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. 

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

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

In the following post, Political Voices of Women Community Member, WageLaborer responds to the recent announcement that President Obama will be sending additional troops to Afghanistan.

Big Government by WageLaborer

Obama wants to double the amount of US troops in Afghanistan and is pressuring NATO to supply more, also.

He insists that we must “win” in Afghanistan, but doesn’t say what “winning” is. When asked, the military commander states that he has no idea.

But, reading between the lines, as I have learned to do in this Orwellian society we live in, they are trying to establish a US friendly strong central government in Afghanistan.

How’s it working out for them? Not so well. Afghanistan is a decentralized tribal country, (much more than Iraq, where, although family ties are still strong, a strong central government existed before the US invaded and took it over.) Democracy Now had an interesting interview with an aid worker who told how US contractors built 41 courthouses and then tried to hand them over to the Afghan Justice Dept, who pointed out that they didn’t have staff, furniture or utilities to run them. The tribes have their own system of justice.

Every centralized government has gone through a period where they consolidated their power. Most people don’t like being run by tribal warlords. The US has its own stories of towns run by corrupt sheriffs in cahoots with the local elite, especially in the South. We have the story of the taming of the Wild West, with the same scenario – big government coming in and restoring justice corrupted by violent local thugs in power.

So Americans tend to think of Big Government as the arbitrator of justice. Federal troops escorting 5-year old African American girls to elementary school past jeering crowds of boorish white people. Starting with Teddy Roosevelt, the protection of some of the most beautiful parts of America, like Yosemite and Yellowstone, from private predation. The Supreme Court as the last chance for a fair trial.

Ironically, those Americans who don’t like Big Government tend to be the more politically conservative, especially in the South, where many are still angry that their tribes lost to the Feds 144 years ago. But these are the same ones who are especially enthusiastic about killing Afghans who resist having outside agitators coming in to their country and forcing centralized oppression on them.

Americans need to quit worrying about the tribal warlords in Afghanistan. What we have here is worse. We have corporate warlords who have captured our centralized government and are using its powerful structure to loot and oppress us.

The bank bailouts are the most publicized, but the giveaway of public land for private profit is just as outrageous. What about taxpayer subsidies to corporations who shut down American factories and move them to cheaper labor countries? What about the transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich in the last three decades? What about the relaxing of air and water pollution rules?

And the ongoing attack on our personal freedoms. The latest is the proposal to centralize and computerize our medical records, so that everything you tell your doctor, the results of your lab tests and xrays, etc., will be available to whoever has access to those records. In other words, thousands of people, including insurance companies and the FBI and the military.

And now you have to submit fingerprints, bodily fluids and background checks to get many jobs! You now have to show two forms of ID to get a job. You can’t travel out of the USA without a passport. You can’t buy a plane or train ticket, or check into a hotel, without a government issued ID.

Listen up, America. You can’t “export freedom” to other countries when you don’t have it here. Do you want to see our future? Look at Iraq. They now have checkpoints, fingerprints, retina scans, more prisons than they had before, and soldiers breaking into their houses without warrants.

The corporate warlords who have seized our government have the same plans for us. Let’s concentrate on regaining our own country and quit trying to conquer other people’s countries.

Here is a video of Keith Olbermann’s Special comment on whether or not the Bush administration is guilty of war crimes and torture…

What do you think? Let me know in comments.

Here is a guest post from community member Onedia Hayes Sylvest.

[If you would like to be a guest blogger on The Political Voices of Women, just join our community, and start posting.]

Last November 26 as the race for nomination began in earnest I posted an Open Letter to the Candidates. I think it relevant that I now post it again with a few additions highlighted in bold.

Well, since it is here and easy to step onto, I am pulling out the soapbox this morning. This is an open letter to all the presidential candidates about what I want from my next president. Here it is not in priority order since I don’t want to make this too hard:

Read more »

Here is a guest post from community member Anita S. Lane.  You can read more from Anita at her blog Unconventional Politics.

[If you would like to be a guest blogger on The Political Voices of Women, just join our community, and start posting.]

Did you see this? It’s truly an outrage!

The following Associated Press article ran in the Detroit Free Press on October 10, 2008. My comments follow.

BALLOT GAFFE: Is it Obama or Osama?
Who is running for president? In an upstate New York county, hundreds of voters have been sent absentee ballots in which they could vote for “Barack Osama.”

The absentee ballots sent to voters in Rensselaer County identified the two presidential candidates as “Barack Osama” and “John McCain.” In the United States, the best-known individual named Osama is Osama bin Laden, leader of the Al Qaeda terror group.

The county elections office faxed a statement in which the two commissioners, Democrat Edward McDonough and Republican Larry Bugbee, said they regret the error but never acknowledge what the error was.

“It’s human error, it’s very unfortunate, it’s an embarrassment to our office, obviously,” McDonough said.

###
Compiled from the Associated Press

MY RESPONSE:
Let me say it up front: Yes, Rensselaer County is a Republican led county. However, there were supposedly three proofreaders and no one caught the error before the absentee ballot went out to over 300 residents.

Certainly, no one expects stupid errors on a simple ballot with names we’ve all become extremely familiar with. I suspect the person who typed the ballot assumed right—that no one would be paying close enough attention to notice until it was too late.

What could incite an American—let alone a New Yorker—more than being asked to vote for Osama? By the way, the letter “s” is no where near the letter “b” on the keyboard. The “s” is typed with the middle finger of the left hand and the “b” with the index finger.

A more accurate “typo” would have been “Onama”, “Ovama” or “Ogama.” Nah… those don’t have the same effect—and they certainly would have been caught.

Osama: Willful or ignorant?
I believe there are three options:
1) Either the individual who typed the ballot was typing with one finger and truly made a mistake;
2) It was a Freudian slip of the finger by a mindless, out-of-touch individual who actually believes the negative emails circulating that refer to Obama as Osama; or
3) The individual purposefully committed election fraud by attempting to reduce the number of votes cast for Obama due to the incendiary reference to Osama Bin Laden.

What about the election commissioners who didn’t catch the error? They probably didn’t see it. How often are simple, routine actions thoroughly analyzed? It’s not excusable, but very likely that proofing an absentee ballot is something that is delegated or neglected entirely.

I’m typically very optimistic and always ready to give others the benefit of the doubt—but this incident is extremely suspicious to me. Why, well, because I don’t believe in coincidence—and Osama—well, it’s just not your typical typo.

What do you think?

It doesn’t make much sense, and you might assume that because John McCain is the candidate who is a veteran himself, that his record on veterans’ benefits would be superior.  But, you would be wrong.  So, why is John McCain claiming to have an excellent voting record on veterans’ benefits and other veterans’ issues?  I imagine, it’s for votes.  He appears to be putting his campaign ahead of the welfare of veterans. What do you think?

Taking on McCain on Veterans’ Issues…

In the first presidential debate a couple of weeks ago, John McCain boasted that he’s always been a champion for veterans. I’ll take care of them,” he said. “And they know I’ll take care of them.”

Unfortunately for McCain, facts keep getting in the way of the claim.

In recent years, McCain’s ratings from veterans’ groups have been less than impressive. The Vietnam Veterans of America, for example, recently compiled a list of key votes, and found McCain voted against the group’s position 15 times and with the group eight times. (Obama, in contrast, voted with the VVA 12 times, and against it only once.)

Read more »