Bud Day finds a new target for his smears

It's rare to find a sensible person, especially in the mainstream corporate media, in America's Taint™. The Pensacola News Journal just happens to employ one of them on their staff: Troy Moon.

This week, Troy went out on a bit of a limb -- at least by Pensacola standards, where the U.S. military is second only to Jesus Christ in community esteem -- by taking to task retired Air Force Col. George E. "Bud" Day. Col. Day, 84, a highly decorated Vietnam veteran and Medal of Honor recipient, clearly has passed his expiration date: he took advantage of a speaking engagement in Pensacola to criticize our commander-in-chief and specifically the idea of health care reform.

Now, Col. Day, who resides in Pensacola, may have been a brave pilot and his patriotism is beyond reproach, but those attributes don't give him any more credibility in the health care debate than you and I have. It's unseemly at best -- and insulting at worst -- to use a veterans' event as a political forum against the president. And Troy Moon went after Col. Day for that:

Day used the speech to denounce President Obama's proposed health care program and had this to say: "People are not entitled to health care just because they're Americans. Who says some stranger on the street who has never put a penny into anything is entitled to medical care?''

Some people do say that. Maybe it's because they feel that America is the greatest country on earth and doesn't let any of its citizens fall through the cracks. Maybe it's because they so admire the military ethos that preaches that you leave no man or woman on the battlefield. Maybe they want to apply that philosophy to real life.

But Col. Day's comments made me think of our brave fighting forces today. You always hear people say "Freedom Isn't Free.'' And they're right. Freedom for all --- even Day's "stranger on the street'' "who has never put a penny into anything'' ---- is paid for by a few who defend it with blood and, often, their lives. It's not just for those who have invested into the "freedom'' system.

So Col. Day, brave men and women such as yourself have been paying the way for many of us for years. Maybe it's time for the rest of us to step up and do the same --- take care of others whether they deserve our consideration or not.

Once again, for those on the right who oppose health care for all Americans, it comes down to one thing: selfishness. It's the old "I've got mine, screw you" mentality.

It's not altogether surprising to see this from Col. Day, considering his involvement with the lying Swift Boaters in 2004 and the racist, xenophobic hate that he displayed in campaigning for John McCain last year. But it's still sad to see one of America's true military heroes forget -- or ignore -- what he was fighting for in the first place.

Blast Off! Radio today at 4:00 pm EDT: In remembrance

It is, I think, difficult to strike the appropriate tone for a webradio show on Memorial Day that is at once unabashedly snarky, generally pacifist, nearly always irreverent, and proudly hyper-liberal. But I firmly believe, contrary to the opinions of some who criticized me after the Pensacola Tea Party last month (and others), that it is possible to oppose current military actions while still honoring the service, courage, and sacrifice of our men and women in the military, past and present. In short, it is not the fault of the servicemembers that our armed forces were sent into wars that were misguided, unnecessary, and illegal, nor is it their fault that those undeclared wars continue today even after the schemers and criminals who sent them into battle have left office.

And so, on an at-least-partially-military-themed edition of Blast Off! Radio today, we will take time to recognize and express gratitude for those who serve in the American military, but also will express sorrow and, quite likely, indignation as well that they still are being put into harm's way for reasons that are unjustifiable under U.S. and international law. In addition, we will talk about the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, later codified into federal law, that enshrines open discrimination against the GLBT community into American jurisprudence, and we'll talk about how on this very day, some northwest Florida wingnuts, by inaccurately and irresponsibly protesting the federal government, are trashing the memories of those who gave their lives to protect that government.

There are some non-military topics to discuss as well, of course, including the Florida political scene as it comes into focus for the 2010 elections and how Greater Wingnuttia is getting even more unhinged (if that's even possible) over topics like prayer in public schools, federal stimulus money, and the so-called "debate" over torture.

As always, though, the show relies on you, the listener, to really make it work. Your calls, chats, and emails are the lifeblood of Blast Off! Radio ... and it's so easy to be a part of it, why wouldn't you join in? Here's how to do it:

TIME: 4:00 pm Eastern TODAY

Click here to listen

Call in number: (646) 716-7543

E-mail: blastoffradio-at-gmail-dot-com

I sincerely hope we'll avoid the technical difficulties that marred the end of last week's show ... so please make a point of spending one meager hour of this patriotic holiday exercising your right to free speech through Blast Off! Radio!

All bigots on deck!

The Obama administration has begun to look into whether the "don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding gay members of the U.S. armed services should be modified or revised entirely. You may recall back in 1993, President Clinton considered lifting the blanket ban on gays in the military and came up with that non-compromise that in practice really had no effect on the ban at all.

Well, the bigots, haters, and fundies in the armed forces once again are marshaling their forces to keep all that dirty nasty gay off of them.

Obama is consulting with the Pentagon on the issue and says he supports eventual repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which prohibits gays in the military from being open about their sexual orientation. A bill that would allow gays to serve openly has been introduced in Congress.

A statement issued by the retired officers Tuesday said passage of that bill "would undermine recruiting and retention, impact leadership at all levels, have adverse effects on the willingness of parents who lend their sons and daughters to military service, and eventually break the All-Volunteer Force."

Among the signatories were Gen. Carl E. Mundy, Jr., a former commandant of the Marine Corps; Adm. Leighton W. Smith, a former commander of U.S. Naval Forces Europe; Gen. Charles A. Horner, who commanded U.S. aerial forces during the 1990-91 Gulf War; and Adm. Jerome L. Johnson, a former vice chief of Naval Operations.

The retired officers said they strongly supported the principle that "homosexuality is incompatible with military service" and warned that repeal of current law could jeopardize morale and "unit cohesion."

Now, let's see, where have we heard that excuse about morale and unit cohesion before? Oh, yeah: in the resistance to integrating the military in the 1940s. It's even the same thing with regard to "undermining recruiting and retention" and with parents allegedly being reluctant to send their children to military service. Well, you know what? Maybe we're better off if those bigoted fucktards don't send their children to the military. What, are they afraid that they'll be turned gay in boot camp? Besides, I have news for you: there are plenty of gay personnel already in the American military.

Look, I realize I've never served in the military, but I have seen plenty of discrimination*, so don't even start with me about how I don't understand military morale and all that bullshit. And the plain fact of it is that the resistance to the lifting of the ban is just another way to justify bigotry and hatred. And in the America of 2009, with an African-American president, a female Speaker of the House and Secretary of State, and people of all creeds and cultures in leadership roles throughout our society -- including the military -- you just can't rationalize hate anymore.

---

* I also published a lengthy law review article in 1994 specifically regarding the ban on gays in the military, so I've done my homework. (I don't believe the article is available online.)

A forgotten anniversary

Today marks six years since the illegal and unnecessary American invasion and occupation of Iraq began. I can't help but wonder, though, whether this anniversary has been forgotten somehow amidst the noise and waste of the nation's economic woes, the new administration in the White House, and the riveting drama that is American Idol.

Seriously, though, what a difference a year makes. A year ago on this date, there were blogswarms and expressions of outrage ... this year, sure, there are some blogs paying attention, but I just don't think it's making as big of an impact as it has in recent years.

Is it really as simple as the distraction of the economy? Or is it, as I believe, some kind of false sense of security because our new president is perceived to be more sympathetic to the anti-war cause than was his predecessor?

The fact is that there's really no reason to be any more complacent, nor any more optimistic, then we were when the Bush crime syndicate was in charge. President Obama already has backed down from his campaign pledge to have combat troops out of Iraq within 16 months, extending that deadline by what initially appears to be a relatively inconsequential three months. However, he added that under his plan, there will be some 50,000 "noncombat" troops who will remain after August 2010 ... 50,000 Americans who will remain in a hostile environment to whom the term "noncombat" no doubt will seem hollow indeed.

We never should have gone into Iraq in the first place, and there is no longer any question (if there ever was any legitimate controversy) that we went there under false pretenses. And while I recognize that an abrupt pull-out is militarily and politically imprudent, I believe that any ongoing American presence in Iraq reinforces and exacerbates the original mistake.

We should be out -- completely -- as soon as possible. We should not be finding vague excuses to extend our occupation of Iraq, putting American lives (and others) in continued danger and contributing to -- nay, creating -- a far more unstable Middle East than would have existed had we not intervened militarily. And we should be remembering, on this somber anniversary, the lives already lost and the reasons we worked so hard to put Barack Obama in the White House.

Do you remember, Mr. President?

(cross-posted at Pax Americana)

I don't get it

Okay, fine. I've given this a lot of thought, but at the end of the day, I'm forced to admit: I just don't get it.*

I don't get why Republicans think that tax cuts, especially for the wealthy, are supposed to be good for the economy when what it really needs is a significant infusion of revenue.

I don't get how they can blame Clinton, Obama, and pretty much everyone but the true culprit – Bush and his policies – for the nation's current economic woes.

I don't get why deregulation is so great; it didn't work for the last eight years, while the “invisible hand of the free market” was too busy jerking itself off to anticipate the predictable greed and ruthlessness of the billionaires who ran the biggest banking and investment firms.

I don't get why government is bad, except when it's poking into our bedrooms or women's bodies, or maybe when it's putting out house fires or arresting criminals.

Speaking of criminals, I don't get how Republicans can celebrate the “greatness” of George W. Bush, who had the last, best chance of preventing 9/11 and whose laissez-faire economic policies drove the American economy, while condemning Bill Clinton for getting a blow job in the White House. Even if Clinton lied about it under oath, is that really worse than lying before Congress and the country about the existence of WMDs in order to foment an illegal (and poorly managed) war?

I don't get why Republicans so vehemently oppose providing all Americans with access to health care, thereby bringing us in line with every other industrialized nation in the world. Are they that selfish that they don't care about those too poor to afford decent health care for themselves and their families?

I don't get why Republicans are so disproportionately involved in political corruption and sexual scandal, but still they're the “family values” party.

I don't get why Republicans believe a perpetual state of war is preferable to a perpetual state of peace.

I don't get how anyone can argue against the premise that the best way to support the troops is to bring them home.

I don't get what is so great about owning guns that, led by the NRA, they'll fight against even reasonable efforts to restrict access to assault weapons and the like.

I don't get why Republicans seem so intent on destroying public education.

I don't get what's so difficult to understand about "separation of church and state."

I don't get why those with the least income and education so overwhelmingly vote Republican when it is so obviously, so clearly against their interests to do so.

There's a lot more I don't get, but I think that about does it for now. Maybe someone can shed some light on it for me.

---

* Yes, I know this is all generalization, but if you're troubled by that, just substitute "so many Republicans" or "most Republicans" or something like that. Thanks in advance for not hammering me on that minute point.

North Florida: where intolerance is a way of life

Last year, it was Okeechobee County that wanted to ban the Gay-Straight Alliance from its high schools. Now, it's Nassau County, north of Jacksonville, and as they did down south, the students are fighting back.

Yulee High School has refused to permit a Gay-Straight Alliance, and the ACLU has stepped in to sue the Nassau County School Board. Predictably, the Board's excuse is lame, doing little to mask the obvious intolerance they have for alternative lifestyles or the acceptance thereof.

A School Board attorney argued to U.S. District Judge Henry Adams that allowing an extracurricular club with a sexual orientation in the name would be counter to the district's abstinence-only policy and could be disruptive because of the passions the issue raises.

But a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union said the board's denial violated the students' First Amendment rights. He said the one meeting the alliance held in October before it was shut down didn't create a disturbance.

Adams said he would rule quickly on the request for a temporary injunction but didn't give a date. He told School Board attorney Frank Sheppard he had 72 hours to respond in writing to one of the students' arguments.

The judge wondered aloud during the hearing if a Gay-Straight Alliance wouldn't help ease school day disruption because of its stated goals of increasing tolerance and awareness and reducing bullying and harassment.

"Is it the School Board's policy that all gay children should stay in the closet?" Adams asked Sheppard.

The lawyer replied that the board believes students struggling with their sexual identity should consult parents, counselors, clergy and other adults.

In other words: don't let those dirty gays get together, because they might get some of those gay cooties on our God-fearing normal children.

Can someone explain to me why it's perfectly okay, in the opinions of many, to have organized prayer in schools (in violation of the U.S. Constitution), but not for a group advocating tolerance of difference perspectives to be in those same schools?

But what really chafes me is the explanation the School Board gives for its decision: the name of the organization -- the "Gay-Straight Alliance" -- somehow threatens the district's (medieval) abstinence-only sex education curriculum. Set aside for a moment the obvious and statistically provable point that abstinence-only sex ed doesn't work -- the problem here is that, like so many other institutions before it, the Board is confusing sexual activity with sexual orientation.

Look, folks, it's really not that hard to figure out: the words "gay" and "straight," in this context, have nothing to do with sexual activity. Rather, they refer to sexual orientation. As archaic as your asinine abstinence-only policy is, Nassau County, the existence of a Gay-Straight Alliance does nothing -- NOTHING!! -- that would contradict that policy. The U.S. military did the same thing years ago when it summarily banned gays from service (before "don't ask, don't tell"), conflating sexual activity (sodomy is and was illegal under the Uniform Code of Military Justice) with one's status. The bottom line: as a matter of legal principle, just because one is gay does not mean one necessarily will engage in impermissible sexual behavior. That's an argument against the military's stance, and it works equally well against Nassau County here.

The Board really ought to call their decision what it really is -- bigotry, plain and simple -- and be done with it. At least then they'd be intellectually honest. But, no, they have to come up with some half-assed explanation that doesn't stand up to the most cursory inquiry. Yet, that's the way most bigotry and discrimination is, isn't it? No rational reason -- just hatred.

Welcome to north Florida: proudly intolerant since 1845.

Prediction: Democratic landslide victory

Perhaps I'm putting too much stock in anecdotal evidence. But it is nice to look forward to an election for once.

I was in a store in the heart of blood-red America's Taint™ (the Florida panhandle) today, wearing my Obama '08 T-shirt. A gentleman not too much older than I spotted me and said, smiling, "Nice shirt! Vote early and often!"

"I'm doing my best," I said, returning the smile.

"Please do," the man replied. "My son's in the Army."

I stopped short and looked him in the eye. "We'll bring him home," I vowed.

We need to bring them all home. And the best way to do that is to elect as many Democrats -- preferably of the progressive variety -- as possible. For the soldiers. For their families. For America.

Too little, too late

According to a subheader in this morning's Miami Herald, "Army officials are growing more concerned about the high levels of anxiety disorders among soldiers serving multiple tours in Iraq."

I will resist the urge to say, "Duh."

Among combat troops sent to Iraq for the third or fourth time, more than one in four show signs of anxiety, depression or acute stress, according to an official Army survey of soldiers' mental health.

The stress of long and multiple deployments to Iraq is just one of the concerns being voiced by senior military officers in Washington as Gen. David Petraeus, the senior Iraq commander, prepares to tell Congress this week that he is not ready to endorse any drawdowns beyond those already scheduled through July.

President Bush has signaled that he will endorse Petraeus' recommendation, a decision that will leave about 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq at least through the summer.

But in a meeting with Bush late last month in advance of Petraeus' testimony, the Joint Chiefs of Staff expressed deep concern about stress on the force, senior Defense Department and military officials said.

Among the 513,000 active-duty soldiers who have served in Iraq since the invasion of 2003, more than 197,000 have deployed more than once, and more than 53,000 have deployed three or more times, according to a separate set of statistics provided this week by Army personnel officers. The percentage of troops sent back to Iraq for repeat deployments would have to increase in the months ahead.

The Army study of mental health showed that 27 percent of noncommissioned officers -- a critically important group -- on their third or fourth tour exhibited symptoms commonly referred to as post-traumatic stress disorders.

That figure is far higher than the roughly 12 percent who exhibit those symptoms after one tour and the 18.5 percent who develop the disorders after a second deployment, according to the study, which was conducted by the Army surgeon general's Mental Health Advisory Team.

Mental disorders are far less visible and carry far greater stigma than the lost limbs and other injuries suffered needlessly by our troops in Iraq -- not to mention over 4,000 completely unnecessary American deaths. So consider that if the Bush crime syndicate refuses to publish images of caskets coming through Dover or soldiers recovering at Walter Reed, getting word out about mental disorders skyrocketing among the military must mean it's exponentially worse than they're letting on.

You want another reason to work very, very hard to make sure that Huggy Bear only sees the inside of the White House as a guest of President Clintobama -- or as a tourist? Along with the horrific impact a Huggy presidency would have on the federal judiciary -- reason enough in itself to vote Democratic in November if you care about America -- recall that he is willing to commit our military to a century in Iraq, and then read this:

The Army and the rest of the service chiefs have endorsed Petraeus' recommendations for continued high troop levels in Iraq. But Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the Army chief of staff, and their top deputies also have warned that the war in Iraq should not be permitted to inflict an unacceptable toll on the military as a whole.

"Our readiness is being consumed as fast as we build it," Gen. Richard Cody, the Army vice chief of staff, said in stark comments delivered to Congress last week. "Lengthy and repeated deployments with insufficient recovery time have placed incredible stress on our soldiers and our families, testing the resolve of our all-volunteer force like never before."

Did you catch the code? Why did Gen. Cody refer to the "all-volunteer" military? Just to say how brave they are for volunteering? Or was it a warning that continued action in Iraq will necessitate a draft? Have you stopped to consider how Huggy Bear can maintain his BFF's illegal war for a hundred years without a draft? Can't be done -- period.

How much worse do things have to get -- in Iraq, in the economy, in American government and society -- before the country fucking wakes up and realizes, as a whole, that we can't survive four more years of Drunky McStagger? Because that's exactly what we'll get with Huggy Bear McBush.

Wingnuts heads explode

That's the sound you hear from the cognitive dissonance on the Right over the decision by the Pentagon and the U.S. Postal Service to discard or destroy mail addressed to "Any Wounded Soldier."

Since the Sept. 11 attacks and the anthrax scare, the Pentagon and the Postal Service have refused to deliver mail addressed simply to "Any Wounded Soldier" for fear terrorists or opponents of the war might send toxic substances or demoralizing messages.

Mail must be addressed to a specific member of the armed forces — a rule that pains some well-meaning Americans this Christmas season.

"Are we going to forget our soldiers because we are running in fear?" Fena D'Ottavio asked. The suburban Chicago woman was using her blog to encourage friends to send mail to unspecified soldiers until she learned of the ban, which she called a sad commentary on society.

Here's the dilemma (I was going to use the word "paradox," but it's unlikely the wingnuts have the mental acumen to know that word doesn't mean "two physicians"): if they don't send a bunch of meaningless cheerleading mail to the soldiers, the wingers will feel like they're not "supporting the troops." But on the other hand, homeland security 9/11 terrorist anthrax 9/11 scary threat brown people terrorist.

What's a nutjob rightard to do?

"A lot of this is because of security concerns because it's unsolicited mail that someone is going to have to go through," [spokesman Terry] Goodman said. "Also, being a democratic society, there could be inappropriate mail from someone who, say, doesn't support the war, and then you've got a wounded soldier getting it."

Oh, noes! How horrible if a soldier got a letter from someone who doesn't support the war! You know, that would just ruin our propaganda machine that makes them think all the killing and raping and torture they've seen is, you know, good. We're winning!! Clap harder!! We're a democratic society!! (Or we were, anyway, before the Bush crime syndicate took over.) Surely no one would express opposition to the war in a letter actually addressed to a specific soldier -- only those crazy anonymous letters would do such a mean, mean thing!! Liberals are meanies!

Look, I don't know whether preventing this mail from being delivered is a good thing or a bad thing. I do, however, find the rationale about protecting soldiers from anti-war commentary laughable at best, and appalling at worst. Do these people not realize that plenty of soldiers oppose the war? Do they honestly believe that opposition to the war and support for the troops are mutually exclusive?

Never mind. I know the answers to those questions. And the country just gets more and more insane every day.

Mixed feelings

It's halftime here at Raymond James Stadium in Tampa, where I'm watching the Buccaneers lead the Arizona Cardinals, 10-3.

But I'm struck by my ambivalence, as over 150 men and women just were sworn into the U.S. armed services during a halftime ceremony. I'm as patriotic as anyone, but I found it difficult to cheer for these young people, as thousands around me did, because I know some or all of them are destined to face combat in an illegal, never-ending "war" based on lies and misinformation, relying for its support on xenophobia and misplaced loyalty.

I'm saddened to feel the way I do, but sadder still that the Bush crime syndicate has caused me to question whether or not I, in good conscience, can applaud the inevitable sacrifices of these young people, who I'm sure are motivated by patriotism and thoughts of heroism.

This is what the Republicans have done to my country. And I want my country back.

UPDATE (10:33 pm 11/4/07): I'm back home now and re-reading what I wrote. Hindsight doesn't make me feel any better. The troll in comments doesn't make me feel any better, either, but that's because he (?) missed the entire fucking point, unsurprisingly.

And I imagine I'll be talking more about this on Blast Off! Radio tomorrow at 2:00 pm Eastern. Hope you'll tune in.

Where in America is free speech illegal?

Why, in the U.S. military, naturally.

From fellow Floridian Bryan at Why Now? comes this timely reminder:

If you are wondering why the generals don’t say anything until after they retire:

Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice

Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

This is something that people have to keep in mind - you can’t bitch about the boss when you are an officer or you will be subject to a court martial. Remember, active duty officers, by military law, can only give you the good news, which makes their testimony rather worthless.

It's definitely worth remembering this whenever the wingnuts throw their shit around the cage about how it's only retired generals (who supposedly have an ax to grind) who criticize the Bush crime syndicate. That's because it's the law.

Don't worry ... if the fucking criminals have their way, free speech will be a thing of the past anyway ...

Separation of church and state? Not in Bush's America

One wonders what country Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, thinks he is in when he cites "God's law" for his belief that homosexual activity is immoral.

"Are there wonderful Americans who happen to be homosexual serving in the military? Yes," he told the Senate Appropriations Committee during a hearing focused on the Pentagon's 2008 war spending request.

"We need to be very precise then, about what I said wearing my stars and being very conscious of it," he added. "And that is, very simply, that we should respect those who want to serve the nation but not through the law of the land, condone activity that, in my upbringing, is counter to God's law."

Anti-war protesters sitting behind Pace jeered the four-star general's remarks, prompting Committee Chairman Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., to abruptly adjourn the hearing and seal off the doors.

The hearing resumed about five minutes later in which Pace said he would be supportive of efforts to revisit the Pentagon's policy so long as it didn't violate his belief that sex should be restricted to a married heterosexual couple.

Lest anyone be deluded into thinking that the Bush crime syndicate believes in the Constitution, I'll remind you right now: they want to subvert the Constitution in every way and turn America into a fundamentalist theocracy, as hardline Christian as Iran is hardline Muslim. Put another way, the only difference in governance between Ahmadinejad's Iran and Bush's America is the deity they worship, not the fervor with which they worship nor the extent of their insistence that all citizens adhere to the same beliefs -- namely, theirs.

Gen. Pace's statement is not only abhorrent on its face, it's a sad, indeed tragic, indicator of just how far gone our government is. It will take years, probably decades, to undo the damage the Bush crime syndicate has inflicted on America in the last six and a half years. And the attitudes of people like Gen. Pace are perhaps the most injurious results of a series of heinous crimes against America.

Following up: Botta reports for duty

Last weekend, I wrote about Erik Botta of Port St. Lucie, who was suing to avoid his fifth tour of duty overseas, after three stretches in Iraq and one in Afghanistan. I noted at the time that he would have to report to Fort Jackson, S.C., on Sunday to avoid possible prosecution for desertion.

Well, Botta did report. And he may be deployed back to Iraq within as little as ten days.

"If there's any good news, it's that there was not a set deployment date set," [Botta's attorney] Mark Waple said.

In January, the Army granted the Port St. Lucie 26-year-old, who has been sent once to Afghanistan and three times to Iraq, an academic exemption from a fifth deployment after he began studying to become an electrical engineer. But the Army sent him new orders to report to Fort Jackson last week.

Waple called the Army's decision "arbitrary and capricious," noting that the Army has granted academic exemption in the past. "The Army's decision not to exempt him from this deployment and not to discharge him from the Army reserves is so arbitrary it has become unlawful," Waple said.

From the Bush crime syndicate's perspective, it's really very simple. Botta is still useful (read: ambulatory) and therefore remains an exploitable resource. It's only if he comes back in a box, or is unable to serve further, that the military will stop caring about him.

A reservist says "hell, no, I won't go"

The military is finding new ways to ruin people's lives, whether it's sending them off to combat in an illegal war or reaching back in time to call up reservists who thought their service was over.

One south Florida reservist has been ordered to report to Fort Jackson, S.C., tomorrow for his fifth tour of duty in the Middle East. But he's fighting back ... with a lawsuit unprecedented since Vietnam.

"Our country has a problem," Miami attorney Lawrence Metsch said Friday. "A small group of people are getting called up again and again, yet hundreds of thousands of young men and women are not called up to military service, and they're going on with their lives. It's a political problem."

Erik Botta thought he had joined those fortunate masses three years ago when he left the Army after three tours in Iraq and one in Afghanistan. He got married, started school at Palm Beach Community College and got a job at Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. in northern Palm Beach County.

While he technically remained in the reserves, he was not required to participate in any drills or training.

[...]

Botta said his call-up is simply not fair.

"This has nothing to do with protest of the war. ... I have nothing but respect for the people on the ground," he said.

But he has done enough, he said.

Metsch said federal rules that give President Bush the power to call reserves into active duty shore up Botta's belief.

The rules require the military to consider a reservist's prior service and the types of hazards the service member confronted. Among his various decorations, Botta earned the Army Commendation Medal, the National Defense Service Medal and the War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal during his three years of active duty.

Further, military officials are to look at the reservist's family situation and whether the person's employment is needed to "maintain the national health, safety or interest."

"It's clear to us they ignored the statute," Metsch said.

Well, of course they ignored the statute. Remember, the overriding philosophy of the Bush crime syndicate is that laws don't apply to them.

While the lawsuit is pending, Botta still must report or face prosecution for desertion. It's just another way the U.S. military, as led by the Bush crime syndicate, is the gift that keeps on giving.

Supporting the troops ... not

I just can't for the life of me figure out how any rational person can conclude that Drunky McStagger and the Bush crime syndicate -- which includes pretty much anyone with an "R" after his or her name, especially in Washington -- actually support the troops at all, let alone more so than the Democrats.

I already proved that assertion months ago, but the evidence keeps piling up. You really don't have to go any further than Drunky's veto of the original military spending bill. But if you want more, how about the crap that continues to go on at Walter Reed?

The Army said Friday that it has opened an investigation into the recent discovery of 4,500 letters and parcels - some dating to May 2006 - at Walter Reed that were never delivered to soldiers.

And it fired the contract employee who ran the mailroom.

In an indication of the Army's sensitivity to problems at Walter Reed, whose reputation as the crown jewel in the Army medical system was tarnished by the disclosures of poor treatment of soldiers earlier this year, officials put out a written statement late Friday afternoon detailing the problem with the mail.

Maj. Gen. Eric Schoomaker, commander of Walter Reed, said he ordered a team of 20 to 40 soldiers and civilians to launch an around-the-clock operation to screen, survey and forward all the letters and parcels. Items addressed to soldiers still at Walter Reed were being hand-delivered Friday night, he said.

"This delay is completely and absolutely unsatisfactory," Schoomaker said.

He took over at Walter Reed after the Army fired his predecessor, Maj. Gen. George Weightman, in the wake of Washington Post stories that spelled out substandard living conditions and excessive red tape for soldiers at Walter Reed.

Army Secretary Francis Harvey also was fired in the days following the disclosures.

The mail wasn't even getting through. The Army's "sensitivity" is heart-warming, but it's more like "sorry we got caught" than "sorry we screwed up."

The next time some asshat Republican says they support the troops more than the Democrats, I hope someone nearby punches him or her right in the ear. And if that's uncivil, well, it's no less civil than the way the Bush crime syndicate has treated our military over the last six years.

Double standards, or It's OK [to exploit the military] If You're A Republican

"IOKIYAR." It's OK If You're A Republican.

We've heard it over and over again. But rarely have I seen it so blatantly applied as in this story of an anti-war protestor facing punishment for wearing his Marine uniform at a protest.

Marine Cpl. Adam Kokesh participated in the protest in March, clad in a uniform that had his name tag and other insignia removed. After he was identified in a photo caption in The Washington Post, a superior officer sent him a letter saying he might have violated a rule prohibiting troops from wearing uniforms without authorization.

After a hearing Monday before an administrative separation board at the Marine Corps Mobilization Command, the panel decided not to recommend a less-than-honorable discharge, choosing instead the general discharge.

The general discharge is described as a "nonpunitive discharge," which may be technically true, but by refusing Cpl. Kokesh an honorable discharge, the Marine Corps clearly is punishing him.

Here's the crux of the matter:

Kokesh is a member of the Individual Ready Reserve, which consists mainly of those who have left active duty but still have time remaining on their eight-year military obligations. His service is due to end June 18, but the Marine Corps is seeking to let him go two weeks early with a less-than-honorable discharge.

That could cut some of his health benefits and force him to repay about $10,800 he received to obtain his undergraduate degree on the GI Bill.

His attorneys said Kokesh was not subject to military rules during the protest because he was not on active duty. They said the protest was a theatrical performance, which meant wearing a uniform was a not a violation of military rules.

The military considered it a political event, at which personnel are not allowed to wear their uniforms without authorization.

The general discharge would not result in the loss of health benefits or the reimbursement of educational expenses. So the issue boils down to whether officers will accept the Board's recommendation of a general discharge or opt instead for the less-than-honorable discharge.

There can be little doubt that Cpl. Kokesh would have received an honorable discharge upon separation in two weeks, but for the protest. Therefore, even a general discharge is a punitive measure designed to sanction him for exercising his First Amendment rights.

Oh, and military personnel are not permitted to wear their uniforms at political events without authorization? Are you telling me they were "authorized" at all of these? (Don't even tell me these weren't "political" events.)






Well, you get the idea. Remember, kids: It's OK If You're A Republican ... to do just about anything.

The U.S. Army: lying like Republicans

Apparently the Army is taking its cue from the Commander-in-Chief and his pals:

An Army Ranger who was with Pat Tillman when he died by friendly fire said Tuesday he was told by a higher-up to conceal that information from Tillman's family.

"I was ordered not to tell them," U.S. Army Specialist Bryan O'Neal told the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

He said he was given the order by then-Lt. Col. Jeff Bailey, the battalion commander who oversaw Tillman's platoon.

Pat Tillman's brother Kevin was in a convoy behind his brother when the incident happened, but didn't see it. O'Neal said Bailey told him specifically not to tell Kevin Tillman that the death was friendly fire rather than heroic engagement with the enemy.

Oscar Wilde once said that life imitates art far more than art imitates life. I guess he was right. Can we expect Col. Bailey to shout that we can't handle the truth!!! in his best Jack Nicholson voice?

Friendly fire deaths are tragic. Lying to cover it up is unconscionable. More and more, I'm convinced that the reins of American government -- in all areas, not just the White House -- are held in toto not by moral and upright men and women, but by people who lie and cheat to get their way, or just in order to avoid looking bad. It's a government of image, not of leadership.

Perhaps Kevin Tillman put it best:

Kevin Tillman said his family has sought for years to get at the truth, and have now concluded that they were "being actively thwarted by powers that are more interested in protecting a narrative than getting at the truth and seeing justice is served."

January 20, 2009 is 637 days away. I hope we can survive as a nation until then.

Today's Daily Schadenfreude: the Bush administration crime syndicate

HELP WANTED: War Czar Must be a motivated self-starter with strong written and verbal communication skills. Military experience preferred. Government/administrative experience helpful but not necessary. The successful candidate will be a sycophantic right-wing zealot who will carry out the wishes of the Bush administration without questioning, flinching, or substituting his/her own judgment for that of the Commander-in-Chief. He/she must be able to provide cogent and reasonable guidance and advice to the Commander-in-Chief, who routinely will reject said advice while claiming to be following "the commanders on the ground." Ability to lie convincingly to members of the media and the general public is essential; ability to do so in Arabic and/or Spanish is desirable. Preference given to applicants with degrees from Liberty University, Regent University, Bob Jones University, or Brigham Young University, or any public university in Texas; others considered on a case-by-case basis (but don't hold your breath). Send résumé, along with three (3) references and an essay (not less than five (5) single-spaced pages) explaining why you believe George W. Bush is the greatest president in American history, to: The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 E-mail: warczar@gwb43.com The White House is an equal opportunity employer, as long as you are an amoral, opportunistic Republican.

No, that's not a real ad. But it might as well be, as the White House is having a hell of a time* filling the job of "war czar." So far, three retired four-star generals have said "thanks, but no thanks" to the preznit's entreaties. Surprisingly, they apparently don't want to have a job where the boss has no fucking idea what's going on:

"The very fundamental issue is, they don't know where the hell they're going," said retired Marine Gen. John J. "Jack" Sheehan, a former top NATO commander who was among those rejecting the job. Sheehan said he believes that Vice President Cheney and his hawkish allies remain more powerful within the administration than pragmatists looking for a way out of Iraq. "So rather than go over there, develop an ulcer and eventually leave, I said, 'No, thanks,' " he said.

The White House has not publicly disclosed its interest in creating the position, hoping to find someone President Bush can anoint and announce for the post all at once. Officials said they are still considering options for how to reorganize the White House's management of the two conflicts. If they cannot find a person suited for the sort of specially empowered office they envision, they said, they may have to retain the current structure.

Honestly, this is just getting silly now. If the Bush cabal can't find anyone to run their little "war," doesn't that give the impression that maybe they shouldn't run their "war?" Of course, that would be presuming facts not in evidence, namely, that they are rational and sensible. Which they aren't.

You know, it's really quite funny to see Drunky McStagger and his minions flailing their arms and shouting "Remain calm! All is well!" Of course, that in turn makes it the perfect target for a healthy dose of schadenfreude.

So congratulations once again to the Bush crime syndicate -- today's Blast Off! Daily Schadenfreude is for you!

---

* I apologize if you can't access the link; it may be subscription-only.

Casualties of war treated with dignity -- finally

This morning I read that it's costing the federal government $11 million this year to ensure that the bodies of those killed in the so-called war in Iraq and Afghanistan are brought back to the U.S. in a dignified manner, with charter jets and honor guards upon arrival.

That's terrific, and I'm glad to see the government doing this.

What's shocking is that it took four years to get to this point!!!

What the fuck was the government thinking, spending a relatively paltry $1.2 million a year to fly the bodies back on commercial jets and having them unloaded like regular baggage upon arrival? The idea that this was happening at all is disgraceful. It's just another example of the Bush crime syndicate trying to save a buck or two, when they're spending trillions of dollars and thousands of lives on an unnecessary war. Yep, they'd rather save $10 million than give the troops they killed (by their actions, if not with their bullets and explosives) a shred of dignity.

Sure, they get credit for coming to their senses. But don't give me any more of that shit about the "administration" supporting the troops. Until January of this year, the troops were just expendable baggage as far as the "administration" was concerned.

And in many ways, they still are.

A heroic cause?

I was saddened by the front page story in the Palm Beach Post today regarding area soldiers being deployed to Iraq.

I believe that their sacrifice is noble, and that they are behaving heroically. I do not, however, believe the cause for which they are being sent to fight and die is heroic, and that makes their words (and those of their family members) even more poignant.

John Allen, a dive boat captain from Boynton Beach, was surrounded by fellow members of Masonic Lodge 138 as he waited for his son, Carter, to arrive - and depart.

"This is like waiting for a baby to be born," Allen said, smiling stoically and eyeing the door. "I'm not happy about him going. I'd trade places in a heartbeat, but he has a job to do, and when he enlisted we all knew he wasn't signing up to work at Sears. He has a cause, and hopefully he'll be home. I'm very proud."

Carter Allen joined the Marines in 2004 after graduating from the Dreyfoos School of the Arts.

"He changed a lot after Sept. 11," his father said. "It's kind of ironic because his grandfather enlisted after Pearl Harbor."

[...]

In April 2004, [Lance Cpl. Bill] Simonet left this same parking lot for his first tour of Iraq. He was 20 then and full of smiles and self-confidence. He had introduced himself as Billy.

"I'm not worried, I'm looking forward to it," he said then. "I'm young and wild, I'm adventurous. And it's free!"

Now he's Bill and 23, and he's heading back. His smile is still wide and self-confident, but he has clearly become a man. His speech is less ebullient but more assured.

"I'm a little more prepared now," he said, "and I've learned everything isn't as it seems. I went over there expecting everybody was wanting to shoot and kill me, but it's quite the opposite, actually. The people are very friendly. They actually want us there."

Nearby, Capt. Matt Brewster stood with his mother and stepfather. A graduate of the University of Florida with degrees in building construction and finance, he has completed one tour in Afghanistan and another in Iraq. He's returning to Iraq at a time when public opinion polls find strong support for the troops but dwindling faith in their mission.

"We're fighting a counterinsurgency, and a counterinsurgency is a lot of very small battles," Brewster said. "So it's hard for the press to say we captured this guy and we captured that guy. But we'll never give up as long as you guys don't give up on us. This war is very winnable, and we just need the public to keep supporting us."

[...]

As the van pulled out of the gate and headed toward Belvedere Road, it passed a gray marble monument.

We Shall Never Forget Those Who Gave All For The Cause Of Freedom.
Robert B. Jenkins, Al Anbar, Iraq, 2 May 2004.
Scott R. McHugh, Al Anbar, Iraq, 2 May 2004.

I wish I could believe that they, and thousands of others, gave their lives for freedom. But the reality is that they gave their lives for nothing more than a vendetta, a personal grudge match led by Drunky McStagger, a cause that was far more political than patriotic.

That's the saddest fact of all.