Investigating Torture: An Interview With Former Federal Prosecutor Elizabeth de la Vega

The topic below was originally posted on my blog, the Intrepid Liberal Journal. Former federal prosecutor Elizabeth de la Vega has recently made news urging that we don’t rush into appointing a special prosecutor to investigate crimes of torture during George W. Bush’s presidency. In a provocative April 20th post entitled “Of Black Holes and Radio Silence,” Ms. de la Vega wrote: “There is no doubt that sometime in 2002 - if not before - Bush administration officials and their lawyers began orchestrating a torture campaign, which they calculatedly attempted to justify through specious legal memos. They continued to abuse prisoners, and to conceal that mistreatment from Congress and the public, through at least 2008. In all of this conduct, they have committed grave crimes for which they must be held accountable. I believe this to be a national imperative of the highest order.” However, she also argues that, “First, the bottom line: From the perspective of anyone who wants Bush and Cheney and their top aides to be held accountable for their crimes, the designation of some sort of independent prosecutor right now would be the worst possible eventuality. It's a move that has so many downsides - and holds so few real benefits - that I would be more inclined to question President Obama's motives if he appointed a special prosecutor than if he did not. There is a reason why former prosecutor Arlen Specter - a Republican senator from Pennsylvania - has voiced support for a special prosecutor, while former prosecutors Patrick Leahy and Sheldon Whitehouse - Democratic senators from Vermont and Rhode Island, respectively - would prefer a public inquiry.” Please note that Ms. de la Vega’s post was written prior to Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter becoming a Democrat. Overall, Ms. de la Vega contends that appointing a special prosecutor now would undermine the cause of truth and accountability. It is her contention that transparent and public hearings would facilitate more popular support for prosecuting wrong doers than currently exists. As she wrote on April 20th: “What we continue to need, in sum, are unwavering spotlights, even more civic education, and, most importantly, an irrefutable and cohesive factual narrative - comprised of direct and circumstantial evidence - that links the highest-level officials and advisers of the Bush administration, ineluctably, to specific instances and victims of torture. What we will surely have, however, if a special prosecutor is named, will be precisely the opposite: The initiation of a federal grand jury investigation right now would be roughly the equivalent of ceremoniously dumping the entire issue of torture into a black hole. There will be nothing to see and we will be listening intently to radio silence, trying to make sense of intermittent static in the form of the occasional unreliable leak. For years. There may never be any charges and we will almost certainly never have the unimpeachable historical narrative that we need.” On May 10th, she posted a followed up piece entitled “Prosecuting Torture: Is Time Really running Out?”and argued that the statutory clock in section 2340A, otherwise known as the “torture statute” didn’t start ticking until Bush’s presidency ended on January 20, 2009 – when President Obama reversed our policies. Her May 10th post was in response to those who are clamoring for the immediate appointment of a special prosecutor because they claim the statute of limitations for torture crimes that began in 2002 were scheduled to expire in 2010. Ms. de la Vega’s position stems from her longtime experience as a federal prosecutor. She served as a Justice Department Attorney under Presidents Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II. She is the winner of numerous Attorney General's and community awards, including the prestigious Director's Award for Superior Performance. For over twenty-years, Ms. de la Vega targeted violent gangsters and sophisticated white-collar criminals in Minneapolis where she served as an Assisted United States Attorney and San Jose, where she was Branch Chief and a member of the Organized Crime Strike Force. Since retiring from government service in 2004, Ms. de la Vega has been among the most vocal in pushing for accountability on a broad range of crimes allegedly committed during the Bush administration. In 2006, her book, the United States vs. George W. Bush, et al was a New York Times best seller. A year ago, Ms. de la Vega wrote an incisive piece supporting Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich’s thirty-five articles of impeachment against President Bush. She has also contributed to numerous print and online publications, including the Los Angeles Times, Christian Science Monitor, Nation magazine, Chicago Sun-Times, Mother Jones, Common Dreams, TomDispatch, Truthout and Alternet. Ms. de la Vega agreed to a telephone podcast interview with me about her views with respect to investigating torture and support for public transparency. Special thanks to Vern Radul, known in the blogosphere as Edger where he manages Antemedius.com for persuading Ms. de la Vega for doing the interview. Our conversation was just under twenty-minutes as I posed numerous devil’s advocate questions. Please refer to the flash media player below. This interview can also be accessed at no cost via the Itunes store by searching for either “Robert Ellman” or the “Intrepid Liberal Journal.”

LEAKED: Bush’s Xmas Wish List

Crossposted from Left Toon Lane, Bilerico Project & My Left Wing click to enlarge I have this theory I think will hold up after Obama takes his oath next month. I think after Obama is in office and all the idiots are swept out of government (at least most of the Bush appointed idiots), there will be a tidal wave of "leaked memos" that will come from every part of government. Civil servants I think genuinely care about the job of government and many may have kept their heads down and compiled massive amounts of notes, documents and others bits of stuff that can be termed as "evidence" that will suddenly see the light of day. Over the past year, I have seen and read numerous reporters say they have sources in government that have asked them to call back after Obama is in office and then they will spill whatever beans the sources have sequestered. I remember last year when we all enjoyed "Fitzmas." Maybe this time next year, we will be enjoying Obamukkah?

Has Bush Toppled Off the Wagon?

Appearing at The Jaundiced Eye, the Independent Bloggers' Alliance, and My Left Wing. There has been a good deal of blogospheric chatter about the public antics of the leader of the free world, in full view of cameras, at the olympics. Much of it speculation about whether or not he's drunk off his ass. The folks at BuzzFlash have been digging a little deeper into the trash heap, for a bit of the back-story. The tabloids have been dishing dirt about a potential split between George and Laura. Reason: his drinking. If the Edwards scandal has taught us anything, it's that tabloids may traffic in sleaze, but their sleazy reporting is also often true. Now, travel with us a little farther down the road on this one, because you only need look at Bush's inappropriate, juvenile, and just plain bizarre behavior during his Olympic trip to wonder if indeed he has been hitting the sauce again (of which there has been potential evidence in the past, including a bruised face and that strange pretzel and "near beer" choking incident, among others). Now, I don't watch the olympics. I have better cures for the occasional insomnia. But, I've apparently been missing something of a show. Some of this seems a little undignified to me. It certainly demonstrates a lack of presidential decorum, whether or not it proves drunkenness. But, for those of us who have long been concerned about having a dry drunk in office, it sends up something of a red flag.

Mr. 19%

The Daily Pulse- Foreign Edition

The Daily Pulse is a regular survey of editorial content you might not usually see. We don't look at the New York Times or the Washington Post. You already have those saved in your Bookmarks. Instead, we look at The Bolivar Commercial or The New Haven Ledger. Why? Because those editorials, local columns, and letters to the editor tell you what real people are thinking about and talking about. And sometimes, we wander past our borders to see what OTHER people are thinking about and talking about. Today, The Daily Pulse goes north and south of the border, looking at (English language) editorial pages. We are also looking for contributors. I would give a minor body part for somebody willing to do a weekly survey of American Spanish-language papers, interpreting the highlights with some commentary. Also, a European survey, an Asian survey, perhaps alternative papers (GLBT, African American, Jewish, Lithuanian, etc.). Let me know if you're interested. And, without further ado, the Pulse across our borders. To see the rest, go to The Daily Pulse (too long for a front page).

The Daily Pulse- Letters Tuesday Editor

Once a week The Daily Pulse puts together "Letters Tuesday Editor," a collection of the best, and worst, letters to the editor from local papers around the country. The thought behind The Daily Pulse is simple- we will know more about what real people think if we look at local editorial pages, columnists, and letters, than if we just look at the Beltway and the national press. Can you contribute to The Daily Pulse? We are looking for somebody to do weekly and monthly columns, for letters, local columnists, foreign papers, alternative papers, etc. Let me know if you're interested. Click for the rest of today's The Daily Pulse. These are too long, and I can't figure out how to bifurcate them here at the Alliance.

White House threatens budget veto

(Cross posted at Rants 'n Reviews) White House threatens budget veto "The White House on Saturday threatened to veto a massive spending bill being assembled by congressional Democrats, saying it's unacceptable to add billions of dollars to domestic programs." But it's okay to add trillions (yes, trillions) of dollars to foreign programs. For a guy not into nation building, I guess one could say he's into nation destruction: Our own as well as Iraq's. Merry Christmas!

Military Families Turn On Bush Republicans

Appearing at The Jaundiced Eye, the Independent Bloggers' Alliance, and My Left Wing. "The man went into Iraq without justification, without a plan; he just decided to go in there and win, and he had no idea what was going to happen. There have been terrible deaths on our side, and it's even worse for the Iraqi population. It's another Vietnam." -- Mary MacNeely, Mother of Air Force Reservist Vietnam, which ruptured this country in incalculable ways. Among them, a right/left split that moved most military and military families to kneejerk Republican allegiance. Speaking as a member of one of those few left-leaning military families, let me say that I have seen this this coming; this Republican loss of its reliable military voter base. Families with ties to the military, long a reliable source of support for wartime presidents, disapprove of President Bush and his handling of the war in Iraq, with a majority concluding the invasion was not worth it, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll has found. The views of the military community, which includes active-duty service members, veterans and their family members, mirror those of the overall adult population, a sign that the strong military endorsement that the administration often pointed to has dwindled in the war's fifth year. The Bush Administration's obsessive pursuit of "victory" in Iraq has not only managed to destroy its own support from military culture, but that of its party. When military families were asked which party could be trusted to do a better job of handling issues related to them, respondents divided almost evenly: 39% said Democrats and 35% chose Republicans. The general population feels similarly: 39% for Democrats and 31% for Republicans. And, I'm sure it doesn't help when chicken-hawks like Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell belittle the sacrifice of our all-volunteer military. Unfortunately, most of our friends on the other isle are having a hard time admitting things are getting better; some days I almost think the critics of this war don't want us to win. Nobody is happy about losing lives but remember these are not draftees, these are full-time professional soldiers. How much is wrong with that statement? For one thing... Democrats live on a island? Shouldn't that be "other side of the aisle?" Perhaps it was a transcription error and I should point the finger at the Grayson County News-Gazette. Or perhaps McConnell really does strand the Democrats of his imagination at sea, with Gilligan and the Skipper, too. It would not surprise me. The man is apparently so out of touch with reality that he has no awareness that we are losing members from every branch of the military, not just the army (soldiers), and that many of those currently risking life and limb are not full-time military professionals, but reservists who are, on top of other indignities, losing the income of their regular salaries to collect, in many cases, significantly lower military wages. Mitch McConnell, a shining example of Republican military advocacy; lionizing our "brave troops" one minute, and displaying his near total ignorance of the realities of military life the next. "I don't see gains for the people of Iraq . . . and, oh, my God, so many wonderful young people, and these are the ones who felt they were really doing something, that's why they signed up. I pray to God that they did not die in vain, but I don't think our president is even sensitive at all to what it's like to have a child serving over there." -- Sue Datta, Mother of Army Staff Sergeant Being in an active duty military family creates a certain isolation and a sense of internal community. We are, in many ways, cut off from the sense of geographical community that many Americans define by. We move a lot, so it is the military bases, commissaries, and the surround of other military families that is the most reliable constant. The result is, among, other things a conformity of viewpoint within that community. Particularly because he is an officer, my husband has long dealt with the "presumption of Republicanism." You are assumed to be Republican and conservative unless you openly state otherwise. That's been the case throughout my husband's military career, but it may not be so for much longer. From the beginning of this push to go into Iraq, there were rumblings. I was somewhat surprised to learn that I was not the only military spouse who was pissed as hell at the idea of my husband deploying for a war that made no fucking sense. One of my husband's Marines officially changed his party affiliation from Republican to Independent the day he got his orders. And, when I went to protests in my largely military town, Marines were seen walking by giving the thumbs up to the protesters. This war has never been as popular with military culture as Bush's staged photo-ops, with their props in uniform, would have you think. Five years later, what we are seeing is a sea change. Military families are becoming fed up with a President and a political party that does not serve their interests. Asked about the Bush administration's handling of the needs of active-duty troops, military families and veterans, 57% of the general public disapprove. That number falls only slightly among military families -- 53% give a thumbs-down. And most military families and others surveyed took no exception to retired officers publicly criticizing the Bush administration's execution of the war. More than half of the respondents in both groups -- 58% -- say such candor is appropriate. Families with someone who had served in the war are about equally supportive at 55%. The Bush Administration will not be able to hide behind the military for much longer, and defend his misguided policies as supporting troops who want "to get the job done." Not when 60% of military families say "the Iraq war is not worth the cost," and 58% want the within a year. "We support the troops; we don't support Bush. These boys have paid a terrible, terrible price." -- Linda Ramirez, Mother of US Marine

John McCain, Name That Tune!

Crossposted from Left Toon Lane, Bilerico Project & My Left Wing click to enlargeThe only other "opps" that has been bigger than the recent NIE for Iran was going to war with Iraq for no damn reason. That was the Mack Daddy of "oppses." On some fronts, (the fronts here in the US) the backpedaling and massaging of previous statements is in high gear. On other fronts, especially those of Conservative bent, have themselves gone ballistic. Morning Joe Scarborough and even one of the few remaining Nixon tools, Pat Buchanan, have actually stood up, donned their best Thomas Jefferson costume and called bullshit on the Bush Administration. Hell, now even Pat Buchanan is waving around the Downing Street Memo for crying out loud. PAT! The alleged Liberal MSM has been going round the clock on this story with an eye-opener approach. Most shocking to me was Chris Matthews last night who damn near knocked the NeoCon poser silly. When we as a nation screw-up our foreign policy so bad that is makes the likes of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad look like King of Morality, it shows our government is truly adrift. I swear to God, if Joe starts using The Dixie Chicks as bumper music on his show, it could signal the death rattle of the Neo Conservative movement. The real question is what will be the next song John McCain starts singing now that "Bomb Iran" is out of vogue? The Yellowcake of Texas? Hmmm....

An Interview With Iranian Expert and Journalist Barbara Slavin

The topic below was originally posted on my blog, the Intrepid Liberal Journal as well as The Peace Tree, the Independent Bloggers Alliance and Worldwide Sawdust. Barbara Slavin, senior diplomatic correspondent for USA Today since 1996 and author of the recently published book, Bitter Friends, Bosom Enemies: Iran, the U.S., and the Twisted Path to Confrontation (St. Martin’s Press), writes that, “Iran and the United States are like a once happily married couple that has gone through a bitter divorce. Harsh words have been exchanged – husband and wife have come to blows and employed others to inflict more punishment. Apologizing is hard and changing behavior even harder. This relationship is unequal, with one side or the other feeling more vulnerable at any given time and afraid the other will take advantage of concessions.” Currently, the public faces of both nations, presidents George W. Bush and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, have been content to throw rhetorical bombs and raise the diplomatic temperature – increasing the likelihood of war. Indeed, at times it appears that conservative hardliners in both countries are eager for conflict as a means to maintain their respective grips on power. The journey from the CIA backed coup that overthrew Iran’s democratically elected leader Mossadeq in 1953 and replaced him with the Shah, to the Islamic Revolution of 1979 and current tensions is replete with ill conceived schemes that damaged both nations. Slavin, using her extensive contacts among the powerful inside Iran and the United States, documents missed opportunities for reconciliation between both countries during the administrations of the first President Bush as well as Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. The combination of her remarkable access to people such as Madeline Albright, Condelezza Rice, Iranian reformers like former President Mohammad Khatami, longtime establishment figures such as Ali Rafsanjani, as well as dissidents like Akbar Ganji and everyday citizens, allows Slavin to shed sunlight on a nation most Americans know very little about. She is also the first newspaper reporter from the United States to interview Iranian President Ahmadinejad. Slavin has accompanied three secretaries of State on their official travels and reported from Iran, Libya, Israel, Egypt, North Korea, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia and Syria. She is also a regular commentator for U.S. foreign policy on National Public Radio, the Public Broadcasting System's Washington Week In Review and C-Span. This month, she joined the U.S. Institute of Peace as a Jennings Randolph fellow, to continue her research on Iran. Slavin also serves as a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Prior to joining USA Today, Slavin was a Washington-based writer for The Economist and the Los Angeles Times, covering domestic and foreign policy issues, including the 1991-93 Middle East peace talks in Washington. From 1985-89, she was The Economist's correspondent in Cairo. During her career, Slavin has traveled widely in the Middle East, covering the Iran-Iraq war, the 1986 U.S. bombing of Libya, the political evolution of the Palestine Liberation Organization and the resurgence of Islamic fundamentalism. Earlier in the 1980s, Slavin also served as The Economist's correspondent in Beijing and reported from Japan and South Korea. Prior to moving abroad, she worked as a writer and editor for The New York Times Week in Review section and a reporter and editor for United Press International in New York City. Slavin agreed to a podcast interview with me about her book, Iran and their turbulent relationship with the United States. Please refer to the media player below. Our conversation is just under thirty minutes. This interview can also be accessed via the Itunes Store by searching for “Intrepid Liberal Journal.”

Bush v. Congress: Armenian Genocide

Appearing at The Jaundiced Eye, the Independent Bloggers' Alliance, and My Left Wing. As discussed here and here, there is still ongoing debate over whether or not the mass slaughter of Armenians at the hands of the Young Turks qualifies as a "genocide." A symbolic piece of legislation, pressed by Speaker Pelosi and approved by committee to go to the full Congress, hours ago, would acknowledge the Armenian genocide. This, over President Bush's objections, as he moves aggressively to sideline it. President Bush and two top cabinet members urged lawmakers today to reject a resolution describing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Armenians early in the last century as genocide — a highly sensitive issue at a time of rising tensions with Turkey over northern Iraq. “We all deeply regret the tragic suffering of the Armenian people that began in 1915,” Mr. Bush said in a brief statement from the White House. “But this resolution is not the right response to these historic mass killings, and its passage would do great harm to relations with a key ally in NATO and to the war on terror.” . . . Adding to the tensions are the recent Turkish preparations for a possible invasion of northern Iraq in an effort to stop lethal incursions by armed Kurdish militants of the Kurdistan Workers Party, or PKK. . . . When the resolution seemed likely to reach a vote last spring, Ms. Rice and Mr. Gates joined in a strongly worded letter to Ms. Pelosi warning against passage. They repeated their arguments Wednesday. “The passage of this resolution at this time would be very problematic for everything we are trying to do in the Middle East,” Ms. Rice said. Yes, acknowledging that Armenians were subject to a genocide would make President Bush's job even harder and we all know that being President is hard work. But one must truly wonder where all that "moral clarity" he's so famous for goes when it's inconvenient. Over this, he wants to be a diplomat?! So, was what happened to the Armenians a genocide? According to the late Raphael Lemkin, who created the word "genocide," and spent his life pressing for international law forbidding it, it most definitely was. The Crime With No Name “I became interested in genocide because it happened to the Armenians; and after[wards] the Armenians got a very rough deal at the Versailles Conference because their criminals were guilty of genocide and were not punished. ” -- Raphael Lemkin

You Don't Say

Appearing at The Jaundiced Eye, the Independent Bloggers' Alliance, and My Left Wing. "Over the past two and a half years, I have seen tyranny, dishonesty, corruption and depravity of types I never thought possible. I've seen things I didn't know man was capable of." -- Alberto Ganzales Alberto Gonzales on the occasion of his resignation from the post of Attorney General of the United States; September 14, 2007.

The question Bush can't answer.

Crossposted from Left Toon Lane, Bilerico Project & My Left Wing click to enlargeThat is the big question isn't it? I know Cheney is the real President and Bush is the puppet, but how will things go without Rove? Will Rove simply phone it in? I don't think that level of governmental and media manipulation can occur if you are in the middle of Texas armed with nothing but a Blackberry. My theory is, the push into Iran will continue along with everything else on Cheney's to-do list, but Rove won't be around to hold together what is left of the GOP. That was something Rove was good at, keeping the Republicans in Congress on track even though BushCo was ripping the nation apart. Without Rove's hands-on cheerleading / arm twisting / bald-faced lies, I doubt the Congressional GOP will stay on track with President Bush as much as they have been. What will keep them on board? Cheney's warm, loving presence? If anything, Rove's departure may destabilize the GOP. At some point, they know they will need to start covering their ass and without Rove's people management skills, there may be a sea change coming for this White House. SPECIAL FAVOR SECTION Never let it be said liberals don't support the troops. During the first Gulf War, I began collecting books to send to my college friends serving in Saudi Arabia. I must have sent hundreds of books. When US troops got deployed to Iraq, I started doing it again but I knew the job was too big for one person to do it, so I set up Books For Soldiers, a 501 (c)(3) charity to send free books, dvds and video games to deployed US soldiers. But I wasn't that smart since I only thought the war would last 6 weeks tops in Iraq. What was I thinking? Now, FOUR years later, we are still shipping books. But today I need your help. There is a contest sponsored by VAJoe.com, they will contribute $2,000 to charitable military organizations next month in its Charity for Charities event. You can vote on your favorite charitable military organizations. The top four charitable organizations and a randomly selected organization will share $2,000 in donations from VAJoe. Books for Soldiers has been included in the event. The Alexa Traffic Rank for BooksForSoldiers.com is 242,975 and you would not believe our bandwidth bills! So these next few days, I am asking (begging actually) for your vote for Books For Soldiers. It won't take you 30 seconds to help a liberal out! CLICK HERE TO VOTE! A short, fast and easy site registration is required. P.S. Thank-you Michael Moore for supporting BFS. P.P.S. if you just want to donate, click here.

Meanwhile, Somewhere In A Parallel Universe...

Weekly Original Cartoon Round-Up

CARTOON OF THE WEEK The newest Cartoon of the Week comes from our newest artist, Kelly Ferguson, of Liberal Angst. Every day liberal cartoonists are hard at work, doodling while avoiding their real jobs and responsibilities. Sometimes you see the results, and sometimes you don't. At Left 'Toon Lane we think a cartoon is worth a thousand words, and that sometimes the Bush Administration is so perfectly ironic that only a cartoon can capture the reality. This week six different artists produced fifteen different cartoons about today's politics. I hope you enjoy them, and that you'll come to Left 'Toon Lane, not just for the jokes, but for art and artists to punch up your own blogs and publications. You can see all this week's cartoons, in full size, at Left 'Toon Lane.

Toy Soldiers- a George W. Bush Cartoon

CLICK PICTURE FOR MORE cross-posted at Left 'Toon Lane Does Bush even know the difference anymore? From "Shock and Awe" to the "Surge," the whole war in Iraq has looked more like a child playing with toys than real war planning. We went in with a "Plan" to smash 'em up, to blast 'em with all our stuff. Then, you see, the game would be over. Maybe time for a nap, maybe Mom's calling for lunch, but everybody would just stop playing. But they didn't. And now we have the "Surge." Really stop and think about that for a minute. We're having a "Surge," but we're running out of soldiers. Does that sound like war planning, or like a kid whining "Mommy, PUH-LEEEAAZE get me another bag of soldiers, PUH- LEEEAAZE!?" George W. Bush. Most powerful man in the world. Ten year old. And a pretty bratty one at that.

Why Won't Bush Support The Troops?

Appearing at The Blogging Curmudgeon, My Left Wing, and the Independent Bloggers' Alliance. This is what President Bush had to say about the now vetoed funding bill passed by a Democratic Congress: I recognize that many Democrats saw this bill as an opportunity to make a political statement about their opposition to the war. They sent their message, and now it is time to put politics behind us and support our troops with the funds they need. It appears that giving the troops what they need does not include little things like wages. As that same Democratically led Congress tries to get our troops a slightly higher wage increase, the response from the White House is a flat, "No." The House was set to vote for a 3.5 percent basic pay increase for January 2008. That’s 0.5 percent higher than proposed by the Bush administration. The House would continue a string of annual raises set 0.5 percent higher than private sector wage growth through at least 2012. A 3 percent raise next January would be enough to keep military pay competitive, said the White House’s Office of Management and Budget in a “Statement of Administration Policy” on the bill, HR 1585, released May 16. ... “When combined with the overall military benefit package, the President’s proposal provides a good quality of life for servicemembers and their families,” said the OMB letter to committee leaders. Oh, really! A "good quality of life." As of now, the base pay for an E1, the lowest pay grade, is $15, 616.80 a year. I'm not going to factor in the BAH (Basic Housing Allowance) because that figure varies tremendously. Many salary estimates include them, resulting in inflated estimates. BAH varies based on number of dependents, if any, and location. And BAH is only paid to those troops who maintain off-base housing. In other words, if you're deployed into a war zone, and have no dependents requiring housing, you receive no BAH. Basic Allowances for Housing (BAH) can vary from as much as $3,464 monthly for married officers in an expensive location (such as San Francisco) to a low of $428 monthly for a single enlisted E-1 living in a less expensive location. Basic Allowance for Housing rates, or BAH rates, are determined by surveys of the civilian housing market in over 350 U.S. locations. In 2006, BAH rates increased by 4.4 percent, ranging from $1,429.20 monthly for a general to $285.30 for an E-1 without dependents. Having lived with my Marine Corps Officer husband in one of those more expensive areas, I can tell you that the BAH is frequently inadequate to cover true housing costs. There are other factors that add to the base pay, such as combat and hazardous duty pay, for those troops who are deployed into a war zone, but no matter how you slice it, our troops are paid less than the average teacher. And while I think teachers are hideously underpaid for their labors, they are not uprooted every couple of years -- which severely limits the earning potential of non-military spouses -- nor does their job involve taking enemy fire... generally speaking. Congressional Democrats want to see our currently very strained troops receive fairer compensation. Top Democratic leaders vowed to continue their efforts to enact a larger raise, arguing that members of the armed forces and their families deserve annual pay raises higher than the private sector due to the dangers of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But, in a move unsurprising to those of us who have been actively observing Bush Administration policy, the White House is endeavoring to put the kibosh on any thought of even this nominally higher pay increase. As I have said many times, the lavish funding the Pentagon receives does not trickle down to the men and women who are actually putting their lives on the line. It goes to the care and feeding of the the military-industrial complex. Congress often adds money to the annual White House spending request for military programs. Yet the newly elected Congress, which is controlled by Democrats, has placed more emphasis on increasing funding for military personnel than for weapons programs such as missile defense systems, according to MacKenzie Eaglen , a national security specialist at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative-leaning public policy think tank. "This bill [passed by the House] promotes the softer spending -- such as healthcare, compensation, and readiness -- rather than equipment and weapons," she said. She said she worries, like the White House, that too much spending on compensation and other personnel costs could unduly drain funding from vital weapons systems. Worse. The companies making billions in Pentagon contracts are not necessarily those who build the better mouse trap. They're the ones with the best political connections. Which is why, for instance, the Osprey is still flying clumsily along and why Dragon Skin body armor loses out to Interceptor from Armor Holdings. (Hat-tip: occams hatchet) So while people like, say George "Slam Dunk" Tenet, line their pockets, our troops are making crap wages to take enemy fire in insufficient body armor. In addition to its desire to keep military pay raises to a minimum, the Bush White House has expressed an interest in raising the Tri-Care (health insurance) fees and eliminating drug price controls for retired military. Because, you know, our veterans don't get fucked badly enough now. None of these cynical maneuvers should come as a shock. This is the same Administration that cut its funding request in half for research on and treatment of the signature injury of our current conflict; brain damage. It's the same Administration that slashed impact aid funding, which pays for the education of children of military families, at the outset of the war in Iraq. It's the same Administration that turns a blind eye to Iraq Vets who return to the US to live on the streets. Here is but a partial list of funding cuts for both active duty and veterans advocated by the Bush Administration. Remember that next time Bush scolds his detractors for failing to support the troops.

Serve Your Country -- Lose Your Kids

Appearing at The Blogging Curmudgeon, My Left Wing, and the Independent Bloggers' Alliance. Now there's a trade off, huh? Add this to the list of sacrifices that the small minority of Americans known as "our troops" is making for Bush and his cronies. Men and women in the armed services are losing their kids in custody battles for no reason other than being deployed. Such was the reality of Lt. Eva Crouch, who returned from her National Guard duty to find that she had stumbled into a legal gray area. A federal law called the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act is meant to protect them by staying civil court actions and administrative proceedings during military activation. They can't be evicted. Creditors can't seize their property. Civilian health benefits, if suspended during deployment, must be reinstated. And yet service members' children can be _ and are being _ taken from them after they are deployed. Some family court judges say that determining what's best for a child in a custody case is simply not comparable to deciding civil property disputes and the like; they have ruled that family law trumps the federal law protecting servicemembers. And so, in many cases when a soldier deploys, the ex-spouse seeks custody, and temporary changes become lasting. Family court judges have a fair bit of latitude because their mandate is best interest of the child; not necessarily what seems fair to parents. And in a sense, judges such as the one who handed Eva's daughter over to her ex-husband have a point. Endless war is terrible for the children and family members of the troops who have to fight it; especially given that many of them are serving in back to back deployments of ever-increasing duration. Two years and $25, ooo dollars later, Crouch has regained custody of her daughter Sara. But an unknown number of other service people have returned from battle to fight on another front; the courts. Military and family law experts don't know how big the problem is, but 5.4 percent of active duty members _ more than 74,000 _ are single parents, the Department of Defense reports. More than 68,000 Guard and reserve members are also single parents. Divorce among military men and women also has risen some in recent years, with more than 23,000 enlisted members and officers divorcing in 2005. Isn't it wonderful having a President who is so devoted to family values?

Log Cabin Polar Bears

A lot of kids need their REAL daddies and mommies to come home

I just saw this at Crooks and Liars: The troops want to “finish the job”? Apparently that's what Bush said in a speech today. Steve at C&L adds: ...last week, once soldiers started hearing about Bush extending their tours, there were “outbursts of anger and frustration laced with dark humor.” Specialist Rodney Lawson, to no one in particular, said, “If I get malaria, I get to leave, right?” Earlier today, I saw an essay in the Columbus Dispatch (originally from the New York Times News Service) entitled Flat Daddy leaves mommy deflated. Alison Buckholtz, the wife of a Navy pilot and mother of two small children shared her thoughts on having a "Flat Daddy"--a life-size cutout of her husband's likeness--in her home. ...He was a fake husband whose frozen cheerful expression -- the same dimpled grin I'd fallen for on a steamy August evening at a cafe in Washington -- gave me no comfort. He only reminded me of what I was missing. But Ethan and Esther loved hanging out with Flat Daddy, so I couldn't take him out of their lives. Instead, whenever I needed a reprieve, I'd put him in the upstairs office, where they never went, and then I'd feel guilty and immediately return him to the family room. One morning, we headed off to my son's preschool, where that day another 4-year-old was giving a presentation about his dad, who was stationed in Iraq for the year. But Ethan refused to enter the room, crying hysterically and clinging to me as I tried to leave. When the teacher explained to him that the little boy was going to talk about his daddy because he missed him, Ethan started screaming, "But I miss my daddy!" I offered to go home to get Flat Daddy. My son looked at me as if I had lost my mind, then burst into a fresh round of crying: "Flat Daddy's not real" was all he could say. Flat Daddy was no substitute for an ongoing conversation about how real Daddy's absences were affecting us. Watching my son come unglued forced me to see that Flat Daddy wasn't fooling anyone. Ms. Buckholtz goes on to say that she admires the creativity and generosity of the people who are offering Flat Daddies (and Mommies) to the families of those serving in the military overseas, but "it's all in how it works for each family". She came to realize that, for her own family, a better solution was to tuck Flat Daddy away in a corner of the guest room, and spend more time talking with the kids about how real Daddy's absences were affecting them. I can't help but think that I'd like to see Flat Daddies and Mommies sent to the people who are pushing to continue this war. I want them to have to look at those faces every day, and be reminded that they are actual human beings who are being kept from their families, and who are missing important milestones as their children grow up.