About
Learn More about our progressive online community for the Granite State.

Create an account today (it's free and easy) and get started!
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Search




Advanced Search


The Masthead
Managing Editors

Contributing Writers
elwood
Jennifer Daler
Mike Hoefer
susanthe

ActBlue Hampshire

The Roll, Etc.
Prog Blogs, Orgs & Alumni
Betsy Devine
Blue News Tribune (MA)
Democracy for NH
Mike Caulfield
Granite State Progress
Susan the Bruce

Politicos & Punditry
Dorgan
DiStaso
Landrigan
Lawson
Pindell
Primary Monitor
Scala
Spiliotes
Welch

Campaigns, Et Alia.
Paul Hodes for Senate
ActBlue Hampshire
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC

National
billmon
Bob Geiger
Congress Matters
DailyKos
Digby
Hold Fast
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
The Next Hurrah
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo

50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin

RSS Feed

Blue Hampshire RSS


Carol Shea-Porter Leading the Fight to Protect Soldiers

by: Dean Barker

Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 21:36:29 PM EDT


Congreswoman Shea-Porter and Rep. Tim Bishop (NY-01) introduced legislation today that would investigate the military's use of burn pits in Iraq and Afghanistan:
"Burn pits expose our troops to dangerous toxins that can cause long-term health risks," said Congresswoman Shea-Porter.  "This important bill will help protect our service members by monitoring the use of burn pits and tracking the health problems they may cause."

"I introduced this legislation with Congresswoman Shea-Porter because we should not continue to recklessly use burn pits to dispose of hazardous waste across Iraq and Afghanistan," said Congressman Bishop. "Disturbing reports are coming to light everyday about these burn pits and the toll they are taking on the health of many of our service men and women. Our troops should be free to focus on fighting the enemy without worrying how their lives may be further endangered by the actions of private contractors operating under different rules."

And not content to stop there, Carol also introduced a separate bill today to hold defense contractors more accountable for their actions:
WASHINGTON, DC - Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter today introduced legislation that will help protect American service members by holding grossly negligent defense contractors accountable.  Shea-Porter's Safety in Defense Contracting Act would prevent defense contactors from receiving additional government contracts for five years if they are found guilty of causing serious injury or the death of government personnel by gross negligence or reckless disregard.

...The Associated Press reported in April that "a military team sent to evaluate electrical problems at U.S. facilities in Iraq determined there was a high risk that flawed wiring could cause further "catastrophic results"-namely, the electrocutions of U.S. soldiers."  According to the Associated Press, "at least three service members were electrocuted while showering at U.S. facilities in Iraq.  Others have been injured or killed in electrical incidents."

Full releases for both (obtained via email) below the fold...
Dean Barker :: Carol Shea-Porter Leading the Fight to Protect Soldiers
REPRESENTATIVES SHEA-PORTER AND BISHOP HOLD PRESS CONFERENCE ON DANGERS OF BURN PITS IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN

Hundreds of veterans report illnesses after exposure to toxic burn pits

New legislation would require investigation, ban improper use

June 11, 2009

Washington, DC-On Thursday, Representatives Carol Shea-Porter and Tim Bishop, sick veterans and their families, and scientists held a press conference at the U.S. Capitol to call for an end to the reckless use of burn pits to dispose of hazardous waste across Iraq and Afghanistan. There is mounting evidence that veterans may be ill-and some may have actually died-as a result of exposure to dangerous toxins produced by these burn pits.

A significant number of the roughly two million service members who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan have been exposed to these toxic burn pits, and hundreds of returning veterans are now displaying similar health symptoms.  To date, the Department of Defense has maintained that burn pits pose no long-term health risks. However, Agent Orange and Persian Gulf Syndrome have taught us that we must be vigilant in monitoring and treating our veterans long after they have returned from the battlefield.

Following months of exchanges with the Department of Defense and the Veterans Administration, Representative Tim Bishop (NY-1) recently introduced new legislation, the Military Personnel War Zone Toxic Exposure Prevention Act (H.R.2419), to require a full investigation into the effects of burn pits and to prohibit their continued use. The full bill text is enclosed along with earlier correspondence with the VA, DOD and GAO.

"Burn pits expose our troops to dangerous toxins that can cause long-term health risks," said Congresswoman Shea-Porter.  "This important bill will help protect our service members by monitoring the use of burn pits and tracking the health problems they may cause."

"I introduced this legislation with Congresswoman Shea-Porter because we should not continue to recklessly use burn pits to dispose of hazardous waste across Iraq and Afghanistan," said Congressman Bishop. "Disturbing reports are coming to light everyday about these burn pits and the toll they are taking on the health of many of our service men and women. Our troops should be free to focus on fighting the enemy without worrying how their lives may be further endangered by the actions of private contractors operating under different rules."

For additional information and reports, please see www.burnpits.org.

Speaker Bios

Rep. Tim Bishop (NY-1) is the sponsor of Military Personnel War Zone Toxic Exposure Prevention Act (H.R.2419)

Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (NH-1) is the lead cosponsor of H.R.2419

Kerry Baker is Assistant National Legislative Director of the Disabled American Veterans and is compiling a national database of sicknesses related to burn pits exposure.

Tom Tarantino is an Iraq veteran and Legislative Associate for Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America

Dr. Shira Kramer has over 30 years of diverse public health experience in all aspects and phases of epidemiological research.  She is the co-author of two textbooks on epidemiology, and has founded two companies (Epidemiology International, Sterilex Corporation) focused on improving public health. Her areas of expertise include: cancer, environmental health, prenatal and perinatal epidemiology, occupational epidemiology, and biostatistics.

TSgt Derrol A. Turner, USAFR, is a reservist who was on active orders for over six years in support of OEF and OIF. He was deployed to Bagram AB, Afghanistan (Camp Cunningham) in spring of 2004. In 2005 Turner volunteered to go to Balad AB, Iraq, and spent 5 months there until 28 Dec 2005. An x-ray taken at the base clinic revealed two large nodules/masses in my lower right lung and a CT scan showed a total of seven nodules/masses in his right lung and scarring in his left. A Line of Duty confirmed the injury as active duty, deployment related. Turner contacted the VA and started a claim in November of 2007. He again deployed to Qatar for 4.5 months last summer and the claim was held until he was released from active duty in Sept 2008.

Anthony Roles is a 12 1/2 year veteran of the United States Airforce, and now a disabled veteran due to medical retirement. Roles was stationed at LSA Anaconda/Balad AFB from November 2003 through March 2004. While there, he experienced the burn pits on a daily basis, living less than a mile from them. After serving his tour, he was diagnosed with Essential Thrombocythemia in April of 2004, a disease that causes the body to produce increased platelets. He was later diagnosed with Polycythemia Vera, a very rare incurable cancer that affects 1 in a 100,000 people. This condition requires him to take a chemo pill daily and bloodletting once to twice a month. Roles also had a heart attack at the age of 30, due to complications of the medication.

Stacy Pennington is the sister of SSG Steve Ochs who served three tours in the Middle East starting in 2003 - 2007. Ochs served two tours in Iraq at Camp Anaconda near the Balad burn pit and at Joint Security Station Loyalty and Camp Liberty near burn pits.  Ochs also spent one year in Afghanistan at three separate locations.  Shortly after returning home from his last tour at the end of April 2007, Ochs started feeling ill and was misdiagnosed a couple times by military medical personnel and sent home.  On September 28, 2007, he was diagnosed with Leukemia at his local public hospital and was sent directly to Duke University Hospital where he was officially diagnosed with Acute Myeloid Leukemia, also known as AML.  In just 10 months, this aggressive form of AML took his life on July 12, 2008.  Steve was 32 years old and left behind a wife and 4 year old daughter.

Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America Endorsement of H.R. 2419

Posted by Tom Tarantino on June 9 on www.iava.org

Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) is pleased to offer our support for H.R.2419, the "Military Personnel War Zone Toxic Exposure Act." H.R. 2419 would establish a medical surveillance system to identify members of the Armed Forces exposed to chemical hazards resulting from the disposal of waste in Iraq and Afghanistan. It also would prohibit the disposal of waste by the Armed Forces in a manner that would produce dangerous levels of toxins.

More than six years into the war in Iraq and eight years into the war in Afghanistan, the U.S. military continues daily disposal of hundreds of tons of war-zone waste in a most crude and hazardous manner - open-air burn pits.  While a common practice within the Iraqi waste disposal system, the Department of Defense (DOD) has used open air burn pits as the primary means of waste disposal for its numerous FOBs in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Servicemembers and contractors living on these bases are routinely exposed to the smoke from these pits as the winds shift and waste from medical facilities, trash, dining facilities, maintenance facilities, and other agencies on base is incinerated.  Tactical restraints on the DOD and a general lack of a sanitation system in Iraq have forced the military to adopt this practice that Army field manuals lists as temporary and field expedient.   After many years and 1.8 million troops deployed to OIF and OEF, the issue of exposure to hazardous materials from these burn pits is just now coming in to focus as members of Congress, the media and the veterans community are working to bring these hazards to light.

Hazardous exposure to toxic chemicals is not a new issue, and had been a major area of concern for veterans for over 40 years.  During the Vietnam War, between 1962 and 1971, the United States military sprayed 77 million liters of chemical defoliants in South Vietnam as part of a defoliant program.  After 40 years of lawsuits, the VA has now recognized 11 medical conditions for presumptive disability due to potential exposure to Agent Orange. Since 1991 veterans of the Gulf War have complained of a variety of illnesses from auto immune disorders to cancer; claiming that they were caused by exposure to toxic chemicals, depleted uranium and preventative medications.   It wasn't until 2008 that a study by the National Academy of Sciences concluded that scientific evidence leaves no question that Persian Gulf War illness is a real condition with real causes and serious consequences for affected veterans.

In hopes of determining if a connection between exposure to burn pits and chronic health ailments exist, members of Congress, the media, and the veterans community have set up www.burnpits.org, to collect official documents, news stories, and personal testimonies of servicemembers who may have health issues related to burn pit exposure.  Additionally, Rep. Bishop introduced H.R. 2419.

By establishing a tracking registry and a method of continuous evaluation and examination, H.R. 2419 will greatly improve health services for servicemembers who may be suffering from illnesses related to toxic exposure.  Additionally, by limiting the use of open air burn pits, this bill helps protect members of the Armed Forces from exposure to potentially hazardous waste while serving their country.

H.R.2419

Military Personnel War Zone Toxic Exposure Prevention Act (Introduced in House)

HR 2419 IH

111th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 2419

To require the Secretary of Defense to establish a medical surveillance system to identify members of the Armed Forces exposed to chemical hazards resulting from the disposal of waste in Iraq and Afghanistan, to prohibit the disposal of waste by the Armed Forces in a manner that would produce dangerous levels of toxins, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

May 14, 2009

Mr. BISHOP of New York (for himself and Ms. SHEA-PORTER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services

A BILL

To require the Secretary of Defense to establish a medical surveillance system to identify members of the Armed Forces exposed to chemical hazards resulting from the disposal of waste in Iraq and Afghanistan, to prohibit the disposal of waste by the Armed Forces in a manner that would produce dangerous levels of toxins, and for other purposes.

           Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

           This Act may be cited as the `Military Personnel War Zone Toxic Exposure Prevention Act'.

SEC. 2. IDENTIFICATION OF HEALTH EFFECTS RELATED TO HAZARDOUS DISPOSAL SITE.

           (a) Establishment- The Secretary of Defense shall establish and administer a system to identify members of the Armed Forces who were potentially exposed to a hazardous disposal site and any negative health effects that may be related to such exposure. The Secretary shall administer such system using existing medical surveillance systems.

           (b) Notification- If the Secretary learns that a member of the Armed Forces was potentially exposed to a hazardous disposal site, the Secretary shall--

                       (1) give notice of the potential exposure to--

                                   (A) the member;

                                   (B) the commanding officer of the unit to which the member belonged at the time of potential exposure; and

                                   (C) in the case of a member of the National Guard, the Adjutant General of the State concerned; and

                       (2) inform the member that the member may be included in the system required by subsection (a).

           (b) Registration- For each member of the Armed Forces notified of a potential exposure under subsection (b), the Secretary shall collect information for purposes of the system required by subsection (a). Such information shall include--

                       (1) the locations that the member was deployed, including dates of such deployment;

                       (2) the approximate distance of the living and working quarters of the member from a hazardous disposal site;

                       (3) the types of materials disposed of at the site;

                       (4) the length of time the member was exposed to such site;

                       (5) any symptoms experienced by the member while deployed;

                       (6) any symptoms the member experiences at the time of submitting such information to the Secretary; and

                       (7) other information the Secretary considers appropriate.

           (c) Examination- Not later than 30 days after the date on which the Secretary learns that a member of the Armed Forces was potentially exposed to a hazardous disposal site, and annually thereafter, the Secretary shall--

                       (1) provide such member--

                                   (A) a complete physical examination; and

                                   (B) consultation and counseling with respect to the results of such physical examination; and

                       (2) ensure that documentation of the potential exposure is placed in the medical record of the member maintained by the Department of Defense.

           (d) Proposed Capabilities-

                       (1) SUFFICIENCY- The Secretary shall determine if existing medical surveillance systems are sufficient to identify all potential negative health effects resulting from exposure to a hazardous disposal site.

                       (2) REPORT- Not later than six months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report with any recommendations to change existing medical surveillance systems in order to improve the identification of negative health effects resulting from exposure to a hazardous disposal site.

           (e) Annual Report- Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the House of Representatives and the Senate a report describing--

                       (1) the status of implementing the system required by subsection (a); and

                       (2) the incidences of illnesses among members of the Armed Forces notified under subsection (b) and whether such illnesses may have been caused by exposure to a hazardous disposal site.

           (f) Definitions- In this section:

                       (1) The term `existing medical surveillance systems' means medical surveillance systems and other data in the possession of the Secretary as of the date of the enactment of this Act.

                       (2) The term `exposure to a hazardous disposal site' includes the following:

                                   (A) Exposure to the fumes emanating from a hazardous disposal site for--

                                               (i) more than one year if the member of the Armed Forces was deployed to a military installation that made use of open pits to burn waste; or

                                               (ii) any period of time when exposure to such fumes was intensive.

                                   (B) A situation where a member of the Armed Forces with service-related health problems demonstrates significant exposure to fumes emanating from a hazardous disposal site.

                       (3) The term `hazardous disposal site' means a location where hazardous methods of disposing of mass amounts of waste were used during Operation Enduring Freedom or Operations Iraqi Freedom, including the use of open pits to burn waste.

                       (4) The term `member of the Armed Forces' includes former members of the Armed Forces.

SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON DISPOSAL OF WASTES IN A MANNER THAT PRODUCES DANGEROUS LEVELS OF TOXINS.

           (a) In General- The Secretary of Defense shall prohibit the disposal of waste during contingency operations lasting more than six months in a manner that exposes members of the Armed Forces or civilian employees of the Department of Defense to the following:

                       (1) Environmental toxins, including dioxin, benzene, and other carcinogens.

                       (2) Combinations of toxins that may lead to long-term negative health effects.

                       (3) Low levels of toxins that exceed military exposure guidelines for exposures of over one year.

           (b) Regulations- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall prescribe regulations to carry out this section.

           (c) Report- Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report on the status of waste disposal techniques used by members of the Armed Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, including, for each military department, an assessment of the compliance with the regulations required under this section.

Shea-Porter Introduces Bill That Will Protect American Service Members by Holding Grossly Negligent Defense Contractors Accountable  

WASHINGTON, DC - Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter today introduced legislation that will help protect American service members by holding grossly negligent defense contractors accountable.  Shea-Porter's Safety in Defense Contracting Act would prevent defense contactors from receiving additional government contracts for five years if they are found guilty of causing serious injury or the death of government personnel by gross negligence or reckless disregard.

"Contractors who disregard the health and safety of our troops should not be awarded additional contracts," said Congresswoman Shea-Porter. "The brave men and women who serve our country know that there are risks, but no service member should ever have to worry about being injured or killed because of shoddy contract work.  I wrote this bill to protect our troops and to hold accountable contractors who place profits over safety."

"In sponsoring the Safety in Defense Contracting Act, Representative Carol Shea-Porter is rightfully seeking to protect our members by holding those providing goods and services to the Department of Defense to accountable safety standards," said Peter J. Duffy, Deputy Legislative Director of the National Guard Association of the United States. "Defense contractors who recklessly or with gross negligence injure our military members must be appropriately penalized and removed from the defense contracting process."

By holding contractors and subcontractors accountable, "this bill will ensure that the highest standards and best practices are used when providing services to our nation's heroes," said Paul Rieckhoff, Executive Director of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America.

This legislation was prompted after Congresswoman Shea-Porter learned that defense contractors accused of producing defective work that endangered the lives of US soldiers were still being awarded multi-million dollar contracts. Shea-Porter immediately sent a letter to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and urged the Secretary to review the matter.

The Associated Press reported in April that "a military team sent to evaluate electrical problems at U.S. facilities in Iraq determined there was a high risk that flawed wiring could cause further "catastrophic results"-namely, the electrocutions of U.S. soldiers."  According to the Associated Press, "at least three service members were electrocuted while showering at U.S. facilities in Iraq.  Others have been injured or killed in electrical incidents."

The Safety in Defense Contracting Act has been endorsed by the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, the Military Officers' Association of America, the National Guard Association of the United States, and the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Impossible to express the joy... (4.00 / 3)
that I feal, the pride I feel, the respect I feel when I am reminded that this amazing woman represents me, my family, my state in the United States Congress. I have said it before, I will say it again "Carol is the best ever to serve the first district".

Doing my best to elect NH Democrats since 1968 and getting better at it every year!

Truly n/t (0.00 / 0)


www.KusterforCongress.com

[ Parent ]
I agree with Ray Buckley (4.00 / 2)
One of my sons is a soldier, and I'm very grateful for Carol's efforts on behalf of the military.

Street Cred (0.00 / 0)
From IAVA:
Congress took a critical step forward to identifying and treating troops that may be suffering as a result of these burn pits. IAVA joined members of Congress, Disabled American Veterans (DAV), veterans and their families in a press conference on Capitol Hill to express support for the "Military Personnel War Zone Toxic Exposure Act" (H.R.2419), recently introduced by Representatives Tim Bishop and Carol Shea-Porter. This important legislation would establish a medical registry to help identify servicemembers exposed to toxins, and improve the care and benefits they receive. It would also limit the military's use of burn pits, so that other servicemembers aren't put at risk.



www.KusterforCongress.com  

[ Parent ]
Great stuff (0.00 / 0)
Love her dearly, did all I could to elect her both times, am glad for everything being done to support our troops. IT IS PAST TIME TO END BOTH WARS. That is the best way to support the troops.

If you listen carefully to the rhetoric coming from the military command, they have settled into a comfortable zone of control. They plan to be in their new bases forever. We must not give their war games support. Eight years will turn into twelve years, then twenty. Our valiant youth are killed, our treasure is depleted, the good guys verses bad guys meme will continue to fund more killing, bombing and misery and in the end will result in more killing, bombing and misery. We have stuck the pole into the hornet's nest. Continuing to wiggle it and beat on the nest will only make more mad hornets and fund our war machine to beget more wars. Let the Arabs go back to fighting each other as they have for a thousand years. Bush's War is, was and will continue to be a costly failure. Stop the insipid excuses and bring the troops home - NOW!


Wrong (4.00 / 3)
Let the Arabs go back to fighting each other as they have for a thousand years.

The CIA is saying OBL is in Pakistan. They plotted 9/11 from Afghanistan.

As one who was once a "valiant youth," we know we aren't joining the Peace Corps.

You couldn't be more wrong.


www.KusterforCongress.com  


[ Parent ]
One other thing about that comment (4.00 / 3)
That comment you quoted by xteeth is patently offensive. Like no other racial or ethnic groups have been engaged in wars over the last 1000 years - just Arabs?

Blech.

"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    


[ Parent ]
humanity has been engaged in war and genocide as long as I can remember n/t (4.00 / 3)


www.KusterforCongress.com

[ Parent ]
Contradict history at your peril. (0.00 / 0)
Wrong about what? Fighting each other for a thousand years? That is the nature of a tribal society. It is my family against yours unless our families are attacked by someone else from the outside. Then it is our group against the next larger. Look at a time line.

What you quote is only "patently offensive" to someone who makes absolutist statements. That I have two arms says absolutely nothing about whether you have two arms. You may or may not. There is no denial or even comment on whether cowboys have always fought indians. The Balkans are much the same and for much the same reason.

Though humanity may have been involved in war and genocide as long as you can remember, that is no argument for us being involved in war and genocide - as a matter of fact, it isn't an argument for anything. Right now (though if our military gets its way Iran and North Korea will soon be added) we have two wars ongoing. Both countries are just loaded (come on this is offensive and pejorative as well) with Arabs.

If you would like chapter and verse, start with Viorst, continue with Lewis and Packer. From both sides as you see. No one has fixed this. We are only richer (perhaps more greedy) than the others who have tried. The best solution, which lasted for many years was the British dividing the place up with roughly equal groups in Iraq who continued to fight each other to a standstill until we went in and screwed it up. We have turned what should have been a police action into a "global war," if you are in George's camp.  


[ Parent ]
Mirror, mirror (0.00 / 0)
"Absolutist statements"? You are projecting - read your own comments over the months!

You are very funny - but your comment was offensive.

"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    


[ Parent ]
From grumpy to funny in just a week! (0.00 / 0)
There is something very odd about the third person offense taken position. Sort of like me claiming that blacks should be offended by affirmative action. They should be offended by whatever offends them, my recommendations don't come into it. While on the one hand it seems altruistic and above the fray it assumes some identification here unproven and a personal investment of something of value. It would have more the ring of truth to say, "I don't accept the characterization of Arabs as being thus and so because though you assert this and that, history, in the person of yadda yadda say contrary things." Now that would be argument, and not just denial.

While being funny is indeed something that I crave (tie a knot and hang on), in this case I think it is intended to be a statement of belittlement. I have read my comments over the months and as in the present case, I try to separate my opinions from absolutist assertions. It makes all the difference (perhaps only to me) when a few "I thinks," or "in my opinions," are inserted amonst the declarations decended from on high or chiseled in stone tablets etc. The projecting stuff is like the elitist stuff, some of the pseudo-Freudian lingo used to obfuscate and distract.


[ Parent ]
You are getting better (0.00 / 0)
At least you aren't throwing in the "establishment dictators are trying to squelch dissent, yada yada" meme anymore, although the "declarations from on high" has a little hint of it. Given the paucity of "I thinks" and "In my opinion" in your declarations here, yes, you are projecting!  

No, I am not trying to belittle you; I do think you are trying to be funny at times, such as the two arms anaology, quoting Christian sites, etc.      

Here is an authoratative statement for you to get grumpy about: it is incumbent for "third persons" to take offense at offensive comments directed at others - no man is an island and all of that.  

"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    


[ Parent ]
I'm not getting anything, "I have been and will always be...... your friend" (0.00 / 0)
I guess I must be further off than even you imagine. A huge part of the problem (and my previous, current and future comments to CSP and anyone else that will listen) is that there is a great fit with the civilians in control with the military (sorry, our military). It has now gotten to the place where a number of civilians (in and out of politics) recommend stuff (hardware etc.) to the military which they don't even want. There has forever been, in my opinion, a desire to use whatever we have in the way of human resources, weapons etc. by those trained to those conditions. A bad example is the giving the child a hammer and everything will look like a nail. Politicians have this hammer and using it is irresistable and not only to those like Cheney. Couple that with profiteering and job escalation through revolving doors and you get what Naomi Klein calls the Davos dilemma or the guns to caviar index. It used to be that when there were wars, the sale of private airplanes for instance - a measure of income levels for the very rich went down assumedly because wealth was consumed by the general destruction and the sale of fighter jets went up. Starting in 2003 with the Iraq invasion that pattern changed. Now they go up together. Destruction is now profitable. The old self limiting pattern is standing on its head. I don't understand it but that is the way economic patterns evolve.

I went to hear Tom Hayden and among other points he made which sound right to me is that if there is a huge military, there will be a huge number of conflicts. The only way to control the number of conflicts is to limit the resources available to wage the wars. What we are doing since 2003 is not in the least defensive. Some say that it would be nice if those that hate us were bombed back into the stone age but that hasn't, won't, can't happen according to those books cited above. It just makes them madder. Those civilians you opine are sitting ducks out there were sitting ducks before when Hussein gassed them. I don't even wish to think about their complicitousness if any.

Anyway, we can't and shouldn't afford these two efforts for these reasons among others. My guess is that if we had put the trillion or so into airport and port security we would be way safer and the 1.3 million some think have been killed so far would be allowed to go back to fighting among themselves. Going over there was a huge screw up. According to Packer we actually had Ben Laden in Tora Bora and flew him to safety. It has continued as a huge screw up and no amount of nation building will change that part nor produce a brighter future for them or us. We must stop treating the rest of the world like our chattle and their natural resources like something to which we have a right. Strangely enough, that makes them mad. And round we go again.


[ Parent ]
You're all over the place (0.00 / 0)
On you first graph, I pretty much agree. I'd say it is contingent upon Americans to curb this trend. We are, fingers crossed, about to pimp slap the insurance industry. Maybe we do learn?

On Tom Hayden, I'll simply say that we stayed our hand from using the nuclear arsenal. In Japan, ya, but that was before it became an industry. Point, that having it does not guaruntee using it.

This?: Those civilians you opine are sitting ducks out there were sitting ducks before when Hussein gassed them. We gassed the Iraqi Shia? Or, are you pointing out that SH was a CIA puppet that turned on its master. That is a fairly long list. :v(

This?: According to Packer we actually had Ben Laden in Tora Bora and flew him to safety. This goes right up there with "9/11 was an inside job."

This?: We must stop treating the rest of the world like our chattle and their natural resources like something to which we have a right. Is my dharma!

Blog On!



www.KusterforCongress.com  


[ Parent ]
Did you read Assassin's Gate? (0.00 / 0)
There is this awkwardness underneath all this stuff which bothers me greatly. I wasn't there. Maybe you were there. He was there. I can't tell if someone who was there is lying, happens all the time. That is why I, and everyone else, tries for multiple sources. I think what Packer said was that there was a group surrounded, later we were told that Laden was among them. Our military flew them to Pakistan as part of some deal to abandon Tora Bora. Someone may have known. I surely don't and I don't remember him making that charge but there you have it. Many have reported this agreement which was between truly disgusting war lords on our side and the remainder of Al Qaeda and the Taliban. It was part of the attempt to keep our military out of Afghanistan to do it with theirs. We were after the oil in Iraq and settling some old grudges. Seems to have worked for a while but here we go. I don't think we should go. Good plans. Haven't heard any. Same old same old costs money and people. Improvement. Just to Halliburton. Can you imagine how angry you would be if a predator flew over your house and dropped a rocket? Even if I find it hard to believe that they have so many weddings there that we seem to bomb each of them.

[ Parent ]
Didn't read it (4.00 / 1)
I was in Iraq in '91.

Did OBL get airlifted to safety by some dumbass? Hmmm...i guess the only honest answer is "could be."

All the heart wrenching stuff you speak of? Yep! It's called WAR. Let's do our best not to have them. Deal?

To answer your question - Can you imagine how angry you would be if a predator flew over your house and dropped a rocket? Well, I can remember how angry I was on 9/11. That is why I supported the war in Afghanistan.

Also, part of the reason I joined the military, in the first place, is so we might avoid "knowing" such woe. i definately take the NIMBY approach to warfare.

www.KusterforCongress.com  


[ Parent ]
Classic Jack (0.00 / 0)
your NIMBY approach to warfare is kind of like mine to flatulence, but I've never been a warrior for real

www.KusterforCongress.com

[ Parent ]
OUR military! Not THE military. (4.00 / 3)
Yes, I do understand that there is a military-industrial complex, BUT to suggest that OUR military does not answer to its civilain leadership in nonsense and insulting.

If you listen carefully to the rhetoric coming from the military command, they have settled into a comfortable zone of control.

Uh, ya. This region requires a multi-national, long term commitment of civilian enterprises. Those civilians are not to be left out there like sitting ducks or fish in a barrel.

www.KusterforCongress.com  


[ Parent ]
Implicit in my comment above (0.00 / 0)
Is that the "rhetoric coming from the military command" is in response to the strategy laid out by the current administration.

I'd urge you to take to the streets, if you don't like it. Though the sight of it would make me vomit based on the absence of significant protest during the Bush/Cheney years.

www.KusterforCongress.com  


[ Parent ]
I think (0.00 / 0)
that what xteeth is trying to say is that there have been a lot of fancy promises about ending wars. Instead we're expanding them.

I find that extremely objectionable.  


[ Parent ]
Show me (4.00 / 2)
Beside Kucinich and Paul, I don't recall such "fancy promises."

Some of the straw grasping candidates were slipping around on talk about a troop withdrawal date in IRAQ. I remember plenty of conversations about reducing deployment times and cycling troops in such a way that combat operations would be sustainable.

Regarding Afganistan/Pakistan, I remember talk of rejoining the fight that Bush/Cheney abandoned to persue their "war of choice."

Maybe xteeth can lend you a cherry picker. I'll wait here.

www.KusterforCongress.com  


[ Parent ]
how quickly we forget (0.00 / 0)

In 2008, Obama promised to end the war in 2009.

So far he's ended "the war on terror" by renaming it the overseas contingency plan

I don't care who is selling war - whether it be Bush or Obama makes no difference to me. Having Obama's name on it doesn't make it any more palatable to me.

Not every criticism of war or the military is aimed at you personally, Jack. (HINT - none of them are)  No need to be so defensive.  


[ Parent ]
Link to Tom Hayden (4.00 / 1)
My first inclination is "'nuff said." but I'll belabor the point. Hayden does not quote Obama, but he does reference himself:
In his victory speech in Texas Tuesday, Barack Obama promised to end the Iraq war in 2009, a new commitment that parallels recent opinion pieces in The Nation.

Prior to his Houston remarks, Obama's previous position favored an American combat troop withdrawal over a sixteen-to-eighteen-month timeframe. He has been less specific on the number and mission of any advisers he would leave behind.

In the second graph, Hayden gets it mostly right. I recall Obama consistantly saying he would reduce combat brigades over a period of months, usually 18. He also, always said, that conditions on the ground may accelerate or slow the rate of troop withdrawal.

Btw, If I am defensive, it is because I spend an inordinate amount of time defending the brand of "Democrat" or "progressive" or whatever you want to call us from the slander of the far right that tries continually to paint us as haters of troops, weak, spineless pacifist that would beat our swords into espresso makers.



www.KusterforCongress.com  


[ Parent ]
yeah (0.00 / 0)
because peace is a bad idea. Pacifism is for the weak and spineless.

Killing is for the strong and manly.  


[ Parent ]
Dissin' your sistas, yo (0.00 / 0)
Nuthin' manly about killing: http://www.lionessthefilm.com/

www.KusterforCongress.com  

[ Parent ]
Iraq (4.00 / 1)

*[new] I think (0.00 / 0)
that what xteeth is trying to say is that there have been a lot of fancy promises about ending wars. Instead we're expanding them.

Candidate Obama promised an orderly, responsible, and timely withdrawal from Iraq.  One month into his term, President Obama presented a plan to end combat operations in Iraq and withdraw the vast majority of forces by August 2008 -- in spite of significant opposition.  He is delivering on that promise.

As Jack noted, Candidate Obama never promised to withdraw from Afghanistan.  But he did promised to clean up the Bush Administration's careless, lackluster, and destructive execution of that effort, and to concentrate US resources on economic development and non-military challenges to stability.  While it's too early to comment on the success of these efforts, it's hard to argue that President Obama isn't doing exactly what he said he would do.


[ Parent ]
Army Times Video (4.00 / 1)
Sponsors of a bill aimed at more tightly regulating the use of open-air burn pits for waste disposal in Iraq and Afghanistan will hold a news conference Thursday to highlight the effects on troops of possible exposure to toxins from burn-pit smoke.

"There is mounting evidence that veterans may be ill - and some may have actually died - as a result of exposure to dangerous toxins produced by the pits," Rep. Tim Bishop, D-N.Y., said in a statement. Bishop co-sponsored the bill with Rep. Carol Shea-Porter, D-N.H.

The news conference will feature veterans who say they were sickened by the plumes, as well as an epidemiologist who specializes in the health risks associated with exposure to burn pits, which are used at bases throughout Iraq and Afghanistan.



www.KusterforCongress.com  

The effort is commendable and the problem is real. (0.00 / 0)
However, we know from the history of the EPA that gathering data and tracking carcinogens is no guarantee that the behavior which produces them will come to a halt.  The U.S. in particular has a really bad record in the area of dealing appropriately with wastes of all kinds.  Perhaps the reason is simply related to so much land being available to exploit and leave in a state of ruination.
It can't be disputed that there's a real reluctance on the part of Americans to clean up after themselves.  And the American military is no exception.  After all, one of the things that prompted the closure of in-country bases was the realization that decades of contamination were going to cost a fortune to clean up and they'd rather have a private party responsible for paying the cost.
I don't think it can be refuted that government agencies have been mega polluters.  They were always able to argue that the public interest wasn't served by cleaning up waste and the national defense is more important than worrying about the medical problems of some (usually minority) population.  Indeed, some of the resistance to a universal health care program is prompted by the realization that there's a huge backlog of medical problems that were caused by official negligence of basic health measures.

Finally, there's a reason why the Constitution focuses on what the agents of government may and must do.  Once you get into specifying what they may not do--i.e. prohibitions--you open a Pandora's box of possibilities.  You prohibit one thing and they'll come up with a slight variation that's not included.  So, it's impossible to stay ahead of the game.
What the legislation should say is that the Pentagon is required to meet all environmental standards for waste disposal overseas and at home. When we have a universal health care program, providing proper care to the veterans will not be a problem.

Of course the Pentagon doesn't want to meet such a requirement.  If it were honored, they might not be able to use their DU munitions to begin with.


Powered by: SoapBlox