Newsweek - National News, World News, Health, Technology, Entertainment and more... | Newsweek.com
  • Pat Tillman's Legacy Four Years On

    David Botti | May 9, 2008 01:58 PM
    Though he was killed in Afghanistan in 2004, Pat Tillman's death is still a subject of controversy and tremendous reflection. Tillman, you will recall, was the NFL player turned Army Ranger who was originally said to have died under enemy fire (he was awarded the Silver Star), but later reports found he was killed by friendly fire.

    Now his mother, Mary, has published a book in which she charges that former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld knew about the cover-up over the details of her son's death.  As she writes [via MSNBC]:

    “... I believe Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld knew Pat was killed by fratricide and permitted the cover-up.  It is not believable that a man known for his propensity to micromanage would not want to know what happened to his most high-profile soldier. I informed the committee that Pat received a personal letter from Rumsfeld shortly after he and his brother enlisted, commending him for his commitment to serve. Pat was obviously in Rumsfeld's consciousness."

    During a recent 60 Minutes interview, Katie Couric questioned Army Secretary Pete Geren over the alterations of eyewitness accounts of Tillman's death used for his Silver Star citation.  She asked if he knew who manipulated the statements, and he replied:

    "Well, that's one of the questions that we will never completely answer.  But it certainly is one of the areas that that raises questions. There are so many mistakes. So many things that happened. If you add them all together, it certainly calls into question the credibility of those who handled this. And raises the kind of questions that Ms. Tillman raises. I don't blame her for that. And I don't expect her ever to believe us. But there was no effort to deceive. There were mistakes and grievous errors by the legions. And as a result, we fell short of our duty to her as a mother of one of our heroes."

    Over at the IAVA blog, Perry Jefferies takes issue with Sec. Geren's uncertainty, saying that the process for awarding medals should clearly indicate who writes a citation:

    Only a certain amount of people handle the citation for the Silver Star, one of our highest military awards. Each commander signs a block on the document and there is a document called a transmittal letter that accompanies it from office to office. Only organizational will prevents the Army from prosecuting the criminal that a) faked an official document and b) tried to leave a lower grade enlisted Soldier to take the blame.

    If indeed the medal was awarded under dishonest conditions, should it still stand?  A letter to the Arizona Republic newspaper took this stance:

    The awarding of the decoration was illegal, as the incident obviously didn't represent "gallantry in action against an armed enemy," as required by the Army's own regulations.  This award does a disservice to all of our veterans who have legitimately earned this august award. The Tillman family should return the award to the Army, which should then rescind the award as unjustified and issued illegally.

    Another reader then responded:
    Yes, it may be true that this star represents "gallantry in action against an armed enemy." What could be more gallant than a young man giving up not only his career but his life?  Pat Tillman gave up his life to serve in an illegal war that has ruined our economy with the billions of dollars being wasted but, more important, the loss of the respect of the rest of the world.

    In the New York Times' look at Mary Tillman's new book, there's an interesting historical note of other athletes who've been killed in action.

    Eddie Grant, the Giants’ third baseman, died in France in 1918. Christy Mathewson, the great Giants pitcher, had his life shortened from a mustard-gas accident in training near the end of World War I. And Nile Kinnick, the star running back from Iowa, died in a training flight in 1943. But Pat Tillman’s death was different because of the way he was used, posthumously, blatantly.

    You can read a Newsweek Q&A with Mary Tillman here.

    More
  • Stephen King and Controversy Over Army Literacy

    David Botti | May 8, 2008 02:52 PM
    A war of words began recently between writer Stephen King and a conservative blogger over remarks King made about literacy and the U.S. Army.  During an appearance at the Library of Congress last month King said:

    "I don't want to sound like an ad, a public service ad on TV, but the fact is if you can read, you can walk into a job later on. If you don't, then you've got the Army, Iraq, I don't know, something like that. It's not as bright."

    Blogger Noel Sheppard of the Website NewsBusters: Exposing and Combating Liberal Media Bias, criticized King and likened his words to those of John Kerry when he said in 2006 that having a poor education would get someone stuck in Iraq.  Sheppard wrote further: "Nice sentiment when the nation is at war, Stephen."

    After Sheppard's blog post appeared, King countered on his own Website:

    I guess he also feels that the war in Iraq has nationwide approval. Well, it doesn’t have mine. It is a waste of national resources...and that includes the youth and blood of the 4,000 American troops who have lost their lives there and for the tens of thousands who have been wounded. I live in a national guard town, and I support our troops, but I don’t support either the war or educational policies that limit the options of young men and women to any one career—military or otherwise.

    King further instructed readers of his website to email Sheppard with the words: “Hi, Noel—Stephen King says to shut up and I agree.”

    According to the Associated Press, the U.S. Army released a statement yesterday responding to King's remarks:

    "America's soldiers are proudly serving and fighting for us all. We can be proud of our soldiers' selfless service, their skill and their ingenuity. They certainly are role models for every high-school student in America considering a noble career...and many book authors."

    Just as John Kerry's 2006 remarks sparked the ire of veterans and average citizens alike, King has found himself the subject some negative blogging since Sheppard's original post.  One commenter for the original post did offer a point of view from the middle ground:

    I actually don't think King meant to insult the troops. He made a mistake of trotting out an outdated draft-era notion about the military to prove a totally different point. But he compounded his error by lashing out at those who pointed out his mistake. Now it's a "thing" in the media, and he's not looking very good, or smart.
    More
  • Advertisement
  • A West Point Cadet Opts for the NFL

    David Botti | May 6, 2008 10:36 AM
    There's been some pointed discussions lately over the future of West Point cadet Caleb Campbell, who was a seventh round NFL draft pick of the Detroit Lions late last month.  While many of his classmates may be deploying to Iraq and Afghanistan in the future, Campbell will (if he makes the roster) do recruiting and PR events for the Army during the offseason.  The Army's point of view is that Campbell can use his NFL status in a unique way to help the service.  The New York Times provides the Army's official policy:

    Any member of the Army with an exceptional skill who could provide recruiting and public affairs benefits to the Army could be assigned to the nearest recruiting unit for their two-year active-duty period. Those approved can participate in their professional activity — in Campbell’s case, pro football — as long as it does not interfere with military duties. Then they can apply for early release from active duty.

    Campbell also described to the Times how he came to the decision to pursue football:
    More
  • Trying to Modernize the GI Bill

    David Botti | Apr 29, 2008 10:41 AM
    More than half a century after the GI Bill was first enacted to help send vets to college, politicians and advocates are touting a new proposed bill to expand these benefits. The Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act was introduced by a number of Republicans and Democrats in both the House and Senate. Among them is Virginia Senator (and Vietnam vet) Jim Webb whose posted this statement on his Website:

    The Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act is designed to offer the brave men and women who have served honorably since September 11, 2001 a level of educational benefits on par with those provided to veterans of the World War II era.

    In a profile of numerous veterans struggling to capitalize on education opportunities after returning home from war, the Washington Post helps to break down where the current GI Bill stands now.  The problem is that these benefits can no longer fully fund higher education, as they once did for earlier generations of veterans.

    Many people enlist to earn money for college, and almost everyone signs up for the education benefits -- which, in the case of the main GI Bill, requires a service member to pay about $1,200 into the plan-- but not everyone takes advantage of it. And that buy-in is not returned even if the benefits are unused.

    About 70 percent use at least some part of it, said Keith Wilson, director of the education service, but the VA does not track how many earn degrees.

    An independent study found that just over half use some part of the benefits, said Ray Kelley of AMVETS, a veterans support group, and only 8 percent use all. "Congress is realizing we're not giving them the benefits we say we're giving them," Kelley said. "They only have 36 months from the time they start using it to the time they finish." That means going to school full time, year-round.


    Earlier this month NPR's Morning Edition broke down more of the specifics of the proposed bill.
    More
  • Veterans Suing the VA, Senators Call for Resignation

    David Botti | Apr 23, 2008 09:57 AM
    A trial in U.S. District Court is now underway as a group of veterans challenge the Department of Veterans Affairs over the lack of care afforded to returning troops. The case, Veterans for Common Sense v. Peake, is said by the plaintiffs' attorney to be the first of its kind.  Yesterday a suicide expert testified on behalf of the plaintiffs that veterans are killing themselves at three to seven times the rate of the general population. The American Lawyer has a good summary of what the case is all about:
    The suit claims that many disabled combat veterans are in dire need of counseling and other services they are not currently receiving from the U.S. government. Erspamer [the plaintiff's counsel] estimates that 120 veterans who served in Iraq or Afghanistan commit suicide each week. The veterans' groups are not seeking monetary damages but want reform of a health care system in which they allege a huge backlog of cases prevents veterans from receiving timely care.

    The San Francisco Chronicle outlined what suicide expert Ronald Maris sees as a complete lack of readiness within the VA to deal with the great number of veterans suicides:

    A majority of the VA's counselors, doctors, social workers and psychologists "don't have the tools and the information that they need to intervene effectively with suicidal vets," said Maris, a former president of the American Association of Suicidology who has been a consultant to the Army on suicide prevention.

    He was particularly critical of the VA's top health care administrator, William Feeley, who said in a pretrial deposition April 9 that the agency has no systematic national plan for suicide prevention. Feeley also said he was unaware of any methods of tracking veterans at risk of suicide and that suicide rates "are not a metric we are measuring."


    The impact of the trial is being felt in Washington, D.C. where two U.S. senators are now calling for the resignation of the VA's chief mental health official, Dr. Ira Katz.  Senator Patty Murray (D-Wash.) is citing evidence learned in the trial showing that the VA withheld information on the rising number of veterans suicides.  As her statement reads:
    More
  • The "Stop-Loss" Continues

    David Botti | Apr 22, 2008 11:25 AM
    The army announced yesterday that the practice of "stop-loss," where a solider is held past his/her enlistment contract, should continue for at least another year. While military leaders are making efforts to reduce combat tour lengths, and increase the size of the army, the Associated Press reports there are roughly 12,000 soldiers serving under the stop-loss. The numbers break down to: "6,800 active-duty Army, about 3,800 in the Army National Guard and close to 1,500 in the Reserves."

    USA Today breaks down the numbers even further, putting the latest stop-loss news into a wider historical context:

    -In May 2007 the practice of stop-loss reached a three-year low of 8,540.

    -"Since then, the number of soldiers forced to remain in the Army rose 43% to 12,235 in March."

    -"Soldiers affected by stop loss now serve, on average, an extra 6.6 months...Key leaders at the small-unit level — sergeants through sergeants first class — make up 45% of those soldiers. Soldiers typically enlist for four-year stints."

    -58,300 soldiers have been affected by the stop-loss since 2002.

    People have often asked me what exactly a stop-loss is -- especially after they hear it referred to as the "back door draft."  First, USA Today offers this concise summary of how the army views the policy: "Stop loss can keep a soldier in the service if his or her unit deploys within 90 days of the end of the soldier's commitment. It is necessary, the Army says, to maintain the integrity of units headed to war."

    Second, I sometimes use the example of my own unit on the eve of the invasion into Iraq back in 2003.  Most of us in my reserve unit enlisted under a six-year contract.  That meant that for six years were would actively train with our home unit, and be subject to mobilizations if ordered by the president.  Afterwards, we would spend two years in the Inactive Ready Reserve (IRR) during which time we would not train, but would still "be on the books," in case the military needed more troops.

    In March 2003, when my unit got word it was heading to Iraq, a number of marines were reaching the end of their six-year contract.  Depending on how long we stayed in Iraq, their contract might end while they were over there.  It was these marines who were subject to stop-loss.  They were senior members of the unit whose experience would be invaluable during the deployment, and our company would be hurt if our numbers decreased.  So, they stayed and deployed with us; then left the military after returning home.

    Most did not complain about serving past their enlistment contract.  Their buddies were going to war, and the stop-loss marines wanted to go with them -- and, at that point, the war was still new.  Many felt they'd miss out on a major historical event that would go down in the history books.  But, times have changed, and the war is more than five years old.  As James Martin, a social work professor at Bryn Mawr College and retired Army colonel, told USA Today:  "These are the guys who bear the brunt of it. They just get put back into the grinder continually."
    More
  • New Looks at Military Blogging

    David Botti | Apr 9, 2008 10:09 AM
    Since the start of the Iraq war, the importance and viability of military blogs has stirred up tremendous debate.  There have been issues of military censorship, journalistic viability, and ethical dilemmas.  Recently, talk of where (and how) military blogs fit into the war's narrative has seemed to intensify to some degree.  Here's a look at what's happening:

    The Columbia Journalism Review published a lengthy article in its last issue profiling Bill Roggio, a U.S.-based military blogger who's set up his own media operation aimed at reporting on terrorism and "small wars" beyond what the mainstream media can do.  Before the piece gets to Roggio, the intro takes a look at the gap military blogs aim to fill:
    When the United States invaded Iraq in 2003, among the seven-hundred-odd journalists who embedded with combat units were few who were familiar with the military in any intimate way. To many critics, especially those with military experience, this revealed itself in the press’s coverage of the war, which they felt often missed the mark when it came to explaining the hows and the whys of the fight, as well as the mundane realities of military life and culture.

    Army veteran Roggio first started blogging about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to put the events in perspective for his family.  But, as CJR notes, a transformation took place that's changed the way Roggio operates—and underscores the significance these blogs can have:
    It was during the second battle for Fallujah in November 2004, however, that he began to focus his effort. He had been posting detailed battle maps of Iraq’s Anbar province on his site, showing where Marine and Army units were meeting the stiffest resistance from insurgent groups who harassed them with roadside bombs and the occasional ambush. In the spring of 2005, a new group of readers began logging on to Roggio’s site. The Marines in Anbar province were embroiled in a deadly game of cat-and-mouse, and looking for any tactical advantage they could find. Officers with the Regimental Combat Team 2 discovered Roggio’s site and began using it as an information source, calling his site the “Command Chronology of Western Iraq.”
    More
  • Veteran Vs. Veteran: A Visit to Washington

    David Botti | Mar 11, 2008 01:03 PM
    Thirty-seven years after John Kerry and the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) descended upon Washington, D.C. to protest against U.S. atrocities in Vietnam, a new generation of veterans will do the same later this week.  The group Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) is heading to the Capital as part of an event called Winter Soldier: Iraq & Afghanistan, named after the similar VVAW event four decades ago.  As IVAW puts it:

    The four-day event will bring together veterans from across the country to testify about their experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan - and present video and photographic evidence. In addition, there will be panels of scholars, veterans, journalists, and other specialists to give context to the testimony. These panels will cover everything from the history of the GI resistance movement to the fight for veterans' health benefits and support.

    There hasn't been much U.S. press coverage on the event, but the UK's Sunday Times, using the headline of "Patriot Missiles," had a lengthy magazine story on the subject:

    The veterans are not against the military and seek not to indict it – instead they seek to shine a light on the bigger picture: that the Abu Ghraib prison regime and the Haditha massacre of innocent Iraqis are not isolated incidents perpetrated by “bad seeds” as the military suggests, but evidence of an endemic problem. They will say they were tasked to do terrible things and point the finger up the chain of command, which ignores, diminishes or covers up routine abuse and atrocities.


    Other veterans, and vet bloggers, aren't thrilled with this event. A group called "Stop the Slander," described as a "coalition of concerned veterans, family members, and friends," has even published a guide for reporter's covering IVAW.  The guide warns journalists that claims made by IVAW may be untrue.  The guide even provides an acronym to follow of questions to ask:

    D
    : Date(s) – When did the incident occur?
    U: Unit(s) – What military units were involved?
    P: Personnel – What are the names of the participants and witnesses?
    E: Event(s) – What exactly happened exactly where?
    S: Signature(s) – Was this reported at the time or later and were reports, affidavits or depositions signed, or will they now be signed?


    Veterans For Freedom blogger, Mark Seavey, took his own critical look at the IVAW's preparations for the Winter Soldier event, but in the end wrote that both sides of the debate should be heard -- without unnecessary contest or debate:

    I think it speaks well of IVAW that they expect all testimony to be true and verifiable.  And there will plenty of eyes there to ensure that.  Hopefully we can all say our piece, discuss our views and then go home with no violence on anyone’s part.

     

    The term "Winter Soldier" is derived from Thomas Paine's passage intended to motivate George Washington's troops suffering at Valley Forge:

    “These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.”

    This is generating a huge amount of debate within the vocal veterans community.  What's interesting to note is that perhaps the only demographic who can debate IVAW, without being called-out on their lack of service, is other veterans.  The issues goes above someone's service record, and shows how the fabled, and perhaps cliched, military bond can only go so far in such times of controversy.  Or, is it still there, above all the ruckus?  We'll soon find out.
    More
  • Disturbing Iraq Video Addresses Wider Issues

    David Botti | Mar 4, 2008 10:17 AM
    A disturbing new video out of Iraq has found its way onto the Internet and set off a flurry of condemnations and demands to reveal the identity of the U.S. serviceman involved. The video, which has been removed from YouTube, depicted a U.S. Marine grabbing a puppy by the neck and flinging the animal off a cliff. Due to the low quality of the video, there was no way to see where, or how, the dog landed. Some are still questioning the authenticity of this video, but it certainly did look real enough to solicit this interesting analysis of the video from media blogger Rex Sorgatz (via Gawker):

    Logically, we know this soldier has possibly killed people in Iraq, so it feels misplaced to vent about a puppy in a war zone; emotionally, we find hurting a helpless puppy beyond reproach. If the video weren't shot in Iraq (if it were, say, some tweens torturing a dog in a backyard -- you'll find plenty of this on YouTube), the tension wouldn't be there, and it wouldn't be today's viral hit. The contradiction -- people vs. puppies; war vs. peace-keeping -- will probably catapult this thing to network nightly news.

    As this blogger chronicles, a number of people immediately set off on a hunt to find the identity of the Marine involved in the incident. Some mainstream media sources picked up the story looking into the Marine Corps' response to the matter. From the Minneapolis Star Tribune:

    The named Marine returned to Hawaii in October from Haqlaniyah, Iraq, after a seven-month deployment, Maj. Chris Perrine, a Marine spokesman, told the Honolulu Advertiser.

    "We're still trying to figure out, is this a legitimate video?" Perrine told the newspaper. "Was it edited? Is it [that Marine] who's in it? We don't know. We'll find that out hopefully sooner rather than later."


    There seems to be larger issues at play here than just a disturbing video.  Echoing Sorgatz's views on the matter, others are wondering why the death of a puppy in the middle of a war is causing such outrage.  From Cenk Uygur, an AOL media blogger:

    But I'm not writing to say what a bad guy this Marine is for throwing the puppy like he does. That's obvious. I'm not writing to implicate the whole Marine Corps for the act of two goofballs who are not representative of our troops over there...No, I'm writing about our reaction as a society. I have now seen this story everywhere from all over the internet to the local news. Everyone is outraged. Are you kidding me? We caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians and we're outraged over a puppy?!

    Some may object to Uygur's characterization of the death of "hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians"--others may think it's right on--but what's interesting is how debate over the tastefulness of the video has grown to how we judge the degrees of right and wrong in war. Is it because the puppy is a symbol of innocence? Is it because people wonder what kind of conditions drove this Marine to throw a puppy off a cliff? There are far more stories about U.S. soldiers adopting stray dogs in Iraq. So, how does this fact relate to the behavior in the video? Perhaps a discussion on the matter is just starting; there's a lot of unanswered questions, and a lot of self-reflection still left.

    More
  • Treating (or Not Treating) Mental Health Issues at NY Base

    David Botti | Feb 13, 2008 12:53 PM

    The Army's 10th Mountain Division located in Fort Drum, NY, has been the most deployed unit since the 9/11 attacks. A new report highlights an inadequate system in place at the Army base for treating soldiers with mental health issues. The report, published by the advocacy group Veterans for America, said soldiers can wait more than a month before seeing a proper health care worker.

    Fort Drum is located near the Canadian border. Its remoteness and harsh winter weather doesn't exactly provide the most uplifting setting for soldiers recently back from combat tours in Iraq. Veterans for America notes this as the report begins, offering a glimpse into the setting where PTSD can begin to surface among veterans:

    Generally speaking, winter conditions at Fort Drum are dreary, with snow piled high and spring still months away. More than a dozen Soldiers reported low morale, frequent DUI arrests, and rising AWOL, spousal abuse, and rates of attempted suicide.  Soldiers also reported that given the financial realities of the Army, some of their fellow Soldiers had to resort to taking second jobs such as delivering pizzas to supplement their family income.


    The report illustrates an atmosphere where lack of trained mental health professionals, combined with a military culture of keeping things to one's self, can leave many veterans going untreated. As the systems stands now, soldiers can easily provide false information on questionnaires designed to seek out those who need counseling. The most common way a soldier can received treatment is through self-referral. Furthermore:

    In meeting with Fort Drum Soldiers, VFA found a number of disconcerting examples of inadequate mental health care at Fort Drum. Some Soldiers reported that the leader of the mental health treatment clinic at Fort Drum asked Soldiers not to discuss their mental health problems with people outside the base. Attempts to keep matters “in house” foster an atmosphere of secrecy and shame that is not conducive to proper treatment for combat-related mental health injuries. 



    The New York Times profiled Eli Wright, 26, an Army medic based at Fort Drum. He described common episodes of flashbacks and shot nerves as routine occurrences. 

    Mr. Wright said he waited weeks at Fort Drum to see a mental health professional, who diagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder. He was prescribed medication and pointed toward group therapy, where, he said, “half the time the group is staring at the floor.” At times, he was taking two pills at once. “I couldn’t stay awake,” he said.



    A few weeks ago NPR broadcast a lengthy report in which it detailed a number of the same issues outlined in today's report.  One soldier said he felt like he'd been tossed aside like a pair of worn-out boots. Last week Army Surgeon General Eric Schoomaker was interviewed by NPR about what was detailed in its initial story:

    NPR: What do you say to these people who've had less help with their paperwork because of what you've described as a misunderstanding?
    SCHOOMAKER: So far — you're giving me new information, I wasn't aware that anyone has not gotten the best advice. If anyone out there feels that they didn't get the best advice, they need to come forward and let us know about that.

     


    Meanwhile, last Friday 19-year-old Pfc. Jack Sweet, a Fort Drum soldier, was killed by a roadside bomb in Iraq.
     

    More
  • The Image of a Veteran

    David Botti | Feb 1, 2008 04:18 PM
    The current series in the New York Times on veterans who've committed murder has spurred tremendous debate over the way vets are portrayed by the media. To understand origins of the prevailing portrayals of our current veterans, it's a good idea to take a step back and view the issue in a historical perspective.

    Jerry Lembcke is a Vietnam veteran and professor of sociology at Holly Cross college in Worcester, Massachusetts. Lembcke's book "The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory, and the Legacy of Vietnam," looked in part at how the news media and pop-culture cultivated narrow portrayals of Vietnam vets. He has also written op-eds for the Boston Globe, Newsday, and the San Francisco Chronicle among others. In 1968 Lembcke was drafted into the Army, serving as chaplain's assistant before returning home and joining the anti-war movement.  

    I talked to Lembcke about how the Vietnam-era vets experience impacts that of those men and women coming home from war today -- and how he thinks the media is handling its coverage of veterans and issues associated with them.



    SOLDIER'S HOME: You've written that a veteran's behavior can be influenced more from how past vets were portrayed in pop-culture, as opposed to personal experiences he/she might have had.  How does this happen?


    LEMBCKE: The post-Vietnam popular culture representations of veterans was so powerful and so long lasting, and it so overwhelmed the war itself in popular culture, that as people began to come home during the Gulf War in the 1990’s, and present these same symptoms as Vietnam veterans coming back, I thought there’s a connection here. I think I used the phrase “learned experience,” and it occurred to me that this was a generation of veterans who’d grown up immersed in this popular culture of what it looks like to be a war veteran coming home.

    This was very different than the culture Vietnam vets grew up in. Looking at representations of WWII veterans for example, which was not nearly as powerful in film for example. We got more war films about WWII, but not so many films about veterans coming home.


    What is being portrayed in these kinds of movies that can influence veterans?
    More
  • In the News: Bill O'Reilly, Filmmaker Vets

    David Botti | Jan 24, 2008 03:18 PM
    The veterans advocacy organization Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans for America is ramping up its criticism against Bill O'Reilly's recent comments on homeless vets.  Users of IAVA's website can sign an online letter protesting O'Reilly's statement that:

    “They may be out there, but there’s not many of them out there. Okay? … If you know where there's a veteran sleeping under a bridge, you call me immediately, and we will make sure that man does not do it.”

    O'Reilly pulled presidential politics into the mix as well accusing John Edwards of using the homeless veterans issue for his own political gain.  Today a transcript from one of O'Reilly's "Talking Points Memos" was published on the Fox News Website.  It referenced an exchange between Edwards and David Letterman:

    DAVID LETTERMAN: Tell me a little bit about your feud with Bill O'Reilly. Now there's a tough guy. He's been on the show a couple of times. And he's a tough guy. What's going on there? What's at the core of the feud?

    JOHN EDWARDS: Well, the core of the feud is I've been talking about homeless veterans and the fact that we have a couple hundred thousand homeless veterans who have no place to sleep at night. They're either in shelters...

    LETTERMAN: It's embarrassing, isn't it?

    EDWARDS: It's incredibly embarrassing for America. Huge moral issue facing the country. And he kind of went on his show and said that I was exaggerating, making it up. And I think he got a lot of correspondence, a lot of homeless veterans have been calling in.

    LETTERMAN: Well, you know what I've noticed about Bill O'Reilly — and he's a marvelous communicator. But he's not — he doesn't really care much about telling the truth.


    O'Reilly then countered:

    As Laura Ingraham might say, tedious. Edwards and Letterman could not care less about the truth unless it fits into their far-left vision of the world. Using homeless veterans to make a dishonest political point is wrong. That's one of the reasons Edwards is going nowhere in his campaign. The man simply cannot be trusted.


    Recently the Associated Press reported on an interesting program giving wounded Marines and Navy Corpsmen job placement in the film industry.  Working with the Wounded Marine Careers Foundationgives these vets hands on training in the various aspects of filmmaking--even the camera equipment can be modified to suite any injuries the vets may have.  As the center's co-founder Kev Lombard tells the AP, the idea for the program came out of his own project:

    Lombard came up with the idea for the foundation's Wounded Marine Training Center for Careers in Media program after being asked by a friend in the military nearly two years ago to document the stories of wounded veterans at military hospitals.

    "It wasn't our story to tell. It was theirs," he said. "So I said how about we teach them to tell their own story."


    Throughout the story we follow one young wounded Marine who's filming a mock scene of helmets atop inverted rifles set as battlefield memorials to those killed.  If movies about Iraq will continue to be made in the future, his lens offers an idea of just how valuable these aspiring filmmakers may be:

    Frey focuses on the helmets, which sit near a box of blank ammunition. For a moment he considers taking pictures. But then he decides against it, saying later that the scene didn't look real.
    More
  • More Fallout from New York Times Murder Story

    David Botti | Jan 17, 2008 12:21 PM

    On Monday we took a look at the fallout over a New York Times article looking at recent war veterans who have committed murder. Some critics said this article perpetuated the myth of "wacko" veterans returning from war. Additionally, a lack of comparison to murder rates among the civilian population was said to unfairly highlight the 121 veterans mentioned in the article. At the time of my last post most of the criticism seemed to be stemming from the online community.  By today, however, we've seen this wave of thought reach the mainstream press. 

    In yesterday's New York Times the op-ed page printed letters from readers reacting to the story. Some excerpts:

    CON:

    Your article about veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars who have committed or been charged with murder perpetuates the myth about crazed war veterans.  You note that in researching “homicides involving all active-duty military personnel and new veterans for the six years” after the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, there have been 349 cases.  There are more than 1.4 million Americans on active duty. Philadelphia, a city with a similar population, alone had 392 murders in 2007.  As a veteran of both Iraq and Afghanistan, I find articles like yours do a disservice to America’s combat veterans by shaping a public perception that they are damaged people, prone to violence.

    PRO:

    It was simply not manly to seek psychiatric help during and after Vietnam. In my own case, I suffered for some 40 years. After all the nightmares, sleepwalking, waking myself up with my own screams and causing my near relatives anxiety and fear, a police officer introduced me to a talk group of Vietnam veterans at the local V.A. hospital...You are never the same when you return from combat. The American people must therefore be absolutely sure of the engaged war because of the terrible things war does to the psyches of those soldiers. It may be worth it, but only if the objectives of the war are worth it...Deep down, those images and sounds never go away. I am happy that today the military has recognized the humanity and manhood of those who seek help.

    Citing the reporting done by "a platoon of Times reporters" the Wall Street Journal published this commentary in which it took issue with the Times' statistical approach:
    More
  • Article on Veterans Committing Murder Stirs Debate

    David Botti | Jan 14, 2008 04:18 PM
    Over the weekend the New York Times published an in-depth look at murders committed by current war veterans in the United States.  In what the article called a "quiet phenomenon" many of these crimes were said to be in part the result of emotional trauma caused by the veterans' wartime experiences.  Through it's investigation the Times reported 121 confirmed murders committed by veterans, while also saying there were probably more.  There's no central database that keeps track of such figures. 

    Here are some of the major facts presented by the Times:
    More
  • A Vet Runs for Congress--Despite Being Forced from Army

    David Botti | Jan 4, 2008 02:08 PM
    In keeping with this week's theme of veterans and politics, today we'll look at a veteran who's seeking Florida's 22nd District in Congress. Former Lt. Col. Allen West isn't known so much for his stance on the issues, but for an incident in 2003 that got him kicked out of the Army. As the Military Times reports, West stands by his actions:

    He was punished after admitting [in October 2003] that two months earlier, he fired a shot from his 9mm pistol as he held it next to the head of a recalcitrant detainee who West said had been stonewalling interrogators at a base near Taji, just north of Baghdad.

    But the cop quickly caved in after West's phony death threat.

    After the gunshot, West recalled, the detainee screamed "ok, OK, OK!" and gave up the names of three individuals who were then taken off the streets, ending a cycle of roadside bomb attacks on West's men that had been escalating the previous three weeks.

    West said he knew firing the gun would probably end his career but nevertheless did it to protect his soldiers.


    West was fined $5000 and forced to retire from the Army. He'll be trying to unseat the incumbent, Democratic freshman representative Ron Klein, whose campaign funds are vastly greater than West's.  However, as Fox News reports, West may be using dismissal from the Army as a reason Florida citizens should support his candidacy--citing a loyalty afforded to his soldiers by his actions. Of course, others may say his interrogation techniques were harsh and illegal. But as West told the network:

    It's about taking a stand for the country, and I think that the entire episode in 2003 will let people know the measure of a man that I am.


    Among conservatives this line of West's thinking may work. At the time of his departure from the Army many conservatives rallied around West's actions.  As the New York Times reported in 2004:

    The conservative media personalities and Web sites that raised money for his legal defense portrayed a military hamstrung by concern for the human rights of Iraqi detainees. The more than 2,300 letters and e-mail messages that he received were mostly "thank you" notes for putting his men first and resisting the pressure to treat suspects with kid gloves.

    Ninety-five members of Congress signed a letter to the secretary of the Army supporting the colonel.

     


    West isn't the only veteran vying for the chance to run against Klein.  Mark Flagg, a former Navy pilot, will run against West in an August 2008 primary.

    More
The Peek
 
 
STRATEGIES

Harmonix, creator of Rock Band and Guitar Hero, is changing videogames.

Sponsored by
 
 
 
 
CAMPAIGN 2008
republican gop convention periscope mccain

John McCain's choice to manage the GOP convention this summer is lobbyist Doug Goodyear, whose firm once represented Burma's repressive regime.

Sponsored by