Western reactions to the ISIS Paris attacks

And so we have to, each of us, do our part [for the refugee crisis]. And the United States has to step up and do its part. And when I hear folks say that, well, maybe we should just admit the Christians but not the Muslims; when I hear political leaders suggesting that there would be a religious test for which a person who’s fleeing from a war-torn country is admitted, when some of those folks themselves come from families who benefitted from protection when they were fleeing political persecution -- that’s shameful. That’s not American. That’s not who we are. We don’t have religious tests to our compassion. 


-President Obama


https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/11/16/press-conference-president-obama-antalya-turkey


http://www.thetakeaway.org/story/congress-fights-over-refugees-isis-strategy/


The predictable right wing knee-jerk reaction to the Paris attacks is still upsetting. Increase gov't surveillance powers, shut down mosques, close Schengen borders, block Muslims and/or Syrians from getting refugee status. And then there's all the discussion about how to crush ISIS.


Let's remember that MOST of the attackers from 11/13 were already on European security watch lists, because they went to the Middle East (allegedly to fight for ISIS) and then returned to Europe. That should have been a red flag, like "Bin Laden determined to strike the US." But like with 9/11, info was not shared effectively across nations and agencies. So while we do have to blame the attackers, we also shouldn't forget that the security infrastructure that was supposed to protect the French seemed to fail. They don't need extra powers and fewer Muslims, they just need to better monitor the high-risk persons that have already been flagged by normal methods.


Even "liberal" Senator Feinstein and others have called for tech companies to give the gov't backdoor keys into their encrypted systems. I thought Snowden convinced us that such access will not make us safer - many false positives and civil rights violation risks, and no evidence that attacks were prevented. Also, if the gov't warehouses backdoors into all major web services, then that is a huge gold mine for hackers to focus on (and the gov't doesn't have a great track record of preventing thefts). If we need a police-security state in order to be/feel "safe", then maybe we have to question whether this is the right society to live in.


But the worst reaction relates to the demonizing of refugees, IMO. Just because one major attack occurred directly from the Syrian and Iraq conflicts (which have gone on for over 10 years combined), now all of a sudden the refugees are the problem? The US has settled about 2K Syrian refugees in total. Even if they were all bad apples and killed 10 Americans each, that would still be less that the yearly pre-existing gun violence in America (or auto deaths). Where is the furor and urgency over the gun and car makers (and their lax regulators) - the real mass murderers?


So after one Paris attack (assuming other major attacks are not imminent or fairly mature in their planning), now the refugees are public enemy #1? But that is the bogeyman politics of xenophobia and intolerance. And let's remember that while the casualties in Paris were horrific, that number of people die at the hands of ISIS about every day in Iraq-Syria. Yet our outrage and hysteria are more muted (or nonexistent) when it's Mideast towns getting bombed and Muslims getting senselessly murdered.


Lastly, ISIS attacked Russian and French targets partly because those nations attacked them first. I'm fairly sure that Russian and NATO air strikes killed some ISIS "innocents" who were not combatants too (maybe the families of ISIS fighters, locals who unfortunately live in ISIS territory, or whatnot). ISIS is not attacking Burma or Chile. While we can't let them intimidate us into isolationism and denial of their threat, we have to acknowledge that if we choose to wage war on them, they will not appreciate that and try to hurt us back. If our societies don't want to pay that price, then we shouldn't get involved. Or do we expect that just because we're the "good guys" that we should be able to easily wipe our our enemies abroad and not incur any pains in the process?


Maybe since the Iranian Revolution, this "clash of civilizations" between "Jihadists and Crusaders" feels more and more like an irrational blood feud than a traditional strategic geopolitical conflict. As as we know from history, blood feuds are messier, protracted, and with more senseless losses on both sides.

The foolish drumbeat for war against ISIS

ISIS is a problem for the US and many of our partners, that is obvious. But it is not an acute problem, nor the only problem facing our civilization (you wouldn't know it after listening to many in DC though). And let's be clear; Obama and company didn't decide to intervene militarily to save some poor religious minority stuck on a mountain (that very few of us even knew existed before the summer). ISIS was getting the upper hand against the best Kurdish troops, and the Kurds are the only reasonably trustworthy/capable/secular petro-ally we have left in Mesopotamia. So something had to be done.   

Just because we've pretty much marginalized groups like Al Qaeda (and its affiliates such as AQAP) through cyber warfare and drones, and we're washing our hands of the Taliban (pretty much raised the white flag there), we need a new Islamist bogeyman to fixate on. ISIS has shown some impressive strategy and execution (and atrocious behavior/beliefs) in seizing/holding Arab lands, but of course they exploited a lot of favorable conditions in the region to do so. It is a whole different matter to mount a major attack on a Western power. But that is exactly what everyone is predicting they are up to (and capable of). Heck, they could be already here!

This is what the former director of the Nat'l Counterterrorism Center (Matt Olson) said about ISIS' capability to attack the US: “There is no credible information that [Isis] is planning to attack the United States”. He added there was “no indication at this point of a cell of foreign fighters operating in the United States – full stop”. [Olson] said said it was “spot on” to conclude that Isis is significantly more limited than al-Qaida was, for example, in the run-up to 9/11, when it had underground cells across Europe and the US. “We certainly aren’t there,” Olsen said. “[Isis] is not al-Qaida pre-9/11”.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/03/isis-militants-al-qaida-911-intelligence-officials

Yet this is what Lindsey Graham, who is a senior member of the Senate Armed Svcs. Cmte., said about ISIS: "They are coming here. It is about our homeland."

http://theweek.com/speedreads/index/266144/speedreads-watch-sen-lindsey-graham-blast-obamas-response-to-isis

I can't begin to comment how grossly irresponsible and misleading this is from someone who has access to actual intel and expert opinion (and helps craft defense policy as well). And Boehner wants to try to impeach Obama for misconduct? Shitheads like Graham are just repeating the same garbage that led the public to believe Saddam had WMDs. Because when your family and your home are in perceived jeopardy, your better judgment weakens and you may become more susceptible to suggestion.

So why did Obama and company go from a "wait and see" approach with Syria to forming a "coalition" to "destroy" ISIS (without risking any US troops of course)? Cynics would say because public opinion rapidly shifted from 70% against intervention to 60% pro, but they have a point. Why did opinion shift so much? Because of 2 videos of journalists being executed. That shows you how stupid this country is (incl. Obama on down). While those deaths were barbaric and tragic, I'm sorry to say that worse shit is occurring every damn day in many places across the globe (ISIS is doing much worse stuff to non-Americans too - where are those videos?). But those are places that we don't care about (Central Africa, Latin America) or don't have the stomach/chutzpah to really intervene (China, Palestine). More Americans died in Benghazi, and while the GOP had a shitfit about it, no one was calling for war against the parties responsible. Islamic Jihad bombed and killed over 200 servicemen in 1983, and Reagan not only failed to respond, but pulled us out of Lebanon! Very rarely (if ever) do sound decisions result from vengeful, fearful sentiment.

Air power alone will not stop an insurgency - we've seen that in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and other places. Maybe it will slow ISIS down and take out some leaders (but of course it may also motivate them to try harder to attack our homeland - ironically the very threat that we're working to avoid). So what do we do about the inevitable escalation decision? Remember that Islamists have "home field advantage" and want to provoke the infidel powers into a protracted quagmire. Maybe that's why they released the videos? Will we take the bait again?

Plus, let's remember that hurting ISIS may help Assad and Iran - two regimes that we should probably be focusing on more. Lastly, if ISIS is such a concern, why aren't our Middle East "friends" helping us in this fight (or fighting them already without our participation)? Kerry is literally going door-to-door. Israel spent billions to level Gaza (again), but are they lifting a finger to assist with ISIS (which is on their doorstep)? The Saudis are offering to "train Syrian rebels" on their soil (mostly because they already hate Assad/Iran, and have been a source of anti-Assad Jihadists for years). Turkey may block the flow of money and fighters into Syria. Jordan may provide "intel". That's about it.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/05/us-core-coalition-fight-isis-militants-iraq-nato
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/14/world/meast/isis-coalition-nations/

It's also an interesting coincidence (or more than that) that the neocon-leaning pundits and politicians, who are vociferously calling for military action, are also funded by America's major defense companies. As overall defense budgets are getting scrutinized and spending in Iraq/Afghanistan is winding down, the death dealers need a new conflict theater to peddle and exploit.

http://billmoyers.com/2014/09/17/whos-paying-the-pro-war-pundits/

PS - did you wonder why Obama and others in DC refer to ISIS as ISIL, and don't use the official name of Islamic State either? Obviously they don't want to use the word "Islamic" if they can avoid it, which suggests that this is another Crusade or anti-Islam conquest. But the ISIL acronym avoids the hot-button word of Syria. The US is more comfortable with bombing Iraq - we've been doing it for decades and we have relations with the various groups. But with Syria (the conflict that Obama has avoided for 3+ years), it's a total cluster F and we obviously can't tell a moderate rebel from a crazy one. So ISIL allows Obama and company the official excuse/cover to avoid the Syrian portion of the war. This is just a hypothesis of course.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/09/09/isis-vs-isil-vs-islamic-state-the-political-importance-of-a-much-debated-acronym/

Looking back on 9/11 and the "terror industrial complex" it spawned

Maybe you all are like me, already sick of the emotionally-manipulative 9/11 remembrance content all over the mainstream media. Instead of more footage of twisted rubble, crying women, and the stars-and-stripes, how about something that's actually thought-provoking:

http://www.npr.org/2011/09/06/140056904/the-top-secret-america-created-after-9-11

Some of this we already know, but the Pulitzer-winning author Diana Priest has documented many ways that the secrecy-antiterrorism industry has exploded since 9/11... to a point that it is literally "out of control" as evaluated by security experts. No one knows how much we are spending, what we are doing, and who we are employing. The gov't was so unprepared for this growth that they needed to hire contractors to be able to run background checks on all the new contractors they were hiring. It's incredible: now 800,000 Americans, or 1 in 375 of us, hold top-secret clearances (many of them have not taken loyalty oaths to defend the US, and instead serve the profit motive). For all the GOP complaints about the size of gov't and its inability to sustainably create jobs - I guess they meant all other industries but this one.

And security contractors are paid much more than similar "public servants", so the CIA saw a brain drain where junior analysts would accrue the necessary year or so to acquire the basic skills sought by the security firms. They would then leave the CIA, get hired by Blackwater types, and do the exact same job for 3X pay, with the gov't and ultimately taxpayers on the hook to cover the higher expense.

If we thought CIA was covert, they are getting one-upped by JSOC (Joint Spec Ops Cmd, that used to do hostage rescue but now is the gov'ts elite hit squad that nailed Bin Laden and others). JSOC has all the power and resources of the CIA (if not more), yet isn't bound by law to report its activities to Congress or others. Obama has given them the green light to step up their activities, and to their credit they have killed/captured many more "terrorists" than the CIA. But it is scary that some secret org can decide to put a name on a kill list, and then just go out and do it without asking anyone for permission (yet are funded by us). They represent us but don't answer to us, so we get the blowback if they mess up (like errant drone strikes in Pakistan whipping up anti-Americanism).

Let's also remember all this stuff on the anniversary of 9/11, including the tens of thousands of non-Americans who have died as the result of our wars.

Bin Laden's death

Vengeance is not justice, but it is often a shallow substitute.

Not to be a killjoy (but be honest, you were expecting this), but I would have preferred America to have a more tempered response to the Bin Laden news. All the flag-waving, gloating, and "God bless America" celebration, while somewhat justified in a long war with few significant victories for the US, won't really help us secure a better future. Especially the religious terminology from Palin and others only serves to complicate reconciliation (and regardless of what the zealots say, most terrorists or extremists can still be bargained with under the right circumstances - see the Sunni Awakening and "nice" Qaddafi). When it's a religious war, it's winner-take-all, which has been the wet dream of psychopathic warmongers for centuries. Both sides think god is on their side, and will help them smite their enemy, yet claim that they worship a prophet of peace? Huckabee said "Welcome to hell, Bin Laden." I thought it was "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone," and "Love your enemies"? And that man used to be a Baptist minister.

That's why I wish during his speech last night, Obama would have called on Americans to practice restraint, use this occasion to reflect and remember the victims of war (on all sides), and think about what each of us can do to promote peace and security in our neighborhoods and abroad. I wish he would have refrained from the "G.B.A." cliche. Otherwise it's quite grotesque to see the richest nation with the most powerful (and expensive) military jubilantly celebrating one man's death, especially a man weakened by disease who poses very little direct threat to us, and who was hiding out in broad daylight while we were combing vast swaths of rugged terrain for him for years (and killing many of the wrong people during our hunting efforts). Sadly, it reminds me of the Munchkins celebrating Dorothy's house falling on the Wicked Witch, when the Witch's meaner sister was still out there. As one KQED commentator said this morning, "It's not a football game."

The identities of SEAL Team 6 and the intel personnel responsible for the actual attack may never be known (unless they blow their cover, appear on Oprah, and write tell-all books), so they are happy just to accomplish their mission, and don't need the praise of politicians looking for a sound bite as we head towards election season. I am sure it was the biggest rush of their lives to conduct this historic raid, but of course they were doing it out of love for country. I bet the 9/11 hijackers felt similar pride for their special mission. I'm not saying that our troops are on the same level as terrorists, but it's so funny how everything in the world seems to have its mirror, while politicians and ideologues only see black and white. Well one thing is for sure, this mission will definitely be re-created in the next installment of XBox Call of Duty.

So where do we go from here? There are a lot of unanswered questions. The "original" Al Qaeda, Af-Pak-based and led by Bin Laden, was mostly irrelevant since 2003, and bigger concerns exist from other terror networks like Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (supposedly the people behind the underpants and Time Square bombers), radicalism among Muslim youth in Europe, and of course Iranian nuclear research. Then there's all the political upheaval in many Arab nations, and how those events play out could really reshape the security landscape for us. Also, why was O.B.L. permitted to live in a heavily guarded compound in a nice military suburb in our ally Pakistan? It's pretty clear that this wasn't a joint operation with the Pakistanis, because their military-intel establishment is so full of leaks that someone would have surely tipped off Bin Laden. Osama's people built that custom compound with high walls and barbed wire, had couriers coming in and out every day, and even burnt their trash, and no one hunting Bin Laden noticed until this spring?

Also, why the hasty burial-at-sea? While I doubt that even our gov't would dare to falsify Osama's death, the swift handling raises some eyebrows and opens the door for conspiracy theories. Why not return the remains to the Bin Laden family in Saudi Arabia? The KQED guest said that the US may want to avoid having Osama's corpse on display somewhere for veneration and inspiration, so they took this course of action. Lastly, why didn't we try harder to capture Osama? He was supposedly killed by a "double-tap" to the side of the head. Does that mean it was an up-close execution? Isn't Osama more useful to us alive? Even if he won't give up intel (even under torture), some questioning could probably be useful - and isn't he supposed to stand trial for the embassy bombings and 9/11? Or are we worried about what he might say on the stand? Not to incite conspiracy again, but it is peculiar. I know that no captive is worth losing soldiers over, so if the SEALs didn't feel they could capture O.B.L. safely, better to shoot to kill?

It's pretty clear that justice has NOT been done over 9/11, even with Osama dead. Congress is still dragging its feet over compensation for sickened first responders. The wars we launched in response to 9/11 created a bunch of new injustices and problems. The root causes of terrorism that partly inspired Osama are still mostly intact: Crusader-like US military presence in the Middle East, Western support of corrupt oil regimes and Israeli aggression, vast wealth and human rights inequalities, abuse of Muslim immigrants, and other issues that can be seen as insults to Islam. I know Muslims have done plenty of horrible things to each other and us since 9/11 too, so clearly the case is not closed. Finally, let's remember that all the terrible damage done to the US and our interests on 9/11 pales in comparison to the amazing losses we incurred during the recent financial crisis. That "attack" was perpetrated by Western greedy bankers, ignorant investors/borrowers, corrupt politicians, and lax regulators. That wasn't Al Qaeda at all, it was us. So who is the bigger enemy that we should fear and fight?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110502/ts_nm/us_binladen_compound
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_bin_laden_the_raid
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_exclusive/the-secret-team-that-killed-bin-laden;_ylt=AtJwovoSU36wQK1iPsoahRxH2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTNsMXZucW9jBGFzc2V0A3libG9nX2V4Y2x1c2l2ZS8yMDExMDUwMi90aGUtc2VjcmV0LXRlYW0tdGhhdC1raWxsZWQtYmluLWxhZGVuBGNwb3MDMgRwb3MDMgRzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3JpZXMEc2xrA3RoZXNlY3JldHRlYQ--
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_bin_laden;_ylt=Ai99lNU7AeFlZp8jNWRL9hJH2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTJmNmMybWFyBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTEwNTAyL3VzX2Jpbl9sYWRlbgRjcG9zAzEEcG9zAzEEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yaWVzBHNsawNhcHNvdXJjZXNkbmE-
http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201105020900

Michael Scheuer on Osama and the Mideast

This was one of the most refreshing foreign policy interviews I've heard in a while, from Prof. Michael Scheuer of G'Town who used to head up the CIA's Bin Laden group (nicknamed "The Manson Family" for how fanatically they performed their jobs). I guess you might think he was a failure for that, but he informed the Pentagon of OBL's precise location on 8 occasions (of course no way to know if they were right), and the Clinton admin. declined to give the green light for their own reasons. In 2007, Osama himself said that the two Americans who understood him the most were Noam Chomsky and Scheuer (make of that what you will).

http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201102231000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Scheuer

Scheuer said that as early as 1997, Osama's grand strategy was to foment political discord in the US and alienate us from our allies over our foreign policy, stretch our military-intel apparatus thin trying to chase Al Qaeda, and bankrupt us in foreign quagmires. If that is true, then the self-proclaimed greatest nation in history strutted into a major bear trap set by a guy hiding in a cave. We're not on our last legs yet, but we're not winning either (especially when you consider the price we've paid so far for minor gains). He also said that Osama is more of a smart, dedicated "worthy enemy" like Robert E. Lee than a delusional lunatic like Kim Jong Il. Unfortunately the former is a lot harder to defeat.

Osama's top enemies are/were the non-Islamic dictators in the Mideast (especially the House of Saud, Saddam, Mubarak, and Qaddafi, so this has been a great month for him) and Israel. The US and the West are indirect enemies due to our support for said enemies. But one wonders whether our choice of allies could have prevented Osama from becoming militant. After all, he did fight with us at one time, so we must not have been such intolerable infidels. Just as our "trusted Iraqi sources" told the neo-cons exactly what they wanted to hear, that Iraq had WMD for their own interests, Israel and our dictator buddies in the Mideast (who view grassroots Islamic movements as their top threats to power) have fed us crap for years that Al Qaeda hates us because of our values, and won't stop until we're dead or converted. Well if that's the case then it's personal; we better hate them back and wage an endless, amorphous war against them. Good vs. evil, our civilization is at stake, yadda yadda.

Yes Al Qaeda may want a global caliphate, because that is what Muhammad instructed Muslims to do (not necessarily through violence). I want a new job, and even if I try very hard to get one there's no telling if and when it will happen. Some US evangelicals hope to bring about the conditions that unleash Armageddon - not just prepare for the return of the lord, but actively make it happen. Then the US and all nations will be destroyed, and everyone but the true believers die horrible deaths (including the Jews they profess to support). So should we imprison the evangelicals for conspiracy against the US, and send them to Gitmo as religious fanatics? There is no point fearing and defending against every extreme religious endgame. But hey, it makes for a great bogeyman for people like Bush and Beck to peddle on the ignorant and fearful.

All this masks the truths that are politically inconvenient for our leaders, and hinders their propaganda efforts inspiring us to sacrifice for this righteous conflict. We and our allies created Al Qaeda and Osama. Instead of diffusing the causes of their grievances, we have chosen to fight them head on, and on their terms. And we have taken this problematic path because we care more about propping up dictators in order to keep the Israelis happy, Muslims down, and oil exports up (an industry whose profits go to only a small subset of people), rather than forging true partnerships, cultural understanding, political reforms, and economic development. The region is still affected by the legacies of colonialism; they need a Marshall Plan, not Rendition and sanctions. If we took the higher path, maybe Exxon and Lockheed's coffers would be smaller, but the people over there would have a better quality of life and viable political channels of redress (precluding the need to embrace violent Islam), which ensures greater stability and security for our interests in the end.

-------

Scheuer also made pretty good comments about our precarious support of Israel. Any nation founded on the premise that a deity granted a chosen tribe exclusive rights to a patch of land in an unbreakable, eternal covenant (and much of their government is populated by leaders who espouse this belief) is probably not a great partner for rational, 21st Century diplomacy. The US supposedly trusts in god, but no one except Palin types would claim that god cares whether the US is around or not. Scheuer was the first person I've heard to say that Israel doesn't have a right to exist, contrary to most public statements. He of course believes that Israel has the right to defend itself from threats, but no nation has a "right" to exist, and that is an important distinction. It must be true, otherwise the USSR would still be around, and we couldn't have forced Nazi Germany to surrender. Nations exist as long as they can, but if they grow weak or piss off other nations enough, they're going down. That is the way of the world, so why the double-standard for Israel? Because god said so? And we call the Muslims crazy? This is important because it's much harder to think clearly when existential sentiments are always clouding one's judgment.

Regarding Libya, it's amazing that Obama hasn't publicly condemned Qaddafi's violence against his people and called for him to step down (the Arab League already has). Clinton spoke out a bit, and also previously called on the Iranian people to rise up against their murderous regime. That's easy for her to say 10,000 miles away in safety and comfort, but these are not light decisions for the people on the ground. If they want to revolt, they have to go all the way or it's their death and doom for their loved ones. Despots stay in power by paying for loyalty and crushing opponents, especially those who dare to speak out. There's no turning back, and if we realize that we should really salute the courageous young people who risked everything to defy the odds and topple dictators backed by thousands of gunmen and billions of petro-dollars. The typical American can't even be bothered to drive down the street and vote once a year. It's a real shame that decades of our foreign policy blunders have rendered us nearly impotent during this critical time in Mideast history.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/02/22/too_little_not_yet_too_late

Why has the US put more heat on Mubarak, when he was responsible for far less bloodshed (at least Mubarak didn't send warplanes to bomb unarmed people in his own cities)? Libya cut a deal with Bush and others in the West to get UN sanctions lifted and to get off the terror blacklist. Qaddafi supposedly agreed to cease his WMD programs, pay reparations to the victims of the Pan Am bombing, and release some Western captives. He must have got a lot in return, including diplomatic cover. And when the EU buys 85% of Libya's substantial oil exports, that's a lot of capital to cash in during a crisis. That shows you how our foreign energy dependence can cripple our diplomatic options and stifle our principles. It's clear that Qaddafi is done; it just matters how much he will kill and destroy in the process. It's better for us and the region to limit Qaddafi's damage now. We enforced no-fly zones over Serbia and Iraq, why not with Libya? Our fleet is already over there. Many Libyan pilots bravely defected and refused to carry out missions to bomb protesters. But at least the US/NATO can embargo incoming shipments of resources and mercenaries from Qaddafi's African allies.

Why do Muslims hate us? Not because of our democracy, shopping malls, and women's rights (well not primarily). It's because we choose to befriend homicidal klepto-sociopaths over the millions of honest, poor people languishing under their boots. It's not just Obama but a long tradition.

How Washington treats it heroes during the holidays

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-december-16-2010/9-11-first-responders-react-to-the-senate-filibuster

As you probably know, it's been almost a decade since 9/11, and the NYC first responders are still fighting to get health care compensation for the multitude of illnesses likely caused or exacerbated by the toxic dust when the towers fell. This predicament was also described in Michael Moore's "Sicko". Obama and the Congressional Dems are working on a bill that would provide no-cost care to them for 10 years, but of course the GOP senators are blocking it to prevent a moral victory for their rivals during this unusually productive lame duck session. Many of the responders have private insurance, but the copays for respiratory diseases and cancers are of course still significant. And worker's comp won't cover them because they can't medically prove that their conditions were 100% caused by work activities. But forget these technicalities and excuses. Yes it's expensive to care for them, but what message are we sending if we turn our backs on the first responders, people who risked everything to help their fellow man during a disaster that was not of their doing? And it's even worse when our gov't is to blame for partially creating/training Al Qaeda, failing to prevent the attack, and now ignoring the health needs of the people who were sent in to clean up their mess. Heck they weren't even sent, they went in willingly because that's who they are.

Helping the responders wouldn't be unprecedented, and it seems like a no-brainer to the rest of us. Dialysis is so expensive and life-extending that the Nixon admin. approved Medicaid to cover any American who needs it (this was America's first experiment with socialized medicine). US servicepeople who were exposed to Agent Orange in Vietnam are covered for various diseases related to the toxin (unfortunately the Vietnamese, many of whom fought on our side and were exposed in much greater number/magnitude, are not included). So why not cover the 9/11 heroes? The GOP defends its filibuster by saying that they don't have the time to handle the issue now, and it would be "disrespectful" to their families, the institution of Congress, and the Christmas tradition if they kept working this week. I think Mrs. McCain and McConnell will survive if hubby is out of town for a few more days. And what better way to celebrate the birth of the Prince of Peace than to show compassion to hundreds of Good Samaritans in need? As you can see, it's just BS. The GOP threatened to shut down Congress unless the Bush tax cuts were extended, but they won't sacrifice an hour of their holiday vacation for people who showed us the best of what America is, and paid the price. Of course Jon Stewart was the only media source to cover this issue. 

http://www.npr.org/2010/12/20/132145959/pentagon-health-plan-wont-cover-brain-damage-therapy-for-troops

Another problem is the VA's Tricare insurance coverage for "cognitive rehabilitation" for war veterans with the common condition of TBI (often the result of insurgent IED and mortar attacks). Depending on how you diagnose, 5 to 60 thousand soldiers and vets may have TBI. CR therapy is quite expensive ($50k per patient), but it has been scientifically shown to improve functionality and quality of life in the civilian sector (car accident victims, stroke, etc.). In some cases, patients were unable to even read or speak full sentences before therapy, but regained those critical skills after. It is a personalized, holistic, unorthodox treatment, so of course some in the medical and health care policy communities are skeptical, and it doesn't really fit the VA bureaucracy classifications. But when 5 of the 12 major private insurers cover CR, there is likely some medical benefit. When Obama was a senator (and presidential hopeful) in 2008, he and 69 other Congressmen wrote to Tricare urging them to cover CR: "Given the prevalence of TBI among returning service personnel, it is difficult to comprehend why the military's managed health care plan does not cover the very therapies that give our soldiers the best opportunities to recover and live full and productive lives." Now a spokesman for Obama said that the president has "no comment" on the issue, and his Defense Sec. Gates is also not explicitly supportive, since they are leading an effort to cut Pentagon costs to get the deficit hawks off their backs (vet health care is a major gov't expenditure as my tax email showed). So Tricare is playing all sorts of games, saying the data is inconclusive, or they should wait until the therapy is proven so they know they're not doing more harm than good.

We criticize the Muslim militants for brainwashing youth to become suicide bombers, or the Soviet Union for sending in soldiers to clean up Chernobyl protected only by a 50 cents dust mask, but considering these failures, are we doing much better? If we keep ignoring and abusing patriots after they sacrifice everything for what the gov't tells them is their duty, America will eventually run out of patriots (or turn off future patriots) and we'll be a much weaker nation as a result. The gov't can't take their loyalty for granted, and we waste such precious resources at our own peril. Maybe we should consider all these costs the next time we engage in military adventurism. With all this talk about gov't living within our means, then we shouldn't fight a war we can't afford, especially when our survival and our allies are not in immediate peril. And is money really the issue if maintenance costs for our bloated nuclear arsenal (in the tens of billions, and the GOP refuses to reduce it to START Treaty recommendations, fighting Obama on yet another irrational front) would easily pay for cognitive rehab and 9/11 responder care for life?

Enemy combatants at Gitmo win in court

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/01/america/gitmo.php

The fairly conservative District of Columbia U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled against the Pentagon in the case of the first "enemy combatant", a Chinese national Huzaifa Parhat (ethnic Uighur Muslim) held at Gitmo for 6 years without charge or a shred of evidence against him. He is only guilty of attending a "terrorist training camp" in Central Asia run by the anti-Beijing East Turkistan Islamic Movement, which is supposedly "associated" with the Taleban/Qaeda, like Saddam I guess. We didn't even consider that group a terrorist organization until 2002, when we added them to the list at China's behest, in order to get some favors from them in the War on Terror. Considering how China has systematically mistreated Muslims and minorities in its border provinces, who is the real terrorist?

But even the White House concedes that Parhat attended the camp in order to fight the Chinese government, not the US. So when he was apprehended in Pakistan, why was he turned over to us and not China? He was never granted access to a lawyer or Chinese diplomats (not that they would want him back, but treaties say he should). He was never allowed to call a witness on his behalf or see the evidence against him. Though in his case, there was no evidence, but only unverifiable hearsay from Beijing (they told us he was a terrorist, so amidst post-9/11 hysteria, of course we took them at their word). It seems we've been conned into being China's jailor, and Gitmo has been nothing but a political tumor for us. We're also holding 16 other anti-Beijing Uighurs besides Parhat, all who claim to have no fight with America.

Now the problem is what to do next. China and other countries don't want Parhat. Many of the 200+ detainees at Gitmo share similar situations with equally shady "evidence" against them.

--------

Also, Seymour Hirsch on the covert ops sanctioned by the Bushies against Iran that look a lot like war preparation:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh

Maybe we can discuss next time?

Osama

Why it’s useless and often counter-productive to simply label such men as “evil”, without trying to understand how he came to be and why people believe in him

Non-intellectuals (and even some academics) often dismiss dark figures in history such as Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Saddam, and Bin Laden as simply 'evil men', and it's a sin if one attempts to describe them in any softer, nuanced terms. They committed crimes against humanity because they were psychotic, end of story. I find such characterizations to be elementary and basically useless. Actually it can be detrimental for the historical record and for posterity to paint in such broad brush strokes, thereby masking the details. If we don't learn from their examples, we may allow new Hitlers to emerge.

I shouldn't have to state this, but since Justin might accuse me of something foolish again, I DEPLORE the atrocities committed by such men, as I deplore the unjust deaths committed by any nation/individual (suicide bombers from Qaeda, cluster bombing urban areas during gulf war 1, etc.). However, it does no good to label political figures as simply and purely 'good' or 'evil'. A better goal would be to understand the conditions that fostered their transformations/policies/views, how they think, how they came to power, how they appealed to so many, and how to prevent future tyrants from doing harm. Sun Tsu said victory comes by knowing your enemy. To some people, it may be offensive (or even profane) to 'empathize' with a Hitler or 'get in he head' of a BL, but we have criminologists, profilers, and psychologists in the FBI and other law enforcement agencies for precisely that reason. We do not know how many crimes their analyses have prevented. They are a service to us citizens, especially in our violent culture. If we understand a person, we can better predict what that person will do.

And when we conduct our analysis of BL or other modern terrorists, what we discover may shock us, shame us, or dispel some myths/false assumptions. If we truly seek understanding, and wish to defeat such a foe, we should not censor accurate data that happens to be uncomfortable/troubling, or sack the messengers of such info. As was the case during the Iraq WMD debacle, we know the dangers of filtering only favorable intelligence/advice that conveniently agrees with your theories, and ignore the rest. Citing the Newsmax example, Sheuer worked on the BL task force for 3 years at the agency. He has more knowledge of the man than all the staff at Newsmax combined. Who are they to call him wrong with marginal evidence? They don't say that specifically, but the tone/objective of the partisan article is to debunk him as controversial, self-serving, and unreliable (especially since his book was used against bush in the campaign, and he dared to bring up Israel and implicate our alliance as a major impetus for terror & 9/11). This summer on CNN I saw a colonel being interviewed on the ground in Iraq. He said the insurgents are dastardly, but unfortunately 'damn good'. He gave credit where it was due, just as Sheuer said that BL's struggle was 'admirable' in the eyes of many. Bush says we're safer but not yet safe - but 'misunderestimating' our opponents does not contribute to our safety.

Mischaracterizing Bin Laden, or refusing to delve deeper into what makes him tick (because he is so odious), has already cost us. The huge bounty on his head didn't work because it was based on unrealistic expectations. It seems like a no-brainer to us for a poor Pakistani to rat him out and become instantly rich, but obviously our values are different, and there are more factors at play than wealth. Which is the point: BL is repulsive considering our standards and experience with the man, but he's a hero in other parts of the world. Why is that? When we answer that question, and can accurately profile BL and Qaeda, we will be so much better off. No amount of guns, bombs, and tanks can equal that type of honest intelligence. We have to play it straight and assess the man's strengths and weaknesses. I do not know about the ongoing efforts to infiltrate Qaeda and other terror groups. Heck, if we can send Lee Harvey Oswald to the USSR and back safely, we can get some operatives in Qaeda (maybe we do, but the de-centralized nature of Qaeda makes it so hard to topple).

I feel that an element of ethnocentrism and racism in the USA is retarding our efforts to subvert Islamic terror, at least in the political-intelligence community (the content of Newsmax is a perfect example, links below). I know __ is Muslim, and maybe more RT members too, so I would be curious to hear their thoughts, but I know this is a digression. In the White House there is a certain arrogance concerning foes like BL and Saddam. They are lowly trash, mere mosquitoes compared to the giant American elephant. This lack of respect may cost us as well, it definitely has in Iraq, where we 'misunderestimated' the insurgency threat in '03 and it has claimed hundreds if not thousands of lives, and tremendously hampered the reconstruction effort.

And why suddenly are all global terrorists in league with each other? They’re everywhere and nowhere, lurking and waiting. They’re all evildoers who hate freedom and our way of life, hate America/Israel/Judeo-Christianity, and won't rest until we're all praying to Allah or dead? It’s a war of cultures? Do we really believe that the Beslan murderers have much in common with the Bali bombers, BL, and even the Iraqi insurgency (which itself is so tremendously diverse because we've managed to unite foreign fighters, Jihadist zealots, Iraqi nationalists, Qaeda, ex-Baathists, and miscellaneous soldiers of fortune in a common cause against us)? Their major link is their religion and their propensity for violence, but their grievances, methods, goals, and backgrounds are obviously different and sometimes incongruous. So what about homegrown Caucasian terrorists like McVeigh, columbine, KKK; do they fit the mold? But if we continue to lump all terrorists together, distort their situations/aims, make sweeping assumptions concerning their values/motives, and dismiss their subtleties, I fear for our future.

On the campaign trail, Cheney continually preached that our terrorist enemies can't be reasoned with, won't negotiate, so we must destroy them before they do us in. but how does he know, have they ever tried to negotiate? They just hold steadfast in their narrow worldview, even if other credible data/opinion suggests differently (maybe that's why bush's new cabinet has even more yes-men). God forbid we actually try to understand the legit/perceived grievances the terrorists fight against (like corrupt Saudi rulers trading with America and allowing a US military presence in holy land) and the injustices their peoples have suffered (like Chechnya, Palestine). Surely the terrorists are not innocent sympathy cases (but the extent may vary from group to group). Revenge does not address injustice, and violence does not atone for violence. But if exploring the mind and rhetoric of a terrorist is just too blasphemous, we can continue to spin our wheels and just label them as murderous Islamofascist thugs. Some elements of the Muslim world will continue to label us as imperialist infidel crusaders. No progress will be made, no peace will be possible, and innocents will continue to suffer while we kill each other. But I have to believe that is not the only way.

So all I’m saying about BL and Qaeda is simple: lets be honest about who they are, what they do, and what they want. Let’s not dismiss any potentially useful data just because it's hard to swallow, nor should we simply accept the party line at face value and dismiss all the diverse terror groups around the world as basically the same: homicidal barbarians who must be killed before they kill us. Let’s see them as they are - not how we conveniently wish them to be. Let’s understand our foes so we can intelligently thwart them with minimal innocents harmed (and minimal new terrorists spawned), instead of fumbling around in the dark and clinging to myths as we are.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/Bin Laden/who/alQaeda.html

http://www.terrorismfiles.org/organisations/al_qaida.html

http://library.nps.navy.mil/home/tgp/tgpndx.htm

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/5/7/103252.shtml

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/7/23/115744.shtml

The Sling and the Stone, by Thomas Hammes, USMC

The legacy of George W. Bush: too little, too late

I am sick and tired of the Bush Administration and the greater government in Washington giving weak apologies, lame excuses, and patronizing explanations after the fact for scandals, lapses, gaffes, and failures that they should have worked harder to prevent in the first place. My father used to say, “The more you love someone, the less you should have to say sorry,” implying that people who really care will do it right the first time so they don’t ever have to worry about apology or regret later. Take care of small problems before they become big ones. We waged pre-emptive war against Iraq when the threat from Saddam was poorly characterized at best, but where was the pre-emptive action for the obviously inadequate New Orleans levees or VA hospitals? I think it’s also very telling of a leader in the manner that they address their people and atone for mistakes. It says a lot about respect, integrity, and responsibility. So a good leader must take the steps necessary to prevent problems beforehand, and if they still occur under their watch – apologize and take responsibility properly. Anything less is “too little, too late.” I know no one is perfect and random mishaps must occur, both large and small. But when the pattern of “random negative outcomes” originating from the White House is longer than a Tolstoy novel, maybe it’s time to raise some serious questions concerning accountability.

The major cases in question:

(If you like, you can read rants on each issue at the bottom of the email)

September 11

Pre-war Iraq WMD intelligence

Foreign policy/Global War on Terror

Katrina

Veteran’s care

General Republican misbehavior

This is a very limited list, and who knows what gaffes the public isn’t privy to? For each instance of failure, we can attribute it to three main possibilities: (1) Bush and other leaders didn’t care enough to address the problem, (2) Bush and other leaders were not competent enough to solve the problem, or (3) Bush and other leaders spoke the truth and actually didn’t know about/were powerless to fix/weren’t responsible to deal with the problem at all. And yes, there’s always the last possibility that (4) shit happens. How many screw-ups have to occur to convince us to stop believing that our leaders were totally blameless and it was all by happenstance? Will the same traffic cop believe you five or ten times when you plead that you weren’t speeding?

Some people worried that the new Democratic Congress would devote too much time and effort in a political witch-hunt investigating the Bushies for past actions, rather than crafting new and needed legislation. But maybe it’s not such a bad idea, considering how many times they’ve emerged relatively Scott-free after such grand screw-ups. I am tired of hearing shameful news from the country I love, and pathetic excuses/forced contrition from our elected leaders. I’d rather they are honest and say they don’t care about helping poor people, bringing wayward Republicans to justice, healing wounded veterans, or protecting the civil rights of Muslims, instead of shoveling the BS down our throats which only increases my ire. Foreigners realize this and therefore don’t trust a word from Bush. But we are in a moral quandary because we are Americans and want to believe that our leaders/system are good, and they are very good at times. However when they’re not, we need to hold people accountable and make examples of the guilty as deterrent. Actually, to be honest it shocks me to think about how many major disasters/scandals have taken place under the current administration’s watch. Watergate or Iran-Contra seem paltry in comparison, but in those days we had a more independent press, a Congress that actually believed in oversight, and tenacious prosecutors who wouldn’t let violations in justice go unpunished. Well I shouldn’t badmouth the system completely; after all we did get to the bottom of the Lewinsky scandal, didn’t we? Too little, too late.

------

September 11. The defining moment of Bush’s first term, and maybe American history in the 21^st Century. Bush and company were so sorry for those who had to suffer at the hands of terrorist killers, and vowed to hunt the guilty parties down, smoke them out, bring them to justice dead or alive, or whatever until we were satisfied. Over 5 years later, Osama, Zawahiri, and others are still at large, no trial over 9/11 was ever brought to American courts, and we took our misguided revenge out on many innocent Afghans, Iraqis, and anyone else we could render to secret CIA prisons. In the meantime, Condi Rice had the nerve to testify on the Hill that the national security memo titled “Bin Laden Determined to Attack America” was too vague to put the nation on high alert prior to 9/11. Bush-Cheney were lightly questioned behind closed doors and without swearing oaths, and preferred to blame Clinton for all mishaps. Despite the 9/11 commission concluding that the attacks weren’t preventable (and yes Clinton could have done more), the Bushies can’t even start to claim that they did all they could to protect the nation from threats during their first year in office. I do think it’s commendable that we haven’t been attacked domestically since 2001, but that won’t bring the victims much comfort. Too little, too late.

Pre-war Iraq WMD intelligence. It’s always dangerous when you try to fit your data to the hypothesis, instead of the other way around. The neocons and Bushies exaggerated the importance of shoddy rumors, relied heavily on ulterior-motive-driven defectors, resurrected obsolete intel generally dismissed by the CIA, played games with the Washington press, and more and more evidence is emerging to suggest it was deliberate deception, or at the very least manipulation of the American public on the path to war. If the cause is so vital and just, why the need for so many parlor tricks to convince us? Well, with all the bombs falling and corpses piling up, all they can say now is that they were following the general consensus within the intelligence community at the time (even though many in the CIA and State were hesitant to agree), and Saddam was a real threat. Even the British thought that Saddam had WMD, so it must have been justified, right? Then of course the story got distorted once the WMD search was called off and the insurgency took root: we invaded Iraq to liberate the poor people of a tyrant, prevent Al Qaeda from infiltrating, and promote democracy in that region of the world. I wonder if the 50,000 plus innocent civilians killed in Iraq feel very liberated. But not even an apology to Iraq from the White House, and Bush will probably never claim to regret that he took us on this path to war. For the life of me, I can’t find it on the net anymore, but over the holidays there was a Yahoo! News/AP article with an interview questioning Bush if he’d like to apologize to Iraqis for the botched war effort and all the casualties. He totally refused, and stated that actually the Iraqis should be tremendously grateful to us for giving them freedom! Too little, too late.

Foreign policy/Global War on Terror. Not enough equipment for the troops, exhausting the troops with extra/extended tours of duty, rushing to war without adequate strategy/preparation, no plan to win the peace or rebuild, corrupt defense contracts, much delayed reconstruction, not sending enough invasion troops, underestimating the insurgency, letting the Taleban regain traction, threatening North Korea and Iran which accelerated their pursuit of nukes, disregarding the rule of law on our allies’ soil to conduct extreme rendition abroad, standing idly by as Israel blew up Lebanon, subverting the Hamas government that pushed Palestine into civil war, PATRIOT Act warrant-less snooping and other challenges to civil liberties, scandals at Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, Haditha, etc. The list goes on and on, and it’s really tragic. Any honest apologies? Maybe a passing comment at a press conference or State of the Union side note. Ex-Secretary Rumsfeld dared to look a disgruntled soldier in the face and exonerate himself for the lack of Humvee plating and body armor with, “You go to war with the army you have.” What a noble display of leadership, and it must have really boosted morale. Bush was outraged when he heard the news of “a few bad apples” making trouble at Abu Ghraib, but of course didn’t concern himself with finding out who suggested that MPs and interrogators “soften up” detainees by creative means (Rumsfeld). He claimed that he didn’t know (an excuse that didn’t fly for the Nazis and shouldn’t fly for any leaders presiding over war brutality), no direct orders to “torture” came from the White House, and most soldiers perform their duties nobly. Maybe so, but then why would Bush resist McCain’s anti-torture legislation so doggedly until public opinion was overwhelmingly against him? Too little, too late.

Speaking of Abu Ghraib, a crazy thing I saw from HBO's "Ghosts of Abu Ghraib". A Soldier named Darby was the one who saw Graner's photos of the tortures and reported the abuse to his superiors. Darby was supposed to be a confidential, anonymous whistleblower protected by applicable laws. But then in Abu Ghraib hearings before Congress, Rumsfeld "thanked" Darby (on the record and by name) for coming forward, in a room full of cameras, reporters, and microphones. So I guess Scooter and Karl weren't the only ones who outed government secrets and put people in danger. Some believe that Rummy did that as "revenge" for Darby "betraying" the code of silence among military comrades. No charges would have come out of Abu Ghraib if it wasn't for those photos, so I guess the guilty parties would rather blame Darby than take responsibility themselves. Afterwards, Darby had to go into hiding and his family received death threats. Some gratitude indeed.

Katrina. A black eye on America’s history and conscience that should “live in infamy” much more than Pearl Harbor or 9/11 in my opinion. No president can stop a hurricane, but the greater tragedy was the botched government response, as chronicled in the mainstream press and more recently in Spike Lee’s documentary “When the Levees Broke”. Bush and others claimed that they didn’t know Katrina would cause so much damage or make the levees breach, even though there is a mountain of evidence from meteorologists and engineers warning of that very likely possibility. There’s even video of Bush being briefed about the levees situation before the levees actually gave out. So again, “I didn’t know” won’t fly.

Let’s forget for now the government’s terrible, depressing lapses during the actual tragedy, but instead focus on the molasses-slow recovery effort. Bush claimed that he pushed the federal government to allocate billions of dollars for Katrina rebuilding. That is true, but is that end of story? Throw money at a problem and it’s a guaranteed fix, huh? Bush can’t get away with blaming the local authorities (who are also at fault) for poorly distributing the money. The buck stops where? It’s the South – government doesn’t run like clockwork down there! If Bush really cared, he would kick some butts, reorganize the bureaucracy, and appoint qualified experts (a.k.a. not Brownie) to make sure progress was being made and deadlines were met. If he truly believed what he told the country during his famous Jackson Square speech, he would be hands-on in the process, making speeches constantly to rally awareness and encourage action (like he does with the War on Terror). He would give full zeal to Katrina rebuilding, like he does on the campaign trail stumping for other GOP members. I would dare to say that Bush has spent more time clearing brush in Crawford than thinking about how to fix the Gulf Coast, and that makes me crazy with rage (as if I wasn’t crazy enough before Katrina).

Thousands of residents are still waiting for their aid checks and insurance claims while their properties are declared blighted and seized by the government! They want to come back, but can’t because there’s nothing to return to and no infrastructure to support them! Crime and murder are rampant, and livable housing is scarce. The federal government can freeze gas prices in an emergency, bust monopolies/riots/strikes, and mobilize an entire division of soldiers to anywhere in the globe in under a week. So why can’t they cut through red tape and fast-track insurance claims/aid distribution/reconstruction now, and then resolve bureaucratic matters later after people have a roof over their heads, stable jobs, and good schools/hospitals for their loved ones? I know one person can’t fix something as vast as Katrina, but an honorable president, with all that power at his disposal, would do more than Bush is currently doing. I’m damn sure of that. It’s all empty promises and faux optimism with him, but positive thinking won’t fix a house or prevent crime. The New Orleans resident whom Bush promised to rebuild her home on national TV? It made for great PR, but she’s still waiting a year later. At least she got a seat at the 2007 State of the Union Address (the address where he didn’t even devote one iota of attention to Katrina). Of course his White House handlers scheduled a visit to the Gulf Coast soon afterwards, but too little, too late.

Veteran’s care. This news is fairly recent, so I won’t rehash the details. But inadequate veteran’s care is nothing new, and Bush should know this (all his predecessors too). Maybe you could make the excuse after Vietnam that America wanted to forget their losing war and therefore veteran’s needs fell through the cracks. It still doesn’t make it right, but might be a plausible explanation. Care for Vietnam vets was horrible and maybe we haven’t learned much since then. In today’s modern warfare, we all know that battlefield fatalities are down while serious injuries are way up. Fortunately we can save more wounded soldiers from death than ever before, but those soldiers will need a ton of care, assistance, and counseling for the rest of their lives. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that we might need to re-evaluate our VA capabilities prior to launching a protracted counter-insurgency war. Small arms fire, mortars, vehicle crashes, and IEDs cause shrapnel wounds, amputations, and brain injury, not to mention PTSD. So prepare your facilities to handle a ton of those cases, duuuh!

The politicians claim to support the troops, but when is enough lying enough? Insufficient armor, stop-loss scams, shady recruiting practices, backlog of claims and paychecks, intimidation of complainers, and now rats crawling across the hospital floor? Too little, too late for any apologies or explanations. Bush claims to want to get to the bottom of this and make sure that not one veteran hero goes without the support and care they need and deserve. It’s easy for him to say this now, after the Washington Post broke the scandal and people are pissed. But where was his care and concern over the last four years of the Global War on Terror? It’s not like the first casualty of the Iraq War was wheeled into Walter Reed yesterday! The truth is that wounded veterans, although bona fide patriots, are useless to the military-political establishment in their current crippled form. They’re noble heroes who sacrificed for us, but now they’re just burdens on Washington. So the government drags its feet in bureaucracy and offer substandard care at times. It is an old systemic problem, but a president can raise enough hell to get the wheels in motion to fix things. It just shows that Bush doesn’t really care (or assumes everything is peachy, which is stupid), or rushed to war in Iraq without adequate preparation. Some VA facilities and staff are excellent, but many are not because the Pentagon offers crap budgets and salaries. It’s not a high priority for them, regardless of what people claim. The Pentagon would rather spend billions on space technology, upgraded nuclear warheads, and CIA endeavors rather than shell out the measly sum to properly attend to our veterans. Now at least some heads are beginning to roll and maybe some reforms will occur. But where is the “bold, decisive leadership” and accountability of our Commander in Chief through all this? So what if he’s shocked? Actually its scary how barely in-the-know our president is on critical matters, and why does the press have to be the only ones keeping the government honest?

General Republican misbehavior. Tom DeLay, pork, Mark Foley, those guys from Ohio I can’t remember, more pork, Abramoff’s contacts, even more pork, Duke Cunningham, and most recently Scooter Libby (not to mention all the pseudo-guilty people who will never get indicted like Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rove, and Wolfowitz). Again, Bush and company were dismayed when they found out the news, but didn’t do anything to prevent the malfeasance at the time. They didn’t do the right thing and come forward on their colleagues, as Darby did over Abu Ghraib. But is the GOP angry that their people behaved badly and/or broke the law, or angry that they got caught, the news got out, and it ended up helping the Democrats recapture Congress? If politics trump justice, we all lose out. Once the shroud of incredulity and distrust cover our leaders and government, it is very hard to patch things up and restore faith/optimism. The American public was very cynical after Vietnam/Watergate, and only in the 1980’s under Reagan did we start to believe in America once again (and all the while Reagan’s gang was cooking up new scandals to shock the nation). Too little, too late.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7750388