of Media Agendas

Remember the story that broke right after Saddam was captured that a document had been found clearly tying him to the 9/11 terrorism and Al Qaeda? Turns out the source was never checked. Bottom line: it's baloney.

A widely publicized Iraqi document that purports to show that September 11 hijacker Mohammed Atta visited Baghdad in the summer of 2001 is probably a fabrication that is contradicted by U.S. law-enforcement records showing Atta was staying at cheap motels and apartments in the United States when the trip presumably would have taken place, according to U.S. law enforcement officials and FBI documents.

The new document, supposedly written by the chief of the Iraqi intelligence service, was trumpeted by the Sunday Telegraph of London earlier this week in a front-page story that broke hours before the dramatic capture of Saddam Hussein. TERRORIST BEHIND SEPTEMBER 11 STRIKE WAS TRAINED BY SADDAM, ran the headline on the story written by Con Coughlin, a Telegraph correspondent and the author of the book "Saddam: The Secret Life."

Coughlin's account was picked up by newspapers around the world and was cited the next day by New York Times columnist William Safire. But U.S. officials and a leading Iraqi document expert tell NEWSWEEK that the document is most likely a forgery—part of a thriving new trade in dubious Iraqi documents that has cropped up in the wake of the collapse of Saddam's regime.

The Telegraph story was apparently written with a political purpose: to bolster Bush administration claims of a connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam's regime.

The document, which according to Coughlin was supplied by Iraq's interim government, doesn't say exactly when Atta was supposed to have actually flown to Baghdad. But the memo is dated July 1, 2001, and Coughlin himself places the trip as the summer of 2001.

The problem with this, say U.S. law enforcement officials, is that the FBI has compiled a highly detailed time line for Atta's movements throughout the spring and summer of 2001 based on a mountain of documentary evidence, including airline records, ATM withdrawals and hotel receipts. Those records show Atta crisscrossing the United States during this period—making only one overseas trip, an 11-day visit to Spain that didn't begin until six days after the date of the Iraqi memo.

Ironically, even the Iraqi National Congress of Ahmed Chalabi, which has been vocal in claiming ties between Al Qaeda and Saddam's regime, was dismissive of the new Telegraph story. "The memo is clearly nonsense," an INC spokesman told NEWSWEEK.

Contacted by Newsweek, The Sunday Telegraph's Con Coughlin acknowledged that he could not prove the authenticity of the document. He said that while he got the memo about Mohammed Atta and Baghdad from a "senior" member of the Iraqi Governing Council who insisted it was "genuine," he and his newspaper had "no way of verifying it. It's our job as journalists to air these things and see what happens," he said.

Sure, why check sources on such an inflammatory story - especially when they support your political views.

Anybody seen a retraction yet?
- posted by a Vet @ 10:54 AM -

 
9/11 Chairman Kean: Attack Was Preventable

Wow - If Gov Kean's statements turn out to be on target, people high up in the administration are going to have a lot of explaining to do to the American people - and to the relatives of the 9/11 victims.

For the first time, the chairman of the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks is saying publicly that 9/11 could have and should have been prevented, reports CBS News Correspondent Randall Pinkston.

"This is a very, very important part of history and we've got to tell it right," said Thomas Kean.

"As you read the report, you're going to have a pretty clear idea what wasn't done and what should have been done," he said. "This was not something that had to happen."

Appointed by the Bush administration, Kean, a former Republican governor of New Jersey, is now pointing fingers inside the administration and laying blame.

"There are people that, if I was doing the job, would certainly not be in the position they were in at that time because they failed. They simply failed," Kean said.

To find out who failed and why, the commission has navigated a political landmine, threatening a subpoena to gain access to the president's top-secret daily briefs. Those documents may shed light on one of the most controversial assertions of the Bush administration that there was never any thought given to the idea that terrorists might fly an airplane into a building.

"I don't think anybody could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile," said national security adviser Condoleeza Rice on May 16, 2002.

"How is it possible we have a national security advisor coming out and saying we had no idea they could use planes as weapons when we had FBI records from 1991 stating that this is a possibility," said Kristen Breitweiser, one of four New Jersey widows who lobbied Congress and the president to appoint the commission.

The widows want to know why various government agencies didn't connect the dots before Sept. 11, such as warnings from FBI offices in Minnesota and Arizona about suspicious student pilots.

"If you were to tell me that two years after the murder of my husband that we wouldn't have one question answered, I wouldn't believe it," Breitweiser said.

Kean admits the commission also has more questions than answers.

Asked whether we should at least know if people sitting in the decision-making spots on that critical day are still in those positions, Kean said, "Yes, the answer is yes. And we will."

Kean promises major revelations in public testimony beginning next month from top officials in the FBI, CIA, Defense Department, National Security Agency and, maybe, President Bush and former President Clinton.

UPDATE: 15 hours after this story broke on CBS, no other major news source anywhere, including in New York, is reporting anything about it, other than a couple of one-liners pointing to the CBS story itself. So I have a question that should be easy to answer by somebody: WHY?

Only a few possibilities exist: news management by the media (you chose the reason), by the administration (you chose the reason) - or the story is not true. Which is it? The contents of the report have yet to come out, true, but the existence of the story is not being acknowledged. The people of New York, Washington D.C., and the nation would like to know why.
- posted by a Vet @ 1:01 AM -

 
Time for Some Clarifications

The national media have pointed out correctly that a major difference between Vietnam and Iraq is that much of the general public learned its lesson from Vietnam that it is crucial to support the troops even (and especially) when you don't agree with leadership. In large part this has come about because a good chunk of the generation that fought in Vietnam - or had relatives or friends that did so - also lived through the aftermath which basically saw much of the country blaming the returning troops as much as the administrations involved. One shameful result still lingers, as pointed out here before: Vietnam vets are three times more likely to be street people than anyone else.

Does this mean that military leaders never make mistakes or that we should always agree with them, regardless? Of course not. Examples have been pointed out here before.

But there are still many people out there, mostly liberals unfortunately, who believe that the military are never to be trusted, and who - when given the chance - will conspire with the administration when it's to the benefit of both.

For example:

Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., told a Seattle radio station Monday the U.S. military could have found Saddam "a long time ago if they wanted.'' Asked if he thought the weekend capture was timed to help Bush, McDermott chuckled and said: "Yeah. Oh, yeah.''

The Democratic congressman went on to say, "There's too much by happenstance for it to be just a coincidental thing.''

It doesn't matter where you are on the political spectrum, or what you believe about the motives and actions of the president and his administration, McDermott is an embarrassment to the people he represents (at least he ought to be!), both locally and nationally - and he is obviously no friend to the military or to veterans.

His kind of thinking, at least with regard to the supposed military part in this conspiracy of his, needs to be rejected by anybody who still has gray matter in their brains. Remember to keep the distinction in mind learned from Vietnam.

By the way, if you haven't done so yet, join in the congratulations to the 4th Infantry Division for their capture of Saddam. They did their job superbly, no matter who benefits from it for now.
- posted by a Vet @ 10:08 AM -

 
Mr. Rumsfeld Opposes Increasing the Size of the Military

How is it that Mr. Rumsfeld can justify his position that more active duty troops aren't needed for the future? He didn't understand his former Army Chief of Staff, General Shinseki, who was fired for arguing that more troops were needed in Iraq to prosecute the war, once the President committed us, and especially for its aftermath.

And clearly, we have a mismatch in force structure when we have had to use so many Reserve and National Guard units for such a long period of time. Then last week, we had reports of more than 40% of returning combat units are not combat ready and won't be for awhile.

The world has changed since the Cold War. We need to be militarily prepared when necessary, but not to support the Bush Doctrine adventurist policy of unilateral pre-emptive warfare, before all other options have been tried.

Seems that Congress is smarter than Mr. Rumsfeld and his staff:

Members of Congress from both parties are pushing for the first significant increase in the size of the active-duty military in 16 years, despite resistance from the Pentagon.

Call-ups of part-time troops from the Army National Guard and the Army Reserve to fill the ranks in Iraq have intensified the bipartisan sentiment that the Pentagon doesn't have enough troops to fight an extended war on terrorism while keeping enough well-rested, well-trained troops ready for an emergency.

''Momentum is building in Congress for'' an increase, says Harald Stavenas, a spokesman for Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. ''Finally, everyone has come around to see enough is enough.''

''This recognizes the reality in the strain and the stretch in all the services,'' says Missouri Rep. Ike Skelton, the senior Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee. Skelton promises ''positive action by our committee early next year.''

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld strongly opposes increasing the size of the military on the grounds that the services are not efficiently using the personnel they already have, and increasing the number of troops is enormously expensive. Pentagon spokesman Lawrence Di Rita says Rumsfeld ''hasn't seen any analysis that convinces him there is a need'' for a large increase in active-duty troops. But there appears to be growing concern over the issue, even among Republicans.

Almost six months ago former Army secretary Thomas White said in an interview that senior Defense officials "are unwilling to come to grips" with the scale of the postwar U.S. obligation in Iraq. The Pentagon has about 150,000 troops in Iraq and recently announced that the Army's 3rd Infantry Division's stay there has been extended indefinitely.

"This is not what they were selling (before the war)," White said, describing how senior Defense officials downplayed the need for a large occupation force. "It's almost a question of people not wanting to 'fess up to the notion that we will be there a long time and they might have to set up a rotation and sustain it for the long term."

The irony of all this is that the Bush Doctrine of unilateral pre-emptive warfare would demand even more troops, not less, so Mr. Rumsfeld is not in synch with his boss either. We have Vietnam era advisors in the Pentagon who are advising a President who appears to be smiling at the idea of a Pax Americana. Perhaps all of them should take a look again at what happened to the Roman Empire.

- posted by a Vet @ 8:56 AM -

 
Saddam's Capture

We are all glad that Saddam has been captured. But, just so you do not forget, in the short space of less than a year, Mr. Bush has changed our national security strategy to embrace unilateral pre-emptive invasions and the regime change of leaders of other countries.

Many of his supporters justify these actions by saying that if we had done so with Hitler, World War II might have been averted. That will never be proven one way or the other, but this much is fact: all through the Cold War of 40 years we faced mutual annihilation with the Russians. Yet our policy with Russia, throughout those dangerous times, was not one of pre-emptive nuclear first strikes. Yes, things are different with terrorism in several respects, but no scarier or threatening than a lot of the stuff many of us went through. Remember people building bomb shelters in their back yards in the '60s?

I am, like many of you, a veteran and a patriot. Unlike what most conservatives believe, you can be a patriot, support progressive ideas, be for the eradication of terrorism, and still not agree with president's policies. I strongly believe the president's policies are fraught with danger for the future for our country, our democracy, our freedom, and our standing and influence in the world.

The president celebrated the downfall of Saddam Hussein six months ago. He has done so again this weekend, as we do with him. But don't forgot how we got into this war: by a president whose personal crusade to vanquish Hussein overshadowed the facts of no WMDs and no Hussein ties to 9/11, who failed to convince the U.N. or any of our powerful allies but England to go with us, who made the way easier for personal friends and supporters to profit off the war, who exposed our troops to danger and death, and who along the way, forgot his contract with the veterans who mostly supported him.

The "sky is falling" will be the president's continuing strategy for re-election. Next time -- and there will be a next time -- crying wolf will not get the support it got this time. As we needed to do six months ago, as has been said on this blog before, we now need to honorably and promptly find ways to bring the war in Iraq to a close and to transition power safely - and with the support of the international community.

And in November 2004, the Bush Doctrine will need to be replaced by the Dean Doctrine as detailed in his speech from L.A. this morning.

Listen closely to what he has to say, vets, it's OK to not vote Republican next time.

- posted by a Vet @ 11:27 AM -

 
Dean Announces Foreign Policy & National Security Advisors - Speech Text

Here is the text of Gov. Dean's speech on Foreign Policy and National Defense this morning in Los Angeles.
- posted by a Vet @ 11:02 AM -

 
Dean Announces Foreign Policy & National Security Advisors

Press release from the Dean campaign this morning on Blogformerica.com:

Governor Dean today announced the team of distinguished experts who will advise his campaign on national security and foreign policy. Dean will deliver a major address on national security today in Los Angeles at 1:30 pm ET (10:30 am PT). We will post a transcript as soon as it is available. The advisors are:

Benjamin R. Barber is Kekst Professor of Civil Society at the University of Maryland and is the author "Strong Democracy," "Jihad Vs. McWorld," and "Fear's Empire: War, Terrorism And Democracy." He has been an informal advisor to former President Bill Clinton.

Ashton B. Carter is Co-Director (with former Secretary of Defense William J. Perry) of the Harvard-Stanford Preventive Defense Project and former Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy in the Clinton administration.

Ivo H. Daalder is a Senior Fellow at The Brookings Institution and served as Director for European Affairs on the National Security Council during the Clinton administration.

Morton H. Halperin served as Director of Policy Planning at the U.S. Department of State.

Elisa D. Harris is a Senior Research Scholar at the Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland and former Director for Nonproliferation and Export Controls on the National Security Council staff during the Clinton administration.

General Joseph Hoar (USMC, Ret.) served as Commander-in-Chief of U.S. Central Command.

Major General Randy Jayne (USAF, Ret.) is currently a Senior Partner with Heidrick & Struggles in McLean, VA. Prior to retiring from the Air Force and the Air National Guard, he served on the National Security Council staff, in the Office of Management and Budget. He was also the President of a major aerospace and defense operating company.

Franklin D. Kramer is Of Counsel to the law firm of Shea & Gardner and served as Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs for President Clinton.

Anthony Lake is Distinguished Professor in the Practice of Diplomacy at the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University. He served as National Security Advisor to President Clinton.

General Merrill McPeak (USAF, Ret.) served as U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff during the first Persian Gulf War.

Clyde Prestowitz is President of the Economic Strategy Institute and served as Counsel to the Secretary of Commerce during the Reagan Administration. He is the author of "Rogue Nation: American Unilateralism and the Failure of Good Intentions."

Susan E. Rice is Senior Fellow in Foreign Policy and Governance Studies at The Bookings Institution and served as Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs and U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs.

Jeffrey Sachs is Professor of Economics and Director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University and has served as an advisor to many developing nations.

Admiral Stansfield Turner (USN, Ret.) formerly served as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

William Woodward is former Deputy Director Policy Planning for the U.S. Department of State.

The new team of advisors adds to the group that has been informally advising the governor. For over a year and a half, Danny E. Sebright, Associate Vice President of the Cohen Group, has been Senior Foreign Policy Advisor to Governor Dean. In addition to helping the campaign develop national security and foreign policy, he has spearheaded the process of recruiting the team of advisors.

Colonel Richard L. Klass (USAF, Ret.), a Washington area international security and business consultant, has conducted outreach to the military community for the campaign for nearly a year. A Rhodes Scholar and former White House Fellow, Colonel Klass was awarded the Silver Star and Purple Heart for combat in Vietnam during his Air Force career. Lionel Johnson, Vice President and Director of International Government Relations of Citigroup Inc., is also assisting with the campaign's outreach efforts to the foreign policy community. Prior to joining Citigroup, Mr. Johnson served in the Departments of State and Treasury, and was formerly a foreign service officer.

- posted by a Vet @ 9:20 AM -

 
Time to Move Out

If you are a veteran or interested in military, veterans, and related foreign policy issues - and you no longer can support Mr. Bush for 2004 - you've come to the right place. Please take a look at the issues discussed below and in the archives for the kinds of issues that have been addressed. And you can check links to other Vets for Dean websites and many sites of possible interest for you.

We will continue to address these issues, but the main issue for today is that it's time to move out in support of Gov. Dean. If you are trying to figure out what you could do, consider one or more of the following ideas:

*Join your local Meetup . Offer to speak about veterans issues if you feel comfortable doing so. If you don't have a meet-up in your area, it's simple to start one.

*Organize an event in your neighborhood. Get your friends together to watch Governor Dean's videos.

*Create your own website or Yahoo Group for your community to talk about Governor Dean.

*Start a Dean Team fundraising club, and hold a house party!

*Register to vote, and make sure all your friends are registered to vote.

*Tell a friend about Veterans for Dean.

*Tell a friend about this blog and the Dean Veterans coalition website.

*Write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper.

Most importantly, if you want to help veterans in your local area, check the Official Government Websites on the links to the right and the other links provided, or check the phonebook for local veterans organizations where you live.

It's important, interesting, and even fun to discuss the issues, but it's time to get involved. If you no longer can stomach the actions of the president and how he and his administration have ignored veterans' needs, come and support someone who does - Gov. Howard Dean. Join the fast growing group of vets who are doing so.
- posted by a Vet @ 9:46 AM -

 
Veterans Health Issues

Several vets have emailed pointing out a variety of health issues that urgently need addressing, from the health care received at VA hospitals to continuing health problems resulting from combat/noncombat related sickness and injury, to basically being used as guinea pigs for the latest serums against sickness or possible biological or chemical warfare.

Since the 1950s when we had Army troops observing atomic weapons tests in Nevada without protection, the DoD has not had a good record in the area of public health.

In Vietnam, Agent Orange took a large toll on our returning troops. Gulf War I syndrome claims are still being fought, as will similar claims from Iraq.

The military has traditionally been a testing ground for new serums, the latest being Anthrax. The rationale for giving troops these inoculations, of course, has been to be prepared for possible threats, and to protect from diseases not found very often here anymore.

In the case of Anthrax, it's apparent that the bugs are not out of the serum due to genetic differences in some military personnel. DoD civilian leaders (including doctors), along with other military officials, appear to be subjecting troops to unnecessary danger and even death by their "administrative" actions. By the way, this is the same serum being stockpiled in communities now for "first responders" (fire, police etc.) in case of terrorist attacks.

Lack of adequate medical support to veterans (and creating more of the same kinds of problems for the future) amount to a broken contract between the government and those who have served their country and are paying a painful and continuing price - both in their health and their finances.

Veterans need a voice in Washington who will restore the contract, not more studies, plans, or excuses.
- posted by a Vet @ 11:41 AM -

 
James Baker, Part II

After James Baker helped make sure that Florida went in the win column for George Bush (and thus the whole 2000 election), the better part of valor resulted in Mr. Baker getting out of the public eye in a hurry, while the nation soon became divided over the election. In 1997, Mr. Baker had been appointed the Personal Envoy of United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan to mediate direct talks between the parties to the dispute over Western Sahara. Mr. Baker has been conveniently out of the way until now.

In case you are wondering about whether yesterday's blog - regarding the conflicts of interest involved with the appointment of Mr. Baker to run Iraq's finances - was an attempt to create an issue where there wasn't one, USN&WR has this to say about Mr. Baker in this week's lead story on Saudi Arabia's involvement in funding terrorism:

It didn't hurt that the Saudis had spread money around Washington by the millions. Vast sums from Saudi contracts have bought friends and influence here. In his recent book Sleeping With the Devil: How Washington Sold Our Soul for Saudi Crude, former CIA operative Bob Baer calls it "Washington's 401(k) Plan." "The Saudis put out the message," Baer wrote. "You play the game--keep your mouth shut about the kingdom--and we'll take care of you."

The list of beneficiaries is impressive: former cabinet secretaries, ambassadors, and CIA station chiefs. Washington lobbyists, P.R. firms, and lawyers have also supped at the Saudi table, as have nonprofits from the Kennedy Center to presidential libraries.

The high-flying Carlyle Group has made fortunes doing deals with the Saudis. Among Carlyle's top advisers have been former President George H.W. Bush; James Baker, his secretary of state; and Frank Carlucci, a former secretary of defense. If that wasn't enough, there was the staggering amount of Saudi investment in America--as much as $600 billion in U.S. banks and stock markets.

So, the tangled web is this: Baker helps Bush win Florida - and the election. Baker had already won huge sums of money from Saudi Arabia for himself and the Carlyle Group. Saudi Arabia petro-dollars have been definitely linked to the support of terrorism against the United States, including Osama Bin Laden. Baker has now been appointed to oversee Iragi finances.

And yesterday, just "by coincidence" of course, Paul Wolfowitz barred Germany, France, and Russia from any contracts to help rebuild Iraq.

Leaves more room for Halliburton and the Carlyle Group doesn't it? Conservative talk show hosts deride conspiracy theorists for proposing various personal motives behind the president's actions. Mr. President, you sure make it easy for them.

The Bottom line? Let's talk about judgment, Mr. President, if nothing else. You not only slapped the faces of Iraqis again by appointing another American - this time to oversee Iraqi financial problems - you appointed a close buddy, experienced in Middle-East profiteering. And the profits came from a country now known to be tied to financing terrorism - the terrorism you are pledged to fight.

But then you had no choice - you owed Mr. Baker a lot - a whole lot.
- posted by a Vet @ 9:28 AM -

 
CONFLICT OF INTEREST 101 - Or, How to Pay Off Your Friends and Not Get Impeached

Mr. Bush, how blatant can you get? You've gotten away with conflicts of interest with the Halliburton contracts so far. Now it's your good friends at the Carlyle Group again - this time it's James Baker.

Let's spell this out very clearly, so you will know, Mr. Bush, that all voters are not so dumb or cynical that they don't care what you do or how you enrich and pay back your friends: the American people not only don't want CEOs ripping off their 401Ks, they don't want the President of the United States playing them for fools.

Presidents #43 & #41 have been taken care of quite nicely by Mr. Baker in the past - not the least of which was Mr. Baker delivering Florida to you in the 2000 election.

Must have been time to call in the markers from the son and the father.

Greg Palast has, once again, nailed jello to a wall.

The President's Business Partner Slices Up Iraq
By Greg Palast

Well, ho ho ho! It's an early Christmas for James Baker III.

All year the elves at his law firm, Baker Botts of Texas, have been working day and night to prevent the families of the victims of the September 11 attack from seeking information from Saudi Arabia on the Kingdom's funding of Al Qaeda fronts.

It's tough work, but this week the payoff came when President Bush appointed Baker, the firm's senior partner, to "restructure" the debts of the nation of Iraq.

And who will net the big bucks under Jim Baker's plan? Answer: his client, Saudi Arabia, which claims $30.7 billion due from Iraq (plus $12 billion in "reparations" from the First Gulf war).

PUPPET STRINGS

Let's ponder what's going on here.

We are talking about something called 'sovereign debt.' And unless George Bush has finally 'fessed up and named himself Pasha of Iraq, he is not their sovereign. Mr. Bush has no authority to seize control of that nation's assets nor its debts.

But our President isn't going to let something as meaningless as international law stand in the way of a quick buck for Mr. Baker. To get around the wee issue that Bush has no legal authority to mess with Iraq's debt, the White House has crafted a neat little subterfuge. The President, says the official press release, has not appointed Baker, rather Mr. Bush is, "responding to a request from the Iraqi Governing Council." That is, Bush is acting on the authority of the puppet government he imposed on Iraqis at gunpoint. (I will grant the Iraqi 'government' has some knowledge of international finance. It's key member, Ahmed Chalabi, is a convicted bank swindler.)

The Bush team must see the other advantage in having the rump rulers of Iraq pretend to choose Mr. Baker. The U.S. Senate will not have to review or confirm the appointment.

If you remember, Henry Kissinger ran away from the September 11 commission, with his consulting firm tucked between his legs, after the Senate demanded he reveal his client list. In the case of Jim Baker, who will be acting as a de facto U.S. Treasury secretary for international affairs, our elected Congress will have no chance to ask him who is paying his firm - nor even require him to get off conflicting payrolls.

For the Bush administration, this marks a new low in their Conflicts-R-Us appointments process.
Or maybe there's no conflict at all. That is, if you see Jim Baker's new job as working not to protect a new Iraqi democracy but to protect the old theocracy of Saudi Arabia.

Iraq owes something on the order of $120 billion to $150 billion, depending on who's counting. And who's counting is very important.

Much of the so-called debt to Saudi Arabia was given to Saddam Hussein to fight a proxy war for the Saudis against their hated foe, the Shi'ia of Iran. And as disclosed by a former Saudi diplomat, the kingdom's sheiks handed about $7 billion to Saddam under the table in the 1980's to build an "Islamic bomb."

Should Iraqis today and those not yet born have to be put in a debtor's prison to pay off the secret payouts to Saddam?

James Wolfensohn says 'No!' Wolfensohn, president of the World Bank, has never been on my Christmas card list, but in this case, he's got it right: Iraq should simply cancel $120 billion in debt.

Normally, the World Bank is in charge of post-war debt restructuring. That's why the official name of the World Bank is, "International Bank for Reconstruction and Development." This is the Bank's expertise. Bush has rushed Baker in to pre-empt the debt write-off the World Bank would have certainly promoted.

"I FIXED FLORIDA"

Why is our President so concerned with the wishes of Mr. Baker's clientele? What does Bush owe Baker? Let me count the ways, beginning with the 2000 election.

Just last week Baker said, "I fixed the election in Florida for George Bush." That was the substance of his remarks to an audience of Russian big wigs as reported to me by my somewhat astonished colleagues with BBC television.

It was Baker, as consiglieri to the Bush family, who came up with the strategy of maneuvering the 2000 Florida vote count into a Supreme Court packed with politicos.

Baker's claim to have fixed the election was not a confession. It was a boast. He meant to dazzle current and potential clients in the former Soviet states about his big In with the Big Boy in the White House. Baker's firm is already a top player in the Great Game of seizing Caspian Sea oil. (An executive of Exxon-Mobil, one of Baker Botts's clients, has been charged with evading taxes on bribes paid in Kazakhstan.)

ALL IN THE FAMILY

Over the years, Jim Baker has taken responsibility for putting bread on the Bush family table. As Senior Counsel to Carlyle, the arms-dealing investment group, Baker arranged for the firm to hire both President Bush 41 after he was booted from the White House and President Bush 43 while his daddy was still in office.

Come to think of it, maybe I'm being a bit too dismissive of the Iraqi make-believe government. After all, it's not as if George Bush were elected by the voters either. It would be more accurate to say that two puppet governments have agreed on letting the man who has always pulled the strings come out from behind the curtain, take a bow, take charge, take the money and run.

Funny how the U.S. press has not yet noted any of the problems brought up by Greg Palast.

Veterans: we've lost moral leadership and accountability at the top. Mr. Bush and Mr. Baker don't understand that conflicts of interest, even the appearance of same, are flagrant violations of the public trust, if not illegal.

Time to restore the idea of moral leadership and accountability with Howard Dean - 41 Days to Iowa, and Al Gore is on board!

- posted by a Vet @ 9:57 AM -

 
Failures in Leadership and Strategic Planning Coming Home to Roost

If you look over the themes addressed on this blog during the three months of its existence, one constant shines through: Lack of leadership and strategic planning by Mr. Bush and his administration with regard to our military and our veterans. Significant drops in military readiness were predictable, and now they are happening. No less important, we are on a slippery slope of failing moral leadership and influence in the world. If Mr. Bush thinks this is the way to export democracy, he is wrong - and it's time for a change in the White House.

Mr. Bush claims his policies are making us more secure, but here is the question veterans (and all others interested) need to answer: Are his policies of pre-emptive, unilateral, regime-changing warfare actually making us much more vulnerable to danger and attack elsewhere in the world and here at home? The answer should be clear to you: YES!

Army Will Face Dip in Readiness
Vernon Loeb
Washington Post

Four Army divisions -- 40 percent of the active-duty force -- will not be fully combat-ready for up to six months next year, leaving the nation with relatively few ready troops in the event of a major conflict in North Korea or elsewhere, a senior Army official said yesterday.

The four divisions -- the 82nd Airborne, the 101st Airborne, the 1st Armored and the 4th Infantry -- are to return from Iraq next spring, to be replaced by three others, with a fourth rotating into Afghanistan. That would leave only two active-duty divisions available to fight in other parts of the world.

Briefing reporters at the Pentagon, the official said the four returning divisions will be rated either C-3 or C-4, the Army's two lowest readiness categories, for 120 to 180 days after they return as vehicles and helicopters are overhauled and troops are rested and retrained.

C-3 means a division is capable of performing only some of its combat missions, and C-4 means a division needs additional manpower, training or equipment to fight a major regional war.

A fifth division, the 3rd Infantry, which returned from Iraq in August, is still not fully ready to return to combat, the official said.

The four returning divisions will bring 650 helicopters, 5,700 tanks and other tracked vehicles and 46,000 wheeled vehicles with them, the official said. "This is not Hertz rent-a-car, where you drive [vehicles] for two years and you get rid of the fleet," he said. "We have to take good care of our tanks . . . and all the other equipment. Because we don't get to buy new."

Once those divisions return from Iraq, Army readiness will be at its lowest point since the end of the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Since then, Army officials have tried to keep divisions at the highest, C-1 readiness level.

This dip in readiness could have political consequences for President Bush, who sharply criticized the Clinton administration during the 2000 campaign for allowing two Army divisions to fall to the lowest readiness category in 1999 because of peacekeeping obligations in the Balkans.

"Obviously, this is much worse in terms of the numbers," said Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee who has called for increasing the size of the Army. "This is an indication of the stress the Army is under."

"It's called dangerous," said Rep. Ike Skelton (Mo.), ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, who has been calling for 40,000 more Army troops -- the equivalent of two divisions -- since 1995. "The purpose of the military is to stand ready, to face dangers as they appear. Afghanistan came out of the blue, and fortunately we were able to respond."

Military analysts differ over the significance of divisions scoring low on the Army's readiness rating system.

Retired Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, a former division commander and staunch advocate of more Army forces, said four to five divisions below the C-1 rating "means literally half the Army is broken and not ready to fight."

"We have a potential huge challenge from North Korea," McCaffrey said. "So by definition, at this point, we would only be able to respond to an emergency in North Korea with air and naval power or nuclear weapons. It's an unacceptable, in my judgment, strategic risk."

Earlier this week, members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said that they, along with Rumsfeld's staff, are still trying to determine whether the requirement for Iraq, which now stands at 130,000 soldiers, is a "spike" that will soon come down, or an ongoing commitment.

Other analysts say that we always have drops in readiness as a result of conflict over time and that we shouldn't be worried. But, this time we have severely overtaxed our active duty forces, our Reserves and National Guard, and our equipment and logistics support - without adequately considering the wide-ranging consequences and threats to our security. Oh, by the way, does anyone still think Mr. Bush won't activate draft call-ups if he is re-elected?

(Thanks to Iddybud for the Post article)

- posted by a Vet @ 10:53 AM -

 
On December 7th - A Salute to our World War II Veterans

A personal thank you to WWII vets on this day of remembrance. Thank you for your service to our country and the many sacrifices you made for us. Most of your personal stories are known only to you, your families, or friends. Only decades later have some of these stories been more fully researched and told. Many never will be. For any of you looking for a place to connect on various veterans issues - see the Veterans Links on the right side of this blog.

A good starting place for anyone looking into WWII veterans subjects is the Official World War II Veterans website.

For those of you who want to get an idea of just what our troops went through in some of the toughest battles in WWII, two recent books are:

Flags of Our Fathers by James Bradley, the son of one of the men who raised the flag on Iwo Jima

Ghost Soldiers by Hampton Sides, which documents the rescue of the survivors of the Bataan Death March

Both of these riveting accounts are difficult to read at times because of the reality of the events, but they will give you a better appreciation of the personal stories involved and how these events affected the participants.

And for those wanting to read more about the December 7 remembrance at Pearl Harbor today see this AP report.

Thank you again WWII vets!
- posted by a Vet @ 9:09 PM -

 
Dinner Accomplished

See Tom Toles cartoon of the same title.
- posted by a Vet @ 8:58 PM -

 
Voting Machine Maker Good Buddy (Part II)

(Note: See blog entry below on Tues Dec 2)

Seems the state of Ohio couldn't stand the heat. Mr. Odell who makes the Diebold touch screen voting machines (and who has vowed to help Bush win Ohio) is having some "problems" with his machines.

Sounds good so far - but wait, the machines don't have to be fixed until 2006. Diebold hardware and software are causing problems all over the country. They currently have no means to provide a backup paper audit.

Statewide electronic voting delayed

12/03/03

Julie Carr Smyth
Plain Dealer Bureau


Columbus - Ohio's sweeping review of electronic voting machines turned up so many potential security flaws in the systems that the state's top elections official has called off deploying them in March.

The detailed findings confirmed what academics, computer scientists and voter advocates across the country have said for months: Electronic voting systems are prime targets for manipulation by anyone from expert computer hackers to poll workers to individual voters.

Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, who ordered the review, said he and machine vendors are confident that all 57 problems identified by investigators can be fixed.

He said his decision to detail each security flaw in a public report, and then to assure each one is addressed, will provide vendors with a "Good Seal of Security Approval" and build confidence in electronic voting technology both in the state of Ohio and around the United States.

Blackwell said he will seek a waiver under the Help America Vote Act to give Ohio until 2006 to implement the technology.

He hopes, however, that many of the problems will be addressed within as few as 60 days, allowing machines to be in place by next August's special election.

"When the voters of Ohio begin casting ballots on electronic devices, they will do so with full knowledge that the integrity of their voting system has been maintained, and that we have in place one of the nation's finest, fraud-prevention systems," Blackwell said.

Diebold led the pack in the number of serious flaws in its systems, but the technology of the other companies also was found to be riddled with problems.

The review confirmed a laundry list of security flaws that some observers had tried to dismiss as merely alarmist. Among the findings:

Voter "smart cards" inserted in the machines could be deciphered or counterfeited and used to cast illegal votes.

Poll supervisors' passwords could be easily guessed and used to manipulate election results or end polling early. Diebold, for example, has the same password - 1111 - nationwide, and investigators were able to guess it in two minutes.

Election results could be unencrypted and intercepted during transmission.

Many scenarios exist in which someone without the proper authority could enter the systems - with the flick of a switch or the use of a laptop PC - and change results.

Voting-machine technology guru Bev Harris of blackboxvoting.org praised Blackwell for releasing such a comprehensive study. She said about two-thirds of a similar review conducted on Diebold technology in Maryland was blacked out before it was released.

But she pointed out that Blackwell had already certified all the machines now discovered to be risky.

"Obviously, the certification system for these machines is broken," she said.

Convenient, isn't it, for the voting machine maker who is intent on getting Mr. Bush re-elected? Get rid of the machines unless they can be fixed altogether by Nov 2004 - period.

A federal investigation needs to be started now, Mr. Ashcroft, and it should begin with Mr. Odell whose machines should be pulled from use because of his conflict of interest with the president. But you won't act, will you, because this is a good-ole-bud of your boss?

- posted by a Vet @ 11:27 AM -

 
And Finally, In other Bird Related News…

For those of you who frequent McDonald’s, have you seen their new commercial that announces excitedly that their chicken strips are now made with real “white meat”? At least three things should bother you this evening if you are about to buy some for dinner: (1) What were they made with before? (2) Why are they made with “meat” if they are fowl? And, (3) if you really want to risk getting a little queasy, you could ask them what their hamburgers are made with.

And now, to top it off, you missed the flight on Air Force One to Baghdad last weekend, where you also missed fake turkey, the fake conversation with a British Airline pilot, and the special holiday dish called Whimsical WMDs. This has the makings of a new conspiracy theory – fake birds are everywhere.

- posted by a Vet @ 7:17 PM -

 
News Management 101 (cont.) - A "Juicy" Twist of Image

CNBC reports this evening that the huge turkey carried by President Bush to feed the troops in Baghdad on Thanksgiving, and shown repeatedly over the long weekend, was in fact not a cooked turkey. The bird had been blow torched to look good on the outside, but was stone cold on the inside. Howard Fineman of Newsweek magazine said that the turkey was "a perfect analogy for the war itself" for many Americans. For that matter, it's a perfect analogy on several other levels, don't you think?
- posted by a Vet @ 4:47 PM -

 
Checking the Facts

Thanks to Mary who sent in an editorial from the Wheeling News-Register. The editor took a misguided shot at Gov Dean, entitled "Dean Should Check Facts Before Speaking." There are now so many off-the-wall barbs being thrown at the front runner, Gov Dean, that it would be impossible to respond to them all. But when ignorance on military/veterans issues gets thrown in - sometimes you just can't resist.

First here is the editorial:

Howard Dean, who hopes to become the Democratic Party's nominee for president, ought to check his facts before he launches another assault on President Bush.

"Mr. President, if you'll pardon me, I'll teach you a little about defense," Dean smirked during a campaign speech on Sunday. Then he demonstrated why he's far from a good teacher on such matters.

Dean criticized Bush for saying "he was going to cut the combat pay" for soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. His comment may have been great campaign rhetoric - but it wasn't the truth.

As a matter of fact, Bush last week signed into law a bill that increases combat pay by about 50 percent. How Dean was able to translate that into a cut is beyond us.

Before attempting to teach Bush anything, perhaps Dean ought to educate himself.

Now, here is the response I sent in:

To the News-Register:

As a veteran of over 26 years in the military, I'm tiring of seeing editorials talk about the military and veterans when they don't attempt to give a more complete picture of an issue. It shows that you apparently don't have an understanding of these issues, or that you have another agenda.

The irony is that although you assert that Howard Dean "ought to check his facts before he launches another assault on President Bush," you failed to check all the facts yourself. Those facts would show you that Mr. Dean has hardly been alone in this criticism which has been based on what the administration has been saying itself about the issue.

From a veteran's perspective, President Bush and his administration, in spite of the Thanksgiving Day dinner in Baghdad and his landing on an aircraft carrier, have a very poor record in supporting the military and veterans.

Regarding your statement about cutting combat pay, this was in fact the intent of the administration as late as mid-September, and this possibility was not prevented until the Defense authorization bill was negotiated in conference and passed last week.

For example, some "facts" regarding combat pay:"The Pentagon's personnel chief, David Chu, told reporters at a hastily arranged news conference (in August) that the outrage (from military & veterans groups) was misguided. While it is true, he said, that the Pentagon favors allowing the extra combat pay allowances to expire in September, it will ensure that overall compensation for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan remains stable by giving them other forms of pay raises." In other words, a pay "raise" disguised the administration's plan not to compensate for combat pay.

Check out the facts at: http://www.sptimes.com/2003/08/15/Worldandnation/Candidates_admonish_P.shtml

In September Chu once again stated the same thing as candidates including Kerry, Gephardt, Lieberman, Edwards, and then candidate Graham severely criticized the proposed actions. Check out the facts at: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/135143_troops15.html

The point? The intent of the Bush administration has been to effectively cut combat pay, and most of the candidates, not just Gov. Dean, have been very critical, over the last 3 months, for the way the government was intending to stab the military, in combat (!), in the back.

While we're at it, if you check the facts, you'll see other disgusting actions by the Bush administration against the men and women who serve and who have served our country. For example, Mr. Bush has opposed the paying of concurrent military retirement benefits and disability payments to those wounded or injured while in combat or otherwise on active duty. "For several years, Senator (Tim) Johnson has worked with South Dakota veterans and his colleagues in the Senate to fix the concurrent receipt problem. However, every time the Senate makes the decision to provide full concurrent receipt benefits the Administration opposes it. Last year, the Senate approved full concurrent receipt within the same bill being considered today and the Bush Administration threatened a veto of the bill if this provision was not pulled out." Check the facts out at http://theamericanmilitaryveteran.blog-city.com/ (go to Sept 16th).

If you need sources for at least a dozen other recent veterans/military issues like these, they are easily available for you to check the facts. But the bottom line is this: The Bush administration has opposed, not acted on, or only responded to any of these issues after veterans groups and others have made a lot of noise to Congress.

Gov Dean was absolutely correct to point to the failing attitude of the Bush administration with regard to the military and veterans.

The final irony? Mr. Bush doesn't "want to go there" regarding "checking out the facts." He is currently the world leader in failing to do so. Two examples: No WMD and no 9/11 Al Queda connection to Saddam Hussein. All other recent examples from anybody else pale in comparison.

Let's see if they will check the facts. Tell me when to stop holding my breath.

- posted by a Vet @ 8:38 AM -

 
While Rip Van Winkle Bush is Busy Spreading Pre-emptive War Democracy and Capitalism Opportunities to His Friends, China is Taking Advantage

As Mr. Bush continues to push his form of wartime capitalism, the following challenge to our world economic leadership has been issued by China - but we are not paying much attention to it because we are consumed with Iraq.

When Citibank was casting around for a brand name speaker at its annual retreat here, the bank spurned the usual Western investors. Instead, Citibank chose the Chinese ambassador, Lu Shumin, one of a new generation of diplomats from Beijing who speak flawless English and play a mean game of golf.

The envoy's presentation was relentlessly upbeat: what Southeast Asia sells, China buys. Oil, natural gas and aluminum to build bigger bridges, taller buildings, faster railroads to serve the country's flourishing cities, like Shanghai, which is beginning to make New York City look like a small town. Palm oil for frying all that food for the swelling middle class, even eggs from faraway New Zealand on the region's southern periphery.

China's buying spree and voracious markets provide the underpinning, he said, for the peaceful coexistence that everyone wants.

Contrast this with the dour message from the United States.

Congratulations, said President Bush to the Indonesians during his short stopover in October, for "hunting and finding dangerous killers." Cannily, China has wasted little time in capitalizing on the United States preoccupation with the campaign on terror to greatly expand its influence in Asia.

A new team of leaders in Beijing who came to power last spring — President Hu Jintao and Prime Minister Wen Jiabao — have led the charge, personally traveling in the region bearing sizable investments and diplomatic warmth. In fact, some forward leaning analysts think China may already have become Asia's leading power.

"After Afghanistan, after Iraq, after bringing democracy to the Middle East, when the United States refocuses on Asia, it will find a much different China in a much different region," James J. Przystup, a research fellow at the National Defense University, wrote recently.
Beyond the economics and the diplomacy, something else is going on. China has the allure of the new. A new affinity is developing between the once feared China and the rest of Asia.

So as American tourists have vanished from an area made uninviting by State Department travel warnings, Chinese tourists have started to arrive. They are pouring into Malaysia (with a substantial minority Chinese population) and Singapore (majority Chinese) where they can talk to the locals and are not afraid to go out at night. They are beginning to buy big-ticket items — five-figure diamond watches, designer clothes — that used to be favored by modish Japanese and American tourists.

Most disturbing for the United States, China's surging economy has much to offer America's most important Asian allies. Japan's rebound is being driven by a surge in exports to China. Australia's healthy economy is being kept that way by Chinese investments in liquid natural gas projects. China is now South Korea's largest trading partner.

Among Southeast Asian countries with significant Muslim populations, places where the American concentration on terror is particularly unappealing, China is on a buying spree.

In Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines (and to a lesser extent Thailand), Washington's primary concern is the presence of Islamic militants. China's main interest is to scoop up what it can for its modernization. Indonesians have come to call this new relationship with Beijing as "feeding the dragon."

As Asia warms to the confident new China, Asians say they are not betraying the United States. "We don't have to choose," said a Singaporean businessman.

This is because relations between the United States and Beijing have rarely been warmer. In the Bush administration's book, China has emerged from the diplomatic doghouse.

In a speech at Texas A&M University devoted to China last month, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell listed all the positives. China has stated its support for the campaign on terror, and has voted with Washington at the United Nations. It is playing a major role in trying to solve the North Korea problem. Mr. Powell jocularly portrayed his relationship with the Chinese foreign minister, Li Zhaoxing, as being so chummy that one of their Saturday telephone conversations was interrupted by the secretary's barking terriers, a knock at the front door, and his wife, Alma, calling from upstairs.

For all China's burst of activity, the United States remains the biggest foreign investor in Asia, and Washington maintains by far the most significant military presence in the region. No one is suggesting that China's antiquated armed forces are about to catch up with the might of the world's superpower.

But the People's Liberation Army is doing its own diplomacy, and naval exercises last month by China and India — the first between the two old rivals — caught people's attention. Militarily they did not add up to much, but the symbolism of an Indian destroyer at the Shanghai docks was widely noted.
- posted by a Vet @ 9:26 AM -

 
Maker of Voting Machines Vows to Give His Support to Bush in Ohio: What's Wrong with this (Touch Screen) Picture?

Once again, Mr. Bush, his administration, and his influential supporters have not heard of the idea of conflict of interest. This blatant example may deliver Ohio and other states in a scenario reminiscent of Florida in 2000.

Hack the Vote
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Inviting Bush supporters to a fund-raiser, the host wrote, "I am committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year." No surprise there. But Walden O'Dell — who says that he wasn't talking about his business operations — happens to be the chief executive of Diebold Inc., whose touch-screen voting machines are in increasingly widespread use across the United States.

For example, Georgia — where Republicans scored spectacular upset victories in the 2002 midterm elections — relies exclusively on Diebold machines. To be clear, though there were many anomalies in that 2002 vote, there is no evidence that the machines miscounted. But there is also no evidence that the machines counted correctly. You see, Diebold machines leave no paper trail.

Early this year Bev Harris, who is writing a book on voting machines, found Diebold software — which the company refuses to make available for public inspection, on the grounds that it's proprietary — on an unprotected server, where anyone could download it. (The software was in a folder titled "rob-Georgia.zip.") The server was used by employees of Diebold Election Systems to update software on its machines. This in itself was an incredible breach of security, offering someone who wanted to hack into the machines both the information and the opportunity to do so.

Meanwhile, leaked internal Diebold e-mail suggests that corporate officials knew their system was flawed, and circumvented tests that would have revealed these problems. The company hasn't contested the authenticity of these documents; instead, it has engaged in legal actions to prevent their dissemination.

Why isn't this front-page news? In October, a British newspaper, The Independent, ran a hair-raising investigative report on U.S. touch-screen voting. But while the mainstream press has reported the basics, the Diebold affair has been treated as a technology or business story — not as a potential political scandal.

This diffidence recalls the treatment of other voting issues, like the Florida "felon purge" that inappropriately prevented many citizens from voting in the 2000 presidential election. The attitude seems to be that questions about the integrity of vote counts are divisive at best, paranoid at worst. Even reform advocates like Mr. Holt make a point of dissociating themselves from "conspiracy theories." Instead, they focus on legislation to prevent future abuses.

But there's nothing paranoid about suggesting that political operatives, given the opportunity, might engage in dirty tricks. Indeed, given the intensity of partisanship these days, one suspects that small dirty tricks are common. For example, Orrin Hatch, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, recently announced that one of his aides had improperly accessed sensitive Democratic computer files that were leaked to the press.

This admission — contradicting an earlier declaration by Senator Hatch that his staff had been cleared of culpability — came on the same day that the Senate police announced that they were hiring a counterespionage expert to investigate the theft. Republican members of the committee have demanded that the expert investigate only how those specific documents were leaked, not whether any other breaches took place. I wonder why.

The point is that you don't have to believe in a central conspiracy to worry that partisans will take advantage of an insecure, unverifiable voting system to manipulate election results. Why expose them to temptation?

(Thanks to Buzzflash)
- posted by a Vet @ 8:53 AM -

 
News Management 101: Still Looking for the British Airways Pilot Who Supposedly Saw Air Force One on its Way to Baghdad

Large pins featuring the president's plane and the BA pilot's words -- "Did I just see Air Force One?" -- were sold out by mid-day Saturday.

In response to press inquiries, British Airways checked with its crews. But so far, no one has come forward.

"It is normal practice for our crews to report anything out of the ordinary," the airline spokeswoman said. "Despite the amount of media coverage, we can't confirm this."

- posted by a Vet @ 8:36 AM -

 
GOP Ad Does Democrats a Favor, But Its Reality Check Time

Tom Teepen's analysis is worth your review. Mr. Bush has provided more than enough material to keep websites and blogs like this one busy, easily through next November. Nearly two dozen liberal best sellers are out, some better than others, that document why we need new leadership in the White House. And in Hollywood tomorrow, a large number of celebrities are gathering to reinforce this need. But, as Teepen points out, the reality is that all the valid criticisms of the administration, piled on top of each other, will not be enough to defeat Mr. Bush next year if Democrats don't have a strategy to counter his strategy, now clearly in place.

What is Mr. Bush's strategy?

(1) Convince you that you will not be safe from terrorism without him.
(2) Convince you that anyone who does not agree with what he has done to fight terrorism, including the war in Iraq, is doing the same thing as supporting terrorism.
(3) Convince you that no Democrat, especially Howard Dean, has a plan to fight terrorism, nor do they hold that issue as a priority, compared to social issues.
(4) Convince you that your loss of civil liberties is a minor inconvenience compared to necessary wars of pre-emption like Iraq
(5) Take advantage of luck that falls his way, e.g. if the economy is improving. But make no mistake, this administration will run on a wartime footing.

What can you expect?

(1) The Republican campaign ad, released last week, is only the start. It tested the waters and got severe reactions, and not just from Democrats.
(2) Whether or not Iraq is seen by the US public to be more under control by next November, that won't be enough from Mr. Bush. Expect this: some other nation (e.g. Iran, Syria) to all of a sudden become an enormous threat to us, even surpassing Iraq in their potential to harm us, from Mr. Bush's point of view.

The Bottom Line?

The president claims his critics in essence support the terrorists and play on your fears.

But the irony of all this is that Mr. Bush will run on a campaign of fear that no one else can do the job and save our country. He hopes your fear will propel him to a second term.

Mr. Bush and his advisors are supposedly "salivating" at the prospect that Gov Dean might be the Democrat opponent. They had better watch what they wish for - Gov Dean, better than any of the other eight Democrats, has laid out the issues and strategies needed to defeat Mr. Bush, including fighting terrorism, as it should be done.
- posted by a Vet @ 10:55 AM -

 
Name That War

Some humor and reality to start off the week:


NY TimesOp-Ed Columnist, NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF: Name That War



A drum roll, please: It's time to announce the winners:

In a column 10 days ago about Iraq, I expressed frustration
at the absence of a good name for our war there. So I
offered prizes (Iraqi 250-dinar notes with Saddam's
picture) and invited readers to send in entries.

Then I fled to Guatemala and El Salvador, and when I
returned to the office this week, there were 4,000 entries
from all over the world.

Hundreds of people offered "Bush's Folly," "Burning Bush,"
"Bush League War," "Bubba's War," "Shrub's War," "Operation
Quicksand" or "The Crawford Conflict." Then there were
zillions of "Iraqmire," "Iraqgate" and "Iraqnam."

Lois from New Zealand suggested "Operation Bushwhack Iraq."
Avie Hern of California offered "Bushkrieg."

Some people suggested that instead of Operation Iraqi
Freedom, this is "Operation Iraqi Liberation." I thought
they were hawks until I recognized the acronym: OIL. Also
on the petroleum front, Peter Wilson of Pennsylvania
offered "Mother of Oil Wars."

Some names were interesting but a bit long. For example,
Charles Hayes of New York offered these options: "Bremer
Takes a Baath," "I Waged Two Wars Against Saddam and All I
Got Was His Headache" and "Visit Scenic Saddam and
Gomorrah."

Imaginative, but try to fit those into a headline. Or this
from Pat Malach of Oregon: "Operation Gee Whiz, This
Liberation Thing Seemed a Lot Easier When We Were Drawing
It Up Back at the Think Tank."

But some entries were so concise they sounded as if they
could have graced a Robert Ludlum thriller: "The Iraq
Pre-emption," "The Bush Incursion," "Bush's Botch" and "The
Big Uneasy."

The last is, of course, a play on the movie "The Big Easy."
There were lots of other pop culture references (my
assistant, Christina Lem, had to translate some for me; I
speak foreign languages but have never been fluent in pop).
A Minnesota astronomer who evidently likes Britney Spears
offered: "Operation Oops, We Did It Again." And movie buffs
urged "Operation Kick the Dog," "The Empire Strikes Out,"
"Apocalypse Right Now," "Mission Implausible: A Job Well
Spun" and "Trek 2: Wrath of Neo-Khan."

Scholarly readers argued that the distinctive quality of
this war was America's claim that it has the right to
invade other countries if they are developing weapons of
mass destruction and may threaten us. John Parry of North
Carolina suggested "Pre-emptive War I," leaving room for us
to continue the series if we move on to Tehran and
Pyongyang.

On the model of the War of Jenkins' Ear, one reader
suggested "The War of Bush's Flight Suit." Harold Kramer of
Massachusetts singlehandedly came up with "Rummy's
Retreat," "Cheney's Chaos," "Perle's Predicament,"
"Powell's Problem" and "Rice's Regret."

Others came up with "King George's New Colony," "The War of
the Roves" and "The War That Cried Wolfowitz."

Donn Blodgett of Vermont urged "Coup d'etats Unis," and
Linda Kolker of Georgia recommended "The Charge of the
Right Brigade."

Honorable mention in this contest goes to "Operation
Unscramble Eggs," by Russell Schindler of New York; "Desert
Storm und Drang," by Robert Proctor of Connecticut; "The
'Raq," by Jeff Schramm of Missouri; "A'bombin'nation," by
Kent Moore of North Carolina; "Tigris by the Tail," by Paul
Reeves of New Mexico; "War of Mass Deception," by Scott
Dacko of New York; and "Iraq: A Hard Place," by Chris
Walters of Texas.

The five winners, each of whom gets a 250-dinar note left
over from my last Iraq trip, are: Brad Corsello of New York
for "Dubya Dubya III"; Richard Sanders for "Rolling
Blunder"; John Fell of California for "Desert Slog," Will
Hutchinson of Vermont for "Mess in Potamia"; and Willard
Oriol of New York for "Blood, Baath and Beyond."

More seriously, during this holiday weekend, I hope we'll
think often and appreciatively of those Americans who are
in Iraq right now. Humor cannot erase their fear and
loneliness in the face of Washington's policy failures, or
the heartbreak here in so many homes where bereaved
parents, spouses and orphans are struggling in this season
to remember why they should be giving thanks.
- posted by a Vet @ 7:59 AM -