DADT Update: The Service Chiefs Report, The Republicans Fret

by: fake consultant

Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 13:43:18 PM EDT

There was a hearing before the House Armed Services Committee last Thursday that had all four Services represented; with one exception these were the same Service Chiefs that were testifying last December when the bill to set the repeal process in motion was still a piece of prospective legislation.

At that time there was concern that the "combat arms" of the Marines and the Army were going to be impacted in a negative way by the transition to "open service"; the Commandant of the Marine Corps and the Army's Chief of Staff were the most outspoken in confirming that such concerns exist within the Pentagon as well.

We now have more information to report-including the increasing desperation of some of our Republican friends-and if you ask me, I think things might be better than we thought.

On Actually Ending DADT, Or, "Could It Really Take Another Year?"

by: fake consultant

Sun Dec 19, 2010 at 20:23:12 PM EST

Most people would assume that once Bill (remember Bill, from "Schoolhouse Rock"?) made it out of Congress and over to the President to for a signature that the process of repeal will be ended-but in fact, there's quite a bit more yet to do, and it's entirely possible that a year or more could go by before the entire process is complete.

Today we'll discuss our way through why it's going to take so long; to illustrate the point we'll consider an actual military order that is quite similar to the sort of work that will be required from the Department of Defense (DOD) before the entire "DADT to open service" transition is complete.

On "Military Endorsements", Or, Another Weird Christine O'Donnell Story

by: fake consultant

Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 13:49:20 PM EDT

What it basically comes down to is that the United States Marine Corps and the United States Army are "Christine O'Donnell for Senate" MySpace friends, or that there are persons who have created United States Army and USMC MySpace pages that purport to be official that have "befriended" her candidacy. There's also a Navy page that appears to emanate from a US Navy recruiting office in California on her '08 campaign's "friends" list.

At a minimum, all of this would seem to be a combination of inappropriate behavior and poor management of social media; at worst, you have activity that is "some kind of unlawful", either on an administrative or civil level.

I'll make this fast...but I'll also make it interesting.
Follow along, and you'll see what I mean.

Massa Attacked By NRCC For His "Vote Against Our Troops"

by: robert.harding

Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 16:02:17 PM EDT

I was able to obtain a copy of the mailer that was sent to residents of the 29th congressional district by the NRCC. The mailer features Abraham Lincoln's likeness and a quote from Lincoln that reads, "To care for him who shall have born the battle and for his widow and for his orphan."

Here is the rest of the mailer:

The NRCC attacked Massa for voting against all of these items, yet they did not specify what bill. All they would refer to the legislation as is a "bi-partisan bill" and claiming that Massa sided with "special interest extremists" instead of our troops.

The bill that the Republicans are attacking Massa over is the Iraq War supplemental that was passed in mid-May. The bill passed with bi-partisan support - it was a 368 to 60 vote - and when he voted against the bill, Massa explained why.

"I will not have my vote held hostage by line items to fund military projects while at the same time funding the UN. These are two very different issues and I will not vote to combine them. While I did support several line items in the bill, there were a few specifics which deeply troubled me. For example, during the recession, I cannot support sending $836 million to fund the United Nations, $109 to train and equip Palestinian security forces and up the to $429.5 million in foreign aid to Pakistan.

"For over four years prior to being elected to Congress, I promised to vote against any additional funding for the Iraq war without a clear and immediate plan of withdrawal," said Congressman Eric Massa. "Regardless of which party is in power, I could not in good conscience vote for any additional Iraq war funding. The Iraqi people want us to leave and I think we should begin redeploying American troops out of Iraq immediately. I've always promised to stand up to my party when I disagree with them, but yesterday I had to stand up to both political parties."

It is shameful that the party who had Walter Reed happen under their watch and other failings now is trying to take the high ground when it comes to who is voting for or against our troops. The Republicans who came up with this mailer probably didn't serve their country. Eric Massa did for 24 years. There are plenty of veterans who are currently serving in Congress who deserve our respect. They don't deserve attacks and claims that they are against our troops and veterans.

The Republicans have tried over the last few years to label Democrats as the anti-troop party. Look at how that's worked out for them. Labeling other Americans as against our troops is despicable. No one is more patriotic than the other. So let's quit this game of trying to get a leg up on who loves their country more.

Massa had his reasoning (which I agree with) for voting against this legislation. This wasn't about our troops. This was about funding the war efforts abroad, which included funds that Massa did not agree with. In his statement, he made that clear.

Massa did say that there were plenty of good programs in the bill, but that he could not vote for a bill like this with so much spending in it without a full exit strategy. Essentially for Massa, if there is no exit strategy, he's voting against it.

More on Fort Drum

by: robert.harding

Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 16:15:24 PM EST

Here is more on the Fort Drum commanders disputing these charges.

Both Penner and Oates disputed that soldiers were not receiving timely care.

Oates noted that the post has a permanent mental health staff of four psychiatrists, six psychologists, three registered psychiatric nurses and four licensed clinical social workers.

Additionally, said Penner, the report failed to mention that Fort Drum has a unique partnership with three regional health care facilities to provide specialty care and inpatient treatment.

"As a result ... waiting times for routine appointments are very manageable at 1-2 weeks, contrary to the assertions in the report. Fort Drum has always maintained the ability to handle acute or immediate appointments on a same day basis," said Penner.

The report was based on interviews with a dozen unnamed soldiers.

"While we don't believe 12 random soldiers represent a valid sample of our entire population, we do agree that our soldiers are having challenges," said Lt. Col. Paul Swiergosz, the division spokesman. "We welcome the opinions of outside interest groups, but we're more interested in well-researched solutions to these problems."

Based on Lt. Col. Swiergosz's quote above, he sounds like the kind of man who doesn't believe in presidential polls either. After all, you're only dealing with a random sample that is a fraction of the total population.

The sample doesn't show everyone, but it does show a trend. If there's 12 of them, how many more could there? 25? 50? 100? Where does it end?

Fort Drum officials dispute report on mental illness

by: robert.harding

Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:16:39 AM EST

Now, officers at Fort Drum are denying these claims.

The report released Wednesday by the Washington, D.C.- based Veterans for America cited problems with understaffing, a reliance on self-reporting of mental health problems and some soldiers having to wait up to two months before they were seen by doctors.

The report urged Fort Drum to establish more proactive mental health screening and treatment capabilities.

That shortcoming was recognized by Fort Drum medical staff in early 2007 and has already been addressed through temporary personnel realignments until permanent additions can be made, said Col. Jerome Penner III, Fort Drum's Medical Department commander.

Maj. Gen. Michael Oates, division commander, disputed that soldiers were not receiving timely care.

Why dispute this? I have an interesting, but sad story about all this. A gentleman I used to blog with wrote me a late-night e-mail. His daughter lives near Fort Drum and had a friend who was in the military on base. He was told (with short notice) that he was going to be deployed again.

He committed suicide.

So are these guys saying that there is nothing wrong with this picture? Sure looks like it to me.