Bush Has Gone AWOL

The following is a transcript of the Democratic Radio Address delivered by Lieutenant General William E. Odom, U.S. Army (Ret.) on Saturday April 28, 2007:

You can download the radio address by clicking here: http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v001/democ…adioAddress.mp3

“Good morning, this is Lieutenant General William E. Odom, U.S. Army, retired.

“I am not now nor have I ever been a Democrat or a Republican. Thus, I do
not speak for the Democratic Party. I speak for myself, as a
non-partisan retired military officer who is a former Director of the
National Security Agency. I do so because Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of
the House of Representatives, asked me.

“In principle, I do not favor Congressional involvement in the execution of U.S. foreign and
military policy. I have seen its perverse effects in many cases. The
conflict in Iraq is different. Over the past couple of years, the
President has let it proceed on automatic pilot, making no corrections
in the face of accumulating evidence that his strategy is failing and
cannot be rescued.

“Thus, he lets the United States fly further and further into trouble, squandering its
influence, money, and blood, facilitating the gains of our enemies. The Congress is the only
mechanism we have to fill this vacuum in command judgment.

“To put this in a simple army metaphor, the Commander-in-Chief seems to
have gone AWOL, that is ‘absent without leave.’ He neither acts nor
talks as though he is in charge. Rather, he engages in tit-for-tat
games.

“Some in Congress on both sides of the aisle have
responded with their own tits-for-tats. These kinds of games, however,
are no longer helpful, much less amusing. They merely reflect the
absence of effective leadership in a crisis. And we are in a crisis.

“Most Americans suspect that something is fundamentally wrong with the
President’s management of the conflict in Iraq. And they are right.

“The challenge we face today is not how to win in Iraq; it is how to recover
from a strategic mistake: invading Iraq in the first place. The war
could never have served American interests.

“But it has served Iran’s interest by revenging Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Iran in the
1980s and enhancing Iran’s influence within Iraq. It has also served al
Qaeda’s interests, providing a much better training ground than did
Afghanistan, allowing it to build its ranks far above the levels and
competence that otherwise would have been possible.

“We cannot ‘win’ a war that serves our enemies interests and not our own. Thus
continuing to pursue the illusion of victory in Iraq makes no sense. We
can now see that it never did.

“A wise commander in this situation normally revises his objectives and changes his strategy,
not just marginally, but radically. Nothing less today will limit the death
and destruction that the invasion of Iraq has unleashed.

“No effective new strategy can be devised for the United States until it
begins withdrawing its forces from Iraq. Only that step will break the
paralysis that now confronts us. Withdrawal is the pre-condition for
winning support from countries in Europe that have stood aside and
other major powers including India, China, Japan, Russia.

“It will also shock and change attitudes in Iran, Syria, and other
countries on Iraq’s borders, making them far more likely to take
seriously new U.S. approaches, not just to Iraq, but to restoring
regional stability and heading off the spreading chaos that our war has
caused.

“The bill that Congress approved this week, with bipartisan support,
setting schedules for withdrawal, provides the President an opportunity to
begin this kind of strategic shift, one that defines regional stability as the measure
of victory, not some impossible outcome.

“I hope the President seizes this moment for a basic change in course and signs the
bill the Congress has sent him.  I will respect him greatly for such a rare act of courage,
and so too, I suspect, will most Americans.

“This is retired General Odom. Thank you for listening.”

——-

General Odom has served as Director of the National Security Agency and Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence, the Army’s senior intelligence officer. In his address, General Odom will discuss why he believes President Bush should sign the conference report on the Iraq Accountability Act.

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on Bush Has Gone AWOL

Is War a Psychosis?

In 1967, the Scottish psychiatrist R. D. Laing wrote, “Insanity is a perfectly rational adjustment to an insane world. Normal men have killed 100 million of their fellow men in the past 50 years.” Wartime behavior deviates markedly from crosscultural social norms and values. The irrationality and emotionality of war is a radical departure from accepted normal behavior. In the heat of battle, killing becomes the norm and is reinforced, even rewarded. Wartime behavior of and by itself meets current diagnostic criteria for a severe mental disorder.

The United States was founded in war, the American Revolution, and has had wars in every generation from that time to World Wars I and II, Korea, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf, and now the Afghan and Iraq wars. That is not unique to the United States. Every world region has had a war. In the context of world history, it seems war is inevitable, and as philosopher George Santayana sadly observed in 1905, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

“Why war? Of all the personality theorists, Freud came closest to explaining the psychological roots of war. He speculated that war is an outlet for the thanatos libido, the “death instinct,” a basic instinctive drive that is the polar opposite to eros libido, prosocial and life supportive. Applying Freud’s insight, under the right circumstances the thanatos libido can rise to a level that overcomes reason and logic. It also emerges in a quest for power and the impulse to win or dominate. This tendency is evident in business, government, and competitive sports.

Situations and circumstances allow this primitive and predatory drive to surface, such as in the racist paranoia of lynchings in the U.S. South and the Indian wars in America’s West, à la Custer’s infamous last stand. The thanatos libido emerged in the holocaust in Nazi Germany and more recently in the ethnic cleansing of Bosnia, Darfur, and Rwanda. It was economic in Japan’s need for oil and the country’s attack on the U.S. at Pearl Harbor that began World War II for America. The death instinct has been political and nationalistic, in the colonialism of European nations in the seventeenth to nineteenth centuries and the quest for power and dominance from Napoleon to Hitler and Stalin into the twentieth century. It can be territorial, like tribal wars in ancient societies. And it can be religious, such as the Crusades and today’s extremist Muslims reinforcing millennia-old, seemingly irreconcilable differences.

There have been attempts at neutralizing this powerful instinctive drive and nonviolently resolving differences. Gandhi’s “salt march” opposing British rule in India led to India’s independence. But Gandhi was assassinated, and differences between Muslims and Hindus led to the establishment of Pakistan as an independent nation. Their armies still face each other in the continuing dispute over the Kashmir. Both have nuclear weapons.

The norm has been tens of thousands dying in religious wars, but nonviolent accommodation of religious differences does occur. Theravada and Mahayana Buddhists peacefully co-exist in many nations. They have had no religious wars.

But it is in war where the death instinct is most obvious. Atrocities–”crimes against humanity”–occur in every war. Ironically, we award medals to and hail as heroes or martyrs those who kill more of the enemy. One nation’s freedom fighter is another’s terrorist, even though it may be the same behavior. To Islamic terrorists, death in battle or a suicide attack is martyrdom; reward with a harem of virgins is said to be guaranteed. Suicide is especially attractive when many enemies are killed with the martyr. This was true for the 9/11 terrorists who flew hijacked airliners into the World Trade Center and Pentagon, inspiring others to follow their examples in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Israel.

World history offers many examples of extreme wartime behaviors, including Attila, Genghis Khan, and Alexander the Great. More recently, leaders such as Hitler, Stalin, and others in Africa, Asia, and Latin America have motivated thousands to take up arms and vent their aggression against targeted enemies. Extremist behavior is not limited just to charismatic leaders. Kamikaze pilots in World War II and today’s suicide bombers were recruited from the rank and file. Suicide as a chosen alternative has historical roots (e.g., Japanese hara-kiri).

These behaviors meet current criteria for mental disorder. For example, the diagnostic standard, the DSM-IV-TR (American Psychiatric Association, 2000) defines a dissociative disorder as “disruption in usually integrated functions of consciousness, memory, identity, or perception of the environment and impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning” (p. 239). Derealization (”Can this be really happening?) and depersonalization (”Is this me?”) are listed as typical symptoms. Victims are dehumanized into objects, and robot-like violence depersonalizes the aggressor in the process.

In 1957, psychologist Leon Festinger described the state of “cognitive dissonance,” which preserves “internal harmony, consistency, or congruity among opinions, attitudes, knowledge, and values” (p. 260). Waldinger defined delusion as “a false belief firmly held despite incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary, not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the culture or subculture.” What begins as bias and opinion, usually tolerated, can lead to distortion, then wrongful belief. Reinforced by charismatic leaders, there can be a downward spiral into delusion. Genocide in Nazi Germany and recently in Rwanda and the Sudan is evidence of this tragic process. And it is not limited to mass behavior. Street crime and domestic violence reflect Elbert Hubbard’s observation a hundred years ago: “So long as governments set the example of killing their enemies, private individuals will occasionally kill theirs.”

The environment in war lacks external controls. Societal values weaken. War disinhibits and desensitizes. The horror of the holocaust of World War II became evident only as time passed, not immediately. The Allies did not give it a high priority while it was happening. The perpetrators denied personal responsibility, using “the Nuremberg defense” that they were simply following orders. Defense mechanisms of denial, externalization, projection, rationalization, and splitting block reality testing have the effect of reducing anxiety and protecting against stress. Violence then becomes part of the array of defense mechanisms.

The strong drive that leads to the practice of beheading victims, common among Islamic extremists, suggests an entrenched, inflexible belief system of delusional proportion. It involves a grandiose quality the DSM-IV-TR describes as one “of inflated worth, power, knowledge, identity, or special relationship to a deity or famous person” (p. 160). Wartime behavior suggests an extreme mental state of psychotic proportion and with it, often paranoid ideation–a simplistic “us or them” dichotomy. Killing becomes routine “business as usual.”

Delusional thinking is encouraged in signs, posters, banners, and statues that propagandize or deify a cause, leader, or martyr. Iran’s Ayotollah Khomeini, Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, and North Korea’s Kim Il Sung are examples. Emotion overrides reason and logic in public education and controlled news media that reinforce aggression. Schools teach children a biased version of history and current events, reinforced with songs and recitation: Hitler Youth, China and Russia’s Young Pioneers, North Korean “patriotic” school activities, and anti-West Islamic school curricula. Singled out, the United States is the common enemy (”Satan America”) and the cause of a nation’s problems. According to the DSM-IV-TR, these are neurotic defenses (externalization, displacement, isolation, denial, and rationalization).

On a smaller scale, cult-like groups develop similar impaired reality testing. Jim Jones in his People’s Church in Guyana caused the suicides of 913 men, women, and children by propagating the delusional belief the U.S. would soon invade their commune. David Koresh of the Branch Davidians refused to submit to lawful authority for almost two months, leading to his death and the deaths of most of his followers. Marshall Applewhite led the Heaven’s Gate cult in a group suicide to join with alien super-beings in Halley’s comet. The Taliban in Afghanistan executed people at soccer games, beat “uncovered” women on the street, and blew up centuries-old Buddha statues. These behaviors are not consistent with any definition of normality or sanity.

“Shell shock” of World War I and “combat fatigue” of World War II were precursors of what we now diagnose and treat as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). This condition is evidence of the harmful impact of the wartime environment on both military and civilian populations. The phenomenon of war has been with us since cave dwelling tribes. Many of our fathers fought in World War I, brothers in World War II, we in Korea or Vietnam, and our children in the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan or Iraq. Throughout history, war has been taking place somewhere in the world.

A major feature of psychosis is impaired reality testing, and it is evident in wartime behavior. Hinsie and Campbell (1973) observed that “psychoses differ from other psychiatric disorders by certain features.” They listed four distinguishing features: disruptive severity, withdrawal in which “objective reality has less meaning,” affect that is “qualitatively different,” and regression that “may include a return to early and even primitive patterns.” They suggested the term “collective psychosis,” if it is shared “by an entire group.”

Freud had much to say about behaviors common in wartime. He survived the rise of Nazism in Vienna and saw firsthand its aggression and violence. He saw aggression as a basic drive that inevitably leads to conflict. There is a tendency to project it onto others, for instance, Nazis onto Jews and Muslim extremists onto “Satan America.” As early as 1933, he traced psychosis to a “repressed unconscious too strong that overwhelms the conscious” and a state “when reality becomes so unbearably painful the threatened ego succumbs to unconscious impulses.”

Experimental evidence of antisocial behavior in otherwise “normal” people exists. Milgram in 1974 and Zimbardo in 1973 showed how it is possible to violate societal norms. Milgram instructed volunteers to administer what they were told were dangerous electric shocks to others. Actually, there was no current in the equipment but volunteers did not know that. Zimbardo stopped his experiment of a mock prison when “guards” became increasingly aggressive. The behavior of army reservists at Baghdad’s Abu Ghraib prison is a recent real-life example of how aggression can become the norm in an environment of little or no external control.

Hopeful signs exist, however. The world now has a United Nations. For a thousand years, major world religions have developed and promoted moral standards. Colonialism and imperialism have given way to independence among nations. Science and technology improve the quality of life.

But wars continue. Technology develops more weapons. As in ages past, soldiers face each other with the stark realization that only one will survive. To people in war-torn nations, it may seem the world has gone mad. Many veterans of wars return home unable to cope with their own and others’ extreme behaviors.

War is a tragedy for both sides. That it continues is an even greater tragedy, a downward spiral of world civilization of psychotic dimension.

War is a psychosis!

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Tagged | Comments Off on Is War a Psychosis?

Editorial – America Has to Provide for its Wounded Veterans

The LSJ’s recent front-page reporting that our returning service personnel were receiving excellent care at our Veterans Administration facilities in Michigan is accurate that care and treatment in our larger metropolitan Veterans facilities, while a problem in the past, is not a problem at this time.

The article however failed to report that one of the reasons for this improvement is the watchdog approach of our nation’s veterans organizations. Suffice it to say, there is not a major problem in care and treatment at our newer, upgraded VA hospitals around the country.

We must remember, however, that not all returning wounded have access to these larger facilities and some must seek service at our Veterans Administration clinics located around the country. Many of these clinics have been reported to be inadequate in structural facilities, medical staff and care-givers.

The other and most important point left out of this article is that while the returning service member is still on the active roles of the Department of Defense, he/she will not encounter any problem in service or treatment at a Veterans Administration facility – because the Department of Defense will pay the bill.

After discharge is when the problems will begin. This is further supported by the backlog of 400,000 cases nationwide, currently awaiting action in the Veterans Administration, from Korea and Vietnam.

Daniel Cooper, an undersecretary of veterans affairs for benefits, confirmed this figure and it was reported in Newsweek magazine in an article, “Failing our wounded.”

A little known fact of this War on Terror is that for every member of our armed forces killed in action, there are 16 wounded who return to their homes in need of continuing treatment. Our ability to provide quick and immediate response and care on the battlefield, has produced a huge need for continuing care here at home.

Therefore, the question must be asked: Are we ready to provide for the lifelong needs these men and women will have? A review of our Veterans Administration clinics will show that we are not.

Out of 631,000 returning service members from both theaters of operation, 73,000 of them have been determined to have some symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, a condition that will require psychological treatment. Those same clinics mentioned earlier, which would be required to treat them, do not have that ability or medical staff on board.

A large number of our volunteer military members come from small-town America and must travel great distances to seek help for those medical problems encountered during their service. We are concerned they will become a victim of failed services. We must remember this is a quality of life issue they will face.

What is the answer to this ever-growing problem? It can be summed up in one word: money.

Where will it come from can be answered in two words: America’s citizens.

It is the cost we must pay for our policies right or wrong regardless of party affiliations.

Douglas Williams is legislative director for the Marine Corps League’s Department of Michigan.

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on Editorial – America Has to Provide for its Wounded Veterans

Editorial – U.S. Media Have Lost the Will to Dig Deep

A changed news culture has let several important investigative stories slip through the cracks.

In an e-mail uncovered and released by the House Judiciary Committee last month, Tim Griffin, once Karl Rove’s right-hand man, gloated that “no [U.S.] national press picked up” a BBC Television story reporting that the Rove team had developed an elaborate scheme to challenge the votes of thousands of African Americans in the 2004 election.

Griffin wasn’t exactly right. The Los Angeles Times did run a follow-up article a few days later in which it reported the findings. But he was essentially right. Most of the major U.S. newspapers and the vast majority of television news programs ignored the story even though it came at a critical moment just weeks before the election.

According to Griffin (who has since been dispatched to Arkansas to replace one of the U.S. attorneys fired by the Justice Department), the mainstream media rejected the story because it was wrong.

“That guy is a British reporter who accepted some false allegations and made a story up,” he said.

Let’s get one fact straight, Mr. Griffin. “That guy” is not a British reporter. I am an American living abroad, putting investigative reports on the air from London for the British Broadcasting Corp.

I’m not going to argue with Rove’s minions about the validity of our reporting, which led the news in Britain. But I can tell you this: To the extent that it was ignored in the United States, it wasn’t because the report was false. It was because it was complicated and murky and because it required a lot of time and reporting to get to the bottom of it. In fact, not one U.S. newsperson even bothered to ask me or the BBC for the data and research we had painstakingly done in our effort to demonstrate the existence of the scheme.

The truth is, I knew that a story like this one would never be reported in my own country. Because investigative reporting — the kind Jack Anderson used to do regularly and which was carried in hundreds of papers across the country, the kind of muckraking, data-intensive work that takes time and money and ruffles feathers — is dying.

I’ve been through this before, too many times. Take this investigative report, also buried in the U.S.: Back in December 2000, I received two computer disks from the office of Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris. Analysis of the data, plus documents that fell my way, indicated that Harris’ office had purged thousands of African Americans from Florida’s voter rolls as “felons.” Florida now admits that many of these voters were not in fact felons. Nevertheless, the blacklisting helped cost Al Gore the White House.

I reported on the phony felon purge in Britain’s Guardian and Observer and on the BBC while Gore was still in the race, while the count was still on.

Yet the story of the Florida purge never appeared in the U.S. daily papers or on television. Until months later, that is, after the Supreme Court had decided the election, when it was picked up by the Washington Post and others.

U.S. papers delayed the story until the U.S. Civil Rights Commission issued a report saying our Guardian/BBC story was correct: Innocents lost their vote. At that point, protected by the official imprimatur, American editors felt it safe enough to venture out with the story. But by then, George W. Bush could read it from his chair in the Oval Office.

Again and again, I see this pattern repeated. Until there is some official investigation or allegation made by a politician, there is no story.

Or sometimes the media like to cover the controversy, not the substance, preferring an ambiguous and unsatisfying “he said, she said” report. Safe reporting, but not investigative.

I know some of the reasons why investigative reporting is on the decline. To begin with, investigations take time and money. A producer from “60 Minutes,” watching my team’s work on another voter purge list, said: “My God! You’d have to make hundreds of calls to make this case.” In America’s cash-short, instant-deadline world, there’s not much room for that.

Are there still aggressive, talented investigative reporters in the U.S.? There are hundreds. I’ll mention two: Seymour Hersh, formerly of the New York Times, and Robert Parry, formerly of the Associated Press, who uncovered the Iran-Contra scandal. The operative word here is “formerly.” Parry tells me that he can no longer do this kind of investigative work within the confines of a U.S. daily newsroom.

One of the biggest disincentives to doing investigative journalism is that it jeopardizes future access to politicians and corporate elite. During the I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby trial, the testimony of Judith Miller and other U.S. journalists about the confidences they were willing to keep in order to maintain access seemed to me sadly illuminating.

Expose the critters and the door is slammed. That’s not a price many American journalists are willing to pay.

It’s different in Britain. After the 2000 election, when Harris’ lawyer refused to respond to our evidence, my BBC producer made sure I chased him down the hall waving the damning documents. That’s one sure way to end “access.”

Reporters in Britain must adhere to extraordinarily strict standards of accuracy because there is no Bill of Rights, no “freedom of the press” to provide cover against lawsuits. Further, the British government fines reporters who make false accusations and jails others who reveal “official secrets.”

I’ve long argued that Britain needs a 1st Amendment right to press freedom. It could, of course, borrow ours. We don’t use it.

GREG PALAST is the author of “Armed Madhouse: From New Orleans to Baghdad — Sordid Secrets and Strange Tales of a White House Gone Wild.”

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on Editorial – U.S. Media Have Lost the Will to Dig Deep

Soldier Says He Suffered Brain Damage During Fort Bragg Training Before Deployment

FORT CARSON, Colo. (AP) — A soldier who blames his alleged misconduct on brain damage suffered before he was deployed to Iraq has demanded a court-martial.

Spc. Paul Thurman, 24, of Huntington Beach, Calif., rejected an Article 15 on Friday. Army spokeswoman Karen Linn confirmed Thurman rejected the so-called “nonjudicial punishment,” whose maximum penalties are limited to reduction in grade, loss of half a month’s pay for two months and extra duty or limits on his movements for up to 45 days.

Penalties under a court-martial could be much more severe, but would depend on what he is charged with and Army lawyers are still working on that.

Medical and other Army documents provided to The Associated Press by Thurman show that he suffered brain damage while undergoing Special Forces training at Fort Bragg, N.C. He was deployed despite the medical record, but ultimately was medevaced after a short tour in Iraq and returned to Fort Carson.

He claims he has been harassed since his return.

Stephen Robinson of Veterans for America, a Washington, D.C.-based advocacy group that lobbies for soldiers says he has encountered many cases similar to Thurman’s.

A letter from his commander, Capt. Anthony L. Leach, documented how his supervisor, platoon sergeant and co-workers noted Thurman’s performance decline because of his injuries. “Soldier’s conditions are not exaggerated in any way,” Leach’s letter said.

The Army has been faced with thousands of soldiers returning from Iraq with head injuries. In some cases they have been diagnosed as brain damage, in others they are declared to be suffering from post-traumatic stress.

This post announced this week that it would soon begin testing brain scanning equipment to see if it can better identify a soldier’s medical problem.

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on Soldier Says He Suffered Brain Damage During Fort Bragg Training Before Deployment

Partisan Political Briefings Held at Department of Veterans Affairs

Political Briefings At Agencies Disclosed

White House Calls Meetings Lawful

White House officials conducted 20 private briefings on Republican electoral prospects in the last midterm election for senior officials in at least 15 government agencies covered by federal restrictions on partisan political activity, a White House spokesman and other administration officials said yesterday.

The previously undisclosed briefings were part of what now appears to be a regular effort in which the White House sent senior political officials to brief top appointees in government agencies on which seats Republican candidates might win or lose, and how the election outcomes could affect the success of administration policies, the officials said.

The existence of one such briefing, at the headquarters of the General Services Administration in January, came to light last month, and the Office of Special Counsel began an investigation into whether the officials at the briefing felt coerced into steering federal activities to favor those Republican candidates cited as vulnerable.

Such coercion is prohibited under a federal law, known as the Hatch Act, meant to insulate virtually all federal workers from partisan politics. In addition to forbidding workplace pressures meant to influence an election outcome, the law bars the use of federal resources — including office buildings, phones and computers — for partisan purposes.

The administration maintains that the previously undisclosed meetings were appropriate. Those discussing the briefings on the record yesterday uniformly described them as merely “informational briefings about the political landscape.” But House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), who has been investigating the GSA briefing, said, “Politicization of departments and agencies is a serious issue. We need to know more about these and other briefings.”

In the GSA briefing — conducted like all the others by a deputy to chief White House political adviser Karl Rove — two slides were presented showing 20 House Democrats targeted for defeat and several dozen vulnerable Republicans.

At its completion, GSA Administrator Lurita Alexis Doan asked how GSA projects could be used to help “our candidates,” according to half a dozen witnesses. The briefer, J. Scott Jennings, said that topic should be discussed “off-line,” the witnesses said. Doan then replied, “Oh, good, at least as long as we are going to follow up,” according to an account given by former GSA chief acquisition officer Emily Murphy to House investigators, according to a copy of the transcript.

“Something was going to take place potentially afterwards” regarding Doan’s request, GSA deputy director of communications Jennifer Millikin told investigators she concluded at the time.

Doan, appearing before the oversight committee on March 28, said, “I believe that all around government, there are non-career employees who meet to discuss different ways to advance policies and programs of the administration.” But she added that it “is not the same as asking federal employees to engage in partisan political activities in the workplace,” a request she said she did not recall making.

White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said that he was not familiar with the details of the briefings for other agencies, but that the projected fate of specific candidates was “certainly” discussed. He also said that in addition to the 20 briefings given in 2006-2007, “there were others throughout the last six years,” making clear that this was a common Bush administration practice during each election cycle.

Stanzel said that Rove “occasionally spoke to political appointees at departments and agencies” but that his presentations were more “off the cuff” and were meant to convey “their importance to advancing the president’s agenda.”

At the Commerce Department, briefings by White House political officials were conducted in 2002, in March 2004, and in April 2006, according to department spokesman E. Richard Mills, who described them as “purely informational,” legal and appropriate. More than 100 political appointees at the department were invited to each one, and they were held in the headquarters building’s main auditorium.

A smaller White House briefing was also conducted every two years for what Mills described as the department’s senior political staff, including Secretary Carlos M. Gutierrez. He could not explain why that meeting was separate from the others.

Twenty-eight political appointees at the Environmental Protection Agency attended such a briefing last July 17 at the White House executive office complex, and an unknown number attended one at those offices the following month, according to EPA spokeswoman Jennifer Wood. She said that Jennings gave the presentation at the first meeting and that Sara M. Taylor, who directs the White House Office of Political Affairs, gave the second one.

Spokesmen at the departments of Veterans Affairs and Transportation also confirmed that their political appointees received such briefings at their headquarters. Stanzel confirmed that they were also given at the departments of Health and Human Services, Interior, Labor, Housing and Urban Development, Treasury, Education, Agriculture and Energy, as well as NASA, the Small Business Administration, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the U.S. Agency for International Development.

By the end of yesterday afternoon, all of those describing the briefings on the record had adopted a uniform phrase in response to a reporter’s inquiries: They were, each official said, “informational briefings about the political landscape.”

At the Department of Homeland Security, spokesman Russ Knocke at first said “there is no indication that any meeting on election targets, congressional districts or candidate support or assistance took place at the department.” He then called back to alter that remark, saying he had no indication that such a meeting was held at department “offices.” A department official said employees were briefed on “morale” but did not elaborate.

Scott J. Bloch, director of the Office of Special Counsel, alluded to the multiple briefings in an interview Monday, saying that “we have had allegations” and “received information” about similar talks that were held elsewhere besides GSA.

“Political forecasts, just generally . . . I do not regard as illegal political activity,” Bloch added. But he said his office would examine whether it was appropriate to use federal facilities or resources as well as review exactly what was said. “Where you cross the line is where you get into the slant of someone being elected or defeated” or trying to get a political party into or out of power, he said.

Justin Busch, a GSA appointee who attended the briefing there, told the investigators that Doan’s comment made him “very uncomfortable.” Dennis R. Smith, the regional GSA administrator in Boston, recalled a “feeling of unease” at Doan’s additional mention of the need to manage a GSA building visit by then-incoming House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) cited Doan’s reported remarks yesterday in a Brookings Institution speech that criticized the Bush administration for using “all the levers of power” to promote its political interests and attempting to make the federal government “a stepchild of the Republican Party.”

Staff writer Spencer Hsu contributed to this report.

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on Partisan Political Briefings Held at Department of Veterans Affairs

Army Says Shortcomings Exist Beyond Walter Reed

WASHINGTON – The Army said Wednesday it was hiring case managers and boosting oversight at military facilities after a new internal review concluded poor outpatient care extended beyond Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

Gen. Richard Cody, the Army’s vice chief of staff, said officials were finalizing a report on problems after a team of Army inspectors visited 11 bases in seven states last month to study outpatient treatment, building conditions and the information provided to patients.

The investigation found staffing shortages, excessive paperwork and poor training that created too much bureaucracy and long waits for injured soldiers, particularly at Fort Stewart in Georgia and Fort Hood and Fort Bliss in Texas.

Army officials also were taking a special look at problems at Fort Lewis in Washington state.

A ‘microcosm’ of problems

Calling the delays unacceptable, Cody and Gen. Michael S. Tucker, a deputy commanding general at Walter Reed, said the Army was working hard to hire the personnel needed by June so injured soldiers could get the treatment they deserve.

“What’s happening here at Walter Reed is a microcosm of things we need to address with our Army,” Cody said in a briefing with reporters at Walter Reed. “We are now moving to fix it across the Army.”

The Army’s comments come as a slew of task forces and congressional committees are investigating ways to improve care following disclosures in February of shoddy outpatient treatment at Walter Reed, the Army’s premier center for treating injured soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.

On Tuesday, President Bush ordered the Pentagon and the Veterans Affairs Department, which share responsibility for providing medical care to soldiers and veterans, to work more closely together and increase screenings for brain injury after a presidential task force concluded that gaps existed.

Fighting bureaucracy

Cody said the internal Army review found many of the delays came as injured soldiers awaited determinations on whether their disability made them unfit to serve, and if so, what level of benefit payments they should get. Patients and doctors also reported shortages in nurses and behavioral specialists.

“They shouldn’t have to come back here and fight a bureaucracy. That’s what we’re attacking,” Cody said. “It’s 40 years in the making. We have to change a bureaucracy and turbocharge it.”

At Walter Reed, patients in the dilapidated Building 18 have already been moved to other parts of the facilities, with rooms equipped with telephones, plasma screen TVs and Internet access. On Wednesday, Walter Reed also activated a new “warrior transition brigade,” a group of primarily combat veterans who help guide injured soldiers from inpatient to outpatient treatment.

The new brigades, which will be installed at other medical facilities around the nation, will reduce the case-manager-to-patient ratio from 1:50 to 1:17, the Army said.

Other changes that may require new legislation may take longer, officials said. They include improving cooperation with the VA, and reforming a disability ratings system that critics say is unwieldy and unfair.

The facilities reviewed by Army inspectors last month were:

Dwight D. Eisenhower Army Medical Center, Fort Gordon, Ga.;
Winn Army Community Hospital, Fort Stewart, Ga.;
Tripler Army Medical Center, Honolulu, Hawaii;
Blanchfield Army Community Hospital at Fort Campbell, Ky.
Ireland Army Community Hospital at Fort Knox, Ky.;
Guthrie Ambulatory Health Care Clinic, Fort Drum, N.Y.;
Womack Army Medical Center, Fort Bragg, N.C.;
Darnall Army Community Hospital, Fort Hood, Texas;
Brooke Army Medical Center, Fort Sam Houston, Texas;
William Beaumont Army Medical Center, Fort Bliss, Texas; and
Madigan Army Medical Center, Fort Lewis, Wash.

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Tagged | Comments Off on Army Says Shortcomings Exist Beyond Walter Reed

Parents of Nevada Marine Blame Veterans Affairs in Son’s Death

LAS VEGAS (AP) – The Nevada parents of a former Marine accused Veterans Affairs officials of insensitivity and improper care for their son, who died this year of an apparent drug overdose.

Tony Bailey told the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee on Wednesday that he and his wife, Mary Kaye Bailey, had trouble finding their son’s medical records at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Los Angeles and received a “total lack of sympathy” from hospital officials who handed them their son’s possessions in a garbage bag.

“I assumed that being a large VA facility, they would be best equipped and would have the best experience with PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) and related drug abuse issues,” Tony Bailey said. “I was wrong.”

The Baileys told their story at a Capitol Hill hearing focusing on VA shortcomings in treating Iraq war veterans with mental health problems.

Also testifying in Washington, D.C., were Randall and Ellen Omvig of Grundy Center, Iowa. Their son Joshua, a 22-year-old war veteran, shot himself with a handgun in December in front of his mother. They blame post-traumatic stress disorder for the suicide.

Ira Katz, deputy chief patient care services officer, told senators the VA was trying to improve mental health services in light of the veterans’ deaths.

“We are looking very carefully at our program, and we’re looking for lessons to be learned,” he said.

Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii, the committee chairman, accused Veterans Affairs of failing to keep up with increased demand for mental health care for service members returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., a committee member, called Justin Bailey’s story “a terrible tragedy” and urged more VA action.

“It’s important to ensure that our nation’s veterans are treated with top-notch medical care and the respect and dignity they deserve,” Ensign said. “It’s critical that we conduct proper oversight so we can prevent similar occurrences in the future.”

Justin Bailey, a 1998 graduate of Las Vegas High School, was among the first Marines to serve in Iraq. He died of an apparent drug overdose Jan. 26 at age 27.

He was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder after he was discharged from the Marines in April 2004, and checked himself into the VA hospital in West Los Angeles last November.

Despite a history of prescription drug abuse, Justin was allowed to take a long list of medications unsupervised, his father told senators.

Over the past two years of his life, Justin Bailey was prescribed 27 different drugs, his father said. He said the day before Justin died, he was given five prescriptions in dosages of 14, 15 and 30 days.

“It doesn’t appear as if the drugs were monitored effectively, and in my opinion, he was given drugs and sent on his way instead of being properly diagnosed and treated,” Tony Bailey said.

Veterans Administration Secretary Jim Nicholson said during an April 11 appearance in Las Vegas that investigators are probing the circumstances of Justin’s death to form a plan to prevent similar situations.

Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., blasted the VA on Wednesday for “a lack of caring, a lack of concern, a lack of competence.

“We lost a young veteran for no apparent reason,” she said.

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on Parents of Nevada Marine Blame Veterans Affairs in Son’s Death

Panel Weighs Concerns About Rural Veterans’ Access to Care

A House panel Thursday began sifting through a variety of bills to improve medical care for veterans, with access to treatment in rural areas among the top concerns addressed by the stack of proposals.

Dominating the hearing by the House Veterans’ Affairs Health Subcommittee were stories of rural veterans spending entire days routinely traveling hundreds of miles to the briefest of appointments, but veterans’ groups voiced ambivalence about how lawmakers would address the problem.

The subcommittee listened to more than half a dozen House members pitch their bills for improving veterans’ care, a number of which call for increased contracting by the Veterans Health Administration at the Department of Veterans Affairs with local providers to treat veterans who live in areas distant from VA facilities.

But some veterans’ lobbyists expressed fear that broader contracting to provide more timely and convenient treatment would undermine the VA’s system for directly providing care itself through its own hospitals and clinics.

Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite, R-Fla., made a pitch for her bill (HR 92) that would set standards for timely access to care. Veterans would have to be able to get appointments for primary care from the VA hospitals or clinics within 30 days. In certain instances, if the VA were unable to live up to that standard, it would have to contract for care with private providers.

Although the VA claims that almost all of its facilities comply with the 30-day standard 90 percent or more of the time, but Brown-Waite said many veterans wait much longer than that. “I guess it’s in dog years that they are counting it, because it’s not human days,” she said.

Rep. Solomon P. Ortiz, D-Texas, said that young veterans in his south Texas district face complex medical needs, yet the closest VA hospital is many hours away. A veteran spends five-and-a-half hours to get to the nearest VA hospital to get a 15-minute checkup and then has to spend another five-and-a-half hours getting back home, he said.

“Now we are beginning to see wounds that we have not seen before,” Ortiz said of the injuries sustained by U.S. solders from explosive devices in Iraq. Yet the federal government continues its longtime resistance to building a VA facility in his district, he said. “Young men went and fought a war thinking we were going to take care of their problems,” he said. The government can find money to fight a war, he said, “but for some reason we can’t find the money to keep the promises that we made” to care for them if they are injured or sick.

Ortiz is urging passage of a bill (HR 538) that would establish an in-patient VA facility in his district to serve the more than 100,000 veterans living there.

Overall, the VA has made much progress in providing more timely care, said Dennis M. Cullinan, legislative director of the Veterans of Foreign Wars. “A few years ago, there were over 300,000 veterans throughout the country who were waiting six months or more for primary health care, but VA has made great strides to reduce this and most initial appointments are being made” within 30 days, he said.

Cullinan said contracting for care in certain geographic where this is not the case raised concerns about what it would cost.“While it would greatly benefit veterans in areas with long waiting times, we must be mindful of it not eating into the health care budget for other locations.”

Adrian Atizado, legislative director of the Disabled American Veterans (DAV), expressed similar concerns about contracting. “The DAV is opposed to any initiative that would turn VA into a primary insurer rather than a provider of health care to veterans,” he said.

Rep. Michael H. Michaud, D-Maine, chairman of the subcommittee, was noncommittal about the bills, saying the hearing was just the first of many his panel would hold to consider legislation.

But Michaud also outlined some of his own thinking on the rural access issue, noting that he has prepared a draft proposal for discussion purposes that would establish mobile clinics to provide care in rural areas, create a special advisory committee on rural veterans to improve access to care and also create “centers of excellence” to carry out research on improving rural access to care.

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Comments Off on Panel Weighs Concerns About Rural Veterans’ Access to Care

Presidential Candidates and Torture

Obama calls it ineffective. Giuliani says he’s against it. But would any of them get rid of the loophole making it legal—as long as we outsource the dirty work?

As the Democratic presidential candidates were preparing for their first prime time debate, Republican John McCain made it official, announcing his candidacy in the traditional venue of New Hampshire’s Prescott Park, rather than on the David Letterman show. While he continues to lag behind Rudy Giuliani in the polls, McCain’s presence in primary debates would at least seem to promise a place on the agenda for an issue that undermines the image of the United States, both in the eyes of the world and in the nation’s sense of itself: torture.

As recently as the fall of 2005, McCain, an ex-Navy pilot who endured torture in a North Vietnamese prison, was standing up to a Bush Administration eager to preserve America’s “flexibility” in war-on-terror interrogations that had allowed such practices as painful shackling and “long standing,” induced hypothermia, mock executions, threats against families, and the infamous waterboarding, or simulated drowning. The “McCain Torture Amendment,” attached to a defense appropriations bill after numerous rounds of negotiations between McCain and the White House, was lauded as a ban on the kind of torture and abuse that had already taken place in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay, and secret prisons in Eastern Europe and elsewhere; it was also offered as proof of McCain’s independence and moral fiber. McCain himself went on the “Today” Show to say: “We got what we wanted, and that is the preservation of the Geneva Conventions. There will be no more torture. There will be no more mistreatment of prisoners that would violate standards of conduct we would expect of people who work for the United States of America.”

In fact, as my colleague Michael Roston and I wrote at the time in the Village Voice, the Arizona senator’s so-called torture ban left an enormous loophole: In its final form, the bill legislated a distinction between the rules to which interrogators from the U.S. military would be subjected, and those to be followed by the intelligence community. The CIA, FBI, and other intelligence agencies would, in particular, not face legal consequences if they suborned torture by a foreign military or spy service.

The torture “ban” was further weakened by an amendment introduced by South Carolina Republican Lindsay Graham, which provided certain exemptions for Guantanamo and removed mechanisms for legal enforcement, and by a barely noticed presidential signing statement in which Bush re-asserted his right to interpret the law as he wished, and do what he deemed necessary to defend the United States. Intelligence historian Alfred McCoy has written that the Graham Amendment clears the road for “twisting this congressional ban on inhumane interrogation in ways that could ultimately legalize such acts.”

Some of the fruits of this policy were revealed earlier this month in a report by the Associated Press, detailing how “CIA and FBI agents hunting for al Qaeda militants in the Horn of Africa have been interrogating terrorism suspects from 19 countries held at secret prisons in Ethiopia, which is notorious for torture and abuse.” While denying that Americans had abused any detainees, the FBI’s Richard Kolko was quick to insist that, “The prisoners were never in American custody.” A Human Rights Watch researcher described the conditions to which the detainees were subjected as comparable to a “decentralized, outsourced Guantanamo.” As noted in a March 30 report from Human Rights Watch, many of the detainees were fleeing the fighting in Somalia, and Somalia’s Transitional Federal Government, along with Ethiopia, Kenya, and the United States cooperated in the secret detention program. “Each of these governments has played a shameful role in mistreating people fleeing a war zone,” said HRW’s Africa Director. “Kenya has secretly expelled people, the Ethiopians have caused dozens to ‘disappear,’ and US security agents have routinely interrogated people held incommunicado.”

A story in last Sunday’s New York Times provided another, probably common, scenario when it described a scene at one of the new joint American-Iraqi security stations in Baghdad, set up as part of the new “surge” plan where a U.S. Army captain praised Iraqi soldiers after three suspects were captured and provided valuable information. According to the article, “What the Iraqis had not told them was that before handing over the detainees to the Americans, the Iraqi soldiers had beaten one of them in front of the other two, the Iraqis said. The stripes on the detainee’s back, which appeared to be the product of a whipping with electrical cables, were later shown briefly to a photographer, who was not allowed to take a picture.” An Iraqi captain told Times reporter Alissa J. Rubin, “I prepared him for the Americans and let them take his confession.”

With such scenarios undoubtedly playing out every day, unobserved by the media, how much of an issue will the United States’ new tolerance for torture be in the upcoming presidential elections? With even McCain showing his willingness to compromise for the sake of a political deal, don’t expect much from the rest of the Republican field. GOP frontrunner Rudy Giuliani, at a town hall meeting in New Hampshire earlier this week, faced a questioner asking whether the Bush Administration had gone too far in its resistance to the Geneva Convention in the war on terror. According to an account on the New York Times’ Caucus blog, Giuliani said: “There are people in this world that are organized, and they are organizing around the notion of coming here to attack us and kill us. The only way you’re going to stop this, the only way you are going to find out about it in advance, the only way you are going to prevent another September 11 from happening is by being aggressive.” According to the Times, “The only caveat he offered was that he is against torture and that wiretapping should be done within the law.” Speaking to voters in South Carolina earlier this month, Giuliani said that the only “timetable” in the war on terror depended on “when they stop planning to come here and kill us,” and expressed support for the Patriot Act and “intense interrogation of suspects, though not torture.”

But long before 9/11, while he was mayor of New York, Giuliani was widely accused of helping to create an atmosphere that permitted police brutality, including abuse of prisoners. What could you call the assault on Abner Louima, who was beaten and sodomized with a plunger in a Brooklyn precinct house, if not torture?

Other Republican candidates seem anxious to prove that they are just as tough as Giuliani. On a trip to Guantanamo last year, both Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee said they thought the prisoners were well treated. Romney expressed sympathy for the rough conditions the troops lived under at the base. In a book, Huckabee later said, “These are not people who have any respect whatsoever for our laws, our culture, or our very lives. Most of them truly hate the United States of America and express their gladness when Americans are killed and their hope of more to follow.” The still-undeclared Senator Sam Brownback supported the Graham amendment that undermined McCain’s torture ban last year.

Democrats are somewhat more willing to declare a firm opposition to torture, though they have yet to make it a central issue in their campaigns. On April 13 and 14, all of the candidates were invited to meet with a group of retired admirals and generals to discuss U.S. detention and interrogation practices, in an event sponsored by Human Rights First and the Franklin Pierce Law Center in Concord, New Hampshire. Only Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, and Dennis Kucinich met with the military leaders. (John Edwards accepted the invitation, but canceled due to the weather.)

The local Concord Monitor spoke with candidates following the little-reported, closed-door meetings. “I do not want to live in a country where I train the young women and men who defend this country on principles that I abhor,” Biden was quoted as saying. “Because they will come back to the United States of America, and I don’t want that to be the core of my country. I don’t want that to be who we are.”

Hillary Clinton is on record against torture: She said, in the Senate debate on torture last year, that “in the process of accomplishing what I believe is essential for our security, we must hold on to our values and set an example that we can point to with pride, not shame.” Barack Obama’s New Hampshire press secretary, Reid Cherlin, told the Monitor in an email that Obama believes torture is not effective, “because those being tortured may lie to stop pain,” and that it causes hostility against Americans and puts U.S. troops at risk if captured. “Senator Obama believes this is not about them; it’s about us,” Cherlin went on. “Torture is just un-American. It’s not who we are.” Dennis Kucinich, in November 2006 wrote, “Torture degrades us as a people… Torture breeds torture and brutality. Torture is a slope no American should step onto.’’ And trial lawyer John Edwards, in a recent entry on his blog, noted that “there is a principle in our system of justice that states it is better to let nine guilty men go free, than to punish one innocent man. We do not always live up to that ideal, but it is that goal that separates us from those who choose to attack us. The system of secret prisons, torture, and state sponsored kidnappings must end.’’

And finally, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson has not directly addressed the subject, though he has said that “the United States once was–and again must be–a human rights example to which others aspire.”

Still, it would be surprising to hear any of the Dems consider the torture issue enough of a priority to raise it in their first debate. Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee passed up a prime opportunity to grill Attorney General Alberto Gonzales—the architect of the Bush take on torture—on the subject during their recent hearings on the prosecutor-firing scandal.

For details on one of the practices that Gonzales—and Dick Cheney—think it is “quaint” to ban, and that most of the other candidates don’t yet deem worth mentioning, take a look at Wikipedia’s description of waterboarding. Then take a deep breath, and cast your vote.

James Ridgeway is the Washington Correspondent at Mother Jones.

Posted in Veterans for Common Sense News | Tagged , | Comments Off on Presidential Candidates and Torture