Good ol’ Sy Hersh, the Liberal icon idiot, is now spreading lies about us attacking Iran.
What get’s me is all the damn Bloggers writing about it. Why even give this moron the attention he craves?
Others via Memeorandum
Technorati Tags: Sy Hersh, Politics, Iran, War, Stupidity, Liberals, Democrats,
As if the country needed any further proof that the Bush Administration engaged in unconstitutional, not to mention unlawful, behavior, this little fine nugget of information drops today in the media.
Dana Milbank of the Washington Post reports that the hearing yesterday failed to produce any substantive information, but rather exposed the parties involved for the heartless, condescending, disdainful people that these men really are.
Consider a couple snippets:
Could the president ever be justified in breaking the law? "I’m not going to answer a legal opinion on every imaginable set of facts any human being could think of," Addington growled. Did he consult Congress when interpreting torture laws? "That’s irrelevant," he barked. Would it be legal to torture a detainee’s child? "I’m not here to render legal advice to your committee," he snarled. "You do have attorneys of your own."
[…]
He had the grace of Gollum as he quarreled with his questioners. In response to one of the chairman’s questions, he neither looked up nor spoke before finishing a note he was writing to himself. When Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) questioned his failure to remember conversations about interrogation techniques, he only looked at her and asked: "Is there a question pending, ma’am?" Finally, at the end of the hearing, Addington was asked whether he would meet privately to discuss classified matters. "You have my number," he said. "If you issue a subpoena, we’ll go through this again.
[…]
However, that was just a warm up of things to come, It also become very testy as the hearing went forward:
He sat slouched in his chair, scratching his mustache, as Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), chairman of the Constitution subcommittee, warned about "the unaccountable monarchy" before offering Addington five minutes to make an opening statement. Addington spoke for a minute and 12 seconds — most of which was devoted to correcting two errors in Nadler’s introduction.
"Is that the entirety of your statement?" the chairman asked.
"Yes, thank you," Addington replied. "I’m ready to answer your questions."
He sure was. When John Conyers (D-Mich.) inquired about Addington’s pet legal concept, a "unitary executive theory" that confers extreme powers on the president, Addington dished out disdain.
"I frankly don’t know what you mean by unitary theory," Addington replied.
"Have you ever heard of that theory before?"
"I see it in the newspapers all the time," Addington replied.
"Do you support it?"
"I don’t know what it is."
The usually mild Conyers was angry. "You’re telling me you don’t know what the unitary theory means?"
"I don’t know what you mean by it," Addington answered.
"Do you know what you mean by it?"
"I know exactly what I mean by it."
[….]
Addington’s insolence appeared to embolden another witness, his former administration colleague John Yoo. Yoo took Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) on a semantic spin when asked about whether a torture memo was implemented.
"What do you mean by ‘implemented’?" Yoo asked.
"Mr. Yoo," Ellison pressed, "are you denying knowledge of what the word ‘implement’ means?"
"You’re asking me to define what you mean by the word?"
"No, I’m asking you to define what you mean by the word ‘implement,’ " the exasperated lawmaker clarified.
"It can mean a wide number of things," Yoo demurred.
After several such dances around the questions (whether, for example, the president could order somebody buried alive), Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) offered his grudging respect: "You guys are great on ‘Beat the Clock,’ " he said.
"I don’t play basketball," replied the 41-year-old Yoo.
"That was a game show," Cohen explained.
As you can see, convicting these guys on charges that they broke the law, and violated the Constitution is not going to be an easy task. Because obviously, these guys are not going to cooperate with Congress or with any other sort of criminal investigation. Lew Rockwell, a fellow Libertarian minded person, says, “Maybe now they’ll impeach them”. Lew, I respect your work and writings, but I highly doubt that the impeachment or any sort of criminal hearings will take place, until after the November election and until the next President is in office.
In this weeks edition…
The Other War: As Mexico melts down are we next?
100% Preventable! Americans continue to pay the bloody price for open borders. When will the madness end?
John Monti’s false accusers take a second bite at the apple, we report and tell you what you can do to help!
Download for your ipod here.
As mentioned in the final story our friend John Monti is facing yet another bogus legal challenge (learn more here) and he could use our support. Make sure to join his Facebook group and hit the tip jar!
If you’d like to sponsor a show contact us here.
This has been the Blogs For Borders Video Blogburst. The Blogs
For Borders Blogroll is dedicated to American sovereignty, border
security and a sane immigration policy. If you’d like to join find out how right here.
Speaking of Illegal Immigration, check out what our feckless
Government is doing, instead of deporting the Criminal Illegal
Immigrants, they’re deporting Catholic Priests, and Protestant pastors: (via WorldnetDaily.com)
U.S. immigration authorities have stepped up
deportations, but rather than pursue illegal aliens, they have chosen
to evict America’s church ministers from the country instead.Honesty could cost Christian pastor Keith Thomas his citizenship
because he cooperated with immigration officials, disclosing two minor
marijuana convictions he incurred when he was a young man in England 33
years ago.Thomas, 53, is working without pay, fearing deportation from the
U.S. and separation from his family. He was denied a green card based
on convictions that were expunged in 1982. Thomas told WND he has
documentation to prove his clean record since the 1975 conviction and
that he has always been truthful with officials, but he doesn’t
understand why people who enter the country illegally are allowed to
stay when he is facing the citizenship battle of his life.“They’ve let 12 million illegals into the country, yet somebody has
been doing some good, paying taxes, came in legally and has been
married to an American for 27 years and has two American kids, and
they’re going to kick him out?” Thomas asked. “I told the truth. Nobody
called me out on my past. If I had not even owned up to my record, the
government would not have been able to find any of it.”
Nice… your Tax dollars at work!
Technorati Tags: illegal immigration, open borders, deportation, rape, hit and run, invasion, podcast, vlog, mexico, culture, tolerance, multi-culturalism, insanity, 4g war, mexican drug cartels, merida intitiative, john monti, claudia smith, san diego minutemen, day laborers, marco riz, mackenzie maddoz, jose a rodriguez,
The arguments floating around the op-ed pages and seminar rooms were overwhelmingly against the idea of a surge — a mere 20,000 additional troops would not make a difference. The U.S. presence provoked violence, rather than diminishing it. The more the U.S. did, the less the Iraqis would step up to do. Iraq was in the middle of a civil war, and it was insanity to put American troops in the middle of it.
When President Bush consulted his own generals, the story was much the same. Almost every top general, including Abizaid, Schoomaker and Casey, were against the surge. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was against it, according to recent reports. Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki called for a smaller U.S. presence, not a bigger one.
In these circumstances, it’s amazing that George Bush decided on the surge. And looking back, one thing is clear: Every personal trait that led Bush to make a hash of the first years of the war led him to make a successful decision when it came to this crucial call. – The Bush Paradox by DAVID BROOKS (via New York Times)
Here’s the problem with that ol’ Davie Boy. The move to the “surge” was made about 5 years too damn late. Not even to mention the multiple moving of the goal posts for the very reason of this war. This is just another rather lame attempt to justify this unconstitutional war.
Others: Commentary, Martini Revolution, GINA COBB, No More Mister Nice Blog, Daily Pundit, Bark Bark Woof Woof, Betsy’s Page, Connecting.the.Dots and The Mahablog (via Memeorandum)
Technorati Tags: Politics, Opinion, Bush, Republicians, Conservative, Neo-Conservatives, White House, Iraq War,
I apologize for the stoppage of Blogging. But the Tim Russert story kind of jarred me quite a bit. in fact, I had to turn the TV to CNN, I just couldn’t not bear watching the stuff at MSNBC anymore. (Yeah, I know, I fired up John Cole for what he said, there’s a difference between me saying I had to change the channel, and taking a nasty swipe at a dead man.)
However, the world, the news, and life does go on, while I will miss Tim Russert’s show and his style of punditry, I must move on….
It seems that things are changing in Iraq.
The Report from the Washington Post:
The Bush administration’s Iraq policy suffered two major setbacks Friday when Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki publicly rejected key U.S. terms for an ongoing military presence and anti-American Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr called for a new militia offensive against U.S. forces.
During a visit to Jordan, Maliki said negotiations over initial U.S. proposals for bilateral political and military agreements had "reached a dead end." While he said talks would continue, his comments fueled doubts that the pacts could be reached this year, before the Dec. 31 expiration of a United Nations mandate sanctioning the U.S. role in Iraq.
The moves by two of Iraq’s most powerful Shiite leaders underscore how the presence of U.S. troops has become a central issue for Iraqi politicians as they position themselves for provincial elections later this year. Iraqis across the political spectrum have grown intolerant of the U.S. presence, but the dominant Shiite parties — including Maliki’s Dawa party — are especially fearful of an electoral challenge from new, grass-roots groups.
CNN’s Michael Ware, who is in Iraq offers this interesting perspective:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jo54NhiyQig&hl=en]
If Ware is even correct and these talks continue to stall, I look for Bush to just pull our troops out and let Iraq go at it alone. I just do not think that Bush is going to dump the Iraq War into the laps of the Democrats. I just do not think that he wants that on his legacy. I could be wrong, but if this is case, I got a sneaking suspicion you will see a unilateral withdrawal of our troops out of Iraq, before Bush leaves office.
More via Memeorandum
Transcript: (H/T K.O’s NewsHole)
Finally tonight, as promised, a Special Comment on Senator John McCain’s conclusion that it’s "not too important" when American forces come home from Iraq.
Thoughts, offered more in sorrow, than in anger.
For two full days now, the Senator and his supporters have been outraged at what they see as the subtraction of context from this extraordinary remark.
This is, sadly, the excuse of our time, for everything.
Still. If the Senator claims truncation, we will correct that, first.
"A lot of people," Matt Lauer began, "now say the surge is working."
"Anybody who knows the facts on the ground say that," the Senator interjected.
"If it’s now working, Senator," Matt continued, "do you now have a better estimate of when American forces can come home from Iraq?"
"No," answered McCain. "But that’s not too important. What’s important is the casualties in Iraq. Americans are in South Korea. Americans are in Japan. American troops are in Germany.
"That’s all fine. American casualties and the ability to withdraw. We will be able to withdraw.
"General Petraeus is going to tell us in July when he thinks we are. But the key to it is we don’t want any more Americans in harm’s way. And that way they will be safe, and serve our country, and come home with honor and victory – not in defeat, which is what Senator Obama’s proposal would have done. And I’m proud of them, and they’re doing a great job. And we are succeeding. And it’s fascinating that Senator Obama still doesn’t realize it."
And there is the context of what Senator McCain said.
Well… not quite, Senator.
The full context, is that the Iraq you see, is a figment of your imagination.
This is not a war about "honor and victory," Sir.
This is a war you, and the President you support and seek to succeed, conned this nation into.
Yes, sir.
You.
Of the prospect of war in Iraq, you said, quote, "I believe that success will be fairly easy."
John McCain… September 24th… 2002.
"I believe that we can win an overwhelming victory in a very short period of time."
John McCain… September 29th… 2002.
Of the ouster of Saddam and the Baathists:
"There’s no doubt in my mind that once these people are gone, that we will be welcomed as liberators."
John McCain… March 24th… 2003.
Asked, about a long-term commitment in Iraq, quote, "are you talking about something in terms of South Korea, for instance, where you would expect U.S. troops to be in Iraq for decades?"
"No," you answered. "I don’t think decades, but I think years. A little straight talk, I think years. And I hope that we can gradually reduce that presence."
John McCain… March 18th… 2004.
You were asked about the troops, and the future.
"I would hope that we could bring them all home. I would hope that we would probably leave some military advisers, as we have in other countries, to help them with
their training and equipment and that kind of stuff."…I think one of our big problems has been the fact that many Iraqis resent American military presence.
And I don’t pretend to know exactly Iraqi public opinion. But as soon as we can reduce our visibility as much as possible, the better I think it is going to be."
John McCain… January 31st… 2005
When a speaker at your town hall, five months ago, referenced the President’s forecast that we might stay in Iraq for 50 years, you cut him off.
"Make it a hundred! We’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea 50 years or so. That would be fine with me. As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. That’s fine by me…"
John McCain… January 3rd… 2008.
And your forecast of your hypothetical first term.
"By January, 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom. The Iraq war has been won."
John McCain… May 15th… 2008.
That, Senator McCain, is context.
You have attested to: a fairly easy success; an overwhelming victory in a very short period of time; in which we would be welcomed as liberators; which you assured us would not require our troops stay for decades but merely for years; from which we could bring them all home, since you noted many Iraqis resent American military presence; in which all those troops coming home will also stay there, not being injured, for a hundred years; but most will be back by 2013; and the timing of their return, is… not… that… important.
That, Senator McCain, is context.
And that, Senator McCain, is madness.
The Government Accountability Office just released a study Tuesday that concludes that one out of every ten soldiers sent to Iraq, takes with them medical problems "severe enough to significantly limit their ability to fight."
In five years, we have now sent 43-thousand of them to war even though… they were already wounded.
And when they come home, is… not… that… important.
—
Jalal al Din al Sagir, a member of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, and Ali al Adeeb, of the rival Dawa Political Party, gave a series of interviews last week about the particulars of this country’s demand for a "Status of Forces" agreement with Iraq — a treaty …which Mr. Bush does not intend to show Congress before he signs it.
The Iraqi politicians say the treaty demands Iraq’s consent to the establishment of nearly double the number of U-S military bases in Iraq — from about 30, to 58, and from temporary, to permanent.
Those will be American men and women who must, of necessity, staff these bases – staff them, in Mr. McCain’s M-C Escher dream world in which our people can all come home while they stay there for a hundred years but they’ll be back by 2013.
And when they come home, is not… that… important.
—
Last year, a 20-year old soldier from the Bronx, on the day of his re-deployment to a second tour in Iraq, said he just couldn’t face the smell of burning flesh again. So, Jonathan Aponte paid a hit man 500 dollars… to shoot him in the knee.
Mount Sinai Hospital in New York reported treating a patient identifying himself as another Iraq-bound soldier, who claimed he had accidentally swallowed a pen at the bus station. No one doubted his story until examinations proved there was a second pen in his stomach bearing the logo of Greyhound Bus Lines.
In 2006, says his sister, a 24-year old Army Specialist from Washington State, on the eve of his second deployment, strapped a pack full of tools to his back, and then jumped off the roof of his house, injuring his spine.
And when they come home — or more correctly all those like them who did not risk death or disability to avoid going back — when they come home, is not… that… important.
You’ve sold them all out, Senator.
You.
You, whose sacrifice for this country was as all-encompassing and as horrible as the rest of us can only imagine in our darkest moments.
You, who survived, so that you could make America a better place where young men did not have to go and die in pointless wars… or be maimed… or be held prisoner… or have to hire hit-men to shoot them in the knee because that couldn’t be worse.
You… who should know better.
—
Where, Senator, is the man who once said "veterans hate war more than anyone else, because veterans know, because veterans know these brave Americans, and others, know, that there is nothing more painful than the loss of a comrade."
Where is he, Sir?
Where is the man who described that ineffable truth?
Oh, so long ago you touched the essence of the reality of Iraq. Your comments about your lost comrades — yesterday.
The men and women in Iraq, today, Senator — they are your comrades, too.
And you are condemning them to die.
To die, for your misdirection, for Mr. Bush’s lies — for whoever makes the money off building 58 permanent American bases and all the weapons and all the bullets and all the wiring so costly and so slip-shod that it electrocutes our comrades as they step, not to fight freedom’s enemies, but into the shower at the base.
That, Senator, that is context.
It is an easy thing to dismiss Senator McCain as a sad and befuddled figure, already challenging for some kind of campaign record for malaprops.
Just yesterday in Philadelphia he answered Senator Obama, not by defending or explaining his own "not that important" remark, but by seizing upon Obama’s "bitter" remark – or trying to.
Obama had foolishly said that some, in despair, in small towns, cling to their religion and their guns.
Senator McCain vowed he’d go to those towns and tell them, "I don’t agree with Senator Obama that they cling to their religion and the Constitution because they’re bitter."
It was hard not to dismiss with a laugh, Senator McCain, or any Republican, for even accidentally implying that he’s clung to the Constitution — not after the last seven years.
It was hard, the day before, not to become almost bemused when the Senator tried to say he would veto every single bill with ear-marks, but wound up, instead, vowing "I will veto every single beer."
It was hard, this week, not to laugh at how Senator McCain could offer any serious defense against the accusation that he is running for President Bush’s third term, when a 2006 interview suddenly surfaced in which McCain said he would consider Dick Cheney for a position in a McCain administration.
"I don’t know if I would want him as Vice President. He and I have the same strengths. But to serve in other capacities? Hell, yeah."
These are all very funny, in a macabre yet unthreatening way.
And then one remembers Senator McCain’s inability to separate Sunni and Shia, or his insistence that Iran is training Al-Qaeda for service in Iraq, and then being corrected about it, and then saying the same thing again anyway.
And then one is, inevitably, drawn back again to the overlooked substance of yesterday’s remark…
"If (the surge) is now working, Senator, do you now have a better estimate of when American forces can come home from Iraq?"
"No."
No?
The surge is working and even that still tells Senator McCain nothing about when we can ransom our soldiers?
Wasn’t that the ultimate purpose of the surge? To get them out?
If we cannot tell — if McCain cannot even guess — doesn’t that, by definition, mean… the surge isn’t working?
—
And ultimately we are drawn back to the "not… too… important" remark, in its full context:
The context of the kaleidoscope of confused rhetoric, and endless non sequitur, and mutually exclusive conclusions — and what they add up to: a veritable tragedy, a microcosm of the American tragedy that is Iraq, a tragedy of a man who himself will never understand… "the context."
Your tragedy, Senator McCain?
No. I’m sorry.
This tragedy… is of Justin Mixon of Bogalusa, Louisiana.
And it’s of Christopher McCarthy of Virginia Beach.
It’s of Quincy Green of El Paso, and Joshua Waltenbaugh of Ford City, P.A.
The tragedy is of Shane Duffy of Taunton Mass, and Jonathan Emard of Mesquite, Texas.
It’s of Cody Legg of Escondido in California, and David Hurst of Fort Sill in Oklahoma.
The tragedy is of Thomas Duncan the 3rd of Rowlett, Texas, and Tyler Pickett of Saratoga, Wyoming.
And who are they, Senator?
They are ten Americans…. who have died in Iraq… since the first of this month. There are four more. The Defense Department has not yet identified the others.
And while you, Senator, may ask for all the context you can get, those ten men… will never know any of it.
Because the true context here, is that if you could ask those American war heroes, or the family and the friends that loved them, if they have a better estimate of when American forces can come home from Iraq…
They could rightly say, "No. But that’s… not… too… important."
Good night, and good luck.
Once again, the Liberals are taking McCain out of context.
For once, I agree with Jack Moss, when he says:
On the other hand Obama isn’t going to pull the troops out – no matter what he says – simply for political reasons. He hasn’t got a clue of the Geo/Political ramifications. But he simple won’t pull the troops out simple because “old dog” democrats won’t let him. While Iraq is quickly stabilizing, a withdraw would create expected chaos and there is no way Dems are going to let that happen on their watch.
The rest of what Moss says is pure Republican propaganda. However, his statement on Obama and Iraq is right on.
This is seriously messed up…
Muslim Extremist’s Web Site Stirs Mixed Emotions in Charlotte, N.C. (via FOXNews.com)
The Video:
In a quiet, upscale neighborhood in Charlotte, N.C., rows of custom-style homes and neatly landscaped lawns represent the American dream.
But one local resident has shattered that image, calling for the death of American troops in Iraq and supporting Al Qaeda through his Web site, which he reportedly runs from his parents’ home.
Samir Khan is the man behind Revolution.Muslimpad.com — a radical Islamic site that praises Usama bin Laden and asks for Allah to “curse more American soldiers.”
The site posts videos of U.S. Humvees being blown up by roadside bombs in Iraq. It aims to inspire young Muslims to wage war against the West.
Terrorism experts say the Web site, written in English, is one of the premiere sites for Western audiences to get access to radical Islamist propaganda.
Khan, 22, declined requests for an interview, even when approached outside his home with cameras rolling. When asked if the messages on his site represent Islam, Khan would say only that “they represent Muslims.”
In an e-mail sent to FOX News, Khan lashed out at the "arrogance" of the media, saying it should focus instead on converting to Islam. "When you go down in to the earth six feet deep, nothing will matter except what Religion you died upon," he wrote.
Following a FOXNews.com report last month profiling his Web site, Khan railed against "the Kuffaar" — non-believers — who wrote the article and affirmed his belief that jihad is "an Islaamic obligation" rooted in Muslim texts.
Words like those stir mixed emotions in Charlotte, among the general public and among the 8,000 Muslims who live there.
Imam Khalil Akbar, a religious leader in Charlotte, condemned Khan’s site, saying its views do not reflect “mainstream Islamic thinking” and do not represent the Muslim community at large.
“I would reject categorically those kinds of encouragements to look up to people like bin Laden,” Akbar said.
Neighbors described Khan — who immigrated to the U.S. from Saudi Arabia when he was 7 years old — as “friendly” and “reserved.” They said he launched his Web site while taking classes at Central Piedmont Community College and selling Cutco knives.
Abdullah Mahmud, an acquaintance of Khan’s who attends the same mosque, the Islamic Center of Greater Charlotte, defended Khan’s viewpoints, saying his anger stems from the United States’ foreign policy and occupation of Iraq.
Mahmoud said the blood-drenched videos Khan shows of U.S. soldiers injured in combat “serve the purpose of making the reality of the Iraqi scene visible to people.”
“Those videos are not much different than videos involving American soldiers targeting Iraqi civilians,” he said. “You have to look at both sides here.”
One of Khan’s neighbors, Ron Williams, also defended Khan’s right to free speech.
“Our actions (in Iraq) were interpreted broadly in the Muslim world as an attack on Islam,” Williams said, “I defend his right to speak out.”
But Jarret Brachman, director of research at West Point’s Center for Combatting Terrorism, said Khan’s call for violence takes his anti-American views one step further.
“To be unhappy with U.S. foreign policy is one thing, but to advocate violence by promoting Al Qaeda is another,” he said.
“This is the most sophisticated and aggressive Web site in English that really puts out bin Laden’s ideology and the message that’s promoted by Al Qaeda,” he added.
Brachman said Khan’s site "raises the threshold for what it means to be a good, pro-Al Qaeda Web site" and is "the best in English."
A graphic prominently displayed on the site shows a picture of Abu Yahya al-Libi, a prominent Al Qaeda spokesman whom Brachman calls “Bin Laden 2.0.”
“He’s the guy poised to take over the movement after bin Laden fades away,” Brachman said. “The fact that Khan would display him like he does means he’s trying not only to show he’s an insider, but also to model himself after him.”
The exact dangers his site poses are difficult to assess, experts said.
“It doesn’t necessarily move someone to action immediately, but it primes the pump,” Brachman said. “It gets somebody motivated to think more about Al Qaeda and so over the long term this is a very threatening message that he’s promoting.”
This is so screwed up, it’s not even funny.I know what I’m thinking, but because I don’t want to go to jail. I shall refrain from posting it here…
You know, I have always been a Independent voice in the Blogging world. I don’t answer to either side. But there is one thing, even as a Conservative/Libertarian/Constitutionalist, or in just plain terms, a center right type of person. I cannot and will not gloss over this kind of a story.
This my friends, is Bush’s true legacy:
Seven months after Sergeant Christopher LeJeune started scouting Baghdad’s dangerous roads — acting as bait to lure insurgents into the open so his Army unit could kill them — he found himself growing increasingly despondent. "We’d been doing some heavy missions, and things were starting to bother me," LeJeune says. His unit had been protecting Iraqi police stations targeted by rocket-propelled grenades, hunting down mortars hidden in dark Baghdad basements and cleaning up its own messes. He recalls the order his unit got after a nighttime firefight to roll back out and collect the enemy dead. When LeJeune and his buddies arrived, they discovered that some of the bodies were still alive. "You don’t always know who the bad guys are," he says. "When you search someone’s house, you have it built up in your mind that these guys are terrorists, but when you go in, there’s little bitty tiny shoes and toys on the floor — things like that started affecting me a lot more than I thought they would." – America’s Medicated Army – (via TIME Magazine)
All that, because Bush acted on some very admittedly now, false intelligence and did not properly prepare for it. Unlike many of the Iraq War’s planning, these guys have to live with the scars, both mental and physical.
This extremely sad story continues:
"In a Total Daze"
And yet the battlefield seems an imperfect environment for widespread prescription of these medicines. LeJeune, who spent 15 months in Iraq before returning home in May 2004, says many more troops need help — pharmaceutical or otherwise — but don’t get it because of fears that it will hurt their chance for promotion. "They don’t want to destroy their career or make everybody go in a convoy to pick up your prescription," says LeJeune, now 34 and living in Utah. "In the civilian world, when you have a problem, you go to the doctor, and you have therapy followed up by some medication. In Iraq, you see the doctor only once or twice, but you continue to get drugs constantly." LeJeune says the medications — combined with the war’s other stressors — created unfit soldiers. "There were more than a few convoys going out in a total daze."About a third of soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq say they can’t see a mental-health professional when they need to. When the number of troops in Iraq surged by 30,000 last year, the number of Army mental-health workers remained the same — about 200 — making counseling and care even tougher to get.
"Burnout and compassion fatigue" are rising among such personnel, and there have been "recent psychiatric evacuations" of Army mental-health workers from Iraq, the 2007 survey says. Soldiers are often stationed at outposts so isolated that follow-up visits with counselors are difficult. "In a perfect world," admits Nash, who has just retired from the Navy, "you would not want to rely on medications as your first-line treatment, but in deployed settings, that is often all you have."
And just as more troops are taking these drugs, there are new doubts about the drugs’ effectiveness. A pair of recent reports from Rand and the federal Institute of Medicine (iom) raise doubts about just how much the new medicines can do to alleviate PTSD. The Rand study, released in April, says the "overall effects for SSRIs, even in the largest clinical trials, are modest." Last October the iom concluded, "The evidence is inadequate to determine the efficacy of SSRIs in the treatment of PTSD."
Chris LeJeune could have told them that. When he returned home in May 2004, he remained on clonazepam and other drugs. He became one of 300,000 Americans who served in Iraq and Afghanistan and suffer from PTSD or depression. "But PTSD isn’t fixed by taking pills — it’s just numbed," he claims now. "And I felt like I was drugged all the time." So a year ago, he simply stopped taking them. "I just started trying to fight my demons myself," he says, with help from VA counseling. He laughs when asked how he’s doing. "I’d like to think," he says, "that I’m really damn close back to normal."
That which I just quoted, is President George W. Bush’s true legacy. How that man sleeps at night, knowing full well, that he has caused this, is beyond me.
I just truly hope, that the Republican Party has learned it’s lesson. I thought that they would have after Nixon. I guess, that I was wrong.
God Bless our suffering troops and those still in actions overseas now.
Others: VetVoice
