Iraq Veteran: Why Is McCain ‘Fighting To Kill’ ‘My One Hope And Dream,’ To Go To College After War?
Iraq Veteran: Why Is McCain ‘Fighting To Kill’ ‘My One Hope And Dream,’ To Go To College After War?
Today, nine members of Iraq Veterans Against the War testified before the Congressional Progressive Caucus about their experiences fighting in the Iraq war. Kristofer Goldsmith, who served Sadr City and was stop-lossed after returning home, revealed that he had attempted suicide and was discharged. The discharge forced him to forfeit the educational benefits promised under the GI bill and thus his “one hope and dream” to go to college:
I was stop-lossed. My one hope and dream in the military was to go to college after I went through Iraq. I attempted suicide. I never deployed a second time. Because of that I received a general discharge. I lost my college benefits, the $40,000 promised to me in the Montgomery GI Bill, I will not be eligible to receive. And currently there is a Senator in Congress currently running for president, who is fighting to kill our Webb GI bill. And I’m one of the soldiers who will never get that money.
Watch it:
Of course, Goldsmith is referring to Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who has steadfastly opposed Sen. Jim Webb’s (D-VA) bipartisan attempt to dramatically expand educational benefits for returning veterans. In fact, McCain’s own watered-down alternative, which reserves the most generous benefits to those who serve at least 12 years, would exclude soldiers like Goldsmith who suffered physical or psychological problems that made serving 12 years impossible.
The Pentagon also sees no problem with excluding soldiers like Goldsmith from reaping educational rewards. Just recently, a Pentagon spokesman criticized Webb’s bill for providing full educational benefits to soldiers “after only two years of service.” He said that “six years would show a commitment to service” — a commitment the Pentagon apparently thinks Goldsmith, who could not serve for a full six years, never demonstrated.
VA discouraged staff from diagnosing PTSD for ‘compensation seeking veterans.’
VA discouraged staff from diagnosing PTSD for ‘compensation seeking veterans.’
VoteVets.org and CREW released an e-mail today that reveals “a Veterans Affairs (VA) employee directing VA staff to refrain from diagnosing soldiers and veterans with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).” The e-mail, dated May 1, 2008, complains about “compensation seeking veterans” and urges VA staff to rule out PTSD and “consider a diagnosis of ‘Adjustment Disorder’” instead:
Last month, RAND released a study showing that nearly 20% of veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan — nearly 300,000 in all — “report symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder or major depression, yet only slightly more than half have sought treatment.”
Larry Craig surfaces in contentious Senate GI Bill debate.
Larry Craig surfaces in contentious Senate GI Bill debate.
Huffington Post reports that Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) “quietly created presidential campaign ripples on Tuesday” when he “announced that he would offer an amendment to the forthcoming Iraq war supplemental that would strip the legislation of Sen. Jim Webb’s [D-VA] GI Bill.” Earlier today, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) also played politics with veterans’ benefits using the GI Bill as a “parliamentary gimmick” to kill first responder legislation.
GOP Uses GI Bill As A ‘Political Gimmick’ On Senate Floor To Thwart Passage Of First Responder Legislation
GOP Uses GI Bill As A ‘Political Gimmick’ On Senate Floor To Thwart Passage Of First Responder Legislation
Today, the Senate debated the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2007 (H.R. 980), a bill strengthening the collective bargaining powers of firefighters, police officers, and first responders.
At noon, the Senate quickly “devolved into a procedural mess” when Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) attempted to attach Sen. Lindsey Graham’s (R-SC) watered-down GI Bill — which is strongly backed by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) — as an amendment. McConnell also immediately seconded his measure, but then filed cloture, “prohibiting Democrats from filing their own version of the proposal.”
This amendment is a poison pill. It not only kills the Public Safety bill, but also blocks Sen. Jim Webb’s (D-VA) more generous GI Bill from being considered. In one swift maneuver, conservatives trampled over first responders and veterans. In a fiery speech, Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) responded on the floor:
We have seen this parliamentary gimmick that has taken place offered by the Republican leadership that is a slap in the face to every firefighter and police officer and first responder in the country. […]
We’re saying to the firefighters of this nation and to the police officers of this nation and the first responders of the nation: Your interest, the safety and security of our communities across the nation, should be put aside in favor of some political gimmick by the Republican leader here in the United States Senate.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) angrily reacted to the GOP maneuver by issuing a quorum call and denying Sen. Judd Gregg’s (R-NH) right to speak three times. Watch it:
This morning, Politico reported that McCain and his allies were “reaching out” to Webb “in the hope of finding a compromise on a GI Bill.” It seems, however, that McCain became desperate to avoid a “potential embarrassment” and resorted to this political stunt. Unlike McCain’s bill, Webb’s has strong bipartisan support and the backing of a majority of the American public.
Why not focus on the GI bill after the first responders bill is over? Kennedy asked. “Do it Friday, Saturday, Sunday, or Monday. Maybe Sen. McCain will come back for it,” he said. “Maybe he won’t.”
McCain was not in the Senate today and questions remain whether he approved this strategy. “Maybe the leadership on the other side can tell us whether Sen. McCain approved this strategy,” added Kennedy. “Maybe you can find that out. I think the police and firefighters would like to know.”
Pentagon said O’Reilly, Malkin had ‘thoughtful’ views on Guantanamo.
Pentagon said O’Reilly, Malkin had ‘thoughtful’ views on Guantanamo.
Last month, the Pentagon released a document collection on its military analyst propaganda program. In a July 2006 e-mail between Public Affairs official Jeffrey Gordon and other Pentagon officials, Gordon attached several articles on detention policy by right-wing talkers, including Bill O’Reilly and Michelle Malkin, that he said were “thoughtful.” In a later e-mail, Gordon said officials could use the articles “with military analysts as appropriate” (p. 5808). His initial e-mail lauded the right-wing voices (p. 5808):
From: Gordon, Jeffrey D LCDR OSD PA
To: Ruff, Eric, SES, OSD; Bryan Mr OSD PA; Keck, Gary L Col OSD PA; [Redacted] AFIS-HQ/PIA
Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 6:38 PM
Subject: RE: articles on detaineesGentlemen,
As requested, attached document contains four thoughtful articles/columns about Guantanamo, from Charles Krauthammer, Bill O’Reilly and Michelle Malkin. I have a call out to OGC and DoJ to provide some inputs as well. I Envision that I will have more material tomorrow a.m.
What were the “thoughtful” remarks of Malkin and O’Reilly on detention policy? In the Malkin column, she said that a “far greater threat” than Guantanamo to America is the “unseriousness and hypocrisy of the terrorist-abetting left.” O’Reilly said there were only “minor cases of abuse” there. In fact, when news broke of suicides at the prison, Malkin’s reaction was “boo-freaking hoo.”
McCain Adviser Misleadingly Cites CBO Report, Says Webb’s GI Bill ‘Does Nothing To Address Reenlistment’
McCain Adviser Misleadingly Cites CBO Report, Says Webb’s GI Bill ‘Does Nothing To Address Reenlistment’
On Fox News’s America’s Election HQ yesterday, Nancy Pfotenhauer, a senior policy adviser to Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), disingenuously attacked Sen. Jim Webb’s “21st Century GI Bill,” in order to justify her boss’s opposition to the bill. Webb’s bill “does nothing to address reenlistment and retention,” charged Pfotenhauer.
Pfotenhauer cited a recent Congressional Budget Office report to support her specious claims:
Senator McCain has his own legislation, and by the way, he’s largely supportive of the goals of the Webb bill. The problem is, it doesn’t do enough — it doesn’t it quickly enough and it does nothing to address reenlistment and retention. In fact, CBO, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that if the Webb bill went through, we’d see a reduction in reenlistment rates of 16 percent.
Watch it:
But, as ThinkProgress has noted, the CBO report cited by Pfotenhauer actually shows that Webb’s bill would increase enlistment to such an extent that it would completely offset the loss in retention:
Literature on the effects of educational benefits on retention suggest that every $10,000 increase in educational benefits yields a reduction in retention of slightly more than 1 percentage point. CBO estimates that S. 22 (as modified) would more than double the present value of educational benefits for servicemembers at the first reenlistment point — from about $40,000 to over $90,000 — implying a 16 percent decline in the reenlistment rate, from about 42 percent to about 36 percent. […]
Educational benefits have been shown to raise the number of military recruits. Based on an analysis of the existing literature, CBO estimates that a 10 percent increase in educational benefits would result in an increase of about 1 percent in high-quality recruits. On that basis, CBO calculates that raising the educational benefits as proposed in S. 22 would result in a 16 percent increase in recruits.
Sen. John Warner (R-AZ), a co-sponsor of Webb’s bill who is also a veteran of World War II and Korea, has said that the flip side of the impact on retention is that “putting a big piece of cheese out there will induce more qualified people to join just to get this.”
The Army is need of new incentives like Webb’s bill in order to attract higher quality recruits. Thus far, in 2008, 13 percent of the Army’s recruits have been granted “conduct” waivers for misdemeanor or felony charges, which is up from 11 percent in 2007 and 4.6 percent in 2004.
Transcript: Read the rest of this entry »
Media quoted ‘military analysts’ over 4,500 times since 2002.
Media quoted ‘military analysts’ over 4,500 times since 2002.
According to Media Matters, the so-called “military analysts” exposed in the recent New York Times article disclosing the Pentagon’s propaganda program were quoted in the media “more than 4,500 times” since Jan. 1, 2002:
A Media Matters review found that since January 1, 2002, the analysts named in Barstow’s article — many identified as having ties to the defense industry — collectively appeared or were quoted as experts more than 4,500 times on ABC, ABC News Now, CBS, CBS Radio Network, NBC, CNN, CNN Headline News, Fox News, MSNBC, CNBC, and NPR in segments covering the Iraq war both before and after the invasion, as well as numerous other national security or government policy issues.
View Media Matters’s full spreadsheet of analysts’ appearances here.
How The Pentagon Propaganda Machine Worked: ‘are you telling me to tell a lie???? surely not! ;)’
How The Pentagon Propaganda Machine Worked: ‘are you telling me to tell a lie???? surely not! ;)’
The Pentagon document dump on its propaganda program reveals this interesting insight as to how the Defense Department worked with conservative allies to manipulate the media.
In a Feb. 16, 2006 email exchange, Pentagon media staffers discussed coordinating with the Heritage Foundation to identify someone to speak about detainee treatment at Gitmo. An anonymous employee suggested retired Army Sergeant Major Steve Short because “he seems to be on message and very articulate.”
Pentagon public affairs official Allison Barber responded by warning that the DoD could not officially “endorse” one particular speaker over another. “Important to remember that heritage can invite anyone to present and that we don’t really have an opinion on anyone,” Barber wrote.
The anonymous author then suggested he or she might lie and pretend not to have ever heard of Short:
Just two weeks after this email exchange — on March 1, 2006 — Short was invited by Heritage to participate on a panel entitled “GITMO: What You Read Vs. What You See.” And he was indeed “on message”:
The next day, UPI reported Short’s comments:
Jennifer Daskal, advocacy director for U.S. programs at Human Rights Watch, endorsed these charges. “Allegations of torture and abuse are pervasive,” she said.
However, Heritage speakers with firsthand experience of Guantanamo dismissed all claims of mistreatment. According to Steve Short, a retired Command Sergeant Major with the U.S. Army, “I can honestly say that when taking part in briefings, I never heard anything that indicated any inappropriate action was being taken against detainees.”
Short emphasized the extensive training received by military personnel running the base. U.S. soldiers “cared for detainees in much the same way that they would like to be cared for if the situation were reversed,” he said.
For the Pentagon propaganda machine – a mission accomplished.
Pentagon document dump: E-mailer suggested ’softball’ interview with top general.
Pentagon document dump: E-mailer suggested ’softball’ interview with top general.
Last month, the Pentagon released an extensive document dump with details on its military analyst propaganda program. TPM Muckraker notes that in a 2006 e-mail, someone (with a redacted name) e-mailed Pentagon officials stating that Jed Babbin, a participant in the analyst program, would be guest hosting for right-wing radio talker Michael Medved. Babbin requested an interview with Gen. George Casey, then top commander in Iraq. Pitching the request to interview Casey to the Pentagon officials, the e-mailer said: “this would be a softball interview and the show is 8th or 9th in the nation.” Allison Barber, a Public Affairs official at the Pentagon, responded:
Thanks for sending this.
Just fyi, probably wouldn’t put “softball” interview in writing. If that got out it would compromise jed and general casey.
The e-mailer wrote back: “check, check.”