Tonight, after months of conferences with top advisors, President Obama has settled on a new strategy for Afghanistan. CBS News correspondent David Martin reports that the president will send a lot more troops and plans to keep a large force there, long term. ...
The first combat troops would not arrive until early next year and it would be the end of 2010 before they were all there. That makes this Afghanistan surge very different from the Iraq surge, in which 30,000 troops descended on Baghdad and the surrounding area in just five months.
This seems like madness to me -- worse yet, in slow motion -- but I guess I'll just have to hope to be proven wrong. The article includes quotes about how Karzai has to clean up government. Please. He just stole an election.
So what will our five Republican Congressmen do? Will they vote to support the war -- this seems to be what they wanted -- or will they take the opportunity to bring down the President by voting no on military budgets?
And will our ten Democrats do? Are they going to allow $4 billion or more a month to be borrowed and thrown away after we endured all these lectures about the deficit? Will they tie war funding to a tax so that we find out if the American people really support this indefinite occupation? Rush Holt's website says "Rep. Holt does not believe the U.S. military commitment in Afghanistan should be open ended. He has co -sponsored legislation that would require the Secretary of Defense to present to Congress an exit strategy for Afghanistan." According to CBS, this is the opposite of an exit strategy:
With 68,000 Americans already there, the Afghan surge would mean there would be 100,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan by the end of the president's first term.
In any case, the last NBC/WSJ poll says Obama just picked the least popular option (49% saying this choice is not acceptable, with only 43% saying it is acceptable.) so I wonder how Democrats expect to win any elections. Our country is being looted by the elites and I guess there's nothing anyone can do about it. We are stuck on the path of Empire.
Does anyone think calling Congress will do any good?
Obama hasn't received final options that he has requested, neither has he reviewed those alternatives with his national security team, said National Security Adviser James Jones, responding to reports by the Associated Press and CBS News. The AP reported Obama would add "tens of thousands more forces," while CBS said he plans to send four combat brigades plus thousands more support troops.
"Reports that President Obama has made a decision about Afghanistan are absolutely false," Jones said in a e-mailed statement today. "Any reports to the contrary are completely untrue and come from uninformed sources."
Whether the decision was reached today or not isn't what's important. We'll see soon what happens.
A weekend visit to Afghanistan convinced Rep. John Adler, D-N.J., that he should support any forthcoming request for more troops from the Obama administration because there is a clear chance to "achieve definable success" for America's goals there, the congressman said Thursday.
"We went over there wondering if there's an end game for the U.S. in Afghanistan," said Adler, who was part of a six-member congressional delegation who returned Monday after a couple of days in Kabul, on American bases and walking streets in secured Afghan villages.
That's been the question all along. What is the end game and what is the mission in Afghanistan to achieve that end:
Talking to American troops and seeing their results on the ground reassured Adler that he should support sending more troops, to take advantage of "the chance for long-term sovereignty and stability" for Afghanistan, he said.
"Where we've put new troops in in recent months, we've had enormous success," Adler said in a telephone news conference.
It's good to see successes and while they're certainly something to point to, the questions remain of how many more troops will we need to send now and over time, and how long will it take to achieve the end game?
Many reports suggest that the President may send more troops over to Afghanistan, but they're still discussing what numbers they will send. Whatever he says, Adler has signaled he will support the President's decision.
Many believe that Walter Cronkite's famous broadcast following the Tet Offensive is what turned American public opinion against the war in Vietnam.
Conventional wisdom said: lose Cronkite, and you lose the nation.
Well, Obama just turned a similar page.
While Garrison Keiilor is no news broadcaster of Cronkite's stature, he does shape the opinion and speak for what Ibsen referred to as "the compact majority"
Keillor concluded another of his lovely essays with this appeal to Obama:
Time to move on. Tell the others. It's a brand-new day. Let us start making our way on out of Afghanistan, Mr. President.
Iraq and Afghanistan: What is the Way Out?
Dahr Jamail speaks at NJ Peace Action 52nd Annual Soup Luncheon
Saturday, November 21st at Columbia High School in Maplewood
For Immediate Release
October 9, 2009
Dahr Jamail will be speaking at NJ Peace Action's 52nd Annual Soup Luncheon on Saturday, November 21st, at Columbia High School in Maplewood. His topic will be "Iraq and Afghanistan: What is the Way Out?" Since the nation just marked the 8th anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, this program could not be more timely. The program runs from 11:45am to 4:00pm with Dahr Jamail speaking just after 2:00pm.
Dahr Jamail, a political activist and unembedded journalist from Anchorage, Alaska, first traveled to Iraq in November 2003 to write about the effects of the US occupation on the Iraqi people. After nine weeks covering the occupation, he returned to the US and addressed audiences in Alaska and the Northeast about his experience. As his articles at dahrjamailiraq.com became more widely referenced, his reputation grew quickly as a courageous journalist for whom the pursuit of the truth was worth risking his life. He is the author of Beyond the Green Zone (Haymarket Books, 2007) and The Will to Resist: Soldiers Who Refuse to Fight in Iraq and Afghanistan (Haymarket Books, 2009).
"Dahr Jamail is one of the few reporters brave and principled enough to report independently on the conflicts, instead of being embedded with military units fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan. His presentation could not be any more timely," said Madelyn Hoffman, Director of NJ Peace Action. "President Obama is currently deciding whether to send thousands of additional troops to Afghanistan on the advice of General McChrystal or to pursue an alternative approach to ending the conflict, particularly since public opposition to the on-going war is steadily increasing. It is essential to hear from an independent voice at this critical juncture - as we make the case against an escalation in the number of troops being sent to Afghanistan."
When asked about the decision facing President Obama regarding an increase in troops to Afghanistan, Dahr replied "The US invasion and occupation of Afghanistan violates both international law as well as the US constitution. I feel it is fair to ask this question to the President: given the law, and given that you are a constitutional lawyer yourself, how can you, as President, justify sending more troops into an occupation that violates the UN Charter and the US Constitution?"
"The US is a signatory nation of the UN Charter," continues Dahr Jamail. "According to the UN Charter, there are only two reasons why any country is allowed to go to war. The first is in self-defense and second is only with UN Security Council Ratification. The US invasion and occupation of Afghanistan is not a just war, as it meets neither of these criteria. Given the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution, Article 6 Paragraph 2, which tells us all foreign treaties the US signs become the supreme law of our land, the US invasion and occupation of Afghanistan violates both international law as well as the US constitution."
Dahr writes for the Inter Press Service and many other outlets and is a regular guest on the radio show, Democracy Now! His extraordinary reporting talent has earned him numerous awards, including the prestigious 2008 Martha Gellhorn Award for Journalism, The Lannan Foundation Writing Residency Fellowship, the James Aronson Award for Social Justice Journalism, the Joe A. Callaway Award for Civic Courage, and four Project Censored awards.
Some of Dahr Jamail's most compelling observations appear below:
- On Journalism:
"Since an informed citizenry is the basis for a healthy democracy, independent, non-corporate media are more crucial today than ever before."
- On Reporting about Iraq:
"I feel it imperative to maintain a solid presence of independent journalists in Iraq, as there are so few. Most of the mainstream media are just parroting the news fed to them by the CPA and military."
- On Veterans:
"It is a painful irony that some of those who volunteered to serve and defend our nation are now left particularly defenseless and vulnerable as a direct consequence of its ill advised foreign adventures."
- On American Ignorance of the occupation:
"I keep wondering how long it can go on; how long so many people in my home country will continue to ignore it, to be complicit, whether they know it or not, in our brutal occupation -- so long after it was proven beyond a shadow of a shadow of a doubt that this war was illegal and based on nothing but lies. "
Reservations for the Soup Luncheon are $25 before November 10th and $30 after that. Reservations can also be made on line, by clicking
here.
For more information contact: Madelyn Hoffman, Executive Director of NJ Peace Action, 973-259-1126 (office), (973)876-1023(cell)
As New Jerseyans, we can intimately recall the events of September 11, 2001 and remember the panic, outrage, and grief that washed over us. Memories of the hole in the Manhattan skyline, the smoke that blanketed our suburban skies and the pain of losing nearly 700 of our neighbors still lingers eight years on.
Like a line of demarcation running through our collective consciousness, the force of our initial reaction may have lessened with time but there is no doubt that our national life is forever changed. In the aftermath of the horrific attacks, determined to prevent terrorism from returning to our shores, we launched two wars and surrendered certain freedoms in the name of homeland security. Eight years later, the consequences of those decisions and the challenges they were intended to overcome remain. Osama bin Laden is at large. Al Qaeda, though its strength is diminished, continues its war of terror against the West. Prisoners still wait at Guantanamo Bay, and American men and women still serve overseas prepared to lay down their lives in defense of our national interest.
Many progressives are reluctant to discuss the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. We are divided between wanting an immediate end to the conflict and a desire to defeat the agents of terrorism. We are also distracted. Angry town hall meetings, death panels, and in New Jersey, talk of driving records consume our attention. Ours is a country at war, but one would be hard pressed to see that when considering the issues dominating our national and state discourse.
Sure, life goes on. There are pressing domestic concerns that must also be addressed. Health care reform should be enacted. Chris Christie's record should be examined. Yet the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq have lasted longer than America's involvement in the Second World War, and as progressives, we have failed to demand our leaders present a path to victory or a plan for peace.
This is the greatest question of our time and our movement is asleep at the wheel. Perhaps we were traumatized by the Bush Administration's politicization of national security, and by no means do I seek a return to 2002, when agreeing with Republican principles was a question of patriotism. What I seek is engagement. We cannot relegate the reality of war to the back of our minds and content ourselves with talk of health care reform when America's sons and daughters are dying for a cause that many in our country no longer deem worthy of their attention.
Victory, much like our war against Nazism, requires that we fully devote ourselves to our present endeavor. We may decide to see this through to the end or we may decide these wars are no longer worth the cost of life and treasure. Nonetheless, we must choose our course. Progressives understand that timidity is the great enemy of success, and the current situation demands more than hanging a flag from the front porch. It demands our engagement.
Years from now, our children will ask us what we did to help our country in the aftermath of September 11, 2001. What we say then will depend on what we do now. History will be the ultimate arbiter of our actions. Let us engage.
Now this is pretty cool. The Yellow Ribbon Club is a non-partisan organization that was started in South Jersey and works to support our armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan through shipping care packages, promoting and fostering welcome home events for local veterans and providing monetary assistance to us military hospitals and care facilities. Here is an audio interview with the founder of the organization Leslie Drummond from WPHT, who explained how she started the club in September of 2005 when her son was in Iraq and she began organizing the delivery of care packages. The group has grown from Leslie's efforts.
At one point during the encore, Vedder mentioned a letter he got from a fan that really moved him, in which the writer of the letter talked about the impact Pearl Jam's music had on his life and how he was inspired by Eddie Vedder to begin volunteering for an organization called the Yellow Ribbon Club that raises money to support US troops. As he told the story, he noticed a visibly emotional couple in the front row and discovered that it was the same couple that had written the letter. It was a very touching moment as he hugged them and thanked them for the letter, and announced that he and Pearl Jam would be contributing to the organization. It is moments like this that make you realize the ability music has to bring people together and impact their lives in a powerful way.
The organization has received over 60,000 hits on their website since the concert and article. In full disclosure, I have volunteered with the club for many events including their recent car washes, which were organized by David J. Sliver, the writer of the letter which inspired Vedder's support. They are a fantastic organization that does wondeful work and the families are so dedicated to supporting their own. Below the fold, i'll put a video of a recent welcome home they organized for a soldier coming home from his fifth tour of duty in Iraq. You can learn more about their efforts.
Now that a Democrat is in the White House, the political dynamics of voting for war funding have changed. Would Republicans vote any spending bill from this President, after so many pro-war votes? Would Democrats who opposed previous supplementals now vote in favor? And would Scott Garrett ever vote with a majority of New Jersey Representatives?
Congressman Rush Holt joined Speaker Nancy Pelosi visiting foreign leaders, military leaders, and troops (including NJ National Guardsmen and women in Iraq) in Jordan, Qatar, Kuwait, and Iraq on a trip that began last Thursday and saw them return home last night:
Yesterday morning in London, Pelosi and Holt met with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown to discuss the international economic crisis, climate change, trade and the United Kingdom's participation in the multinational force in Afghanistan.
This weekend, Pelosi and Holt also met with King Abdullah and Queen Rania of Jordan, the Emir and Sheikha of Jordan, and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki of Iraq, among other leaders.
Senator Menendez appeared yesterday afternoon on MSNBC to talk about economic and foreign policy issues and how they are related. They also talked politics with the Senator in his role as DSCC chair and whether it's been hard recruiting candidates to run for open seats. Menendez debunked the question pointing to all the good challengers they have on the bench. Finally they tossed him a question on Cuba, to which Menendez now called on Cuba to take the next steps following the actions that President Obama has already taken:
The Asbury Park Press examined some of the challenges facing veterans as they return from active duty home to civilian life. One of the disturbing pieces of information however is this comment about the lack of knowledge to just how big the problem is:
"Nobody has a handle on who's coming back, or how many, or how it's going to impact on the job market in New Jersey,"
We don't even know what help they will need when they return home. Not to mention they're returning home to a much more difficult job market than when they left. The article says that states across the country are facing this problem. 200 Marine reservists returned from Iraq just last week and some 3,000 National Guardsmen from New Jersey are scheduled to come home in July. The state needs to get a handle on this situation so that they can provide the necessary care and training to facilitate a smooth transition back to civilian life. We don't want to see our returning veterans fall through the cracks.
Senators Menendez and Harkin of Iowa released a new Government Accountability Office report they requested yesterday revealing a failure in U.S efforts to root out terrorists in Pakistan's border region through the end of the Bush administration. The full report is 61 pages, but the Senators offered this summary:
Despite more than $12.3 billion in U.S. assistance to Pakistan since 9/11, almost $8.7 billion of which was in reimbursements for Pakistani military operations, the independent GAO found the following over the course of 2008:
The United States had not met its national security goals to destroy terrorist threats and close the safe haven in Pakistan's FATA [Federally Administered Tribal Areas];
The United States lacked a comprehensive plan to meet those goals that included all elements of national power - diplomatic, military, intelligence, development assistance, economic, and law enforcement support - called for by various national security strategies and Congress, as well as key components we have previously reported as being needed to improve the effectiveness of plans involving multiple departments; and
Increased oversight and accountability was needed over Pakistan's reimbursement claims for Coalition Support Funds (CSF). [Pg. 2]
The GAO cites some efforts last year within the Department of Defense and the State Department to increase coordination of U.S. agencies with respect to Pakistan and within the Department of Defense to increase oversight of military reimbursements, but still raises questions as to the effectiveness and scope of those efforts.
Menendez had this to say about the conclusions:
"By just about every measure that matters - falling short of national security goals, inefficient use of taxpayer money and failure to adapt - it's clear that the strategy in place over the past seven years must be rethought if we are to improve our security," said Senator Menendez. "Without a doubt, this involves complicated issues in a volatile region, but results are what matter, and the result of the previous policy is that our nation's top enemy is revitalized. As the chairman of the Foreign Relations subcommittee in charge of international assistance programs, I look forward to working on a policy that focuses assistance on institutions that help ensure long-term stability and minimize the threat in Pakistan."
Its a pretty damning report criticizing just about every aspect of the policy. I definitely like that my Senator is trying to get answers on this important problem we're facing. It's one thing to spend the money, but another to spend it wisely. It's good to see them doing the oversight we need because the only way to get the policy right is to continue monitoring its effectiveness. We can't really afford to get this one wrong.
The House Armed Services Committee will be holding a hearing tomorrow at 10:30am, U.S. Strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan: Balancing Interests and Resources.
Here's a chance for Rob Andrews to ask some tough questions and show he meant what he said during his primary run, at least regarding his about-face on Iraq.
United for Peace and Justice is asking people to call members of the committee and Committee Chair Ike Skelton with a couple of questions for the panel. UFPJ notes that there is no panelist who clearly opposes the wars.
Rep. Rob Andrews 202-225-6501 or 856-546-5100
Rep. Ike Skelton 202-225-2876
House Armed Services Committee 202-225-4151
1) What do you predict the total dollar costs for Iraq and Afghanistan to be to the U.S. economy? Did Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz underestimate when he calculated three trillion dollars for Iraq alone? How can you justify spending many millions of hard-earned dollars every day in Iraq and Afghanistan when the U.S. economy is suffering and so many of our people are out of work?
2) The Taliban is on the rise again. Living conditions for the average Afghan have not changed much. The U.S. military has killed at least 4,800 civilians in Afghanistan, representing 79% of the total civilian casualties in the war. Is U.S. military action in Afghanistan harming our national interests by turning the people against us? How has U.S. military action in Afghanistan increased the security of the region and the people of our country?
3) A policy of the former Bush administration allowed for drone attacks to occur in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The continued drone attacks are contributing toward anti-American animosity without accomplishing much. Wouldn't it help reduce the tension and improve the quality of life to ban drone attacks entirely?
The panel will be:
Anthony Cordesman, Ph.D
Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy, Center for Strategic and International Studies
Stephen Biddle, Ph.D.
Senior Fellow for Defense Policy, Council on Foreign Relations
The Honorable Zalmay Khalilzad
Counselor, Center for Strategic and International Studies
General Jack Keane (ret.)
Former Vice Chief of Staff, United States Army
Janet St. Laurent
Managing Director, Defense Capabilities and Management Team, GAO
Andrews staff will probably listen more to constituents even though he is our only Rep from NJ on Armed Services, so anyone can call (hint to those who helped him out in the primary).
CONTACT:
Wyka for Congress
P.O. Box 350
Lake Hiawatha, NJ 07034
973.215.2082
www.tomwyka.com
tomwyka@yahoo.com
Frelinghuysen No Champion of Iraq/Afghanistan Veterans
Parsippany, October 7-Representative Rodney P. Frelinghuysen, R-Harding, and Scott Garrett, R-Wantage, were tied for the lowest score in the New Jersey Congressional delegation in a scorecard issued by the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) Action Fund, an organization representing veterans of Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom.
In the 2008 IAVA Congressional scorecard, four of New Jersey's members of the House of Representatives scored an A+ (a perfect score of 15): Bill Pascrell, (D-8) Steve Rothman (D-9), Rush Holt (D-12), and Albio Sires (D-13). Six others scored an A, which represented a score of 13 or 14: Robert Andrews (D-1), Frank LoBiondo (R-2), Chris Smith (R-4), Frank Pallone (D-6), Michael Ferguson (R-7), and Donald Payne (D-10). Jim Saxton (R-3) got a B for scoring 11 out of 15, and Scott Garrett (R-5) and Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-11) each got a B for scoring only 10 out of 15.
Tom Wyka (D, Parsippany), who is running against Rodney Frelinghuysen in the 11th district, explains:
"You might think that a B is good, but it means that Frelinghuysen voted against healthcare and education for veterans."
"The IAVA's grades are generous. Ron Paul got the only F. Only four members got a D, and only 34 members got a C. All of those who got a C, D, or F were Republicans. In contrast, all of the 122 members who got an A+ were Democrats."
"Only one Democrat in the entire House of Representatives scored as low as Frelinghuysen did, but it was because of absences, not hostile votes. In contrast, 100 Republicans scored better than Frelinghuysen did."
"Frelinghuysen and Garrett's scores of 10 out of 15 are an embarrassment for the New Jersey delegation, most of whom got A+ or A. Both Frelinghuysen and Garrett have provided poor support to veterans of Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom. The same can be said of the Republican Party as a whole."
"Not only does Frelinghuysen have a poor voting record on veterans' issues, he seldom introduces or cosponsors legislation endorsed by major veterans organizations."
"The IAVA is a nonpartisan organization, so we had to put the scores into a spreadsheet and add the data on party affiliation," explains Wyka.
According to the IAVA Action Fund's report, the scorecard for the House of Representatives is based on 13 key votes on veterans' issues. Each of these votes was an opportunity for the Representative to take a stand on behalf of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. The Representative got one point for each vote that was in line with IAVA Action Fund's position. The Representative didn't get a point if he or she voted against the IAVA position or failed to vote on the issue. Because the fight for the new GI Bill was considered to be so important, Representatives who cosponsored the bill (H.B. 5740) got two additional points in the scorecard. The scorecard included a score for all of the Representatives except those who did not serve a complete term, such as Tom Lantos, who died in office. Nancy Pelosi was also excluded from the scoring, because as Speaker of the House, she votes only in the case of a tie.
WHY FRELINGHUYSEN SCORED POORLY
Cosponsorship of H.B. 5740 Frelinghuysen lost 2 points because he was not among the 302 cosponsors of this bill.
Funding Veterans' Health Care, 2007 January 31, 2007; Roll Call Vote No. 72 IAVA Action supported this legislation, which passed 286 to 140; Frelinghuysen voted against it.
The IAVA scorecard says, "More than five million American veterans rely on the Department of Veterans Affairs for their health care. Although veterans' hospitals provide some of the best health care in the country, the VA has been underfunded for years; for FY2007, the Bush Administration requested almost $4 billion less in VA funding than the amount suggested by major veterans' organizations. In early 2007, Congress made veterans' health care a priority, increasing the funding for veterans' health care by $3.6 billion. The budget passed by a vote of 286-140."
The Post-9/11 GI Bill: Fair Education Benefits for Veterans (first vote) May 15, 2008: Roll Call Vote No. 330 IAVA Action Fund supported this legislation, which passed 256 to 166; Frelinghuysen voted against it.
The IAVA scorecard says, "For the 1.7 million veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the transition to civilian life can be challenging. Veterans of World War II were aided in their reintegration by the "GI Bill," which paid for the education of eight million combat veterans. The GI Bill changed the lives of millions of American veterans and their families. Sadly, Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, still covered by the peacetime Montgomery GI Bill from 1984, received a far smaller benefit. Many new combat veterans were struggling with student loans or dropping out of school altogether. A new GI Bill was the number one priority for IAVA and IAVA Action in 2008.
"The popular and bipartisan 'Post- 9/11 GI Bill,' introduced on the House side by Rep. Harry Mitchell (D-AZ-5), Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA-3), Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite (R-FL-5), and Rep. Peter King (R-NY-3), offered a new future to Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. The new GI Bill dramatically increases education benefits by providing tuition payments up to the cost of the most expensive public university in the state, a monthly living allowance, and a book stipend. It also creates a new 'Yellow Ribbon' program that matches any scholarship given to a veteran by a school more expensive than the tuition cap. In spring 2008, the new GI Bill was included as part of the domestic spending amendment to the Iraq war funding bill. Because of the concerns of some fiscally conservative 'Blue Dog' Democrats in the House, the cost of the GI Bill was given a budget offset (although the cost of the war funding as a whole was not). The offset chosen was a tax increase on individuals making over $500,000 a year, or couples making over $1 million annually. The offset lead many Republicans to vote against the measure despite their support for the GI Bill. "
A Second-Rate GI Bill May 23, 2008; Roll Call Vote No. 364 IAVA Action opposed this legislation, which failed 186 to 223; Frelinghuysen voted for it.
The IAVA Scorecard says, "For over 18 months, IAVA and IAVA Action worked closely with a bipartisan coalition of Senators and Representatives on a new Post-9/11 GI Bill that would make college affordable to veterans coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan. The model for the new legislation was the World War II GI Bill that paid for the education of eight million combat veterans, and helped rebuild America after a half-decade of war. The Post-9/11 GI Bill quickly gained the support of 300 cosponsors in the House, almost 60 cosponsors in the Senate, and all the leading Veterans Service Organizations, including the American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Disabled American Veterans, and of course IAVA.
"A small but vocal opposition in Congress argued that the benefit was too generous. In an effort to derail the popular and bipartisan Post-9/11 GI Bill already a part of the war supplemental funding, a motion was made to advance a meager and ill-conceived 'alternate' GI Bill before the Post-9/11 GI Bill had the opportunity to be passed and signed into law. This alternative GI Bill did not meet any of IAVA's requirements for a new GI Bill; it did not cover the cost of college, it did not create fairness for National Guardsmen and Reservists, and because it was not linked to the cost of college, it would lose value every year. It did include a 'transferability' benefit, which offered current service members who agree to remain in the military for ten years the opportunity to transfer their GI Bill benefit to their spouse or children. However, because 75% of those serving in the military get out after their first term of service, this benefit will apply to relatively few Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. Moreover, transferability was already possible at the discretion of the Department of Defense service secretaries. The weak 'alternative' GI Bill received the support of no major veterans' service organizations."
OTHER VETERANS' ORGANIZATIONS The IAVA Action Fund is not the first organization to point out Frelinghuysen's poor voting record with regard to veterans' issues:
Disabled American Veterans Frelinghuysen voted against everything on the Disabled American Veterans' agenda, except for items that passed unanimously or nearly so.
http://capwiz.com/dav/bio/keyv...
American Legion Frelinghuysen seldom introduces or cosponsors legislation endorsed by the American Legion:
http://legion.capwiz.com/bio/i...
Veterans of Foreign Wars Frelinghuysen seldom introduces or cosponsors legislation endorsed by the Veterans of Foreign Wars.
http://vfw.capwiz.com/bio/id/3...
Vietnam Veterans of America Frelinghuysen seldom introduces or cosponsors legislation endorsed by the Vietnam Veterans of America.
http://vva.capwiz.com/bio/id/3...
After Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, briefed governors at their winter meeting in DC, Corzine had the following comments, from the Star Ledger:
... he criticized President Bush directly for too narrowly focusing on Iraq when there appears to be a growing threat from al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
"The thing most disturbing to me -- though most of the discussion was disturbing -- was there was very little discussion on Afghanistan," Corzine said following a morning briefing of the nation's governors at the White House by the president and members of the Cabinet.
Bush told the governors that "a lot of my thinking was defined on Sept. 11," and that he wakes up every morning thinking about another attack. He also said he doesn't see a quick end to the war on terrorism that began five years ago. "I like to say we're in an ideological war that's going to last a while," Bush said, according to a transcript released by the White House.
Corzine, who voted against authorizing the use of force in Iraq while he was in the Senate, said he found the emphasis on Iraq almost misguided.
He noted recent intelligence information showed that al Qaeda is renewing its strength and activity in provinces of Pakistan along the border with Afghanistan. "I didn't hear that as an essential element of discussion, which I think is a fundamental problem with regard to the people who actually attacked us and caused our greatest problems," Corzine said.
This after he went on a gov's trip to Iraq in Nov/Dec and came back saying we needed more troops and should be prepared for the NJ guard to be there for at least two to three more years. Is this a reverse course? Or is he saying more troops in Iraq and more troops in Afghanistan?
The thing most disturbing to me -- though most of the discussion was distrubing -- was there was very little discussion on Afghanistan.... Last week we got intelligence information that Al Qaeda is renewing its strength and activity in the provinces of Pakistan.... I didn't hear that as an essential element of discussion, which I think is a fundamental problem with regard to the people who actually attacked us and caused our greatest problems. I would have liked to have seen a little more balance in the discussion.
Pedestrian safety isn't increasing, according to a report by watchdog group Tri-State Transportation Campaign. Pedestrian fatalities increased last year despite the State's efforts to increase safety.
Army Warrant Officer John A. Quinlan, formerly of Bradley Beach, died in a helicopter crash in Afghanistan on Sunday. He was one week shy of 37 years old; he leaves behind a wife and three daughters.
Open Thread: What has your attention today, Blue Jersey?
Click here to hear TAPS. It is a suitable backdrop while contemplating what this post is really all about.
As the President urges us to "stay the course," the death toll continues to rise, with New Jersey paying a heavy price in the latest round of violence in Iraq and Afghanastan.
Monday was a particularly gruesome day for our state as we lost two more souls to this war, one each in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Staff Sgt. Robert J. Chiomento, 34, II of Salem County deployed to Afghanistan in March. He died there on Monday, killed in a rocket launched by insurgents.
In Iraq, Morris County Army Sgt. 1st Class Scott R. Smith (also 34) died in Iskandariyah, a suburb south of Baghdad, when an improvised explosive device detonated near him.
.gif)
