your tax dollars at work as Pentagon spies on Americans
The Pentagon office that claims to monitor terrorist threats to U.S. military bases in North America -- but is known to have spied on at least 186 peaceful anti-war protests in the U.S. -- has just awarded a $30 million contract to a company whose senior management includes the former Defense Department (DOD) official who set up that office.
The former DOD official is Dr. Stephen Cambone, a trusted protégé of former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Since his resignation as DOD's Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence following Rumsfeld's departure in November 2006, Cambone has been vice president for strategy of a company known as QinetiQ (pronounced "kinetic") North America, a major British-owned defense and intelligence contractor based in McLean, Virginia.
Two months after QinetiQ hired Cambone to expand its North American operations, that company' s Mission Solutions Group signed a five-year, $30 million contract to provide a range of unspecified "security services" to the Pentagon's Counter-Intelligence Field Activity office, known as CIFA. While at the Pentagon, Cambone was responsible for supervising CIFA and was deeply involved in the Pentagon's most controversial intelligence programs at a time when DOD was making concerted efforts to marginalize the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) by setting up its own parallel intelligence apparatus.
Formerly known as Analex, QinetiQ's new contract expands work that Analex was providing to CIFA since 2003. CIFA manages a database of what it regards as "suspicious incidents" in the U.S. The database includes intelligence, law enforcement, counterintelligence, and security reports, as well as raw non-validated information from DOD's "Threat and Local Observation Notice" (TALON) reporting system of unfiltered information.
In 2006, The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a Freedom of Information request to inspect TALON's documentation. It received and reviewed hundreds of TALON documents, among which was a 2006 memo listing 186 reports involving "anti-military protests or demonstrations in the U.S., several peaceful protesters identified as potential threats to the military, and 2,821 TALON reports relating to "U.S. person information" and "anti-military protests or demonstrations in the U.S." These reports were entered into a DOD anti-terrorist threat database.
Pentagon documents released by the ACLU show that the DOD monitored the activities of a wide range of peace groups, including Veterans for Peace, Iraq Veterans Against the War, Military Families Speak Out, Code Pink, the American Friends Service Committee, the War Resisters League, and United for Peace and Justice.
The organization said the Pentagon's misuse of the TALON database is just one example of increased government surveillance of innocent Americans.
"It cannot be an accident or coincidence that nearly 200 anti-war protests ended up in a Pentagon threat database," said Ann Beeson, the ACLU's Associate Legal Director. "This unchecked surveillance is part of a broad pattern of the Bush administration using 'national security' as an excuse to run roughshod over the privacy and free speech rights of Americans."
And Mary Shaw of Amnesty International USA, told IPS, "This is a prime example of how the U.S. government has created a broad definition of "domestic terrorism" that overreaches, and can have a chilling effect on our rights to free expression, free association, and privacy. Even in times of crisis, it is important to preserve our constitutional rights. As Benjamin Franklin said, 'He who gives up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety'."
Telephone calls to QinetiQ's offices seeking comment for this article were not returned.
TALON was created after the U.S. Congress in 2002 approved a proposal backed by Rumsfeld and Vice President Richard Cheney to create a new undersecretary slot at the Pentagon specifically for intelligence. Cambone was given the job. Under the law, Cambone exercised the Secretary of Defense's "authority, direction and control" over all DOD intelligence, counterintelligence and security policy, plans and programs.
The mission of Rumsfeld and Cambone was to give the Pentagon greater authority in the area of human intelligence, traditionally the preserve of the CIA. Cambone's deputy was Army Lieutenant General William G. "Jerry" Boykin, then a deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence. Boykin was later reprimanded by the Army for "inappropriate" comments made in a series of speeches given in evangelical churches while in his military uniform, in which he described the war on terrorism as a Christian battle against evil.
Civil libertarians and human rights activists have drawn parallels between CIFA's collection and retention of data on peace groups and other activists and the domestic collection of data through such programs as COINTELPRO (Counter Intelligence Program). COINTELPRO was a program of the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) aimed at investigating and disrupting dissident political organizations within the U.S. Its targets were organizations that were at the time considered to have politically radical elements, ranging from groups such as The Weahtermen, who advocated the violent overthrow of the U.S. government to such non-violent civil rights activist organizations as Martin Luther King Jr.'s Southern Christian Leadership Conference.
Such acitivites were later strictly regulated by laws such as the Privacy Act of 1974, which strengthened and specified a U.S. citizen's right to privacy as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
According to Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh of The New Yorker magazine, Cambone was also involved in the Abu Ghraib prison torture scandal. Hersh claimed the interrogations at Abu Ghraib were part of a highly classified Special Access Program (SAP) code-named Copper Green, authorized by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and ultimately overseen by Cambone.
Originally a joint CIA-Pentagon program in Afghanistan that utilized highly trained Special Operations personnel, Copper Green eventually expanded to Iraq, Hersh reported, where Cambone decided to begin using non-Special Operations personnel -- including military intelligence officers and other military personnel -- to begin questioning prisoners whose status was outside the program's original brief. He wrote that the CIA objected and withdrew from the program, while Cambone apparently tasked Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, former Guantánamo Bay interrogations chief, with "Gitmo-izing" Iraq's prison system.
The bottom line: Rummie may be gone, but the Bush administration and its army of private contractors continues to be chockablock with his private armies and neocon sycophants. And most of the departed are re-entering, and earning a ton more money in the process.
If you were hoping that Bob Gates was going to change all that, get over it.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
DOD spends tax dollars on private security to monitor civilian groups
VA raises mileage rate from 11 cents to 28.5 cents
Veterans get more money for mileage
For three decades, the federal rate for reimbursing disabled veterans traveling to Veterans Administration hospitals for medical treatments was stuck at 11 cents per mile. That was shamefully tight-fisted.
Veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan and their families have endured prolonged tours of duty and significant hardships — physical, emotional and economic. Yet in many cases, the benefits they and veterans of other conflicts receive on their return home have been worse than inadequate. In some cases, they've been downright insulting.
The mileage rate was one example. Veterans disabled in the course of service to their country deserve gratitude for their sacrifice. Yet 11 cents a mile was hardly an expression of thanks; it barely rated as a mumble.
Connecticut's U.S. Rep. Joe Courtney has been a particularly strong advocate for increasing benefits on behalf of veterans. On Dec. 21, he wrote a letter to President Bush urging the release of $3.7 billion in emergency funds requested by Congress to boost benefits.
Last week, President Bush released those funds.
Among other things, the money will raise the mileage reimbursement rate for disabled veterans to 28.5 cents per mile. It also provides for the hiring of 1,800 employees to process veterans' claims, eventually reducing the logjam of 400,000 veterans who have been awaiting benefits. The funding will also go toward expanded mental-health care and improved treatment for traumatic brain injuries.
This funding is obviously critical to veterans who need care. But it also sends an important message to all veterans that their sacrifices are acknowledged and honored. For these men and women, even something as straightforward as a 17.5-cent boost in the mileage rate is no small change.
More articles
Senate Hearing on the VDBC
Senate Hearing on Veterans Disability Veterans Commission
Veterans groups push for reform of disabled veterans benefits
by Elizabeth Gibson
Jan 24, 2008
WASHINGTON -- Veterans groups Thursday added their support to recommendations calling for modernization of a system that determines what benefits disabled veterans receive relative to severity of their wounds.
Now, the vets said, they want to see some action and enforcement from the government on recommendations made by the Veterans Disability Benefits Commission.
“You’ve got the riffle, squeeze the trigger,” Todd Bowers, director of government affairs for the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, said at a hearing of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee.
Representatives from Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, Veterans of Foreign Wars and The American Legion said they like the ideas of updating the rankings that match benefits to disabilities.
They also want extra compensation beyond health care for the impact that wounds could have on quality of life of veterans.
But they expressed reservations about mandatory check-ups every two years for veterans already getting compensation.
“A lot of veterans would view these reviews as an attempt to take away their benefits,” said Gerald Manar, deputy director of the VFW’s national veterans service.
Researching for the commission, the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies recommended case by case determinations of whether veterans need follow-up exams.
However, the benefits commission felt that required reevaluations for some types of disabilities, particularly mental health issues such as post-traumatic stress disorder, would ensure that those needing regular check-ups didn’t slip through the cracks, said retired Lt. Gen. James Scott.
Scott, chairman of the commission, said, “It seems to me if you don’t reevaluate, you won’t know how the treatment is doing.”
The commission also recommended basing benefits on a sliding scale to determine the degree to which different disabilities detract from a veteran’s quality of life. The veterans groups said this was a worthy idea but would require more research to find a way to measure how much an amputation versus post-traumatic stress disorder would affect quality of life.
Several of the commission’s recommendations stretch back to previous panels meeting more than 50 years ago. The Veterans Disabilities Benefits Commission report, released last October with 113 recommendations, should be sufficient to get started and set deadlines for action, leader of veterans groups said.
Thirty-five percent of disability ratings have not been updated since 1945, according to the Institute of Medicine.
“Despite the fact that the disability system was already outdated more than five decades ago there have been no fundamental reforms,” Sen. Richard Burr R-N.C. said at the hearing. “It is a failure of a highest magnitude if we don’t provide these heroes who have sacrificed so much for their country with the benefits and services they need and deserve.”
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
This is not a "veterans group" they were a Presidential Commission stacked with more Republican appointees than Democratic ones, the proposals were more in favor of veterans that I envisioned however the idea to reevaluate PTSD veterans who are 100% disabled every 2-3 years is a disaster waiting to happen, I don't know the correct action but to put veterans with mental illness thru the stress of having their benefits cut every few years is going to cause a lot of hospitilzations every few years, I hope the VA creates more bed space if they pass this, because they are going to need them in the lockdown wards.
12 Tools to Do a Background Check On Your Doctor
I though my readers might find this useful for those not using the VA Medical system or for finding medical professionals for their family members
12 Tools to Do a Background Check On Your Doctor
Finding a good doctor can save you time, money, and aggravation- and in some cases, it may save your life. Still, many people spend less time researching their doctor than they do a simple household purchase. Use these valuable tips and tools to be a proactive patient and make sure that you and your family are getting the best medical care possible.
Find the best hospitals: The best doctors generally work for the best hospitals. Find a physician that is affiliated with the best hospital in your area. If you are not sure which hospital ranks highest in your region, visit The Leapfrog Group to find hospital quality rankings based on voluntary surveys. The organization’s data is based on quality, safety, and efficiency practices that may affect a patient’s overall level of care at that hospital. While The Leapfrog Group may provide a starting point in your search, it does not provide a list of providers associated with hospital. You will have to call that hospital’s referral line directly or ask if your insurance provider lists hospital affiliation in its provider directory.
Verify your doctor’s license and certification: For basic information on your doctor’s education, licensing, and board certification visit the American Medical Association or the American Board of Medical Specialties. These resources will tell you where the doctor went to school and if he or she is actually licensed to practice medicine. You can look up doctors by name or search for a list of doctors by zip code. The ABMS helps consumers find specialists who are board certified in their field or verify that their current specialist is indeed certified in the specialty. These resources provide only the most basic information about licensed physicians, but both sites include useful tips and information on being a smart patient and finding good doctors.
Contact your state medical board: Your state medical board provides a list of every doctor licensed to practice medicine in your state. These web sites vary from state to state, but you can very often find a doctor’s education, hospital affiliation, and any recent history of malpractice or disciplinary action. Your state government website is a good starting place for this search, and most states have a toll-free number you can call to receive this information by phone.
Visit the Federation of State Medical Boards: The FSMB aggregates data from state medical boards and other agencies on disciplinary action taken against physicians and physician assistants throughout the U.S. You can sign up for one of two services that both charge a small fee. The Board Action Database Search investigates whether any disciplinary action has been taken against a physician and saves you the time and energy of searching on state medical boards yourself. The Disciplinary Alert Service continuously monitors your physician and alerts you via e-mail if he or she is disciplined or loses accreditation, letting you rest easy in knowing that FSMB will do the legwork for you.
Talk to a doctor you already know and trust: If you are looking for a specialist, ask your general physician if he or she can recommend a doctor in that field. In doctor's offices, receptionists will often keep a list of recommended specialists on file for patients. Or, if you are moving to a different city, ask your current doctor if he or she can recommend a friend or colleague in the city to which you are moving. Query any friends who are doctors or who work in the medical field if they know doctors that they regard highly. A quick conversation with a knowledgeable friend or trusted doctor can save you the time, money, and headache involved in obtaining a competent doctor.
Ask friends and family: Word of mouth from someone who knows you personally can be the most accurate and reliable method of conducting a background check. If your friend has been seeing the same doctor for fifteen years, you may want to trust his or her judgment. Be sure to ask friends and members of your family specific questions about the doctor’s demeanor, punctuality, and thoroughness. Sometimes patients keep seeing the same doctor just out of habit, so you want to make sure that you are getting a valuable recommendation.
Visit Ratemds.com: This user-driven site allows consumers to read what other patients have said about doctors in your area. Patients give doctors a score of 1-5 based on being punctual, helpful, and knowledgeable as well as a smiley or angry face to represent their overall patient experience. A small written review provides a more detailed and personal perspective than can be found in other resources. However, you are essentially taking advice from a stranger, and this website is still growing to include more and more physicians, so it may not have any reviews on the specific doctor you are looking for.
Check out Healthgrades.com: Save the time and hassle of doing your own research, and pay Healthgrades to do it for you. Simply type in your physician’s basic information and you can receive a full report detailing your doctor’s education, training, and any disciplinary action take against him or her in the last five years. While the most comprehensive physician reports cost $29.95, much of the other valuable information on the site, such as hospital ratings, is free of charge.
Access MDNationwide.org: This site also provides a variety of paid services all geared towards helping consumers find the best medical care in their area. This for-profit service charges $19.95 for a comprehensive background check on a doctor or and a smaller fee to browse a list of doctors top-rated by other doctors. Patients can narrow down providers recommended for over 1800 diseases and medical conditions. All specialists in the MDNationwide database are certified the ABMS, so consumers won’t have to verify that information themselves.
Use the Consumer's Checkbook Guide to Top Doctors: This service pools data from surveys given to 26,000 physicians around the country. Consumer's Checkbook asked physicians to name the specialists they would most trust to take care of a loved one. The Top Doctors database contains the names of 20,000+ doctors who were named most often. Print and online access to this book costs $24.95 for two years, and the database indicates how many times the doctor was recommended by other physicians as well as their contact information. This guide provides a reliable directory of doctors who are well-respected and known in their profession, but it does not reflect input from actual patients.
Learn more about the National Committee of Quality Assurance: NCQA is a private, not-for-profit organization dedicated to measuring and reporting on healthcare in the U.S. It has developed a free Physician Recognition Directory that helps individuals find doctors who have demonstrate that they meet certain levels of care. It is the only website of its kind that uses a standard methodology and actual patient health data to compare and rate a physician’s effectiveness. The Physician Recognition Directory specializes in care for diabetes, heart disease, and stroke, but you can also find report cards on the best health plans and physician practice groups in the country.
Pay attention to dates: When researching your doctor’s credentials, pay attention to dates. If you doctor was licensed less than five years ago, you may want to want to look for someone more experienced or seek a second opinion for a more serious ailment. On the other hand, if your doctor has been practicing medicine for some time, you may want to verify that your doctor stills meets accreditation standards so you know that you are getting the best and most up-to-date treatment available.
With the mounting costs and obstacles to receiving quality, affordable healthcare, it is more important than ever to be proactive in finding the best doctors you can. Use several of these tools to cross-reference sources and obtain the most accurate and current information about your doctors. The more information you can obtain about your doctors' background and professional conduct, the more likely you will find the right doctor for your needs.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
The other argument on LA's VA land use dispute
OP-ED
Brentwood News - November 2007:
We Honor Our Veterans by Honoring the Deed to Their National Home
Thank you for your “Home of the Brave” interview. Unfortunately, some of the responses by Sue Young, Executive Director of Veterans Park Conservancy (VPC) and Jim Folsom, Director of the Huntington Botanical Gardens regarding their proposed park at the Los Angeles National Veterans Home were disingenuous and contemptuous.
On March 3, 1888, landowners Arcadia Bandini Stearns de Baker and Senator John Percival Jones unselfishly bequeathed and faithfully entrusted nearly 800 acres to the United States Government to permanently maintain a National Home for the exclusive benefit of America's Military Veterans. And for nearly a century, every generation loyally enforced and honorably upheld the guiding principles and patriotic spirit of the Deed until recent years, when business and special interest “land grabbing” became an assumed entitlement at the expense of our Veterans.
A Modern-Day Trojan Horse
VPC's proposed “veterans park” is sheer deception as their website specifically declares that the 16-acre parcel will be for the “creation of the first new community park to be built in West Los Angeles in over 50 years. It further states: “What we have in mind is a scaled-down version of a grand community park in the tradition of New York's Central Park. Most importantly, it will attract all segments of our West Los Angeles community: Veterans and civilians, children and adults, featuring numerous activities for everyone.”
Make no mistake; VPC's so-called “shrine in honor of our veterans” is nothing more than a modern-day Trojan Horse designed to subvert the Deed so they can invade, conquer and build a massive public park on the Veterans' sacred land. VPC confirms their plans for an all-encompassing community park by declaring that the 16-acre parcel will “Demonstrate the positive community impact of reclamation of open space for public use, setting a precedent for discussion about the remaining federal property.”
In an attempt to deflect the truth about their Trojan Horse scheme, Ms. Young portrays VPC as a hero riding on the proverbial white horse to save Veterans property from commercial development: “We wanted to make certain that the property could not be sold to the highest bidder.” What she conveniently fails to mention is that in the process of “getting approvals at the highest levels” of government, VPC orchestrated a brazen behind-the-scenes, no-bid, rent-free agreement for a public community park, all under the guise of “honoring our veterans.”
History Repeating Itself
VPC's recent backroom wheeling and dealing in Washington D.C. represents the greatest land heist since the Indians were given $24 worth of beads and trinkets for Manhattan. At least they were given “something” for their land. To the contrary, the expropriation of this hallowed land was acquired “rent free” at the painful expense of America's Military Veterans who will receive absolutely nothing except an onrush of public invasion onto their once exclusive and quiet haven for rest and rehabilitation.
The 16-acre parcel is arguably the most valuable on the West coast and is estimated to be worth more than a quarter-billion dollars, yet not one penny goes to the Veterans. Ironically, not since Benedict Arnold tried to surrender West Point to the British has there been such a selfish act for similar hallowed grounds. Tragically, this land has been finagled from the very men and women who have bravely defended America's freedom and democracy, and particularly deprives those who are disabled and need privacy and quietude during their convalescence.
Veterans will never forget VPC's degrading slur against the time-honored “Duty, Honor, Country” creed of West Point and the watchword for all who serve in the military when they irreverently engraved “Beauty, Honor, Country” in stone at the National Home.
Veterans also remember VPC's inability to finance their “majestic wrought iron fence” to beautify the entryway into Brentwood and subsequently hoodwinked the VA into donating $1 million of Veteran's seriously needed healthcare money in order to complete their pretentious project.
“Such People”
In your interview, Brentwood News asks: “What do you think of the veterans who claim this is just a big 'land grab.'“ Mr. Folsom responded: “What such people are saying is that our veterans don't deserve a kinder, gentler environment for healing.” What a slanderous remark against Veterans who responsibly disagree with this gratuitous public park. No, Mr. Folsom, it is you and your VPC cohorts who think Veterans are undeserving by shamelessly trying to turn this century-old Veterans' Home of historic serenity and reverence into a clamorous and raucous public community park.
Equally disturbing is his discriminatory reference to Veterans who morally oppose this land grab as “such people,” which underscores the condescending and pompous attitude that VPC displays whenever the Veterans-at-large disagree with their self-serving mission to beautify and serve Brentwood's “wants” at the expense of our fellow Veterans' “needs.”
Enforce the Deed
There's absolutely nothing in the Deed of 1888 that allows anyone to designate any land for a public park, open space, commercial use, or any other purpose whatsoever, other than for the direct benefit of America's Military Veterans. It's time to stop the manipulative and opportunistic land grabbing at the National Veterans Home and to start enforcing the Deed. That's the only way to truly honor our Veterans.
Robert L. Rosebrock and Francisco Juarez-- Co-Directors, “We the Veterans”
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
I don't know which of the two article either this one or the other one from
Novembers Letter from MS Barrie are telling the veterans the "truth" truth usually depends on which side you are looking from as a disabled veteran I want what most veterans want the best course of action for veterans today, tommorrow and into the future not for any group to make moeny off of a deeded gift from people who truly supported this nations veterans from the late 1800's as a disabled veteran I appreciate the land in West LA and the place it provides for this nations veterans to heal I hope this gets settled to the veterans benefit and not to monied interests
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Veterans support by Presidential Candidates and their voting records
A number of readers have asked for an easy-to-use guide for finding out how the presidential candidates have voted on veterans' issues.
Below you will find a list of the candidates as of 01-20-2008.
Then you will find how various veterans' organizations rated their voting record (if any) and information on the voting record (if any).
Those who have not held national office, or who have been out of national office for a long period of time, will not have a voting record listed.
Remember, this is a "what they did" not "what they say" look at the candidates.
For more information on the candidates' stances on veterans' issues, you can visit their campaign web sites.
All information comes from http://www.votesmart.org/
The presidential candidate page on VoteSmart is here...
http://www.votesmart.org/election_president.php?dist=bio.php
Candidates are listed as they appear on VoteSmart.
MAJOR CANDIDATES
---------------
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Current Office: U.S. Senate
Party: Democratic
Status: Announced
Veterans Issues
2006 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Disabled American Veterans 80 percent in 2006.
2006 In 2006 Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America gave Senator Clinton a grade of A-.
2006 Senator Clinton sponsored or co-sponsored 41 percent of the legislation favored by the The Retired Enlisted Association in 2006.
2005 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Disabled American Veterans 92 percent in 2005.
2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Disabled American Veterans 100 percent in 2004.
2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the The Retired Enlisted Association 0 percent in 2004.
2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Vietnam Veterans of America 50 percent in 2003-2004.
2003 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the The American Legion 50 percent in 2003.
2001 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Vietnam Veterans of America 92 percent in 2001.
Veterans Issues
Date Bill Title Vote
10/01/2007 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 NV
02/02/2006 Tax Rate Extension Amendment Y
11/17/2005 Additional Funding For Veterans Amendment Y
10/05/2005 Health Care for Veterans Amendment Y
---------------
John Reid Edwards
Party: Democratic
Status: Announced
Veterans Issues
2003 Edwards supported the interests of the The American Legion 50 percent in 2003.
2001 Edwards supported the interests of the Vietnam Veterans of America 84 percent in 2001.
1999 Edwards supported the interests of the Disabled American Veterans 66 percent in 1999.
---------------
Maurice Robert 'Mike' Gravel
Party: Democratic
Status: Announced
---------------
Dennis J. Kucinich
Current Office: U.S. House
Party: Democratic
Status: Announced
Veterans Issues
2006 Representative Kucinich supported the interests of the Disabled American Veterans 100 percent in 2006.
2006 In 2006 Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America gave Representative Kucinich a grade of C-.
2006 Representative Kucinich sponsored or co-sponsored 36 percent of the legislation favored by the The Retired Enlisted Association in 2006.
2005 Representative Kucinich supported the interests of the Disabled American Veterans 80 percent in 2005.
2004 Representative Kucinich supported the interests of the Disabled American Veterans 100 percent in 2004.
2004 Representative Kucinich supported the interests of the The Retired Enlisted Association 0 percent in 2004.
2003-2004 Representative Kucinich supported the interests of the Vietnam Veterans of America 50 percent in 2003-2004.
2003 Representative Kucinich supported the interests of the American Veterans 100 percent in 2003.
2003 Representative Kucinich supported the interests of the Disabled American Veterans 100 percent in 2003.
2003 Representative Kucinich supported the interests of the The American Legion 60 percent in 2003.
2001 Representative Kucinich supported the interests of the Disabled American Veterans 100 percent in 2001.
2001 Representative Kucinich supported the interests of the Vietnam Veterans of America 66 percent in 2001.
1999 Representative Kucinich supported the interests of the Disabled American Veterans 100 percent in 1999.
1997-1998 Representative Kucinich supported the interests of the Vietnam Veterans of America 50 percent in 1997-1998.
Veterans Issues
Date Bill Title Vote
12/12/2007 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 N
11/21/2003 Department of Veterans Affairs Improvement Act of 2003 NV
10/08/2003 Veterans Benefits Act of 2003 Y
09/21/1999 Veterans' Millennium Health Care Act N
---------------
Barack H. Obama
Current Office: U.S. Senate
Party: Democratic
Status: Announced
Veterans Issues
2006 Senator Obama supported the interests of the Disabled American Veterans 80 percent in 2006.
2006 In 2006 Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America gave Senator Obama a grade of B+.
2006 Senator Obama sponsored or co-sponsored 12 percent of the legislation favored by the The Retired Enlisted Association in 2006.
2005 Senator Obama supported the interests of the Disabled American Veterans 92 percent in 2005.
Veterans Issues
Date Bill Title Vote
10/01/2007 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 NV
02/02/2006 Tax Rate Extension Amendment Y
11/17/2005 Additional Funding For Veterans Amendment Y
10/05/2005 Health Care for Veterans Amendment Y
---------------
Rudolph W. Giuliani
Party: Republican
Status: Announced
---------------
Michael D. 'Mike' Huckabee
Party: Republican
Status: Announced
---------------
John Sidney McCain
Current Office: U.S. Senate
Party: Republican
Status: Announced
Veterans Issues
2006 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Disabled American Veterans 20 percent in 2006.
2006 In 2006 Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America gave Senator McCain a grade of D.
2006 Senator McCain sponsored or co-sponsored 18 percent of the legislation favored by the The Retired Enlisted Association in 2006.
2005 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Disabled American Veterans 25 percent in 2005.
2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Disabled American Veterans 50 percent in 2004.
2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the The Retired Enlisted Association 0 percent in 2004.
2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Vietnam Veterans of America 100 percent in 2003-2004.
2003 Senator McCain supported the interests of the The American Legion 50 percent in 2003.
2001 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Vietnam Veterans of America 46 percent in 2001.
1999 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Disabled American Veterans 66 percent in 1999.
1997-1998 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Vietnam Veterans of America 0 percent in 1997-1998.
1989-1990 On the votes that the Vietnam Veterans of America considered to be the most important in 1989-1990 , Senator McCain voted their preferred position 50 percent of the time.
Veterans Issues
Date Bill Title Vote
10/01/2007 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 NV
02/02/2006 Tax Rate Extension Amendment N
11/17/2005 Additional Funding For Veterans Amendment N
10/05/2005 Health Care for Veterans Amendment N
---------------
Ronald Ernest 'Ron' Paul
Current Office: U.S. House
Party: Republican
Status: Announced
Veterans Issues
2006 Representative Paul supported the interests of the Disabled American Veterans 100 percent in 2006.
2006 In 2006 Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America gave Representative Paul a grade of F.
2006 Representative Paul sponsored or co-sponsored 57 percent of the legislation favored by the The Retired Enlisted Association in 2006.
2005 Representative Paul supported the interests of the Disabled American Veterans 40 percent in 2005.
2004 Representative Paul supported the interests of the Disabled American Veterans 100 percent in 2004.
2004 Representative Paul supported the interests of the The Retired Enlisted Association 0 percent in 2004.
2003-2004 Representative Paul supported the interests of the Vietnam Veterans of America 38 percent in 2003-2004.
2003 Representative Paul supported the interests of the American Veterans 50 percent in 2003.
2003 Representative Paul supported the interests of the Disabled American Veterans 50 percent in 2003.
2003 Representative Paul supported the interests of the The American Legion 60 percent in 2003.
2001 Representative Paul supported the interests of the Disabled American Veterans 100 percent in 2001.
2001 Representative Paul supported the interests of the Vietnam Veterans of America 77 percent in 2001.
1999 Representative Paul supported the interests of the Disabled American Veterans 100 percent in 1999.
1997-1998 Representative Paul supported the interests of the Vietnam Veterans of America 80 percent in 1997-1998.
Veterans Issues
Date Bill Title Vote
12/12/2007 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 NV
11/21/2003 Department of Veterans Affairs Improvement Act of 2003 Y
10/08/2003 Veterans Benefits Act of 2003 Y
09/21/1999 Veterans' Millennium Health Care Act NV
---------------
Willard Mitt Romney
Party: Republican
Status: Announced
---------------
Fred Dalton Thompson
Party: Republican
Status: Announced
Veterans Issues
2001 Thompson supported the interests of the Vietnam Veterans of America 76 percent in 2001.
1997-1998 Thompson supported the interests of the Vietnam Veterans of America 17 percent in 1997-1998.
-------------------------
posted by Larry Scott
Founder and Editor
VA Watchdog dot Org
Don't forget to read all of today's VA News Flashes (click here)
Click here to make VA Watchdog dot Org your homepage
email Larry
Ms Dowd of the NY Times tells the truth here
When President Bush finished doing his sword dances and Arabian stallion inspections, when he finished making a speech in Abu Dhabi on the importance of freedom that fell flat, when he finished lounging in his fur-lined George of Arabia robe in the Saudi king’s tent, he came home.Sphere: Related Content
Or he came to what was left of home.
A Washington Post cartoon by Tom Toles summed it up best: “Great to be home,” W. enthuses on Air Force One, heading toward the East Coast. “Anything interesting happen while I was gone?” Hanging on the skyline of New York is a sign reading: “U.S.A. Now a Wholly Owned Subsidiary of Foreign Investors.”
Wherever he went, W. seemed dazzled by the can-do spirit of the J. Pierrepont Finches of the new Middle East. “It’s important for the president to hear thoughts, hopes, dreams, aspirations, concerns from folks that are out making a living,” he told Saudi entrepreneurs.
In Dubai, he commended young Arab leaders, saying, “The entrepreneurial spirit is strong.”
In Abu Dhabi, he marveled at the royal family’s plans to build a city based entirely upon renewable energy. “Amazing, isn’t it?” W. said.
You know you’re in trouble when your Middle East oil pump is greener than you are.
Even as W. played cheerleader for Arab business, the Arabs were cleaning our clocks — then buying them. Our addiction to oil has allowed our pushers in the Persian Gulf to go on a shopping spree to snap us up.
Hillary Clinton was right when she said it was “pathetic” that President Bush had to beg the Saudis to drop the price of oil.
One cascading rationale he offered for invading Iraq was the benign domino theory, that bringing democracy to Iraq would sway the autocrats in the region to be less repressive.
But when W. visited Saudi Arabia and Egypt last week, he did not have the whip hand. He could not demand anything of the autocrats in the way of more rights for women and dissidents, much less get the Saudis to help on oil production. He needs their help in corralling Iran, which has been puffed up by the occupation of Iraq.
So he was a supplicant in Saudi Arabia. The American economy is a supplicant, too.
Two decades ago, we fretted that Japan was taking over America when Sony bought Columbia Pictures and Mitsubishi bought a chunk of Rockefeller Center. But they overpaid for everything.
Now, because of Wall Street’s overreaching, our economy depends on foreign oil and foreign loans to stay afloat.
China and Arab countries have a staggering amount of treasury securities. And the oil-rich countries are sitting on so many petrodollars that they are looking beyond prestige hotels and fashion labels and taking advantage of the fire sale to buy eye-popping stakes in our major financial institutions.
Like the president, Citigroup and Merrill Lynch came with tin cups to Middle Eastern, Asian and American investors last week, for a combined total of nearly $19.1 billion, after the subprime mortgage debacle blew up their books.
Citigroup, which raised $7.5 billion from Abu Dhabi in November, raised another $12.5 billion, including from Singapore, Kuwait and Saudi Prince Walid bin Talal. Merrill Lynch gave $6.6 billion in preferred stock to Kuwait, South Korea, a Japanese bank and others.
(While the great sage Bob Rubin was advising Hillary Clinton on sound fiscal policy, he seemed to be asleep at the Citigroup switch.)
As Warren Buffett has said, we are giving ourselves a party to feed our appetite for oil and imported goods and paying for it by selling off the furniture, our most precious assets.
When the president got back Thursday night from a trip that made it clear he has no clout overseas, he had to rush the ailing economy into intensive care.
Next to the cool, strong euro, the dollar is a comparative runt in the world’s currencies. The weak dollar lets foreigners snap up real estate in Manhattan.
It is striking that the Bush scion, who has tried so hard to do the opposite of his father, also ends up facing the prospect of a recession in his final year in office.
Maybe if the president had spent the trillion he squandered on his Iraq odyssey on energy research, we might have broken the oil addiction.
Now it’s a race between Iraq, stupid, or the economy, stupid, to see which one will usher out W.
The country is engaged in a fit of nativism and Lou Dobbsism, obsessing about the millions of Mexicans who might be sneaking across the border when billions in foreign money are pouring into Citigroup. You figure out what might be a bigger problem.
The national boundaries that really matter are the financial ones: Who’s going to own the American economy?
