Ft. Hood murder suspect alive and in stable condition.
Ft. Hood murder suspect alive and in stable condition.
At a press conference moments ago, Lt. Gen. Robert Cone, commanding general of the Army’s III Corps and Fort Hood, revealed that contrary to initial media reports, the suspected shooter in the Ft. Hood murders is not dead. The suspect, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, is reportedly “in stable condition” and his death is “not imminent.” The female first responder who shot Hasan is also alive. Cone further reported that, while he’s not ruling out terrorism as possible motive for the shootings, the “evidence does not suggest” it was an act of terrorism.
- Comments
- 340
Coburn places hold on veterans benefits bill.
Coburn places hold on veterans benefits bill.
One of the Senate’s most vociferous opponents of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) has been Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), who called the stimulus “the worst act of generational theft in our nation’s history.” Today, The Marine Corp Times revealed exactly how far Coburn was willing to go to undermine ARRA. It turns out Coburn has been the senator who has placed holds on several veterans benefits bills because he wanted to divert money from unspent ARRA funds on them:
Thirteen major military and veterans groups have joined forces to try to force one senator — Republican Tom Coburn of Oklahoma — to release a hold that he has placed on a major veterans benefits bill.
Coburn has been identified by Senate aides as the lawmaker preventing consideration of S 1963, the Veterans’ Caregiver and Omnibus Health Benefits Act of 2009, by using an informal but legal practice of putting a hold on a bill. [...]
In a letter sent Monday night to the Senate majority leader, Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., the 13 military and veterans groups ask the Senate to get on with it.
“It is essential that Congress act on this comprehensive measure without further delay,” the letter reads. “Thousands of disabled veterans with serious medical conditions and the family members who care for them are counting on this additional support.”
Steve Robertson, the legislative director for the veterans advocacy group The American Legion, met with Coburn’s staff about the holds on the bills and came away disappointed with their refusal to budge on the issue. “For a lot of family caregivers, delay is costing them their jobs and their savings. It’s having a big impact,” Robertson told the press. “They made it clear that Sen. Coburn sees this as using his rights as a senator to place a hold on a bill…I agree with that, but that doesn’t mean it makes sense to hold up a bill that would do a lot of good things for veterans that has cleared a committee and is ready for a vote.”
Obama: It’s difficult enough to lose soldiers overseas, ‘horrifying’ to see their lives taken on U.S. Army base.
Obama: It’s difficult enough to lose soldiers overseas, ‘horrifying’ to see their lives taken on U.S. Army base.
A shooting at the Ft. Hood Army Base in Texas earlier this afternoon has claimed the lives of 12 people and wounded at least 31 others. The suspected gunman — Major Nidal Malik Hasan — was shot to death is alive and in stable condition, while “two other soldiers were in custody.” President Obama called the Fort Hood shootings a “horrific outburst of violence.” “It is difficult enough to lose” soldiers overseas, he said, but it is “horrifying that they should lose their lives at an Army base in the U.S.” (Watch his remarks here.)
We condemn this cowardly attack in the strongest terms possible and ask that the perpetrators be punished to the full extent of the law. No religious or political ideology could ever justify or excuse such wanton and indiscriminate violence. The attack was particularly heinous in that it targeted the all-volunteer army that protects our nation. American Muslims stand with our fellow citizens in offering both prayers for the victims and sincere condolences to the families of those killed or injured.
Matthew Hoh: ‘I Firmly Believe That We Are Taking Part In A Civil War’ In Afghanistan
Matthew Hoh: ‘I Firmly Believe That We Are Taking Part In A Civil War’ In Afghanistan
Last week, former Marine captain and State Department employee Matthew Hoh made headlines when he went public with his resignation from the administration over his opposition to the continuation of the war in Afghanistan. In a four-page letter he sent to the State Department, he explained his resignation by writing that the U.S. presence in Afghanistan serves to “bolster a failing state, while encouraging an ideology and system of government unknown and unwanted by [the Afghan] people.”
This past Sunday, CNN’s Fareed Zakaria interviewed Hoh about his views on the war. During one segment of the interview, Zakaria asked Hoh why he feels the U.S. should begin to draw down its troops from the country. Hoh replied that he doesn’t see the Afghan conflict as one between the U.S. and the Taliban, but rather as a 35-year long “civil war” between rural Pashtuns “who want to be left alone” and an urban government the U.S. is backing:
HOH: I firmly believe that we are taking part in a civil war. We are on the same side of the civil war that the Soviets intervened on.
ZAKARIA: So, you have a divide among the Pashtuns. There’s the urban middle class. And Karzai, presumably, who is a Pashtun, comes from this urban middle class.
HOH: Correct.
ZAKARIA: Many of them left the country after the — during the years of the civil war. And the ones who have stayed to fight, who fought the Soviet Union and who are now fighting us, are the rural, mountain tribe Pashtuns who resent the central government and its intrusions.
HOH: Who want to be left alone.
Watch it:
Hoh also told Zakaria that he thinks keeping 60,000 troops in Afghanistan is detrimental to U.S. security. “Occupying a location only provides justification and only lends credence to the goals of that organization,” he said. “It only inspires young Muslim men to defend their culture against an occupying army, which is what we are.”
When the CNN host asked Hoh why he was speaking out, the former State Department employee cited support from two groups: Afghan Americans and U.S. soldiers serving in Afghanistan. “I’ve had a lot of Afghan-Americans contact me and say, ‘Matt, you get it,’” Hoh told Zakaria. “I’ve gotten many e-mails from guys [serving] in Afghanistan…men and women who are saying, ‘Matt, thanks for doing this.’”
Pennsylvania state lawmaker: Veterans who support climate change legislation are ‘traitors.’
Pennsylvania state lawmaker: Veterans who support climate change legislation are ‘traitors.’
A coalition of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, under the name Operation Free, is on a 21-state bus tour to alert the public about the dangers of global warming and its threat to national security. Upon hearing about the group’s visit to Pennsylvania, State Rep. Daryl Metcalfe (R) blasted the veterans as “traitors” and compared them to Benedict Arnold:
“As a veteran, I believe that any veteran lending their name, to promote the leftist propaganda of global warming and climate change, in an effort to control more of the wealth created in our economy, through cap and tax type policies, all in the name of national security, is a traitor to the oath he or she took to defend the Constitution of our great nation!” Mr. Metcalfe’s email reads. “Remember Benedict Arnold before giving credibility to a veteran who uses their service as a means to promote a leftist agenda. Drill Baby Drill!!!”
Rep. Metcalfe, who served in the U.S. Army from 1980-84, today defended the remarks, saying that “if the type of policies that an individual promotes undermines the Constitution and the law of the land in our country, then they are not patriots.”
Global warming is inextricably linked to national security, with the potential to “aggravate existing problems such as poverty, social tensions, environmental degradation, ineffectual leadership and weak political institutions” around the world, which “could increase the pool of potential recruits into terrorist activity.” In the past, Metcalfe has refused to support Domestic Violence Awareness month in Pennsylvania because the resolution referenced domestic abuse suffered by men, which Metcalfe interpreted as part of a “homosexual agenda.” He also opposed a vote to “honor the 60th anniversary of a Muslim group in the state, because ‘Muslims don’t recognize Jesus Christ as God.’”
Rove: Bush Administration Never Rejected A Request For More Troops From Afghanistan Commanders
Rove: Bush Administration Never Rejected A Request For More Troops From Afghanistan Commanders
This morning on ABC’s Good Morning America, former Bush adviser Karl Rove advised President Obama to “pay very close attention to the people you have put in command of the operation in Afghanistan” for their recommendations on strategy. Host Diane Sawyer than pointed out that if we’re listening to Gen. Stanley McChrystal and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen, they’re saying that “the reason we’re in the situation we’re in now is that this war was under-resourced, including during the Bush administration years.”
Rove quickly disputed those comments, saying, “I don’t believe that at the time, the military was saying we need significantly more. If there had been that cry, I suspect the previous administration would have been very responsive to it.” When Sawyer asked him if he was blaming the generals for not asking for more troops, Rove replied:
ROVE: No, I’m not. No. No. No. I’m saying that the United States had what, at the time, the military felt was an appropriate level of resources, and in retrospect, everybody now, says, I suspect, I wish we would have been doing more because the enemy, particularly as Iraq got better, the jihadists and al Qaeda needed a place to go, and they went to the Horn of Africa and they went to Pakistan and began to revitalize the efforts to attack Afghanistan.
As that grew, additional resources were sent by this administration and the previous administration to Afghanistan. But in retrospect, I think a lot of military experts say, we wish we would have been doing more. But that wasn’t what was going on at the time.
Watch it:
In 2008, Gen. David D. McKiernan, then the top U.S. commander in Kabul, specifically asked the Bush administration for more troops for Afghanistan, but was rebuffed:
“There was a saying when I got there: If you’re in Iraq and you need something, you ask for it,” McKiernan said in his first interview since being fired. “If you’re in Afghanistan and you need it, you figure out how to do without it.” By late last summer, he decided to tell George W. Bush’s White House what he knew it did not want to hear: He needed 30,000 more troops. He wanted to send some to the country’s east to bolster other U.S. forces, and some to the south to assist overwhelmed British and Canadian units in Helmand and Kandahar provinces.
The Bush administration opted not to act on McKiernan’s request and instead set out to persuade NATO allies to contribute more troops.
The war in Iraq was the main reason that Afghanistan was under-resourced. In July 2008, Mullen said, “I don’t have troops I can reach for, brigades I can reach to send into Afghanistan until I have a reduced requirement in Iraq.” Military officials have said that the Taliban was pretty much gone in 2002, but regrouped when the Bush administration decided to shift resources and invade Iraq.
Transcript: More »
Former Joint Chiefs Chairman Richard Myers: ‘Gays Can Serve…They Just Can’t Serve Openly’
Former Joint Chiefs Chairman Richard Myers: ‘Gays Can Serve…They Just Can’t Serve Openly’
Yesterday in his speech to the Human Rights Campaign, President Obama pledged to “end” the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. That comment was the subject of a debate this morning on NBC’s Meet the Press. Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) expressed his support for Obama’s position, but emphasized that it needs “buy-in from the military.” Former Joint Chiefs Chairman Richard Myers struck a different note:
HOST: Do you have an opinion about whether it’s time?
MYERS: Well, I take some exception with what Senator Levin said because gays can serve in the military; they just can’t serve openly. And they do. And there’s lots of them. And we’re the beneficiary of all that.
Levin rolled his eyes after hearing Myers’ remark. Gen. Barry McCaffrey said “there’s no question it’s time to change the policy.” Asked for his thoughts, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) avoided making any clear statements. Watch it:
According to Myers, silent discrimination is totally acceptable in the military. He’s happy to be the “beneficiary” of the sacrifices of soldiers who have to hide their sexual orientation. As the Pentagon’s own journal — Joint Force Quarterly — explains, the current policy damages unit cohesion:
The law as it currently stands does not prohibit homosexuals from serving in the military as long as they keep it secret. This has led to an uncomfortable value disconnect as homosexuals serving, estimated to be over 65,000, must compromise personal integrity. Given the growing gap between social mores and the law, DADT may do damage to the very unit cohesion that it seeks to protect. Finally, it has placed commanders in a position where they are expected to know everything about their troops except this one aspect.
This current status quo of quiet discrimination is responsible for the dismissal of many qualified soldiers with critical skills. “By not allowing gay Americans to serve openly, we are imposing an artificial limit on the number of loyal Americans that our military can draw upon to fill its ranks,” writes Stephen Walt.
After Myers left his post in 2005, he was replaced by his deputy, Peter Pace, who opposed repealing DADT because he said homosexuality is “immoral.” The current Joint Chiefs chairman, Admiral Mike Mullen, has taken a different view, stating that the military is prepared to accept a change in policy.
My understanding of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy was that if I kept quiet about my sexuality and didn't break any rules, I would face no punishment. I was wrong.Once I joined the Navy, I was tormented by my chief and fellow sailors, physically and emotionally, for being gay. The irony of "don't ask, don't tell" is that it protects bigots and punishes gays who comply. [...]
I told no one about what I was living through. I feared that reporting the abuse would lead to an investigation into my sexuality. My leaders and fellow sailors were punishing me for keeping my sexuality to myself, punishing me because I wouldn't "tell."
Obama’s National Security Adviser won’t say when Obama will take on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.
Obama’s National Security Adviser won’t say when Obama will take on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.
This week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) sent a letter to President Obama urging him to take a stand on repealing the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy which bans gays from openly serving in the military. “As Congress considers legislative action, we believe it would be helpful to hear your views on this policy,” Reid wrote. This morning, CNN’s John King asked National Security Adviser Jim Jones, “Is it time now?” Jones refused to say yes:
JONES: The President has an awful lot on his desk. I know this is an issue that he intends to take on at the appropriate time. He has already signaled that to the Defense Department. The Defense Department is doing the things it has to do to prepare, but at the right time, I’m sure the President will take it on.
KING: No idea when the right time is?
JONES: Um, I don’t think it’s going to be — it’s not years, but I think it will be teed up appropriately.
Watch it:
A prominent Pentagon journal reported the results of a study this week which found “that having openly gay troops in the ranks will not hurt combat readiness.” Taking issue with Jones’ statement this morning, John Aravosis writes:
What could Jones have said? How about, there’s a new analysis from a Department of Defense-related publication that…the ban can be lifted without hurting morale and cohesion. Or how about saying that the President just wrote to Senator Reid, agreeing to work together to lift the ban? Nope. None of that. All we got was another reason why the president may never be able to keep his promise.”
Newsmax removes column that called for military coup to resolve the ‘Obama problem.’
Newsmax removes column that called for military coup to resolve the ‘Obama problem.’
In a column published on the right-wing site Newsmax yesterday, John L. Perry writes that a military coup against President Obama is possible. Newsmax appears to have taken down the column from its website this morning. Media Matters has archived it, however:
There is a remote, although gaining, possibility America’s military will intervene as a last resort to resolve the “Obama problem.” Don’t dismiss it as unrealistic. [...]
Military intervention is what Obama’s exponentially accelerating agenda for “fundamental change” toward a Marxist state is inviting upon America. A coup is not an ideal option, but Obama’s radical ideal is not acceptable or reversible.
Unthinkable? Then think up an alternative, non-violent solution to the Obama problem. Just don’t shrug and say, “We can always worry about that later.”
In his Washington Post column, former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson acknowledges that “military leaders seem impressed” with President Obama’s decision-making process. “Obama’s engaged, deliberate style has fans in the military,” he writes.
Newsmax strongly believes in the principles of Constitutional government and would never advocate or insinuate any suggestion of an activity that would undermine our democracy or democratic institutions.
Pentagon terminates controversial contract with The Rendon Group.
Pentagon terminates controversial contract with The Rendon Group.
Last week, Stars and Stripes revealed that the Pentagon had contracted The Rendon Group to screen journalists seeking to embed with U.S. forces. Rendon was rating whether reporters were giving the military “positive” coverage. Journalism groups immediately criticized the arrangement, calling it “alarming.” One week later, the Pentagon has announced that it is canceling the contract with Rendon:
“The decision to terminate the Rendon contract was mine and mine alone. As the senior U.S. communicator in Afghanistan, it was clear that the issue of Rendon’s support to US forces in Afghanistan had become a distraction from our main mission,” said Rear Adm. Gregory J. Smith, in an e-mail sent Sunday to Stars and Stripes.
“I have been here since early June and at no time has anyone who worked for me ever conducted themselves in a manner as your newspaper alleged. I cannot and will not speculate on the past, although I have found no systemic issues with fairness or equity in the way U.S. forces have run their media embed program.”
Although military officials denied using Rendon’s work to reject reporters wishing to embed with U.S. troops, a public affairs officer with the 101st Airborne Division said that “when his unit was in Afghanistan and in charge of the Rendon contract, he had used the conclusions contained in Rendon profiles in part to reject at least two journalists’ applications for embeds.”
New Files Prove Pentagon Is Profiling Reporters
New Files Prove Pentagon Is Profiling Reporters
This week, Stars and Stripes revealed that the Pentagon had hired a controversial contractor to screen journalists seeking to embed with U.S. forces. The Rendon Group determines whether reporters’ coverage “was ‘positive,’ ‘negative’ or ‘neutral’ compared to mission objectives.” The Pentagon’s decision was especially shocking in light of Rendon’s sordid past: The group personally set up the Iraqi National Congress and helped install Ahmad Chalabi as leader, whose main goal — “pressure the United States to attack Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein” — Rendon helped facilitate.
Military officials immediately went about furiously refuting the reports. “We have not denied access to anyone because of what may or may not come out of their biography,” said public affairs officer Air Force Capt. Elizabeth Mathias. “It’s so we know with whom we’re working.” Other officials for the Pentagon and Rendon went even further:
“They are not doing that [rating reporters], that’s not been a practice for some time — actually since the creation of U.S. Forces–Afghanistan” in October 2008, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman told reporters Monday. “I can tell you that the way in which the Department of Defense evaluates an article is its accuracy. It’s a good article if it’s accurate. It’s a bad article if it’s inaccurate. That’s the only measurement that we use here at the Defense Department.” [...]
The Rendon Group declared in a statement that “the information and analysis we generate is developed … not by ranking of reporters.”
But new files prove otherwise. Stars and Stripes obtained profiles produced by Rendon. They clearly calculate the percentage of “positive” stories written by a reporter and offer ideas not about how to get the reporter to produce more accurate stories, but how to get more “favorable coverage” for the military. Fox News also obtained a slide from a Rendon PowerPoint presentation, where headlines from major newspapers are rated with “a plus sign, a negative sign or a capital ‘N,’ presumably for neutral.” Images from the profiles and PowerPoint:
Stars and Stripes also notes that one of the profiles looked at a reporter’s work as recently as May, indicating that the ranking did not stop in October 2008, as Whitman claimed.
What remains unclear is how extensively this ranking affects whether the military allows certain reporters to embed with troops. At least one reporter, Heath Druzin with Stars and Stripes, was barred for refusing to highlight more good news from the military. Fox News also obtained a Rendon memo that “showed that past coverage is at least taken into account during the process.”
Pentagon Hires Controversial Firm To Screen Whether Embedded Reporters Wrote ‘Positive’ Stories
Pentagon Hires Controversial Firm To Screen Whether Embedded Reporters Wrote ‘Positive’ Stories
Stars and Stripes reports that the Pentagon has hired The Rendon Group to screen journalists seeking to embed with U.S. forces. Specifically, the contractor will examine whether these reporters gave “positive” coverage to the military’s work in the past:
Rendon examines individual reporters’ recent work and determines whether the coverage was “positive,” “negative” or “neutral” compared to mission objectives, according to Rendon officials. It conducts similar analysis of general reporting trends about the war for the military and has been contracted for such work since 2005, according to the company. [...]
The backgrounders are part of a wide scope of work Rendon does for the Defense Department under its current $1.5 million “news analysis and media assessment” contract, according to military and company officials.
Public affairs officer Air Force Capt. Elizabeth Mathias insists that they “have not denied access to anyone because of what may or may not come out of their biography.” However, last month, the military barred a Stars and Stripes reporter from embedding with a unit in Iraq because he had “refused to highlight” good news. The military was also unhappy that the reporter “would not answer questions about stories he was writing.”
What is particularly troubling about this story is The Rendon Group’s history. The contractor has received millions from the U.S. government since 9/11 (at one point, taxpayers were paying CEO John Rendon $311.26/hour). The “secretive” firm personally set up the Iraqi National Congress and helped install Ahmad Chalabi as leader, whose main goal — “pressure the United States to attack Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein” — Rendon helped facilitate.
Professional journalism organizations are decrying the military’s contract with The Rendon Group. Ron Martz, president of the Military Reporters and Editors association, said that the “whole concept of doing profiles on reporters who are going to embed with the military is alarming.” Amy Mitchell, deputy director for Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism, said that the government is “doing things to put out the message they want to hear and that’s not the way journalism is meant to work in this country.”
At Netroots Nation, Blogger Challenges Bill Clinton On Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell
At Netroots Nation, Blogger Challenges Bill Clinton On Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell
At the Netroots Nation conference in Pittsburgh yesterday, former President Bill Clinton delivered the opening day’s keynote address. In his speech, Clinton declared that it is “imperative for the Democrats to pass a health care bill now,” telling the bloggers and activists that “the president needs your help and the cause needs your help.”
About 20 minutes into his speech, however, Clinton was interrupted by blogger Lane Hudson, who asked about the repeal of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy that Clinton implemented. “Hey, you ought to go to one of those congressional health care meetings,” Clinton joked before defending his actions as president and claiming that “nobody regrets how this was implemented anymore than I do”:
CLINTON: I hated what happened. I regret it but I didn’t have, I didn’t think at the time, any choice if I wanted any progress to be made at all. Look, I think it’s ridiculous. Can you believe they spent, whatever they spent, $150,000 to get rid of a valued Arabic speaker recently? You know, the thing that changed me forever on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was when I learned that 130 gay service people were allowed to serve and risk their lives in the first Gulf War and all their commanders knew they were gay, but they let them go out there and risk their lives because they needed them. Then as soon as the first Gulf War was over, they kicked them out. That’s all I needed to know. That’s all anybody needs to know that this policy should be changed.
Watch it:
At the Huffington Post, Hudson wrote that he interrupted the speech because “it became clear there would be no questions,” so when President Clinton said that “We need an honest, principled debate,” he stood and asked his question. Hudson said he was satisfied with Clinton’s answer on DADT, writing that “he made the strongest objection to DADT he has ever made to the best of my knowledge.”
The Obama White House has committed to repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, but is waiting to see “congressional action” first. Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA) and Sen. Kristian Gillibrand (D-NY) are taking the lead on repealing the provision in Congress.
Gates ‘Furious’ That Brownback And Roberts Placed A Hold On McHugh’s Army Secretary Nomination
Gates ‘Furious’ That Brownback And Roberts Placed A Hold On McHugh’s Army Secretary Nomination
President Obama named Rep. John McHugh (R-NY) in June as his nominee to become the next Secretary of the Army. Last week, the Senate Armed Services Committee approved his nomination by voice vote, and a Senate Democratic spokesperson said “Democratic leaders are seeking unanimous consent to have him confirmed by the full Senate by the end of the week.”
However, that vote never took place because Kansas Sens. Pat Roberts (R) and Sam Brownback (R) placed a hold on McHugh over an issue unrelated to his nomination:
Concerned that their state could become the home for some Guantánamo Bay detainees, Kansas’ two Republican senators have placed a hold on the nomination of Rep. John M. McHugh as Army secretary. That means a litte more time as candidates in waiting for the people gearing up to run for McHugh’s seat in an upstate New York district.
Sens. Pat Roberts and Sam Brownback are seeking answers from the Obama administration about the possible moves of some detainees to the prison at Fort Leavenworth, Kan.
Fox News’s Chris Wallace has reported that Defense Secretary Robert Gates, also a native of Kansas, is “furious” with Roberts and Brownback for placing the hold on McHugh:
WALLACE: Defense Secretary Robert Gates is said to be furious that senators from Alabama and Kansas are holding up the confirmation of the new Army secretary and his deputy. Kansas Senators Brownback and Roberts are trying to keep detainees from Guantanamo Bay prison out of Fort Leavenworth in their state.
Watch it:
Brownback and Roberts are also blocking nine other nominees for senior administration posts at the Pentagon and Justice Department. They said “they are prepared to block the appointments until they get answers from the White House about the proposal. And they said they want Leavenworth taken off the list of potential relocation spots.”
In order to close Gitmo, Leavenworth — which “has incarcerated infamous criminals” — must be considered an option for relocating detainees. As Ken Gude writes, “Americans in uniform are dying because of Guantanamo. The men and women serving at Ft. Leavenworth could be a part of the solution that saves American lives.”
Hastings withdraws ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ amendment due to White House ‘pressure.’
Hastings withdraws ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ amendment due to White House ‘pressure.’
Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) said yesterday that he withdrew an amendment to a defense appropriations bill that would have weakened the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy because of “pressure” from the White House and some “congressional colleagues.” Hastings’ amendment would have prohibited “spending money to investigate or discharge members of the military who reveal they are homosexual or bisexual.” Saying he didn’t want “to get into names,” Hastings added, “I didn’t talk to Barack Obama.” During an appearance with MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow last night, Hastings expressed his agitation:
HASTINGS: If something is bigoted and if your intent is to see to it that it does not continue, then I did not understand the leadership of Congress or the White House in saying that the time is not right. My position is: The president has said he wishes that this matter be repealed. My colleague, Patrick Murphy, now has more than 170 co-sponsors on a measure to repeal it. Secretary Gates has said, I`m glad he is now saying when we change our policy. Last year, he would have been saying “if.” But my view is, that the time is now to eliminate this bigoted law once and for all.
Watch it:
Earlier this month, Defense Secretary Robert Gates told reporters that, until the law is repealed, he is looking at ways to make the application of it more “humane.”
Report: Cheney wanted to illegally deploy American troops in U.S. cities.
Report: Cheney wanted to illegally deploy American troops in U.S. cities.
The New York Times reports that in 2002, Vice President Cheney and his administration allies urged President Bush to deploy American troops into the suburbs of Buffalo to apprehend a group of terrorist suspects (the “Lackawanna Six”) and declare them enemy combatants. The Times notes:
A decision to dispatch troops into the streets to make arrests has few precedents in American history, as both the Constitution and subsequent laws restrict the military from being used to conduct domestic raids and seize property.
The Fourth Amendment bans “unreasonable” searches and seizures without probable cause. And the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 generally prohibits the military from acting in a law enforcement capacity.
Cheney cited a DoJ memo co-authored by John Yoo which claimed that “the president has ample constitutional and statutory authority to deploy the military against international or foreign terrorists operating within the United States.” Siding with Condoleezza Rice, FBI Director Robert Mueller, and others, Bush rejected Cheney’s advice and “ended up ordering the F.B.I. to make the arrests.”
Peters Continues Attack On Captured U.S. Soldier: He’s A Liar And ‘A Deserter’ Who ‘Shamed His Unit’
Peters Continues Attack On Captured U.S. Soldier: He’s A Liar And ‘A Deserter’ Who ‘Shamed His Unit’
Late last week, media outlets reported that Taliban forces had captured U.S. Army soldier Pfc. Bowe Bergdahl in Afghanistan. While the circumstances of his capture are not entirely known, Bergdahl said in a video released by his captors that he lagged behind a patrol, while other reports say he walked off a base with Afghan soldiers. In an appearance on Fox News earlier this week, retired Army Lt. Col. Ralph Peters suggested that the Taliban should kill Bergdahl because he is an “apparent deserter.”
Last night on Fox, Peters walked back slightly from that comment (“I do hope for his family’s sake this guy comes back safely,” he said) but he continued to attack the missing U.S. soldier. “I asked a very senior military leader for a yes or no answer. Is PFC Bergdahl a deserter? The answer was yes,” Peters said, calling Bergdahl a liar. He and O’Reilly then repeatedly attacked Bergdahl’s mental capacity:
O’REILLY: He leaves his weapon and he goes out someplace. Number one that tells me that he is crazy, Colonel, that he is a nut. Nobody does that.
PETERS: He may be mentally disturbed. [...]
O’REILLY: It’s got to be I’m totally out of my mind. And that’s what I think this guy is. I think he is crazy.
Peters’ main contention, however, seems to be that Bergdahl has received media attention, while fallen soldiers do not. “I was angry when this broke because I felt the media were glorifying a guy who abandoned his buddies in combat,” he said, adding that “he shamed his unit” and “he lied for the enemy’s benefit.” Watch it:
Appalled at Peters’ original comment, CNN’s Rick Sanchez reported yesterday that Bergdahl is not a deserter. “Is the military saying that he’s a deserter in any way? We have checked. No, not at all,” Sanchez said.
NBC Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski also reported yesterday that “senior Pentagon and military officials have ruled that out entirely, they say there is no evidence that he is a deserter.” Miklaszewski added that “they also point out that remarks like that are not the least bit helpful and in fact could endanger Pfc Bergdahl.”
Senate votes to strip funding for the F-22.
Senate votes to strip funding for the F-22.
President Obama had warned that he would veto the defense bill if it included $1.75 billion for the construction of new F-22s. Last week, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said, “If we can’t get this right, what on earth can we get right? … It is time to draw the line on doing defense business as usual.” Fortunately, there is still hope for Congress getting things right. Moments ago, the Senate voted 58-40 to strip the F-22 funding from the FY2010 defense authorization bill:
The U.S. has 187 F-22s on hand or on order. The fighter jet hasn’t flown a single mission during the Iraq or Afghanistan wars. And it has trouble functioning in the rain.
Fox News Guest Ralph Peters Suggests Taliban Should Kill U.S. Soldier If He Deserted
Fox News Guest Ralph Peters Suggests Taliban Should Kill U.S. Soldier If He Deserted
Pfc. Bowe Bergdahl, the U.S. soldier who has been captured by the Taliban and appears in a video released this weekend by his captors, “went missing from his base in eastern Afghanistan on June 30.” The circumstances of his capture are still unknown. ABC News reports, “Defense officials said it appeared he somehow left his base in Paktika Province at night, likely accompanied by several Afghan soldiers.” On July 6, the Taliban claimed that “a drunken American soldier had come out of his garrison” and was captured by them.
On Fox News yesterday, guest Ralph Peters, a retired Army Lt. Col., urged against leaping to conclusions. “I was to stress first of all that we must wait until all of the facts are in until we make a final judgment,” Peters said, but quickly added, “He is an apparent deserter,” “he is collaborating with the enemy,” and “we know that this private is a liar.” Peters then suggested that if Bergdahl is a deserter, the Taliban should kill him:
I want to be clear. If, when the facts are in, we find out that through some convoluted chain of events, he really was captured by the Taliban, I’m with him. But, if he walked away from his post and his buddies in wartime, I don’t care how hard it sounds, as far as I’m concerned, the Taliban can save us a lot of legal hassles and legal bills.
Fox News host Julie Banderas tried to soften Peters’ remark by concluding, “Regardless of what the situation is, we do not want to see any U.S. soldier in harm’s way. And we hope that this guy gets out of there safely. He’s an American – he’s one of ours.” Watch it:
Jonthan Turley comments that “Peters appears to view trials as something of an unnecessary expense.” Michelle Malkin applauds Peters’ “tough words.”
U.S. condemns video of captured soldier as violation of international law.
U.S. condemns video of captured soldier as violation of international law.
In a newly-released video, an American soldier who is being held captive by the Taliban in Afghanistan says he’s “scared I won’t be able to go home.” Two U.S. defense officials confirmed that the man in the video posted Saturday on the Internet is the captured soldier, but the Defense Department has not released his name. Local Taliban commanders had previously threatened to kill the soldier. Asked by his interrogators to give a message to the American people, the captive soldier said:
“To my fellow Americans who have loved ones over here, who know what it’s like to miss them, you have the power to make our government bring them home,” he said. “Please, please bring us home so that we can be back where we belong and not over here, wasting our time and our lives and our precious life that we could be using back in our own country. Please bring us home. It is America and American people who have that power.”
Watch it:
A U.S. military spokeswoman in Afghanistan, Lt. Cmdr. Christine Sidenstricker, said the Taliban was using their captive for propaganda. “They are exploiting the soldier in violation of international law,” she said. U.S. military spokesman Colonel Greg Julian added, “We condemn the use of this video and the public humiliation of prisoners. It is against international law.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll