Who has betrayed the U.S. military?

Many Americans belief that Jimmie Carter was horrible for the U.S. military and the country. And that despite his problems Bush is far better than Carter. They even go so far as to say Carter and the current Democrats have "betrayed the military" It's a comforting thought if you have sympathy for the Republican party, but an analysis of the fact don't support it.

Point one: the hostages (that Reagan freed by promising and sending some weapons to Iran). The collapse of the Iranian gov't was the result of miscalculations by the CIA and other gov't agencies controlling our puppet gov't in Iran. When that gov't collapsed the new nut case gov't took some embassy personnel hostage for over a year. Cater freely admits that he could have sent in the military and decimated Iran and it probably would have made him more popular. However the hostages likely would have died and tens-of-thousands of Americans and Iranians would have died in the process. Carter's conscience would not let him do that. Cater was a man with great strength and integrity.

Cater did allow the military to plan and execute a hostage rescue. He afforded the military unlimited funding and resources to do it. It was the military that screwed op the rescue. In fact that rescue attempt has become a textbook example of how NOT to plan and execute a mission. It is still being used as an example today in U.S. military officer professional development courses.

Point two: I was worried about cartoons and spelling words during the Carter years, I never severed during that period. I don't doubt that it was a tough period for military members. However none were sent to die in pointless wars.

And despite low levels of funding for general military operations Cater, a nuclear physicist trained at the Naval Academy, kept the U.S. moving full speed ahead on the technology front. I'm sure Dpusabot is aware of how long it takes to get a new combat system designed, procured and integrated into the operational forces. Many of the advanced weapons systems, guidance systems, stealth technology, intel systems were in fact developed during the Cater years. Even more telling is one of the systems Cater cut and Reagan famously restarted, the B-1, bomber sat on the ground during the first gulf war. Cater people could tell the program was a money sucking turkey and Reagan wasted huge sums of taxpayer money proving it.

Point three. The most important point: the last 7 years.
Lets Start with the VA. Bush appointed a political operative with no managerial experience or experience with veteran's affairs to run the VA. It no exaggeration to say his only job was to go to Congress each year and say all is well and the VA doesn't need any additional funding. He left after the Walter Reed scandal. I know someone who was working at Walter Reed when the scandal broke and they said the Washington Post did not exaggerate anything. The soldiers getting good care were the ones with a wife or parent there to pressure the system and staff members. Other soldiers we left to fend for them selves. Even that is not bad if you still have your mental faculties and some common sense, but there were hundreds of brain injury patients there. If they could walk they were put in run down barracks and literally forgotten about. TELL ME WHO'S BETRAYING THE MILITARY NOW? CARTER OR BUSH?

To date Bush has gotten every penny of defense money he has asked for. (Note: despite the current political flap the U.S. military is still funded at full Bush request levels through Feb 08). Despite this the military has been slowly and consistently undermined since the second year of the Iraq war. There is a hundreds-of-billions dollar backlog of equipment that needs to be replaced or receive depot level maintenance. I've seen some reports the Army's fully mission capable equipments if approaching 50% of what is authorized in many catagories.

Base facility repairs and improvements have had to be curtailed to some degree at all installations, many projects have just plain stopped in the last few years.

Training budgets have also dropped. It costs a lot of money to fly an aircraft to a bombing range or take a tank out on a training maneuver. The funding to do this has mysteriously started shrinking since 2004 despite Bush getting every penny of requested defense funding approved.

Education budgets have also been cut. Some of the more advanced training program have taken 50% hits. The impact of this is very little now. It will be serious in the 5-15 year timeframe.

Research and Development, this should worry everyone. Since the end of WWII the U.S. has invested heavily in maintaining the technological edge. Even during the "Cater years" technology development was well funded. Not anymore, even research and development is feeling the impacts of the Iraq war. And those worried about maintaining an edge over countries like China will love to hear where the emphasis of military research is heading. Its heading to universities and private companies.

Working with universities and private companies is northing new, in fact it's a great thing in many ways. What's new is the level of dependence on them. If you want to maintain an advantage you can't depend ob universities and the private sector where much of the information is shared (or sold). Also, many of our best university researchers are foreigners, you know the research is being shared globally. It's fine for scientific advancement, bad for keeping a technologic edge on potential adversaries.

With the exception of a 3 or 4% pay raise each year I can't see any way in which the Bush administration has been good for the Military. Blackwater and Halliburton, well that's another issue...

Well, he is no Pat Robertson

The Bishop should also be so blunt when talking of the persecution of Christians and women and many Muslim nations, but give him credit for being brutally straight forward in his talk about the U.S.

Conservative American Episcopalians, already worried about the health of the global Anglican Communion, may feel further unease when they learn about a new diatribe against America by the denomination's titular head.

In an interview with a British Muslim publication, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, a longstanding opponent of the Iraq war, has taken his criticism of U.S. foreign policy to a new level.

The U.S. has lost the moral high ground since 9/11, he told Emel, a Muslim "lifestyle" magazine edited by a former Catholic convert to Islam. As a result, he said, it should launch a "generous and intelligent program of aid directed to the societies that have been ravaged; a check on the economic exploitation of defeated territories; a demilitarization of their presence."

Williams called the U.S. the world's only "global hegemonic power," and suggested that its policies in Iraq were worse than British colonialism.

"It is one thing to take over a territory and then pour energy and resources into administering it and normalizing it. Rightly or wrongly, that's what the British Empire did -- in India, for example," he was quoted as saying.

"It is another thing to go in on the assumption that a quick burst of violent action will somehow clear the decks and that you can move on and other people will put it back together -- Iraq, for example."

Williams also attacked Christian Zionism -- active support for Israel based on the belief that its re-establishment in 1948 was in line with biblical prophecy.

The archbishop said he found Christian Zionists' views "very strange, and not at all easy to accept."

Williams said they were connected to "the chosen-nation myth of America, meaning that what happens in America is very much at the heart of God's purpose for humanity."

Elsewhere in the 2,000 plus-word article, Williams criticized Israel for erecting a security barrier along the perimeter of Palestinian Authority-ruled Bethlehem, a move Israel says is aimed at keeping terrorists out. "Whatever justification given for the existence of the wall, the human cost is colossal," he said, expressing concern about the plight of "our Christian brothers and sisters in Bethlehem."

On Islamic maltreatment of Christians, Williams said only that in Pakistan he was "surprised by how the extremely small Christian minority there is perceived as so deeply threatening by an overwhelming Muslim majority, which ought to be more confident and generous about its identity."

British media called Williams' remarks a "stinging attack" on the U.S., saying the church leader had "plunged into political controversy." Several newspapers described his criticism of Islam as "muted."

"Christians in Indonesia, Africa and the Middle East are being beaten, imprisoned, tortured and killed in the name of Allah," Damian Thompson, editor-in-chief of the Catholic Herald wrote in a Daily Telegraph column. "Moderate Muslims in Britain desperately need to be made aware of this situation.

"And what has the Archbishop of Canterbury given them? Yet another sermon on the evils of Yankee imperialism."

The Archbishop of Canterbury heads the 77 million-strong Anglican Communion, which has been roiled in recent years over the 2003 ordination by its U.S. affiliate, the Episcopal Church of the U.S.A. (ECUSA), of an openly homosexual bishop; and the blessing of same-sex unions by some dioceses in Canada.

Opposition to the liberal trend has been led by conservative bishops, mostly in Africa and Asia. Some congregations in the U.S. have split from ECUSA, placing themselves under the authority of like-minded bishops from elsewhere, despite Williams' opposition.

The archbishop next year hosts a once-a-decade gathering of more than 800 Anglican bishops from around the world, and the homosexuality issue is expected to feature strongly. Some conservative leaders have already threatened a boycott.

20,000 not listed in Pentagon tally

From USA Today

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

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

The number of brain-injury cases were tabulated from records kept by the VA and four military bases that house units that have served multiple combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan.

One base released its count of brain injuries at a medical conference. The others provided their records at the request of USA TODAY, in some cases only after a Freedom of Information Act filing was submitted.

The data came from:

•Landstuhl Army Regional Medical Center in Germany, where troops evacuated from Iraq and Afghanistan for injury, illness or wounds are brought before going home. Since May 2006, more than 2,300 soldiers screened positive for brain injury, hospital spokeswoman Marie Shaw says.

•Fort Hood, Texas, home of the 4th Infantry Division, which returned from a second Iraq combat tour late last year. At least 2,700 soldiers suffered a combat brain injury, Lt. Col. Steve Stover says.

•Fort Carson, Colo., where more than 2,100 soldiers screened were found to have suffered a brain injury, according to remarks by Army Col. Heidi Terrio before a brain injury association seminar.

•Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, where 1,737 Marines were found to have suffered a brain injury, according to Navy Cmdr. Martin Holland, a neurosurgeon with the Naval Medical Center San Diego.

•VA hospitals, where Iraq and Afghanistan veterans have been screened for combat brain injuries since April. The VA found about 20% of 61,285 surveyed — or 11,804 veterans — with signs of brain injury, spokeswoman Alison Aikele says. VA doctors say more evaluation is necessary before a true diagnosis of brain injury can be confirmed in all these cases, Aikele says.

Soldiers and Marines whose wounds were discovered after they left Iraq are not added to the official casualty list, says Army Col. Robert Labutta, a neurologist and brain injury consultant for the Pentagon.

"We are working to do a better job of reflecting accurate data in the official casualty table," Labutta says.

Most of the new cases involve mild or moderate brain injuries, commonly from exposure to blasts.

More than 150,000 troops may have suffered head injuries in combat, says Rep. Bill Pascrell, D-N.J., founder of the Congressional Brain Injury Task Force.

"I am wary that the number of brain-injured troops far exceeds the total number reported injured," he says.

About 1.5 million troops have served in Iraq, where traumatic brain injury can occur despite heavy body armor worn by troops.

If peace is the answer; it must be a stupid question

Well, it appears children really do represent what their parents tell them. Not surprisingly a disproportional number of those who love G.W.B live in Florida.

COCOA BEACH, Fla. — Students at Cocoa Beach Jr./Sr. High School are waging a war on peace.Recently, sophomore Skylar Stains decided to hold Peace Shirt Thursdays at the school. Skylar and her friend, Lauren Lorraine, started wearing peace shirts and soon recruited more friends to wear them. Now, the “Peace Shirt Coalition” as they call themselves, has close to 30 students from all grades...

...They thought it was OK, because the cheerleaders and football players had signs on theirs. Eventually, though, group members said they were told by the school’s administration they could no longer hang up the posters.

“People tore them down and drew swastikas and ‘white power’ stuff on them,” Lauren said.

Skylar had similar things written on her posters...

...Soon, a second group started to wear Confederate flag shirts to oppose the peace group, Skylar said. She saw shirts with sayings such as “This is America, get used to it,” and “If peace is the answer; it must be a stupid question.”

“Now there are even ’support our troops’ kids who don’t like us because I guess they think you can’t say peace and support the troops at the same time,” Lauren said.

Skylar later passed out yellow ribbons for her group to wear to show they support the troops as well as peace.

However, Cocoa Beach Jr./Sr. High sophomores Lydia Pace and Joseph Marianetti said the Confederate shirts they wear express support for the troops in Iraq, and nothing more. Joseph said the shirts have nothing to do with racism.

“Someone took something that stood for peace and twisted it” in regards to the swastikas (drawn by a third group) and the Confederate flag, he said.

Wow, armed rebellion and white power "stand for peace" in Florida? I hope these morons don't speak for the majority.

Friedman off the deep end

Most of Friedman’s work that I’ve seen is very reasonable. He even did a documentary on the Israeli Palestinian issue that BD would appreciate. It showed both sides of the Story and Israel came out looking very bad.

However Friedman has had some sort of mental lapse. Check out the video here: Iraq suck on this!

Then read his column on Obama and Cheney. I think Friedman has become certifiably loony.

I have no idea who is going to win the Democratic presidential nomination, but lately I’ve been wondering whether, if it is Barack Obama, he might want to consider keeping Dick Cheney on as his vice president.

No, I personally am not a Dick Cheney fan, and I know it is absurd to even suggest, but now that I have your attention, here’s what’s on my mind: After Iraq and Pakistan, the most vexing foreign policy issue that will face the next president will be how to handle Iran. There is a cold war in the Middle East today between America and Iran, and until and unless it gets resolved, I see Iran using its proxies, its chess pieces — Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria and the Shiite militias in Iraq —to stymie America and its allies across the region.

And that brings me back to the Obama-Cheney ticket: When it comes to how best to deal with Iran, each has half a policy — but if you actually put them together, they’d add up to an ideal U.S. strategy for Iran. Dare I say, they complete each other.

Perhaps Hillary is best

I hate to say it, but perhaps Hillary is the best person to dethrone the Republicans.

CNN plants questions to protect Hillary

Rudy quite literally has Fox News, affiliates and the Murdoch newspapers working on his behalf. Fear mongering and Rove tactics will dominate the republican campaign. With the plants heckling Edwards and Obama at the debate and CNN deliberately throwing her softball questions Hillary has mastered the art of corrupt politics.

Bill ran as a liberal but governed from the middle. Hillary is running right of the middle, hopefully she has the spine to betray her corporate backers and govern from the left when she is elected.

What’s worse than war mongering Republicans?

What’s worse than war mongering Republicans? Stupid Spineless Democrats that’s what.

Congress has passed a generous defense budget, but not funding to continue the war in Iraq past March. So what will the Bush administration do? They’ll start laying off DoD civilian employees in the U.S. They'll say they need to do it to pay for bullets and body armor for troops in Iraq.

WASHINGTON, Nov. 19 (UPI) -- Unless the U.S. Congress passes funding for the Iraq war soon, the Army and Marine Corps could have to lay off employees and terminate contracts next year.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said if Congress fails to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan the military could be forced to close some bases, and furlough 200,000 civilians and contractors in February, The Christian Science Monitor reported Monday.

The situation becomes especially urgent because federal law requires workers to be notified 60 days in advance of being furloughed, the newspaper reported.

"The high degree of uncertainty on funding for the war is immensely complicating this task and will have many real consequences for this department and for our men and women in uniform," Gates said Thursday.

Didn’t congress learn anything from the shutdown of the gov’t when Clinton and the Republican congress clashed during a budget dispute? The Congress looses in this type of fight.

If the Congress had any spine they would invoke their constitutional power. They alone have the power to declare war. If they were serious about ending the war they would revoke the authorization they gave Bush and order a phased troop withdrawal begin within 60 days and be complete within 365 days