Soldier's Home : Politics

Soldiers, Meet Your New Commander

David Botti — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 19:01:31 GMT

So, the presidential election is over. Headlines continue to thunder out the history president-elect Obama made, and thoughts are turning to the task of assembling a staff and facing a difficult future. In our homes and offices we watch TV, surf the Internet, and listen to the radio, but perhaps the president-elect summed up reality for the U.S. military last night during his victory speech:

Even as we stand here tonight, we know there are brave Americans waking up in the deserts of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan to risk their lives for us.

In some form or another, Obama will spend a considerable amount of time dealing with members of the military, active-duty or veterans. There are commanders in two combat zones to consult with, a veterans administration that's come a long way but still needs some work, and the rank-and-file soldiers whose lives at war and at home depend on the government to ensure proper care and attention. As speculation begins on what a new Obama administration's policies may be, let me add one more aspect to watch: how will Obama and the military cultivate their relationship?

A recent poll conducted by the Military Times of more senior service members favored Sen. McCain 63 to 28 percent over president-elect Obama. Other polls have also seen the military voting along those same lines. From the Military Times:

Officers and enlisted troops, active-duty members and reservists, those who have served in combat and those who haven’t, all backed McCain by large margins, to about the same extent they supported President Bush four years ago.

About 69 percent of respondents said they voted for Bush in 2004, while about 16 percent voted for the Democratic nominee, Sen. John Kerry.

McCain’s majority wanes among women and disappears altogether among black respondents.

For many of the soldiers who've spent the last year deployed, the campaign has not nearly been as high-profile as it's been for those of us on the home front. Soldiers I spoke to in Iraq this summer cited their long work hours and sometimes spotty Internet access as hampering their abilities to follow politics. If those of us at home now have some idea of who the real Barack Obama is, they may not -- but their lives may depend his actions as president.

Consider this New York Times dispatch from a Baghdad Army base as election results came in:

For the young soldiers, there was a feeling of distance from both candidates. Senator John McCain is 72; one soldier described him as being “like your grandfather, set in his ways.” And Mr. Obama is a newcomer to the military world, a rare visitor to Iraq, an unknown in many respects.

“We’ll support and defend him and support his wishes,” said Second Lieutenant Hunter Wakeland, Brigade Staff 1st Brigade, 4th Infantry. “President Bush listened to the generals, the joint chiefs, they have a lot of experience; with President-elect Obama’s lack of military experience, hopefully he listens to them, too.”

In Mosul the Associated Press talked to soldiers who spoke in similar ways; not quite sure what to think of Obama, or uninterested in the election as a whole citing nothing changing about the war in the short run.

While Americans were voting back home, Lightning Troop, 3rd Squadron, 3rd Armored Cavalry went to Badoush, a town on the northern outskirts of Mosul, to observe and help Iraqis recruit 200 new members of the National Police.

"Some soldiers are concerned about the election, but we really don't talk politics very much," said platoon leader 1st Lt. Conrad Brown, a West Point graduate from Bangor, Maine, speaking at the site where recruits were stripped, searched, given health checks and tested for literacy.

Troop commander Capt. Hunter Bowers of Hendersonville, Tenn., said he didn't get to vote because his absentee ballot was sent to the wrong address.

"Things won't change here between now and the time we go home. We'll be getting back about the time the new president is inaugurated," Bowers said.

Another officer, Capt. Jared Just, said he believed that no matter who wins, "it won't really change the course of things in Iraq that much."

The UK's Times reported from a U.S. base in Baghdad where some soldiers showed signs of enthusiasm, while others were dismayed -- including one who said Obama's victory was just another reason to get out of the army:

At an outdoor eating area on the sprawling base, Specialist Tavaris James, 21, was also relishing the historic Democratic victory. “I think it is a great thing,” he said, sitting at a wooden picnic table.

“He will be the first African American president,” said the soldier from North Carolina, adding, however, that he did not think the change at the top would affect the military.

Others had a different idea. “The army is going to go to Hell,” said Specialist Megan Sanderson, 25, also from North Carolina, perched at a nearby table with her husband, Specialist Adam Sanderson.

He was also feeling glum about the outcome. “I am not happy. McCain got my vote,” the 23-year-old from Pennsylvania said.

The pair had already been planning to get out of the army because they said it was a difficult way of life for a married couple. The Obama win “is just another” reason to move on, said Specialist Megan Sanderson.

The initial relationship between Obama and the general military-at-large may be strained at first. The new president's lack of military experience, coupled with the military's traditional Republican voting-bloc, may make for some harsh growing pains. But, in the end, both are working with the same goals in mind: to minimize the risks to soldiers' lives, and to take care of them when they come home. Obama will need to find military advisers who can communicate his policy decisions to generals and privates, while also introducing President Obama to how things get done in the armed forces.

Vets Compete For Congressional Seats

David Botti — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 17:04:30 GMT

Earlier this month I took a look at how veterans are getting involved in supporting both sides of the presidential campaign through TV advertisements. With so much attention focused on the national campaigns, it's easy to forget all the Congressional districts throughout the country holding elections. In some of these districts you'll find veterans of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam running for office and, in same cases, against each other. The Associated Press recently took a look at Pennsylvania's eighth district where Democratic Rep. Patrick Murphy (the only Iraq vet now serving in Congress) and retired Marine Col. Tom Manion who lost his Marine son in Iraq, are competing.

Manion opposes a specific timeline for troop withdrawal from Iraq, arguing they should be in the country as long as it takes to achieve stability. Murphy, on the other hand, supports drawing up a timetable.

Part of Manion's campaign features short videos profiling his fallen son, 1st Lt. Travis L. Manion. Here is an introductory video:

According to the AP, Manion has drawn some criticism for the videos:

Manion, 54, said he was inspired by his son's death to seek public office. His Web site, though, has drawn criticism for its focus on his son's life rather than on his qualifications.

"Just who is running for Congress: the father or the son?" asked an editorial in the Bucks County Courier Times.

At a recent forum in Langhorne, there were signs Manion might be having trouble connecting with voters on issues other than Iraq. Questions on topics including Iran, North Korea and funding for Medicare and Social Security yielded answers with few specifics.

Joe Linus, a Republican unhappy with both Murphy and the Bush administration, said he thought Manion's presentation was lacking but expressed optimism that the challenger would crystallize his platform.

Because the economy is dominating the political scene over Iraq these days, Murphy has sought to draw attention to how much the war is costing American taxpayers. Additionally:

He said the United States has essentially played "referee" for more than five years in a religious civil war while neglecting Afghanistan. He favors a 16-month phased withdrawal, with redeployment of some troops to Afghanistan to help train that country's army and secure the border with Pakistan.

Here's one of Murphy's campaign ads:

In Southern California Republican Duncan D. Hunter, a two-tour veteran of Iraq and Democrat Mike Lumpkin, a former Navy SEAL veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan, are facing off for the 52nd District. The LA Times gives a good run down of the campaigns citing both mens' strong military experience:

Republican Duncan D. Hunter served in Iraq as a Marine artillery officer; Democrat Mike Lumpkin as a Navy SEAL commander. They also served in Afghanistan. Both mention their military service frequently on the stump. Their websites feature pictures of them in uniform -- Lumpkin against an American flag, Hunter in combat gear standing next to a mural of Saddam Hussein...

...Despite their similar experiences, the two candidates have different views about Iraq.

Hunter believes that the U.S. military surge in Iraq is working and that the U.S. is on the verge of victory.

"I don't think you ought to have a timeline" for withdrawal, he said in a debate this week on KPBS-FM (89.5). "The job is done when the military leaders on the ground say it's done."

Lumpkin says talk of the surge gives a false impression of what's happening in Iraq.

"When we stop paying the tribal sheiks, you're going to see a spike in violence," he said during the debate. He argues that the U.S. should move forces to the borders to prevent Iraq from being attacked and then allow Iraqis to solve their problems without U.S. supervision, and he's not opposed to a timeline for U.S. withdrawal.

Here's a Hunter campaign ad:

And here's a Lumpkin ad:

In Campaign Ads, Vets Makes Cases for Both Sides

David Botti — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 14:05:22 GMT

In blog posts over the past few weeks I've made reference to various campaign ads featuring veterans who support either Sen. Obama or Sen. McCain. They contain powerful imagery and messages: veterans of Iraq, Afghanistan, and past wars -- including some who are wounded -- talk about their frontline experiences and deride the opposing candidate for his platforms on Iraq and/or domestic veterans issues. No matter which candidate is being supported in an ad there are common threads that appear as the veterans speak of their service, yet at some point messages divide and the criticism begins.

According to Gallup polls, present and former members of the military historically vote along Republican lines. At the same time various pro-Obama groups are vocal over what they see as McCain's substandard record on veterans issues. Both candidates have count support among veterans. Remember that moment during the first debate when each candidate referenced a bracelet he wore to remember fallen soldiers. The important thing to note here is that while veterans can be seen as a group with a unique shared experience, their views are as widespread and nuanced as that of any American.

Below is a collection of eight video advertisements featuring veterans as they promote their chosen presidential candidate. Watching them all in succession gives an interesting look at how they draw in their combat service as they promote either McCain or Obama.

Pro-McCain/Anti-Obama

Pro-Obama/Anti-McCain

Pro-McCain/Anti-Obama

Pro-Obama/Anti-McCain

Pro-McCain/Anti-Obama

Pro-Obama/Anti-McCain

Pro-McCain/Anti-Obama

Pro-Obama/Anti-McCain

In the News: Russia Still Has Marine Humvees, Recruits Q&A, and More Vet Political Ads

David Botti — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 13:25:43 GMT

A roundup of military and veterans stories worth taking a look at:

Five U.S. Marine Corps humvees seized by Russian forces when they entered Georgia earlier this summer still haven't been returned:

The Humvees were taken Aug. 19 during Russia’s assault on the Georgian port of Poti, said Lt. Cmdr. Corey Barker, a spokesman for U.S. European Command. The vehicles were in Georgia awaiting commercial transport back to the U.S. following Operation Immediate Response, a multinational training exercise in July involving Georgian and U.S. forces. [Marine Corps Times]

Last week New York Magazine went down to the iconic Times Square recruiting station in New York City for some Q & A with new Army recruits on their way to boot camp. The interviews were spurred by news the Army has passed its recruiting goals for the past three years. The magazine described its subjects as: "four local boys and one Goth girl from Alabama in New York for the first time, all ages 17 to 23." Excerpt:

Chris Biener, 21, Bohemia, Long Island:

New York: So you leave for Army Reserves boot camp next Monday. What'll you do until then?
CB: Hang out with some friends.
New York: What have you been doing up to now?
CB: I went to Stonybrook University and played football there for the first semester, then I went to Suffolk Community College, then I started working and going to school, back and forth, then I decided to do this.
New York: Why didn't you stay in college?
CB: I kept switching my major, which kept putting me back. So I worked at a swimming-pool store.
New York: Why are you joining the military?
CB: I almost did it straight out of high school, but my parents wanted me to go to college. I always wanted to join growing up.
New York: Why?
CB: I've always played sports, but there's no team after high school. So this is a big team to join.
New York: What's your big dream?
CB: I'm going to be an LPN, a nurse. So when I get out [of the military], I know I'll get a good job. And if I stay in, there'll always be people who need help.
New York: We're in two wars right now. You may go and be seriously physically or mentally damaged or die. Does that affect your decision?
CB: I used to think about it, but then I realized I'll be trained enough to probably get away from that situation, so if it happens, it happens.
New York: How would you characterize the situation [in Iraq] right now?
CB: We should be there, but the people don't want us there. It's kind of up in the air.
New York: Should we reinstitute the draft?
CB: No, I think the turnout's positive enough with volunteer people. With a draft you have an Army with people who don't want to be there. If it's volunteer, you'll get 100 percent out of all of them.
New York: Would you pick Iraq or Afghanistan to be deployed to?
CB: Iraq. There seems to be more going on. It'd be more fun. As a nurse, there'd be more jobs for me to do.
[Daily Intel]

A Jewish Army recruit has been transferred to a new training battalion after his involvement in incidents of verbal and physical harassment by other recruits and drill sergeants over his religion. The military is not providing a specific reason for why the recruit was transferred, though his father told the Associated Press it was because his son didn't feel safe.

Handman began basic training Aug. 29 at Fort Benning in Columbus. He soon wrote a letter to his parents in which he said, “I have just never been so discriminated against/humiliated about my religion.” He told them he feared for his safety.
Handman’s parents contacted U.S. Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., who forwarded their concerns to the Army. Four days after commanders interviewed Handman about being harassed, he was beaten in a laundry room near his barracks and treated at the Army post’s hospital.
Manganaro said investigators don’t believe religious bigotry was the motive for Handman being attacked, though she could not explain why...The investigation of Handman’s allegations of harassment found that one drill sergeant had ordered Handman to remove his yarmulke, which he wore with his uniform, as he ate in a dining hall. Another had called him “Juden,” the German word for Jews. [AP]

A new campaign ad by the group VoteVets criticizes Sen. John McCain for skipping a crucial GI Bill vote. In the ad the veteran remarks: "Vet to vet, Senator McCain. When you put money from your rich friends ahead of vets like me how is that country first?"

A few weeks ago I posted a pro-McCain ad featuring a wounded Iraq veteran. I'm reposting it here for you to compare how veterans from two different ways of thinking voice support for their respective candidates.

The widow of an Iraq veteran who committed suicide after returning from the war is suing the federal government for negligence. The deceased veteran, Donald Woodward, 23, made three suicide attempts and was seeking treatment at a VA hospital. His wife said VA doctors were slow to diagnose her husband's psychiatric condition and did not schedule follow-up visits. Woodward, at the time, was in VA out-patient care for depression.

"I intend to make them make changes," said his mother, Lori Woodward. "I have too many friends whose kids are in Iraq. I have a nephew now in Iraq, in the same unit, and I can't have my family go through this again."
Alison Aikele, a VA spokeswoman in Washington, said the agency does not typically comment on pending litigation. [AP]

Veterans Group Rates McCain/Obama Voting Record (and the Rest of Congress Too)

David Botti — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 15:03:08 GMT

The veterans group Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America released a "scorecard" today which gives letter grades to members of congress based on their voting record for veterans issues. Senator John McCain received a D, while Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Joe Biden both received a B. According to the group's Website, the grades were based off of how many times a member of Congress voted along the same line as the IAVA's own position on 22 key votes affecting veterans (nine in the Senate and 13 in the House). From the IAVA:

From their flag lapel pins to their yellow ribbon bumper stickers, every politician in America wants you to believe they “support the troops.” But actions speak louder than words. When veterans’ issues actually came to a vote in Washington, what did your representatives do?...How did Congress do this year? Over all, they scored very well. From the passage of the landmark Post-9/11 GI Bill to fully funding the Department of Veterans Affairs, we have tremendous progress to celebrate this year. More than 150 legislators earned a perfect score, a grade of A+.

The report also features a list of the best and worst voting records on such issues.

Despite Sen. Obama's decent grade on the IAVA's report card, another veterans group recently criticized his voting record and leadership skills with respect to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Vets for Freedom aired the TV ad below:

Prompted by the airing of this ad, the National Journal set out to separate fact from fiction among accusations issued by both McCain and Obama concerning their pro-troop voting records:

The accusation against Obama regarding troop funding came up in the first presidential debate, where Obama defended his vote as a reflection on his position seeking a timetable for withdrawal. "Senator McCain opposed funding for troops in legislation that had a timetable, because he didn't believe in a timetable," Obama pointed out. "I opposed funding a mission that had no timetable, and was open-ended, giving a blank check to George Bush . We had a difference on the timetable. We didn't have a difference on whether or not we were going to be funding troops." Factcheck.org, meanwhile, reported in response to a McCain campaign ad released in July that while Obama did cast one "no" vote on legislation providing money for combat efforts, he voted at least 10 times in favor of increased funding.
As for the committee Obama chairs, it does not, in fact, have direct oversight of the war in Afghanistan. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Subcommittee on European Affairs does have jurisdiction over NATO affairs, and NATO has played a large role in the conflict. But hearings on Afghanistan have been held in front of the full Foreign Relations Committee, headed by Obama's running mate, Joe Biden . ABC News reported in July that Obama has attended one of the three full committee hearings on Afghanistan held within the last two years, while McCain has missed all three.

According to a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, Iraq ranks third among issues registered voters are concerned about. The economy and jobs dominated as a top issue coming in with 52 percent. Health care came in second with nine percent, and Iraq third with six percent.

Obama and the Honor Bracelet

David Botti — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 17:56:41 GMT

At the conclusion of Friday night's debate between Senators McCain and Obama some TV commentators took note of the lack of memorable moments and sound bites. Now, one exchange from that debate is gaining attention: The candidates' mentions of memorial bracelets worn to honor two fallen soldiers in Iraq.

First it was John McCain who spoke of the bracelet he wore, bearing the name of Matthew Stanley, an Army soldier killed in late 2006 by a roadside bomb. McCain said:

I had a town hall meeting in Wolfeboro, New Hampshire, and a woman stood up and she said, 'Senator McCain, I want you to do me the honor of wearing a bracelet with my son's name on it.'" McCain recalled. "He was 22 years old and he was killed in combat outside of Baghdad, Matthew Stanley, before Christmas last year. This was last August, a year ago. And I said, 'I will -- I will wear his bracelet with honor.'...And then she said, 'But, Senator McCain, I want you to do everything -- promise me one thing, that you'll do everything in your power to make sure that my son's death was not in vain.'

Soon it was Obama's turn to speak. As he directed his answer to debate moderator Jim Lehrer, Obama stammered briefly as he looked to his bracelet before reading the name of Ryan Jopek, a soldier killed by a roadside bomb in August 2006.

I've got a bracelet, too, from Sergeant, uh, from the mother of Sergeant Ryan David Jopek, given to me in Green Bay. She asked me, 'Can you please make sure another mother is not going through what I'm going through?'

The ensuing controversy stemmed from earlier reports that Ryan's mother, Tracy Jopek, had e-mailed the Obama campaign asking for him not to mention the bracelet in public forums. Jopek told the Associated Press she never received a response, but that until last Friday she hadn't heard her son's name mentioned by the candidate. The AP reports:

A few days after offering it to the Illinois Democrat, Jopek, of Merrill in north-central Wisconsin, had a change of heart. She realized it could be interpreted as a protest against the war, a statement that made her uncomfortable because other military families who suffered losses still supported the conflict.

“I am a mother, a mother who lost her son. It’s hard to know what’s right, what’s wrong about this war. Very hard,” she said. “And I know there are a lot of families who lost loved ones.”

Yesterday's New York Post took a further look at the issue and quoted an interview Ryan Jopek's father gave on Wisconsin Public Radio earlier this year. Brian Jopek, who is divorced from Ryan's mother, had this to say:

"She has turned down any subsequent interviews with the media because she just didn't want it to get turned into something that it wasn't. She had told me in an e-mail that she had asked, actually asked Mr. Obama to not wear the bracelet any more at any of his public appearances," he said.

"But, the other night, I was watching the news, and he was on, uh, speaking somewhere, and he was still wearing it on his right wrist. I could see it on his right wrist. So . . . that's a choice that he continues to wear it despite Tracy asking him not to."

In response to questioning from Fox News anchors about the appropriateness of Obama's mention of Ryan Jopek, senior Obama campaign adviser Robert Gibbs accused the interviewers of making up facts during a short and heated exchange.

The National Review's campaign blog saw Obama's actions as "revealing" if indeed he'd gotten the message about Tracy Jopek's wishes:

It seemed on Friday night we had a Bush-looks-at-his-watch moment when Obama had to double check his bracelet to recall Sgt. Jopek's name. If, indeed, six months ago the Jopek family made clear that they wished Obama to not wear the bracelet further (and indeed, stop citing him on the trail), then Obama's bracelet comment may be a gaffe of historical proportions...I think both aspects of Obama's reference to his own bracelet — his seeming unfamiliarity with Jopek's name and this report of ignoring the family's wishes — are a bit more revealing about the candidate.)

Despite such criticisms the Associated Press reported yesterday that Tracy Jopek was "ecsatic" about Obama's mention of his bracelet during the debate. As the AP reports:

Jopek criticized Internet reports suggesting Obama, D-Ill., exploited her son for political purposes.

"I don't understand how people can take that and turn it into some garbage on the Internet," she said.

Jopek acknowledged e-mailing the Obama campaign in February asking that the presidential candidate not mention her son in speeches or debates. But she said Obama's mention on Friday was appropriate because he was responding after Sen. John McCain, the Republican nominee, said a soldier's mother gave him a bracelet.

So, maybe Jopek's latest statements to the AP settles the whole thing as it applies to the context of the debate. The question that people don't seem to be asking, however, is whether it was appropriate for both candidates to even mention the bracelets at all. If indeed they were wearing the bracelets as a sign of personal remembrance, why feel the need to point it out on national television? The answer is pretty obvious, but is that enough to make it OK?

War of Words on Iraq Despite All Eyes on the Economy

David Botti — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 18:04:23 GMT

Now that tonight's presidential debate can count on both candidates showing up, there's some speculation over what will actually be debated. Originally the focus was intended to be on foreign policy, but with the economy dominating headlines there's the possibility things could change. The New York Times this morning quoted debate moderator Jim Lehrer as writing via e-mail: “I am not restrained from asking questions about the financial crisis. Stay tuned!”

How much attention is given to Iraq (and perhaps veterans) is still up in the air but that doesn't mean people aren't talking. Even as Iraq remains largely absent from the front pages around the country, there's a number of stories out there tackling politics, Iraq, and veterans reactions to it all. But first let's take a look at what some vets are saying about the debate. John Soltz, a veteran and co-founder of VoteVets.org, lists five main points he believes vets of Iraq and Afghanistan will look to be addressed by both candidates:

1) Will the candidates (and the moderator) note the difference between "tactical" success of the surge, versus the overall strategic goal of the surge, and whether that was a success?

2) Will the candidates be challenged on the deteriorating situation with Pakistan? Will Obama hold to his position that we must act to strike terrorists officially inside Pakistan's borders, and will McCain hold to his view that Obama is wrong to strike in the ungoverned parts of Pakistan without the expressed consent from Islamabad?

3) Will the candidates speak about our inability to take care of our current military commitments, let alone new ones?

4) Will the candidates lay out what steps short of military action they would take to prevent a nuclear Iran?

5) Given news that Prime Minister Maliki has hinted that he prefers a timeline that removes troops by 2010, but was pressured to accept a 2011 timeline due to U.S. political considerations, will the candidates consider moving a timeline to exit Iraq back to 2010, or do they consider that unrealistic?

Perhaps the candidate's respective answers to the first question may prove to be the most revealing (should the question come up). The answers would reveal their ability to break past the restrictions of these catch phrases and explain how well they're able understand how nuanced the situation in Iraq can be. Tactics and strategy, while they go hand in hand, are most certainly not exclusive barometers of success or failure. There's no way to tell exactly what veterans as a whole will use to judge the debate, but it's pretty safe to say that the questions Soltz lists are on the minds of most American's as well.

Even though Gov. Sarah Palin seems to have monopolized vice-presidential candidate coverage, Sen. Joe Biden made an interesting proposal on Monday before a Baltimore convention of National Guardsmen. Citing that vast number of National Guard members serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, Biden said a representative of this branch should sit on the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The Associated Press reports on Biden's comments and one Guard general's reaction:

"Tell me why there's any rational reason why you shouldn't have a seat at that table," Biden said, speaking one day after Republican presidential candidate John McCain addressed the group.
Maj. Gen. Frank Vavala, adjutant general of Biden's home state of Delaware and president of the Adjutants General Association of the United States, said such recognition, similar to that given the Marine Corps after initial representation by the Navy, is long overdue.

"It's something that we certainly are advocating as an association," said Vavala, who noted that more than a third of the Army and Air Force consists of National Guard units, and that the Guard numbers almost 500,000 men and women.

"Our people are fighting the war every day," he said, adding that the notion of Guardsmen as "weekend warriors" no longer applies.

Biden's eldest son, Delaware attorney general Beau Biden, is a captain in a National Guard unit that is to report for training next month before being deployed to Iraq.

An op-ed writer for the Indianapolis Star takes note of an unpublished opinion piece penned by a member of Iraqi parliament, Sami al-Askari, who expresses his support for John McCain. The argument is based mainly on that fear that Obama will prematurely withdraw troops from Iraq. He also says that Iraqis and Republicans have come to understand each other over the years of war, and an influx of Democrat-minded policy decisions could set back whatever progress has been made:

As the presidential election draws near -- and partly in response to Obama's selection of Joe Biden as his running mate -- Askari apparently has softened his rhetoric on the U.S. presence.

He still favors withdrawal of U.S. forces by the end of 2011, as proposed in the security treaty. And he figures that the deadline will be honored by whoever wins, if only for the sake of the 2012 American elections.

But changing now from a Republican to a Democratic administration would be problematic, he says -- not least because Obama has said the U.S. Congress should be involved in any status-of-forces agreement with Iraq.

Askari also expressed concern about Biden's 2007 plan to divide Iraq into three semi-autonomous regions -- Kurdish, Shiite and Sunni -- with a central government in Baghdad. He called the Biden plan "the essence of a nightmare feared by Iraqis."

"Not that any of Biden's proposals will take effect, as the socio-political reality in Iraq is undividable," he continued. "But Iraqis will pay dearly until Biden and his camp are convinced that his 'theory' is inapplicable in Iraq."

In contrast, Robert Diamond, chairman of New York Veterans for Obama, penned a highly critical piece in the New York Daily News taking issue with McCain's record on his support for veterans. Diamond argues the image of McCain's concern for veterans issues is largely a myth created by McCain himself:

As both an Iraq war veteran and a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, I am intimately familiar with John McCain's valiant and honorable military service. McCain, as far as I am concerned, is a true American hero. Unfortunately, his heroism in the Vietnam War has been allowed to morph into a patently false "record" - ceaselessly touted by his campaign - that McCain is a strong advocate for veterans. That could not be further from the truth...

...The nation's largest Iraq veterans organization, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, a nonpartisan organization, grades members of Congress on how they vote on legislation that "affect[s] troops, veterans or military families." This includes votes on such issues as expanded health care services for veterans and reservists, military death benefits, traumatic brain injury research and adequate rest for service members between deployments, just to name a few.
Of the 155 votes tracked by IAVA since 9/11, John McCain received a grade of "D." While no senator earned a grade of "A," Barack Obama got a "B ."

Words on Iraq by the candidates themselves still continue to follow the same lines of reason and criticism. Writing on a Wall Street Journal blog, Elizabeth Holmes described John McCain's appearance at the same National Guard convention at which Biden spoke. During his speech McCain took the opportunity to combine the economy and Iraq in order to highlight his opponent's lack of leadership:

“Whether it’s a reversal in war, or an economic emergency, he reacts as a politician and not as a leader, seeking an advantage for himself instead of a solution for his country.”

Later a spokesman for Obama was quoted striking back at McCain's words:

“John McCain is so out of touch that he wants to keep spending $10 billion a month in Iraq indefinitely while the Iraqi government sits on a $79 billion surplus and our economy is in turmoil.”

Criticizing Obama, Iraq Vet Helps McCain Online

David Botti — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 14:44:53 GMT

A young Iraq veteran's unofficial video letter to Barack Obama criticizing the candidate for his Iraq policy now ranks fourth in the number of online videos watched in the past 30 days, as compiled by Viral Video Chart. The message of 23-year-old Joe Cook's two minute address is simple: he repeatedly states that the invasion of Iraq was not a mistake, and to call it such dishonors the memories of those who've died. Cook says:

Do you rescue a fireman just as he's about to save a child? When you call the Iraqi war a mistake, you disrespect the service and the sacrifice of everyone who has died promoting freedom. Freedom carries with it a price. Because you do not understand nor appreciate these principles, sir, I am supporting Senator John McCain for president. He, too, made a huge sacrifice promoting freedom, because he understands the fundamental truth, freedom is always worth the price.

At a time when four out of the top 10 online videos feature Sen. Obama or are pro-Obama, Christopher Rhoads of the Wall Street Journal writes that Cook's video signals an online victory for Republicans in an arena long dominated by Democrats:

"This might be the Republicans' first real runaway hit," said Micah Sifry, executive editor of Personal Democracy Forum, a nonpartisan group studying technology in politics...the Republican campaign is gaining traction with online video, most notably at the end of July when it launched a segment mocking Sen. Obama's celebrity. Then Gov. Sarah Palin joined the ticket. The number of subscribers to Sen. McCain's YouTube channel has increased by nearly 50% from a month ago, according to the Pew Research Center.

The Democrats still remain well ahead in using the medium. The number of subscribers to Sen. Obama's YouTube channel dwarfs that of Sen. McCain, 16.2 million to 1.5 million. Whether the clips will matter in the election is another question. Many of these videos likely reinforce opinions, rather than change them. Still, in campaigns today, "images are very powerful things that can stay with voters more than words can," said Amy Mitchell, deputy director of the center's Project for Excellence in Journalism.

Cook, who was injured in Iraq (his prosthetic leg is visible in the video), met the film's producer during a welcome home parade thrown for the soldier when he returned home to Wauconda, Ill. The producer, Michael Brown, described himself to the Wall Street Journal as a maker of Christian-themed videos. He's made two subsequent pro-McCain videos although he has no official connection to the campaign.

Trying to Sue Iraq

David Botti — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 15:18:45 GMT

A bill passed by the House on Monday would give former Gulf War POWs mistreated by Saddam Hussein's army the right to sue Iraq for damages, but the White House is threatening a veto and the Senate still needs to approve the legislation. The bill (H.R. 5167) cited abuse of both military and civilian prisoners at the time of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990, and reaffirmed then demands of the United States at the time that Iraq follow the Geneva Convention:

Following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in August 1990, many United States citizens were detained by Iraq, beaten, subjected to cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment, confined under deplorable conditions, and used as `human shields' for the avowed purpose of preventing the United States and its coalition allies from using military force to liberate Kuwait...At the time these acts occurred, the Department of State had classified Iraq as a state sponsor of terrorism.

Currently, the president is allowed to provide exemption for Iraq from lawsuits brought by "Americans tortured by state sponsors of terrorism," the AP reports. The bill further provides that those held can receive $150,000 plus $6,000 for each day in captivity, with a maximum allowance of $900,000. Those who were tortured are entitled to $2.5 million with an additional $6,000-per-day imprisoned.

There was, however, a time when these same POW's could legally sue the Iraqi government over their treatment during the Gulf War. In July 2003, 17 former captives were awarded over $900 million in damages. John Norton Moore, an attorney for the former POW's, told 60 Minutes at the time:

“If what we do is to offer the tortured American POWs settlements that are the equivalent of the price of a used car, we're simply going to perpetuate this torture of POWs over and over. And say the price of torturing American POWs is virtually nothing."

The payment was expected to be made from Iraqi assets frozen by the United States, but eventually the Justice Department ruled that once frozen the assets were no longer property of Iraq. The White House said the money was needed to help Iraqi people during the post-2003 invasion reconstruction effort. This week the Associated Press reported the White House's response to this new piece of legislation, the Justice for Victims of Torture and Terrorism Act, as saying the bill would: "threaten economic and political progress in Iraq."

Representative Bruce Braley (D-Iowa), who is sponsoring the bill, expressed frustration over the president's veto of last year's Defense Authorization Bill which contained a provision similar to the bill he's now seeking to pass. As the Waterloo Cedar Falls Courier reports:

On Christmas Eve last year, President Bush unexpectedly vetoed the massive $3.5 billion defense authorization bill. He specifically cited a provision intended to help the POWs receive their award. Congressional Quarterly reported the Iraqi government threatened to withdraw $25 billion in assets from U.S. banks if the provision were to become law.

"I was so angry when that happened. It effectively gave immunity from torture in violation of the third Geneva Convention," Braley said. "What message does this send to the world?"

In 2003 Jeff Tice, a former F-16 pilot shot down during the Gulf War, described for 60 Minutes the torture he endured while held captive by Iraqi forces:

“They wrapped a wire around one ear, one underneath my chin, wrapped it around another ear and hooked it up to some electrical device. Asked a question. I wasn't interested in answering,” recalls Tice.

“They would turn on the juice. And what that does is it, it creates a ball of lightning in your mind or in your head. Drives all your muscles simultaneously together and it drives your jaw and everything together. And, of course, I'm chained to a chair. I can't move freely. So everything is jerking into a little ball. And your teeth are being forced together with such force. I'm breaking pieces and parts off.”

Tice’s jaw was dislocated so many times that he says he was lucky to be able to put it back into place.

New Footage of McCain's POW Release Emerges

David Botti — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 12:24:57 GMT

While conducting research for a book about his experiences covering Vietnam, former Swedish broadcaster Erik Eriksson stumbled upon film footage taken in Hanoi on March 14, 1973. The subject: a group of American POW's in transit from North Vietnamese holding facilities to the welcoming salute of a U.S. military officer waiting to take them home. Among them is 37-year-old John McCain quietly standing in formation with the others, and surveying the scene around him. He walks with a slight limp and does not speak. Eriksson told the Associated Press he'd contracted a local North Vietnamese photographer to film the prisoner release. From the AP:

"This summer when I was preparing the release of my book we were putting together a DVD with some of my reports from Vietnam and then I thought, 'I wonder if we have McCain here?'" Eriksson said...
...Eriksson said he covered the Vietnam War for SVT as well as U.S. television networks CBS and NBC. He explained that in February 1973, he was in Hanoi filming the release of the first American pilot prisoners, but had to return home to edit the film "because it was the first release that was sensational."
"However, we knew that more prisoners would probably be released shortly, so we left a camera and lots of film with a North Vietnamese photographer and asked him to film all the releases of U.S. prisoners," Eriksson said.

VIEW AN ASSOCIATED PRESS EDITED VERSION OF THE VIDEO HERE.

Helping Veterans Register to Vote

David Botti — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 15:02:14 GMT

After four months of intense criticism over a universal ban on non-partisan voter registration drives at federal veterans facilities, the Department of Veterans Affairs yesterday announced it will allow such drives provided they don't interfere with day-to-day operations. In a brief press release the VA outlined conditions promoting voter registration within its facilities:

The policy requires that information about the right of VA patients to register and vote, and other patients’ rights, be posted in every VA hospital, and that all VA patients be provided a copy of these rights when they are admitted to a VA facility.

Every hospital is now also required to publish a written policy on voter assistance, allowing patients to leave the hospital to register and vote, subject to the opinions of their health care providers. Patients unable to leave the facility must be assisted to register and to vote by absentee ballot.

It was in early May when the VA issued its controversial directive banning groups from conducting voter registration drives on VA property. The department referenced its adherence to the Hatch Act, which regulates a federal employee's political activity--even though, as the New York Times then pointed out, veterans are not federal employees. Furthermore, a VA spokesman told the Times:

"[The VA] wanted to ensure that our staff remains focused on caring for our veterans instead of having to determine the political agenda of each group that might try to enter our facilities.”

Among politicians who came out against this May directive were U.S. Senators John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who were already exchanging letters with VA Secretary James B. Peake over the issue. In a letter from the senators dated May 6, they expressed frustration with an apparent reversal of VA voting policies issued just days before:

On April 25, 2008, the Department of Veterans Affairs responded to our request for a consistent voter registration policy by issuing Directive 2008-23. While we do not believe it went far enough, we commend the changes made by the Directive which provided that veterans would be required to receive voter information and assistance in registering and applying for an absentee ballot...However, in the few days following the issuance of the first directive, the Department apparently withdrew it. Without explaining the rationale for this change, the Department today released a new policy, Directive 2008-25...it appears that a new and broad prohibition was included against third-party organizations conducting voter registration drives.

Last month Susan Bysiewicz, Connecticut's secretary of state, penned an op-ed in the New York Times recalling her own experiences trying to register veterans to vote:

On June 30, I visited the Veterans Affairs Hospital in West Haven, Conn., to distribute information on the state’s new voting machines and to register veterans to vote. I was not allowed inside the hospital.
Outside on the sidewalk, I met Martin O’Nieal, a 92-year-old man who lost a leg while fighting the Nazis in the mountains of Northern Italy during the harsh winter of 1944. Mr. O’Nieal has been a resident of the hospital since 2007. He wanted to vote last year, but he told me that there was no information about how to register to vote at the hospital and the nurses could not answer his questions about how or where to cast a ballot.

Now with yesterday's new VA directive, it remains to be seen whether the flurry of criticism will end as veterans like Mr. O'Nieal start to register with more ease -- or, if in reality, all of this is coming too late. With less than two months until the presidential election, some critics wonder if there is enough time to register a significant number of veterans. In an interview with the New York Times, Paul Sullivan, the executive director of Veterans for Common Sense, gave his view of the situation:

“The real question now is whether the V.A. will implement the new policy in time for the November election and whether local and state voting officials will take proactive steps to sign up the veterans at these facilities.”

Though it's unlikely that even a modest surge in the number of veterans registered to vote would influence the presidential election, it's still interesting to note where most veterans seem to stand politically. In late August Gallup released information showing veterans favor McCain over Obama 56 to 34-percent. The statistics came at a time when overall U.S. voters were favoring Obama over McCain 46 to 43-percent. Gallup also looked to see whether veterans were favoring McCain because he is a veteran himself, or whether they favor him out of a greater affinity for the Republican platform. According to the pollsters:

McCain clearly holds an advantage over Obama among veterans, but that is probably due more to the fact that veterans tend to be Republicans than to the fact that McCain himself served in the military and is regarded by some as a war hero. Veterans showed similarly strong support for Bush in the 2004 presidential election. The data suggest there still is an effect of military service on candidate preference, but it is rather small and is overwhelmed by the effects of party affiliation.

In Washington, D.C., a Vet Refuses Iraq Service

David Botti — Mon, 19 May 2008 08:15:47 GMT

Late last week a U.S. Army soldier stood in the rotunda of the Cannon House Office Building and announced during a press conference that he's now refusing orders for deployment to Iraq. Sergeant Matthis Chiroux, who served as a military photojournalist, gave his statement soon after a number of anti-war veterans testified before Congress -- the first time such veterans have done so. AFP gave this account of the hearing:

Former army sergeant Kristofer Goldsmith told the landmark hearing of "lawless murders, looting and the abuse of countless Iraqis." He spoke of the psychologically fragile men and women who return from Iraq to find little help or treatment offered from official circles. Goldsmith said he had "self-medicated" for several months to treat the wounds of the war...Another soldier told AFP he had to boost his medication to treat anxiety and social agoraphobia -- two of many lingering mental wounds he carries since his deployments in Iraq -- before testifying. A group of veterans in the packed hearing room gazed blankly as their comrades' testimonies shattered the official version that the U.S. effort in Iraq is succeeding. Almost to a man, the testifiers denounced serious flaws in the chain of command in Iraq.

As for Sgt. Chiroux, he said his position as a military journalist gave exposed him to countless disturbing stories he was afraid to publish for fear of retribution by the Army. He arrived in Washington, D.C. with Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW), which coordinated the testimonies before Congress. Below is a video of Chiroux's speech, where he also said he will remain in the U.S. despite the great number of war resistors who move to Canada.

More Debate Over New GI Bill

David Botti — Thu, 15 May 2008 15:45:19 GMT

Discussion over proposed GI Bill overhauls is front and center on the House floor as lawmakers debate an add-on to President Bush's request for more war funding. The goal of the add-on is to update the WWII-era GI Bill which allows veterans to receive money for attending college. Under the current proposal, Iraq and Afghanistan vets would be allowed to attend any four-year public university after having served at least three years in the active-duty military. To pay for this, the plan calls for a surtax on people making over $500,000, or couples with a combined income of $1 million. The Associated Press has reactions from both sides of the debate:

"We are talking about people who are making over $1 million to pay a small sacrifice for this war where our military families are paying a huge sacrifice," said Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill.
The White House weighed in with an official veto promise Thursday that also attacked the Democratic plan for increasing taxes.
"The president has been clear that tax increases are unacceptable," the White House statement said.

The overall war spending bill proposal calls for $163 billion to fight the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, while the GI Bill add-on expects to raise $54 billion over the next 10 years through the surtax. The bill would also allow veterans 15 years to use the benefits, whereas currently the limit is 10 years.

In the Senate Wednesday, Sen. McCain's proposal for a GI Bill overhaul lost in a 55-42 vote to a counter proposal by Sen. Jim Webb. MSNBC summarized the differences between the two:

In the simplest terms, the Webb bill would effectively pay for tuition and housing at a four-year public college for those serving at least three years of active duty. The McCain measure isn't as generous, as it increases existing education benefits by $400 a month for the same time served: from $1,100 to $1,500.

After the vote, McCain had this reaction [via ABC News]:

“My job is to get people to stay in the military, not only to join, but to stay as well,” McCain said, although he added that he will be sitting down with Webb to try to work out a compromise. He wants to make sure to include a component of his bill which is not in Webb bill that would allow for transferability of benefits to family members.

Talk of McCain's proposal also entered the presidential campaigns when Barack Obama criticized his potential opponent's unwillingness to expand more veterans benefits. McCain's camp countered by saying it was absurd for Obama to criticize McCain's commitment to veterans. In Obama's words [via USA Today]:

I have great respect for John McCain's service to this country and I know he loves it dearly and honors those who serve. But he is one of the few senators of either party who oppose this bill because he thinks it's too generous. I couldn't disagree more. At a time when the skyrocketing cost of tuition is pricing thousands of Americans out of a college education, we should be doing everything we can to give the men and women who have risked their lives for this country the chance to pursue the American Dream.

Also in military benefits news, the House Armed Services Committee approved next year's defense spending bill which includes a 3.9 percent pay raise for members of the military.

Trying to Modernize the GI Bill

David Botti — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 14:41:55 GMT

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.

Webb's bill wouldn't cover the entire cost of study at a private school like George Washington, but it would pay for tuition, fees and books at the most expensive state university. It would also provide an allowance for essentials based on the federal cost-of-living estimate. As an incentive to private schools, the federal government would also match any scholarship funds awarded to a veteran.
The bill would also decrease the disparity between benefits offered to active duty soldiers and those offered to members of the National Guard.

The report also noted the Pentagon's reluctance to the new bill. Officials there are worried that increased education benefits would encourage soldiers to leave the military for college, thus hurting retention numbers.

Paul Rieckhoff, founder of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, likened today's planned bi-partisan press conference supporting Webb's bill to the coming together of old rivals:

With the political situation so polarized this election year, it's like seeing players from the New York Yankees and the Boston Red Sox sit down for Sunday afternoon tea.

On the presidential campaign front, Senator John McCain recently unveiled his own GI Bill improvements after receiving criticism for not supporting Webb's bill. According to The Hill:

McCain’s bill is designed to enhance the existing Montgomery GI Bill, but will compete for Senate votes with Webb’s measure, which already has 57 co-sponsors, including Democratic presidential hopefuls Sens. Barack Obama (Ill.) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.)...

...At the same time, McCain and other supporters of the new bill touted it as an improvement over Webb’s measure. Some military officials have worried the Webb bill’s would provide such an incentive for active-duty military to attend school that it would make it hard for the military to retain soldiers.

Below are some of the main bulleted points from both McCain's and Webb's proposals. First up, here's Webb's taken from this brief fact sheet:

Increased educational benefits would be available to all members of the military who have served on active duty since September 11, 2001, including activated reservists and National Guard. To qualify, veterans must have served at least three to thirty-six months of qualified active duty, beginning on or after September 11, 2001.

The bill provides for educational benefits to be paid in amounts linked to the amount of active duty served in the military after 9/11. Generally, veterans would receive some amount of assistance proportional to their service for 36 months, which equals four academic years. Veterans would still be eligible to receive any incentive-based supplemental educational assistance from their military branch for which they qualify.

Benefits provided under the bill would allow veterans pursuing an approved program of education to receive payments covering the established charges of their program, up to the cost of the most expensive in-state public school, plus a monthly stipend equivalent to housing costs in their area. The bill would allow additional payments for tutorial assistance, as well as licensure and certification tests.

The bill would create a new program in which the government will agree to match, dollar for dollar, any voluntary additional contributions to veterans from institutions whose tuition is more expensive than the maximum educational assistance provided under S.22.

Veterans would have up to fifteen years, compared to ten years under the Montgomery G.I. Bill, after they leave active duty to use their educational assistance entitlement. Veterans would be barred from receiving concurrent assistance from this program and another similar program.

And, here's McCain's taken from his Website:

An immediate increase in education benefits for active duty personnel to $1500 a month, and to improve retention, those benefits increase to $2000 a month after 12 or more years of service.

Significantly increased benefit for members of the National Guard and Reserves.

Transferability, the ability of service members to transfer their education benefits to dependents. After 6 years, half of the benefit may be transferred and after 12 years 100% may be transferred to a spouse or dependent children.

Student loan repayment. Allows servicemembers to use up to $6,000 per year of Montgomery G.I. Bill education benefits to repay Federal student loans.

Creation of a matching program to help more veterans graduate debt-free. Up to an additional $3,000 per year could be paid by the Department of Veterans Affairs in return for the school retiring some or all of the servicemember’s debt.

Access to Montgomery G.I. Bill benefits for service academy graduates and Senior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps officers who continue serving.

Builds on existing educational benefits program to ensure rapid implementation with minimal additional administrative costs.

Veterans Suing the VA, Senators Call for Resignation

David Botti — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 13:57:35 GMT

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:

"Doctor Katz's irresponsible actions have been a disservice to our veterans and it is time for him to go. The number one priority of the VA should be caring for our veterans, not covering up the truth...I have spoken with Secretary Peake and I have asked him to take immediate action to restore the faith of our veterans in the mental health care provided by the VA."

The Associated Press details the contents VA emails disclosed at the trial:

An e-mail message from Katz disclosed this week as part of a lawsuit that went to trial in San Francisco starts with "Shh!" and claims 12,000 veterans a year attempt suicide while under department treatment.
"Is this something we should (carefully) address ourselves in some sort of release before someone stumbles on it?" the e-mail asks.
A VA spokesman declined to comment Tuesday.
Another e-mail said an average of 18 war veterans kill themselves each day — and five of them are under VA care when they commit suicide.

For more on why the plaintiffs brought this case against the Department of Veterans Affairs, you can visit their website here.