The Political Voices of Women

In a recent article for TruthOut.org, Russ Baker wrote an article titled,  “Qaddafi, Bush and the Iraq Big Lie” in which he reminds us of the troubling ties between the US and Libya’s despotic leader, Muammar el-Quaddaffi.   Baker writes:

“In May, 2009, a man named Ibn Shaikh al-Libi supposedly committed suicide while being held in a Libyan jail. Al-Libi is a deeply, deeply interesting fellow. Back in 2002, he was tortured by Egypt under US direction. It appears that the reason the US government had him tortured was not to stop some imminent attack on the United States, but to generate alleged—and false— links between Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein that could justify invading Iraq.”

The article goes on to cite Nick Baumann’s  2009 article for Mother Jones:

“Al-Libi was the man whose false confession, obtained under torture, of a link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda provided the Bush administration with its casus belli for war with Iraq. It didn’t seem to matter that al-Libi’s claim that Bin Laden had sent operatives to be trained in the use of weapons of mass destruction by Hussein’s people didn’t make any sense. ‘They were killing me,’ al-Libi later told the FBI about his torturers. ‘I had to tell them something.’ A bipartisan Senate Intelligence committee report would later conclude that al-Libi lied about the link ‘to avoid torture.’”

This revelation about Ibn Shaikh al-Libi is just one of what has been a constant stream of skeletons falling out of the Pentagon and State Department’s closets since Egyptian police fired tear gas canisters labeled “Made in the USA” at protesters in Tahrir Square.  

Of course it’s always easy to look back on a series of events and/or decisions and stand in judgment of what an elected official or a political party should or should not have done.  But while hindsight may always be 20/20, the resulting criticism is not always fair nor prudent.   However, sometimes the only way that individuals, and in this case a nation, can move forward is to carefully examine past mistakes, evaluate the consequences and, commit to changing course.  There was never a better time for this type of examination than when President Obama was elected to office, on a wave of dissatisfaction with the policies and practices of the Bush/Cheney era, and with a mandate for change.  And when in January, 2009, then House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) introduced H.R. 104, a bill to establish a National Commission on Presidential War Powers and Civil Liberties  to investigate the policies that were undertaken by the Bush administration under claims of unreviewable war powers, it was the Obama administration’s opportunity to clean the the US’ foreign policy closets.   The opportunity was missed. Now, 8 years of a previous administration’s embarrassing dirty laundry is spilling out, one dirty item at a time.

As a Political Voices of Women contributing editor, Marcia G. Yerman wrote in 2009:

“A litmus test for many will be the stand that the Obama administration puts forth on accountability regarding the actions of Bush and his key players on the issue of torture and civil rights. The conversation is out there, and has been featured in numerous posts including a January 9th article at Talking Points Memo by Elana Schor. Jonathan Turley, Constitutional Law Professor at George Washington University, has been seen on both the Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow shows, where he has been explaining the high stakes for all Americans in getting this right.”

As I wrote at the time,  I believed that Americans and the global community deserved answers to questions about the Bush administration policies that lead to the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, the suspension of habeas corpus, the NSA wire-tapping program, extraordinary rendition, torture, the no-bid contracts to war contractors, and more.  It was my opinion that if  President Obama and the 111th Congress failed to at least public hearing on these issues that there failure to do so would come back to come not only the President, the Democratic Party but US foreign relations.   My support for H.R. 104 had less to do with the criminal prosecution of Bush administration officials, than a desire to see the record straight and a framework for real change built on a solid foundation.  There are still Americans who believe that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the attacks on 9/11 and that the Iraq war was all about the desire to spread democracy to the Middle East.  This, of course, if probably the same group that believes that President Obama is a Muslim. 

So now, instead of an investigation by a bi-partisan panel, the White House and State Department are busily spinning answers to questions about the US’ relationships with the regimes of Mubarak, Qaddafi and Bahrain’s royal family and, the American public is learning about our foreign policy via Wikileak’s unveliing of State Department cables and CNN’s pictures of Beyonce’s private performance for the Qaddaffi family.

Congressional hearings would have been much kinder. 

If you haven’t heard it yet, the following is the audio clip of a the prank caller (Buffalo, N.Y., blogger Ian Murphy of the Buffalo Beast) pretending to be billionaire conservative businessman David Koch in a lengthy conversation with Gov, Walker that not only revealed the latter’s strategy to cripple public employee unions but left no doubt to whom the Governor answers.  

Have you ever waited until the last minute to grocery shop for a holiday party or a big family dinner only to get home and realize that you’ve forgotten a key ingredient in a recipe?

Or, have you ever waited until the the last moment to buy a birthday present or waited until Christmas Eve to do your Christmas shopping.  If you have then you probably remember spending way to much, not finding the gift that you really wanted, and/or forgetting someone’s gift entirely.   And, if you were last minute Christmas shopping and were lucky enough to find  gifts on sale you probably charged those gifts to your credit card and paid interest.  

A few days ago, in my post, The Bipartisan Art of Rushing and Procrastinating,  I pointed out, in a rather tongue in cheek way, that it seems that this is the way that our government seems to operate when it comes to major pieces of legislation.   Always procrastinating, always rushing, and often paying too much, forgetting things and using the charge card.

Well, last night Rachel Maddow summed up perfectly why in recent years it seems that  Congress seems to always be running around like the white rabbit in Alice in Wonderland when the calendar is counting down. 

Hopefully Congress will be able to make it home some time before January 4th.

“Once upon a time, a whole lot of just plain Americans woke up to realize the economic system was working against them. They had believed in it; they worked hard to make it work for them. They knew its shortcomings but saw in it the way to a decent return for their labor and a better future for their families.

Then, one day, calamity struck: The system turned on them. And they discovered that they had been betrayed, bamboozled, by the people at the top. But they didn’t hang their heads and turn tail, like a dog whipped by its master. They organized and fought back — millions of them in a grass roots movement for democracy. What they did became known as the Populist Moment, an extraordinary time in our country’s history.

But, the flimflam gang returned with a vengeance in our time — the monied interests and political mercenaries who connived to bring on a calamity that lost eleven million Americans their jobs, robbed people of their homes and pensions, and brought the world’s economy crashing down.”

– Bill Moyers, Bill Moyers Journal, April 30, 2010

It’s also now obvious to almost everyone that the “monied interests and political mercenaries” are running the show.  Equally obvious is the fact that health care reform, government regulation ( banking industry, EPA), Social Security and Medicare are at the very top of their hit lists.

And, if it’s not true that the plutocrats are calling the shots,  it certainly appears that way.

Washington Post Staff Writer Dan Eggen reported on the influence of “outside entities” on the budget process this past Wednesday.  He wrote:

    “The leaders of President Obama’s deficit commission sparked criticism from both sides of the political aisle Wednesday for proposing broad cuts to federal programs.

    But the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform has also come under attack for its unusual approach to staffing: Many of its employees aren’t employed by the panel at all.

    Instead, about one in four commission staffers is paid by outside entities, many of which have strong ideological points of view about how to tackle the deficit.

    For example, the salaries of two senior staffers, Marc Goldwein and Ed Lorenzen, are paid by private groups that have previously advocated cuts to entitlement programs. Lorenzen is paid by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, while Goldwein is paid by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which is also partly funded by the Peterson group.

    The outsourcing has come under sharp criticism from seniors’ organizations and liberal activists, who say the strategy is part of a broader conservative bias favoring painful entitlement cuts over other solutions. The fears of some liberal groups appeared to come true on Wednesday, when the commission’s two leaders recommended significant reductions for Social Security and other social-welfare programs.

    Bruce Reed, the panel’s executive director, defended the staffing arrangement as fiscally responsible and said the staff includes a broad range of views. Other staffers paid by outside entities include an analyst from the liberal-leaning Economic Policy Institute and a Clinton administration official who now teaches at Johns Hopkins University, he said.

    “We’ve got wonks from across the spectrum who have been working on this issue for years,” Reed said. “Every possible voice from left, right or center has a voice on the commission.”

    But Barbara B. Kennelly, a former Democratic House member from Connecticut who heads the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, said the commission’s staffing structure is “unprecedented” and casts further doubt on its fairness.

    “Taxpayers fund the commission and they should work independently of Washington lobbyists and power brokers,” Kennelly said. “This is the type of shenanigans that average Americans are so upset about right now – that money talks and everyone else is left out”

If you ask the average American citizen, “who in Washington do you trust to reform Social Security?”,  you would probably receive the answer, “no one.”   And they would have more than a few reasons for feeling that way.   It is very hard for most Americans, myself included,  to understand  why an “entitlement program”  which is  funded by a clearly designated tax  (FICA) is always one of the first programs that gets offered up on the political sacrificial alter when the discussion involves federal budget cuts.

“Republicans who took over the House on pledges to reduce federal spending and get the nation’s budget in order are running into the third rail of U.S. politics.

A draft proposal from the co-chairman of President Obama’s fiscal commission this week put Social Security on the front burner, leading some Democrats to draw a line in the sand. The proposal would raise the retirement age, slightly reduce benefits and raise the cap on income subject to payroll taxes.


While the proposal was drawn up to keep Social Security solvent and not to deal specifically with reducing the nation’s record deficit, Democratic strategists say it will be difficult for Republicans to duck an issue that has caused them political pain in the past.


“It does put them in a tough position,” Mike Lux, a strategist who works with liberal advocacy groups, said of the GOP. “These kinds of proposals, raising the retirement age and cutting benefits, are overwhelmingly unpopular with the American people.”

Soon-to-be-Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) is on record supporting similar changes to Social Security, as is Rep. Paul Ryan (Wis.), the incoming chairman of the House Budget Committee and rising intellectual star of the House Republican Conference.”

Well I think that this is as good a place as any to conclude part one of this series.  


Talk to you soon

—-
originally posted on Pam’s Coffee Conversation blog

The most powerful woman in US politics for the past two years, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is a woman unafraid.

After becoming one of the most vilified women in history since Eve and demonized, even by members of her own party, during the 2010 midterm elections, Nancy Pelosi has announced that she will be running for the position of House Minority Leader. And whether you do or don’t like her style or agree with her political stances, women everywhere should applaud her courage and strength of conviction.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is not one to run from her accomplishments or it seems, a good political fight. In her letter to house Democrats she wrote:

Dear Democratic Colleague:

Over the past several days, I have spoken with many Democratic colleagues about how to continue our fight to make our country more secure and strengthen the middle class, create jobs, protect Social Security and Medicare, and promote the innovation, technology and education to make America Number One in the world. As always, I am inspired by the fighting spirit of our Democratic Members.

As you know, Democrats have produced historic legislation in the area of health care, veterans’ benefits, women’s rights, Wall Street reform, and cutting taxes for 95 percent of the American people and millions of small businesses. And we have restored fiscal discipline to the Congress by making the deficit-cutting Pay As You Go rules the law of the land.

These accomplishments have begun the difficult work of recovering from the worst economic collapse since the 1930s and, according to independent reviews, prevented our country from plunging into another Great Depression. As a result, numerous congressional experts call this the most productive Congress in a half-century. This was only possible because our members had the courage of their convictions and put the interests of the country first.

Our work is far from finished. As a result of Tuesday’s election, the role of Democrats in the 112th Congress will change, but our commitment to serving the American people will not. We have no intention of allowing our great achievements to be rolled back. It is my hope that we can work in a bipartisan way to create jobs and strengthen the middle class.

Many of our colleagues have called with their recommendations on how to continue our fight for the middle class and have encouraged me to run for House Democratic Leader. Based on those discussions, and driven by the urgency of protecting health care reform, Wall Street reform, and Social Security and Medicare, I have decided to run.

I am writing to respectfully request your support and I look forward to hearing your views. Please let me know what you are thinking.

Thank you for your leadership and friendship.

Best wishes,

Nancy Pelos

As Russell Berman and Michael O’Brien reported for the blog The Hill:

“Though deeply unpopular with the broader public, Pelosi remains well-regarded in a caucus that will lean more liberal after the more conservative Blue Dog Coalition was decimated in the midterms.

Outside liberal groups are already organizing support for Pelosi. Americans United for Change launched an email campaign on Friday encouraging supporters to “send a personal note to Speaker Pelosi about how much you appreciate her leadership,” and to “make sure she knows that we still support her.”

The liberal website Daily Kos started a similar online petition.

‘Democrats lost because they didn’t fight hard enough for popular progressive reforms in the last two years. The Democratic leader least culpable of doing that is Nancy Pelosi,’ the co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, Adam Green, said in an interview before Pelosi’s announcement. ‘She’s the last person among Democratic Party leaders who should step down.’

After the Pelosi tweet, Green called her decision ‘the first bold move we’ve seen from Democrats since the election.‘”

And as Political Voices of Women Contributing Editor, Jill Miller Zimon wrote on her blog “Writes Like She Talks“:

“There is a serious backlash about to be felt if those on the Hill do not realize that with women barely making gains, if any, at the federal level, and losing at the state legislatures, women will dig in and retrench and be back. And those who are already in positions that can be leveraged for leadership are seeking and should be expected to seek more and more visible roles to show that we don’t fade.”

.

Nancy Pelosi has clearly demonstrated that she is not about to fade. After all, someone has to fight off all of those mama grizzlies

During the past few weeks it seems that events in US politics have been moving at light speed. It’s certainly more than this blogger can keep up with. Fortunately, as I member of the Political Voices of Women Community I can count on my fellow members to keep me up to date. Here are excerpts of a few blog posts from our community. Enjoy,

From “Baker’s Dozen About Obama” by Ellen Keim

Here are thirteen of my “Obamic” impressions, for what they’re worth:

First of all, I hope people can separate what they think of Obama–either his track record or the man himself–from the historical fact of his presidency.

Second, I can’t even imagine how much pressure he feels to be the best for fear that he may ruin the chances for another black candidate.

Third, I never thought he was the “Messiah” as some did, so I never expected him to be super-human. Some people are getting disenchanted because they expected perfection and instant gratification.

Fourth, I don’t think people are giving him enough credit for what he has done, either because they don’t agree with it or because it isn’t their pet project.

Fifth, he hasn’t been President for all that long. Considering the messes he inherited, we should expect fixes to take longer than a year.

Sixth, I don’t think we have seen the positive effects yet of the way he has reached out to the Muslim community around the world.

From Marcia G Yerman, “Thoughts for a New Decade: What I Wish for Women“

As we move into a new decade, I can’t help looking over my shoulder at all the things I would like to leave behind.

VIOLENCE: Number One – Violence perpetrated against the female gender. Whether it is domestic violence behind closed doors in the United States, acid being thrown in the faces of young girls in Afghanistan trying to attend school, or rampant rape as a tool of war…It must end.

DYSFUNCTIONAL HEALTH CARE: I would like to discard health care that doesn’t take into account the needs of women, and policies that don’t speak to the disparities in care for all members of the female community at the local, state, and national levels.

UNEQUAL CHANGE: I would welcome a roll back on the wage disparities between a woman’s paycheck and a man’s, taking into account a gap that is even larger for women of color. Moving forward, I would like more support for women working in the services sector, where wages are lower and benefits are commonly non-existent. More legislated awareness for the work/life balance issues that often drive women to choices based on the need for flexibility, as they seek to mesh family responsibilities with a career agenda, would be helpful.

From Margaret, “Free Speech and Corporations“:

Over the weekend, I posted a link on my Facebook page to a Keith Olbermann commentary on the SCOTUS decision that was issued on January 21, 2010. Now, I’m not a fan of Olbermann as a general rule, but I found what he had to say pretty much nailed what has me concerned about this decision. I don’t often publish anything on Facebook that is politically oriented, but I feel as if this decision has such far-reaching implications that it transcends “politics” and really has the potential to impact my daily life. In short, it scares the living crap out of me.

And from Onedia Hayes Sylvest, “Lifting the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Policy — Those Arguments Against Sound Familiar“:

I am a retired navy commander. I retired in 1994 just after the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Policy was begun. I thought it was insufficient then and I thought the reasons for taking such a half-baked (read another word there) stand was a little brass short of what it should have been. I also heard lots of reasons (and some of those are being repeated now by such people as John McCain) that sounded remarkably familiar.

When I first entered the Navy women did not have pants in their uniforms, they had to leave the service if pregnant, their husbands could not be claimed as “dependents” without proof that the navy woman provided at least 51% of his monetary support. We did not have top ranks or positions, there were no women with stars on their shoulders and we were denied access to many jobs/skill areas solely because of our gender. Women could not serve on ships or on aircraft and the primary reasons offered sounded almost identical to those I heard in 1993 and that I am hearing now.

I know that I served with gays and lesbians in the navy. Most were talented and dedicate. Some were not or even disruptive. However, neither the talent and dedication nor the poor performance and disruptive behavior were caused by their sexual preferences. The same traits and performance were equally present in both heterosexual and homosexual service people. In those days if you wanted to get someone eyeballed by the chain of command then feed the rumor of homosexuality. In my early days many people even assumed that women in the military were probably lesbians and if not they were either looking for a husband or were not of good moral character. The environment bred, I think deliberately, some level of hostility to any who did not fit the accepted image of what a sailor, CPO or officer should be. In the 70′ the primary targets were women and homosexuals.

This is just a sampling of what women are saying.

Want to read more? Why not join us and make your voice heard.

Thanks to Marcia G. Yerman for bringing Kimberly Hefling’s article, Female Veterans Struggle for Acceptance, to my attention. As Marcia noted in her comment on the post, “Military Sexual Trauma is a major issue.”

Sadly, it’s a major issue that is gravely under-reported.

In her article, Ms Helfing writes:

“Female service members have much higher rates of divorce and are more likely to be a single parent. When they do seek help at VA medical centers, they are screening positive at a higher rate for military sexual trauma, meaning they indicated experiencing sexual harassment, assault or rape. Some studies have shown that female veterans are at greater risk for homelessness.

Former Army Sgt. Kayla Williams, an Iraq veteran who has written about her experience, said she was surprised by the response she and other women from the 101st Airborne Division received from people in Clarksville, Tenn., near Fort Campbell, Ky.

She said residents just assumed they were girlfriends or wives of military men.”

Read Kimberly Heflng’s Article at HuffingtonPost

Unbelievable! It’s sounds like Sgt. Williams is encountering people who’ve watched too many episodes of MASH and taken the fiction as gospel.

But as one response to the HuffPo article indicates, even if people view today’s service women as more than the “girlfriends and wives of military men”, many are still unaware of the scope of the problems that they face. In his comment Kidorf asked, “Are you suggesting that those female soldiers are being “offed”?

Well, Kidorf, the parents of Army Pfc Lavena Johnson may well answer that question with, YES.

On July 19, 2005, Army Private First Class LaVena Johnson was found dead in Balad, Iraq. It has been reported that when her body was discovered in a tent belonging to a private military contractor her remains displayed a black eye, broken nose, burned hands, loose teeth, acid burns on her genitals and a bullet hole in the head. The military ruled her death as a suicide.

While it is yet to be confirmed by the military that Pfc Johnson was murdered, it is certainly clear that she and many other service women have been and continue to be subjected to various forms of abuse. It is also evident that their concerns (and those of their loved ones) are largely being dismissed.

The following is a video clip from a 2008 hearing held by The Oversight Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs’ on “Sexual Assault in the Military.” In this segment, you see Subcommittee Chairman Tierney and Full Committee Chairman Waxman practically threaten Michael Dominguez, Principal Deputy Undersecretary for Defense, with contempt after he reveals that he has ordered Dr. Kaye Whitley of the DOD Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office to defy a subpoena to appear before the committee.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xi9Sb5nsnAM

In his opening comments to the hearing Chairman Tierney remarked:

“What’s at stake here goes to the very core of the values of the military and the nation itself. When our sons and daughters put their lives on the line to defend the rest of us, the last thing they should fear is being attacked by one of our own. We fundamentally have a duty to prevent sexual assaults in the military as much as humanly possible, and to punish attackers quickly and severely. We also must empower victims so they feel comfortable coming forward to seek justice and to receive help to get their lives back on track and to restore their dignity. Finally, we simply must ensure a climate in our military where sexual assault is in no way, either officially or unofficially, condoned, ignored, or tolerated.”

Another article which addressed this same troubling issue was “Rapists in the Ranks” by Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA), a must read for anyone concerned about this issue.

In this article Rep. Harman wrote:

“The scope of the problem was brought into acute focus for me during a visit to the West Los Angeles VA Healthcare Center, where I met with female veterans and their doctors. My jaw dropped when the doctors told me that 41% of female veterans seen at the clinic say they were victims of sexual assault while in the military, and 29% report being raped during their military service. They spoke of their continued terror, feelings of helplessness and the downward spirals many of their lives have since taken.”

She also noted:

“At the heart of this crisis is an apparent inability or unwillingness to prosecute rapists in the ranks. According to DOD statistics, only 181 out of 2,212 subjects investigated for sexual assault in 2007, including 1,259 reports of rape, were referred to courts-martial, the equivalent of a criminal prosecution in the military. Another 218 were handled via nonpunitive administrative action or discharge, and 201 subjects were disciplined through “nonjudicial punishment,” which means they may have been confined to quarters, assigned extra duty or received a similar slap on the wrist. In nearly half of the cases investigated, the chain of command took no action; more than a third of the time, that was because of ‘insufficient evidence’.”

In the following video Massachusetts School of Law Professor Diane Sullivan interviews Kirsten Holmstedt on her book, The Girls Come Marching Home: Stories of Women Warriors Returning From The War In Iraq. In the book female veterans of the war in Iraq speak about soldiers dying on their watch, dealing with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, and the difficulties of returning home.

Recently, President Barack Obama announced that an additional 30,000 troops will be deployed to Afghanistan. Of course, a percentage of that number will be women. Regardless of how you feel about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, isn’t it time to make sure that the women who courageously serve in the armed services be treated with the respect that they have earned.

Related Posts:

Will You Become One of 25 Million?

Speak Out Against the Sexual Violence in Iraq

What Happens When Johnny Comes Marching Home

Yesterday, Bloomberg.com ran a story titled, “Bailout Hasn’t Checked Wall Street Risks, Warren Says.”

My first response was, “Duh, and this is news.”

Did anyone really think that the geniuses who made millions running their companies into the ground; who nearly brought global financial markets to a crashing halt; and who were bailed out in spite of their misdeeds were really going to change their ways.

Why should they?

Obviously, the message that they received from the TARP bailout was that their system worked. At least it did for them. And after all, since Wall Street drives the economy, they are all that matters, right?

In her article, Lorraine Wollert reported:

” Elizabeth Warren, a chief watchdog of the government’s rescue of Wall Street, said the $700 billion bailout hasn’t stopped the “culture of excessive risk-taking” that led to the financial crisis.

The Troubled Asset Relief Program also has “injected an unprecedented level of pricing distortions and moral hazard into the marketplace,” Warren said at a hearing today of the Congressional Oversight Panel on TARP, which she leads.

“Uncertainty persists about the stability of our financial institutions and whether they can survive without the benefit of government assistance,” Warren said.

The oversight panel heard testimony from economists about the effectiveness of the program. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner must decide whether to extend the rescue program beyond its scheduled expiration at the end of the year.

Warren said banks are relying on government aid and consumer lending to make money.

“That’s not a sustainable profit model,” she said.

So can we finally say it?

All together now:

But this is what we have. A service economy that runs on debt and credit. An economy built on: financial schemes; health care for profit; outsourcing production; illegal labor: and most of all, GREED.

We just didn’t learn our lesson. So now prepare yourselves for the rollout of TARP 2.0 aka TARP Reloaded.

In the following video from FireDogLake Elizabeth Warren provides an honest assessment of this situation.

I certainly don’t have all the answers for fixing this problem. But I do agree with Albert Einstein who is quoted as saying, “Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

And if TARP Reloaded fails, don’t hold your breath for TARP Revolutions. That would be a contradiction in terms.

originally posted on Get the Facts & Get Involved

Is the RADICAL Evangelical Right the American version of the Taliban?

BlogHer contributing editor Mata posted on this today – Is it a joke, or is it hatred disguised in Biblical language?

She quotes Frank Schaeffer who appeared on the Rachel Maddow show last night. Here is a video clip (you need to get about 50 seconds in)…

This is beyond disturbing, it’s down right scary.

I’m interested in knowing what others in this community think about this extreme hatred toward our president. Is it going too far? Let us know what you think in comments.

Before the post begins, I’d like to send wishes: to our readers in the US, Happy Veterans Day; to Canada and Australia, Happy Remembrance Day; and to every one else, Happy Armistice Day.

Now to the post —

Ok readers, you can get up off the floor now.

I haven’t suddenly lost my mind. But you know that I have to call them like I see them, even when it gets me into big trouble. So here goes.

In a recent interview with FoxNews on the topic of the tragedy at Ft. Hood, Ms Malkin stated:

“I don’t think that we have to play games with the rush to judgment anymore. I think that the bigger problem for the American government and their culture post 9/11 is that there are too many people still doing the rush to white-wash.“

She later states: “the red flags were missed and it behooves everyone in Congress and in Washington to figure out who dropped the ball.”

Friends, when Michelle is right, she’s right. Sadly, the rest of her argument misses the point and her statement is a few years too late.

During the rest of the interview, Ms Malkin blames the recent tragedy at Ft. Hood on “the military’s worship of the “false god of diversity” which, in her opinion, was placed before national security.

First of all, that is an insult to the military and all of the servicemen and women whom Michelle Malkin constantly criticizes liberals for not supporting. Shame on her,

Second, I submit that it wasn’t the military’s worship of diversity but rather the Bush administration’s rush to war with an all-volunteer military and a “see no evil” recruitment policy that opened the door to disaster.

In an April, 2008 post, I referenced a December 2006 article in the San Francisco Chronicle which raised very serious questions about the military’s recruitment policy. In his article, “US is recruiting misfits for army: felons, racists, gang members fill in the ranks“, reporter Nick Turse wrote:

“After falling short of its goals last year, military recruiting in 2006 has been marked by upbeat pronouncements from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, claims of success by the White House, and a spate of recent press reports touting the military’s achievement of its woman- and manpower goals.

But the armed forces have met with success only through a fundamental transformation, and not the transformation of the military — that ‘co-evolution of concepts, processes, organizations and technology’ that Rumsfeld is always talking about either.

In 2004, the Pentagon published a ‘Moral Waiver Study,’ whose seemingly benign goal was ‘to better define relationships between pre-Service behaviors and subsequent Service success.’ That turned out to mean opening more recruitment doors to potential enlistees with criminal records.

In February, the Baltimore Sun wrote that there was ‘a significant increase in the number of recruits with what the Army terms ‘serious criminal misconduct’ in their background’ — a category that included ‘aggravated assault, robbery, vehicular manslaughter, receiving stolen property and making terrorist threats.’ From 2004 to 2005, the number of those recruits rose by more than 54 percent, while alcohol and illegal drug waivers, reversing a four-year decline, increased by more than 13 percent.

In June, the Chicago Sun-Times reported that, under pressure to fill the ranks, the Army had been allowing into its ranks increasing numbers of ‘recruits convicted of misdemeanor crimes, according to experts and military records.’ In fact, as the military’s own data indicated, ‘the percentage of recruits entering the Army with waivers for misdemeanors and medical problems has more than doubled since 2001.’

One beneficiary of the Army’s new moral-waiver policies gained a certain prominence this summer. After Steven Green, who served in the 101st Airborne Division, was charged in a rape and quadruple murder in Mahmudiyah, Iraq, it was disclosed that he had been ‘a high-school dropout from a broken home who enlisted to get some direction in his life, yet was sent home early because of an anti-social personality disorder.’ “

In that same post I mentioned, Paula Zahn’s 2007 report on “Gangs in the Military“. If you missed it, here’s an excerpt from the show transcript:

THELMA GUTIERREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT (on camera): No one knows for sure just how many gang members are in the military. By some estimations, it’s less than 1 percent of all military personnel, hardly an epidemic, but enough to prompt the FBI to issue this report.

(voice-over): Gang members at military installations from Fort Lewis, Washington, to Fort Bragg, North Carolina, have been involved in drug distribution, robberies, assaults, and murder. According to this 2007 internal FBI document, the report found that gang activity in the U.S. — quote — “is increasing and poses a threat to law enforcement officials and national security.”

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Military men training gangsters on how to use weapons.

GUTIERREZ: An issue law enforcement is taking seriously.

Al Valdez (ph) is a former detective. He trains police around the country on gangs in the military.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It’s not illegal to be a gang member in the United States. And it’s a protected right. In fact, the head of Army Recruitment Command correctly states that. What happens is, they bring that gangster mentality within the military.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When these cats come back from — these gang members come back from Iraq, we are going to have some hell on these streets, because these dudes are coming back with training that’s on another level.

So, if the military was willing to overlook gang members, overt racists and felons, then it wouldn’t come as a surprise to me if they may have overlooked an Islamic jihadist or two. To be clear, I said “IF”.

Of course, Ms. Malkin may not read the San Francisco Chronicle or be a fan of Paula Zahn but there were other signs that the recruitment demands placed on the military by the Bush administration’s rush to the war in Iraq and lack of an exit strategy would have serious consequences. Where was her concern then?

Oh yes, I forgot. Ms. Malkin was busy labeling anyone who expressed a concern about the war as a “traitor”, “a coward” and “an enemy sympathizer.”

Yes, when Michelle Malkin is right, she’s partially right. “The red flags were missed and it behooves everyone in Congress and in Washington to figure out who dropped the ball.“

Related posts:

What Happens When Johnny Comes Marching Home

The Illusion of An All Volunteer Army

originally posted on Pam’s Coffee Conversation