The Mercenary’s Cookbook

Sure, we aren’t seeing the Iraq War on the news so much these days, but politicians are looking for every possible opportunity to wrap themselves in your uniforms, and use your bravery to make any policy of their’s beyond criticism, because to criticize them is to criticize you brave soldiers, who have given so much so that they can pass their farm subsidies for ethanol to decrease our reliance on foreign oil. To be against corn is to spit in the face of all you fight for, the blood you’ve shed, the comrades you’ve lost. Can you look them in the eye and say their friends died for nothing and vote against corn? 

It’s not coming. It’s been here since the first boots hit Afghanistan. You’re sacrifices have been used for six years to ensure the attachment of endless riders and pork barrel projects, keeping the world safe for research into the potential of pig farts to ween us from the petrol of the Middle East. What un-American would say this is a war for oil? Just listen to the pols, and you know it’s a war for a new feeder road to I-10 in case the terrorists bomb the Port of Houston. They’ve wrapped themselves in your uniforms they never wore for you, dear friends. This multi-million dollar defense contract for a liscensed masseuse was for you. What patriotic American could deny you their millions?

Now, the Presidential campaign is under way, and it’s all about you. The Obama campaign wants to make the case that we ought to have a good reason to leave you in harms way, and that you have done your jobs, and it’s time for you to come home because it’s now up to the politicians to make it work. McCain wants to make the case that having been in war, we will finally win this thing some time after his re-election so you can come home victors. Then maintain a military presence, they way we keep you in Korea.

Yes, everyone knows you want what they want, and that for your sakes, we should stop denying you and give it to them.

Turns out, what you want isn’t nearly as clear cut as they would make it. Some recent surveys show the steady trend toward the Republican Party among military families since Vietnam may be reversing course:

 

A Los Angeles Times survey of 1,467 people, including 631 soldiers, veterans and their families, in late 2007 found that 57 percent of military respondents believed the Iraq war was not worth fighting — nearly the same as the overall population (60 percent).

Asked which party they trusted most to handle important issues, the military families chose Democrats over Republicans 39-35 percent, compared to a 39-31 percent ratio among the general population.

In its annual reader surveys, the Military Times specialist news group found Bush’s approval rate among the military had plummeted from 60 percent in 2005 to just 48 percent in 2007.

No doubt Obama will use this to claim you want to leave. And some of you do.  No doubt, this won’t keep McCain from claiming that as a former POW, he is you, and therefore what he wants is what you want. And some of you do. Truth is, you’re pretty evenly split right now. 

That won’t keep them from making you out to be some monolithic voice. Take a look at the dustup over the weekend about Clark’s criticisms of McCain’s foreign policy experience:

Clark says that being a POW, no matter how honorable, doesn’t make his foreign policy any less stupid. For McCain’s part, he said he had been Swiftboated, which, if you’re a Democrat, suggests Clark was lying about McCain’s service, or if you’re a Republican, that Clark was exposing McCain for the fraud he was. Or is that now vice-versa? The point is, as two men who served, they are you, and therefore can’t criticize each other without criticizing you, and to disagree with either one of them is to disagree with yourself. And I’m not talking the fake soldiers like Kerry – or McCain, depending on which one you feel was or wasn’t Swiftboated — but the real, honest to God heroes like Kerry. Or McCain. Depending. Because lord knows it can’t be both. Right? 

The fact is, no one speaks for what you want  but (drum roll….) — YOU.  As the polls show, you, like the rest of the country, come from all walks of life and political persuasions (ultra-liberal blogger Kos served during the first Gulf War), and like the rest of the country, you prefer one candidate or the other. Some of you believe in ethanol. Some don’t. Some think we should stay. Some don’t. And everyone who hasn’t been there wants to find you, provided you agree with them, so they can trot you out to bolster them. Better we all just deal with the fact that you don’t always agree with you, and for every one of you, there’s another you, except ten-times-braver and more bad-ass than you, who thinks you’re full of shit. Yet they’re out there serving their country for you anyway. Aren’t you lucky?

One of the more entertaining reactions by the Press to Scott McClellan’s very critical new book about his days in the Bush Administration, has been this claim that they had been tough all along. David Gregory defended his profession by claiming, “I think the questions were asked.” Those of us who turned elsewhere for our information remember things a bit differently.

Eric Alterman expressed the frustration many felt at the time when he wrote an entire column basically asking the questions he wished reporters would ask that turned out to be rather prescient.  And he wrote it in 2002. Here’s the list of just some of the questions Eric Alterman wanted asked in 2002:

Why did the Bush national security team ignore the Al Qaeda briefing it received from President Clinton’s National Security Adviser, Sandy Berger, in the fall of 2000?

Why has no one, apparently, been fired, anywhere, despite a clear systemwide breakdown?

Who besides Rudy Giuliani thought it was a smart idea to build a terrorism crisis control center inside an obvious terrorist target?

What about those detention camps Ashcroft wanted for the purposes of indefinitely incarcerating US citizens deemed to be “enemy combatants,” while stripping them of all constitutional rights, including the right to trial? Is that still happening? That sounds kinda bad.

How did Bush decide on war with Iraq without consulting the uniformed military, the intelligence agencies, the UN, NATO, the Republican national security establishment–including both of his dad’s secretaries of state and his National Security Adviser–the Republican Party in Congress, the Democratic majority or just about anyone who did not already want to go to war with Iraq?

Got any real evidence about those nukes Saddam is building? Got any real evidence regarding his CBW and WMD delivery capabilities? Why is he not deterrable again?

What happens with Iran if Iraq collapses? 

But this one has to be the kicker: “Is anybody thinking about this stuff?”

Yes. They just didn’t have jobs in DC.

Update: Digby reminds us of Mr. Wolcott’s efforts.

Update II: And Greenwald reminds us of what happened to Donahue.

We’ve heard a lot about the housing bubble, and how it’s dragging down an already slowing economy. What you probably didn’t know - or rather, you did, but most anybody else doesn’t - is that foreclosures have hit military towns the hardest:

In the midst of the worst surge in mortgage defaults in seven decades, foreclosures in U.S. towns where soldiers live are increasing at a pace almost four times the national average, according to data compiled by research firm RealtyTrac Inc. in Irvine, California. As military families like the VerSteeghs signed up for the initial lower rates and easier terms of subprime mortgages, the number of people taking out Veterans Administration loans fell to the lowest in at least 12 years.

“We’ve never faced a situation like this, not in the Vietnam War, World War II, or the Korean War, where so many military are in danger of losing their homes,” said Paul Sullivan, executive director of Veterans for Common Sense, a Washington-based advocacy group started in 2002 by Iraq and Afghanistan War veterans. “No one asked them for their credit score when we asked them to fight for us.”

Foreclosures in towns around military bases, including Norfolk, Virginia, have increased 217 percent in the first quarter compared to last year because military families, who are often on the move, were an easy target of the predatory subprime lending. So families can find their loved ones being sent on extended tours, only to return to bankruptcy or homelessness.

Fortunately, the bipartisan Casey-Isakson Bill is being floated to give military families some breathing room: 

This legislation would specifically amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief law in the following ways:

 

1. For all servicemembers who incur a serious illness or injury during their military service, the foreclosure grace period provided in current law would be extended from 90 days to one year.
2. A servicemember who, within one year after completing their military service, files a claim with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall be protected from foreclosure throughout the application process and until 30 days after their claim is adjudicated.
3. “Serious injury or illness” is defined as rendering the servicemember medically unfit to perform the duties of their rank.

Another bill that would seem to be a no-brainer is the one floated by former Assistant to the Reagan’s Secretary of Defense and current Democratic Senator Jim Webb to extend educational benefits for our returning veterans who have already gone way beyond what anyone could have reasonably expected in the call of duty. Seeing an obvious opportunity in an election year, the Bill has already gotten the support of Presidential hopefuls Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, and Senator John Warner (R-VA). Who would oppose such a thing? Remarkably, the greatest remaining Iraq War hawks, George Bush and John McCain. (McCain managed not to be present for the final vote). The reasoning being that too much generosity might harm retention if soldiers have something to look forward to when they move on to civilian life.

Seen in the same light, I suppose foreclosure can be a net positive as well. It’s hard to leave when you’re guaranteed to have a tarp over your head.

In the upside-down world of the Bush Administration the FDA is supposed to prevent private entrepreneurs from voluntarily testing their cattle for Mad Cow, the EPA is supposed to stop states from voluntarily enacting emissions standards, and the Veteran’s Administration is supposed compare PTSD to football injuries:

VA secretary Peake suggested some of the concern about post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury has been overblown.

Many of the brain injuries are serious but some of them are akin to what anyone who played football in their youth might have suffered, Peake [said].

That’s right. On the heels of a report saying veteran suicides could outnumber casualties, the VA secretary is saying we’re making too much of PTSD. After all, they volunteered for this, right?

The article goes on to say that the Vietnam Vet Peake was talking to found the answer “unsatisfying”, but I think the award for best response goes to VoteVets’, Brandon Friedman :

Frankly, Peake’s casually dismissive attitude sucks.  Being hunted by other humans every day for 15 months, watching your friend bleed to death, and having your brain flattened like a pancake from a thousand-pound detonation are not comparable to football injuries.  

And that’s all I have to say about that.

Perhaps listening to the advice of Whoopi Goldberg, the NYTs has compiled a panel of neo-cons and war enablers to discuss how they would clean up their own mess. Opinions range from “it’s not my fault”, and “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”, to basically what war opponents have been saying since 2003. But that doesn’t count because that was just their anti-American reflex.

Neo-cons, always right in real-time; reality-based community, always right in retrospect.

There is a central question those of us who follow the media closely tend to ask: Are the DC elites with the magaphone getting duped, or just playing dumb? Well, we may have finally found our answer.

Consider this interesting part of an exchange between Hillary Clinton and George Stephanopoulos on This Week :

The interview took another unpleasant turn when Stephanopoulos tried to pin down Clinton over her position on NAFTA, a trade program introduced by her husband during his presidency. Clinton has come out against the plan saying it was not good for American workers. Stephanopoulos said, “The Clinton administration didn’t do enough to address the downside of globalization and therefore failed the workers in Indiana and the workers of the West?”

Clinton clearly took offense to the tone of the question and while answering, decided to take a jab at the host.

“Well I believe, George, in the 1990s we had a booming economy that created nearly 23 million new jobs, more people were lifted out of poverty in any time in our near history. It was an economy that worked for everyone, not just the rich, the wealthy and the well connected, but there were underlying issues that we didn’t understan fully. Now, you remember this, because George did work in that ‘92 campaign - George and I actually were against NAFTA - I’m talking about him in his previous life, before he was an objective journalist,” Clinton said to a visibly annoyed Stephanopoulos.

Now, David Gergen, who is about as earnest a commentator there is (a Republican who worked for the Clinton Administration), said this to Jake Tapper of ABC, who is less reliable, but gets it right in this case:

“The was considerable division within the White House about whether NAFTA was right on the merits,” says Gergen, “and I always associate her with those who had questions about it on the merits.”

This is where it gets interesting. “Arguments about policy are always before a decision is made. Once the president makes a decision everybody falls in line. I feel like she was among those who leaned against it on the merits. I do not remember her at a meeting arguing it out, I just felt she always had reservations.”

Then the decision was made and the first lady fell in line, along with the rest of the administration, Gergen says, to help get NAFTA passed.

About the Nov. 10, 1993 meeting, Gergen says, “she was not suddenly a convert to NAFTA. It’s just that when the president decides something, people around him are going to support that decision. I thought she was a good soldier on that.”

I saw Gergen answer this question in another interview where he said pretty much the same thing: Hillary didn’t think NAFTA was worth spending a lot of political capital on. Now here’s the thing: George Stephanopoulos was there. George knows what Hillary’s position on NAFTA was because George saw it with his own eyes. And according Hillary, he was her ally in leading the charge against it.

Like Hillary, once the decision was made, he fell in line. Yet, Stephanopoulos tries to pin her down, suggesting to the audience that, as someone who was there behind the scenes, in his journalistic judgement there is some doubt about where Hillary stood on this issue.

So no, when George spent a lot of time asking Obama about flagpins or questions raised during his stop on Sean Hannity’s radio program, he hasn’t been tricked, or played for a fool, he’s playing dumb. When they hand him these questions (or he comes up with them himself), it doesn’t matter that he was there when Hillary opposed pushing NAFTA.

Consider what this says about our chattering class: they feel absolutely no obligation to inform viewers, and what’s worse, do feel an obligation to pass on accusations they know are false. There is what he knows, and what he tells you, and the two don’t have to agree.

So, how is this different from lying, exactly?