Mrs. Obama courts the military
Lynn Bonner, Staff Writer
Comment on this story
JACKSONVILLE - Michelle Obama dove deep into Eastern North Carolina and the home of Camp Lejeune on Tuesday to persuade a crowd that her husband, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, offered the best options for the military and their families.
Speaking to a crowd that police estimated at 1,500, Michelle Obama said her husband and Republican candidate John McCain offered "two different visions of the lives servicemen and women should return to."
Three-quarters of the crowd responded when she asked past and present members of the military to stand. "We share the vision of a system that does more to support military families, both when loved ones are deployed and after they return," she said.
M. Andy Fiel of Jacksonville, commander of the local Veterans of Foreign Wars post, was in the crowd. Fiel, 76, said he was a Republican but will vote for Obama. For most of the past eight years, the country has had a Republican president and Congress, Fiel said, and "look where we are now. We need change."
Fiel said he had more confidence in Obama than in McCain. "They're going to support veterans when they come back," he said. "The VA is underfunded."
Barack Obama is calling for improved Veterans Administration care, better mental health treatment, job protection for military spouses who need time to prepare their families for deployment, and making GI Bill education benefits transferable to spouses or children.
McCain has called for improving veterans' health care and access to health care. He has sponsored bills to give special tax relief to deployed service members and called for expanded retirement benefits for reservists.
Retired Marine Maj. Gen. Jim Livingston, a Medal of Honor recipient and McCain supporter, said Tuesday that Obama's statements in Jacksonville were laughable.
"Is Michelle Obama kidding? Do you really think the troops and their families will believe that nonsense? They aren't stupid," he said. "They know John McCain is an American hero who personally understands the sacrifice of military families. Unlike Senator Barack Obama, John McCain is going to preserve the honor of the military and take care of military families."
lynn.bonner@newsobserver.com or 919-829-4821
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
The sad part of this is that Major General Livingston is the one whom is wrong, the VFW Commander is correct Obama does mean change for the VA he votes FOT veterans bills 80% of the time, No he doesn't vote 100% of the time for all veterans issues, but then on the other hand his record pogo jumps above Senator McCain's 20% voting FOR veterans issues.
People assume John Mccain cares about veterans, he doesn't he was against Jim Webbs new 21st Century GI Bill, he spoke against it and when he saw it was going to pass he didn't even bother going back to DC to vote against it. He has voted against compensation legislation that would help veterans and their families, Obama votes for them, of the 2 Senators Obama asked for a seat on Veterans Affairs Committee and got involved, McCain has never served on the VA committee, why? I thought he cares about them. That is the part that is laughable, he uses them for photo ops for re-election but pay for them nope he just wants them to go away me I am voting for Obama to I am 100% P&T I can't afford a President McCain.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Mrs. Obama courts the military
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
More Than A Man's Best Friend
More Than A Man's Best Friend
CBS) After terrifying tours of duty in Kuwait, Iraq and Somalia, a retired Army Sergeant is recovering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder with the help of a four-legged therapist, reports CBS News correspondent Richard Schlesinger.
For two solid weeks, retired Sgt. Jim Mason and Yankee have been in intensive training.
Yankee is already a fully qualified service dog. It's Mason who is in training. He's learning to use Yankee to cope with what doctors have diagnosed as severe PTSD.
"I know I can say 'hello' to anyone with that dog and they'll smile and say 'hello' back," says Mason.
And that alone is a huge step for Mason, who still feels trapped in the real life nightmares he lived in both Gulf wars and in Somalia - especially Somalia - where his unit was ambushed while trying to provide humanitarian aid.
"I had to kill some people," Mason says as he chokes up.
Fifteen years later, he still can barely talk about it.
"You know, I mean they shot at us," he said. "We were ambushed. And if we didn't fight back they were gonna kill us. But in my heart, I didn't go there for that."
When he retired after 20 years in the military, he started noticing changes in himself. He couldn't sleep, he snapped at people, and he was afraid he'd become violent.
Now, he's got Yankee - a brand new solution for a problem as old as war. He can sense when Mason gets tense and help avoid panic attacks by staying close - a four-legged security blanket. He's also trained to keep an eye out behind Mason, and barks when he sees something or someone that Mason may consider a threat.
Yankee's used to watching and being watched. He was trained by inmates in a New York penitentiary, as part of a program called Puppies Behind Bars. And what Yankee learned in prison helps him free Mason from lingering terror.
The cliché is that a dog is man's best friend. The reality is, Yankee's a lot more to Jim Mason. He's indispensable.
Report: Army making toxic mess in war zones
Report: Army making toxic mess in war zones
By Kelly Kennedy - Staff writer
Posted : Friday Oct 3, 2008 10:47:54 EDT
The U.S. Army is creating a toxic mess in Afghanistan and Iraq, according to a new report that details cases of hazardous waste dumped in ditches, soldiers setting up tents on top of fuel spills and service members exposed to cyanide gas during overseas deployments.
The report by the Rand Corp. think tank also says the Defense Department has no overarching policy to ensure environmental mishaps in Iraq and Afghanistan don’t harm troops’ health, create political disputes and avoid costly clean-up efforts when it’s time to leave those countries.
“If not properly addressed in planning or operations, environmental considerations can make it more difficult for the Army to sustain the mission — yet environmental considerations are not well incorporated into Army planning or operations in any phase of an operation,” states the report, released in late September by the Rand Arroyo Center, a federally funded research and development center that supports the Army.
The report, “Green Warriors: Army Environmental Considerations for Contingency Operations from Planning through Post-Conflict, states:
• A contractor hired by the Defense Department dumped waste oil in a landfill in Iraq and then sold the barrels.
• U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan buried several drums containing unidentified liquids, which later turned out to be hazardous, posing a risk of soil and groundwater contamination.
• In Iraq, an airfield sits over an old airfield with leaking fuel tanks. “Major health issues arise whenever it is necessary to dig.”
• Commanders in Iraq have set up hazardous-waste disposal areas close to camp perimeters, creating a force-protection issue since they were potential targets for hand grenades and IEDs.
• High-grade diesel fuel was spilled in a lake in Iraq that was used for drinking water at a base. The lake is no longer used as a source of drinking water.
• U.S. forces in Iraq improperly dumped insecticides, batteries, oil products and other hazardous material. Soldiers joked that fuel spills were “replenishing the oil wells.”
• Troops in Iraq fell ill after rolling leaking drums of industrial-strength pesticides out of a building.
“The Army needs to improve its policy and guidance for environmental considerations in contingency operations,” the report states. “It should work with [the Defense Department] to develop guidance that applies irrespective of location. ... It does no good to win the war only to forfeit the peace.”Addison Davis IV, deputy assistant secretary of the Army for environment, safety and occupational health, responded to the report in a June 11 memo by saying the findings show that “environmental issues can affect the Army on many levels, from tactical considerations of soldier health and base-camp placement to its ability to achieve strategic national objectives for a stable and sustainable society that would allow Army forces to redeploy.”
Addison noted that the report found environmental issues “can be particularly important for success during stability operations in the developing world, where the local populace often have critical needs for basic environmental resources such as clean water and sanitation.”
An Army environmental alert issued in May showed there are plans to address the problems. It said Gen. Daviud Petraeus, the incoming chief of U.S. Central Command, planned to approve an environmental policy for Iraq, and that funds were needed for incinerators, waste disposal and environmental base closures.
As U.S. forces leave Iraq, they will have to clean up their mess. Bruce Travis of the U.S. Army Engineer School said in the alert that the Army didn’t even start environmental measures until five years into the war.
“We’ve had a lot of problems with waste lagoons, congressional inquiries, medical waste in landfills, insurgent chemicals and co-mingled wastes,” Travis said in the alert. Insurgent chemicals are used for explosive devices.
The U.S. Army Engineer School said in May that an estimated 11 million pounds of hazardous waste exist in Iraq.
In an interview with Military Times, Army Lt. Col. Garth Anderson, commander of the 733rd Facility Engineer Detachment out of Kansas City, Mo., agreed that environmental hazards undermine the mission.
Under Saddam Hussein, Iraq had no environmental policies or laws, and that continued after the U.S. military landed in 2003. In countries with environmental laws, such as Germany, troops must clean up every gas spill and replace any trees ripped out during training exercises. In Iraq, there are no such mandates, and troops lacked the training to expect or conform to high environmental standards in Iraq and Afghanistan.
“I think some of the fieldcraft has been lost over the years,” Anderson said, referring to the decades in which Americans mostly conducted peace missions. “The Army generates huge amounts of waste; I think there’s a need for increased training.”
Anderson spent nine months in Afghanistan as part of a seven-person facility engineer team in 2002. In Kandahar, after the fighting was over, they found a lot of bombed-out structures, vehicles, and destroyed Taliban equipment. U.S. troops set up a small burn pit in the middle of a big debris pile, he said.
During initial operations, burn pits are often a good option because they’re simple, Anderson said, but added that they still need to be safe.
“Everyone was doing the best they could,” Anderson said. “But it was dangerous. It was small. Aerosol cans could cook off. One truck actually got too close and burned up.”
Anderson wrote about the situation in Engineer magazine, saying the burn pit at Kandahar was uncontrolled, and that people tossed in aerosol cans, hazardous waste, petroleum and oil — which could seep into the ground water supply — and medical waste. Smoke hovered over areas where troops slept and worked.
Pretty quickly, they realized they needed a different plan — but it had to be simple enough that everyone would follow the rules.
Rather than tossing waste oil and batteries in the pit, as they had been done before, they made it easy to recycle such materials. Rather than tossing weaponry and ordnance into the flames and watching it explode, they set out an amnesty box. And rather than exposing the troops to medical waste — bloody bandages or used needles — they eventually obtained a small incinerator that would help eliminate infection, Anderson said.
They also moved the pit so the smoke blew away from the troops.
“I think they were happy to have something that was easier to use,” he said.
His team was able to stop other bad practices, such as sprinkling gasoline to keep the dust down, as was also done during Desert Storm. The fuel eventually can seep down into the water supply.Anderson said he would like to see the military better able to sustain itself by using waste oil burners or solid waste to generate heat.
“It’s a pretty significant problem,” he said. “I think most soldiers are more concerned about the mission … and may not be as concerned about the environment. But it’s not just [a] … tree-hugger thing.”
For example, if troops can dispose of their waste inside the wire in an environmentally friendly way, they may not have to risk lives going outside the wire to dispose of it, he said. And, according to the Rand report, stored hazardous waste is a potentially deadly weapon for insurgents to use on U.S. troops.
Michael Wolford, of the U.S. Army Engineer Schoolprepared a briefing about environmental conditions in Iraq. After talking to commanders in theater, he compiled a list of the excuses he heard for not properly handling waste management and disposal while deployed:
• “If it was important enough for us to do, we would have been told about it before we got here” — battalion commander.
• “It’s not our job.” — battalion commander.
• “We’re in the desert. What does it matter?” — Brigade combat Team commander
• “We’re here to fight a war, not pick up trash.” — Battalion Combat Team Commander.
• “We’re just passing through and do not have time.” — battalion combat team commander.
In his briefing, Wolford showed a fuel point in Uzbekistan with a car-sized puddle of fuel, contractors in Iraq dumping human waste tanks into a ditch, and leaking oil drums left behind in Iraq.
He determined that line units need more training — but so do engineers in the absence of a “consistent or overarching policy.”
He recommended that the office of the secretary of defense create and implement “consistent operations environmental and sustainability policies.”The Rand report cited several examples of things the troops did well, too, such as creating environmentally sound ways to dispose of waste or, in one case, monitoring birds to see how operations affected wildlife.
In fact, the report found, taking good care of the environment raised morale, and several people came forward to complain when things weren’t handled properly.
But service members must be trained if the problems are to stop, the report states.
“Although engineers play a prominent role in establishing, running and closing base camps, many are not trained in construction engineering and other key skills because of the Army’s focus on developing combat engineers,” it states.
“The Army has recently recognized the perennial problems it has with base camps,” the report said, and has decided to formally establish a lead-agency proponent for base camps.
The hope is that a proponent will establish standard operating procedures “for designing, building and operating base camps in future operations.”
Marines Unaware of Risks
Marines Unaware of Risks
Robert J. O'Dowd for Salem-News.com
More information about the toxic waste exposure of Marines at the El Toro Air Station is emerging, but government data regarding the site remains elusive.
The now-closed El Toro Marine Air Station in Orange County
Photo by Tim King Salem-News.com
(SOMERDALE, N.J.) - The Marine Corps takes great pride "in taking care of its own", but the Naval services have not done a good job notifying veterans who were stationed at former MCAS Toro that they are at risk for exposure to toxic chemicals as a result of the contamination of the soil and groundwater. Very few know of their exposure.
Marines who served at Camp Lejeune, El Toro and possibly several locations, have been exposed to trichloroethylene (TCE) and Perchloroethylene (PCE), and they may suffer serious health consequences, and have no idea of what hit them. Most Marine and Navy veterans stationed at El Toro have no knowledge of the toxic chemicals found on the base, its place on the EPA Superfund, eventually closure in 1999, and sale at a public auction by the Navy in 2005 to a joint venture for $650 million.
But it is a fact that a number of Marines report serious illnesses linked to toxic exposure, and neither the Navy nor the Marine Corps have made any attempts to notify El Toro veterans.
TCE and PCE are highly toxic and if not handled and disposed of properly can cause a number of diseases, including cancer and death. In fact, there’s no legislation requiring the government to notify veterans when a military base has serious contamination issues, even when the base is an EPA Superfund site and many may be facing life threatening illnesses.
MCAS El Toro was commissioned in 1943 and for many years the base obtained drinking water from fresh water wells on station. In 1997, the EPA confirmed that the aquifers are "not currently a source of municipal water." In late 1969, El Toro obtained its drinking water from the Irvin Ranch Water District. There is no explanation from the Navy for the reason for the purchase of municipal water, but the high salt content (total dissolved solids) in the groundwater may have corroded the wells.
A TCE plume was discovered off base in 1985. Six of the base wells were in the MWSG-37 area (EPA Site 24) in the path of the TCE plume. With the possible exception of one well, the actual dates the wells were abandoned are unknown. Well water may have been used for years after the purchase of municipal water for swimming pools, irrigation, fire service, and washing of aircraft and vehicles. Contaminated well water would have exposed Marines, dependents, and civilian workers to these carcinogens.
MWSG-37 was ground zero for the TCE plume. In 1997 the EPA reported that the MWSG-37 area was the source of the toxic plume. EPA found that: "approximately 1,500 pounds of TCE are estimated to be present in soil gas; an additional 4,000 pounds of TCE would be present in the soil moisture. The mass of TCE in groundwater beneath Site 24 is estimated to be approximately 8,000 pounds."
EPA traced the "hot spot" to MWSG-37's maintenance hangars: "the primary VOC (Volatile Organic Compounds) source is present beneath Buildings 296 and 297, extending to the south with decreasing concentrations to the southern Station boundary. Several smaller source areas exist in the soil beneath Site 24, including a PCE soil gas plume located west of Building 297. The VOC concentrations in soil gas generally increase with depth, and the highest concentrations occur near the water table. VOCs in the area of Buildings 296 and 297 extend to groundwater directly beneath those buildings." How much TCE/PCE was used at El Toro? It's anybody's guess. El Toro kept no TCE usage records. These are not the only records that are missing.
The Navy couldn’t locate many records for El Toro's base wells. Detailed construction drawings, missing pumping records and with the possible exception of AW #4, the dates the wells were abandoned are unknown. The first well was destroyed in 1998 and the last in January 2007. AW #4 was the first well destroyed under a permit issued by the Orange County Health Agency. The permits were obtained by the Naval Facility Engineering Command (NAVFAC) Southwest District who contracted for the destruction of the base wells. NAVFAC’s decision process on not locating other well screens after the first one was found in the shallow aquifer is questionable and may reflect the Navy’s concern with limiting law suits from injured parties.
The location of the well screen determines the first point that water and contaminants can enter the well. For AW #4, the consultant video taped the well, finding that the driller had hand cut vertical slots by torch in the steel casing as a continuous well screen from 210 feet below the ground surface (bgs). The contaminated shallow aquifer under MWSG-37 ran to 260 feet bgs.
This meant that 50 feet of the well screen was in the shallow, contaminated aquifer. Were the other well screens in the shallow aquifer, too? No attempt was made by the Navy to locate the other well screens despite the findings from AW #4 and the obvious importance of this information to the contamination of the base's water supply. Did the driller follow this technique in constructing the other MWSG-37 wells? With the driller's logs and construction drawings missing, only an inspection of the wells could answer this question.
In addition to the well water, the risk of serious illness for those who worked in MWSG-37 in or near the maintenance hangars was high because of exposure to toxic vapors from open containers and from vapor intrusion. Others on the base were at some risk for exposure from vapor intrusion from the contaminated soil and groundwater. If contaminated well water was used in swimming pools and for irrigation, the risk for exposure to these carcinogens through dermal contact is evident. In the words of one toxicologist El Toro “was a toxic waste dump.” At least one national law firm has taken an interest in injuries from toxic exposure at El Toro.
Waits & Luxemburg, P.C., a national law firm, advertises on the internet for civilians affected by El Toro's toxic pollution. Marine and Navy veterans are prevented by law from filing file tort suits against the government for service connected injuries. There’s no legal requirement for the government to notify veterans of exposure to toxic chemicals. Unlike Camp Lejeune where legislation required the Marine Corps to notify veterans of TCE contamination of the water supply, El Toro Marines have not been notified, no legislation is pending, and most Marines are in the dark.
In the absence of political pressure, it's unlikely that the Navy will be forthcoming in disclosing the reasons for the purchase of municipal water, the failure to follow-up on the location of well screens, and the dates the wells were abandoned. Both the purchase of municipal water and the well destruction process raise serious questions: Why purchase water when there's no apparent shortage of water in the aquifer? Why not look for other well screens before destroying the wells? After the municipal water purchase, did El Toro continue to use well water for non-potable purposes? Good questions; no clear answers, yet.
Tim King, reporter for Salem-News Salem-News.com El Toro articles, is doing a series of investigative reports/videos on El Toro. King's reports raise more questions about the base's contamination, the impact on the local community and the significant amount of money changing hands in the sale of the base to real estate interests. Continuing media attention may help to raise awareness.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
In the absence of political pressure, it's unlikely that the Navy will be forthcoming in disclosing the reasons for the purchase of municipal water, the failure to follow-up on the location of well screens, and the dates the wells were abandoned. Both the purchase of municipal water and the well destruction process raise serious questions: Why purchase water when there's no apparent shortage of water in the aquifer? Why not look for other well screens before destroying the wells? After the municipal water purchase, did El Toro continue to use well water for non-potable purposes? Good questions; no clear answers, yet.
It has been my experience thru the exposures at Edgewood Arsenal, Maryland in 1974 while part of the "med vol" program the Army is still not forthcoming about the environmental issues the toxic soup created in the drinking water wells there that caused the water wells on base and in the town of Edgewood, Maryland to be capped and this was 30 years ago, why would the Navy be any more forthcoming than the Army?
Here is a link to the Superfund site of Edgewood Arsenal and if El Toro has even 1/4quarter of the toxic material then there is the possibility of major health issues
Toxic Materials on Edgewood Arsenal
ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND (EDGEWOOD AREA)
Contaminants
Site Profile | Aliases | Operable Units | Contacts
Actions | Contaminants | Site-Specific Documents
The below list only includes contaminants identified as contaminants of concern (COCs) for this site. COCs are the site-specific chemical substances that the health assessor selects for further evaluation of potential health effects. Identifying contaminants of concern is a process that requires the assessor to examine contaminant concentrations at the site, the quality of environmental sampling data and the potential for human exposure.
Media Contaminant Contaminant Group
Groundwater 1,1,1,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE VOC
Soil 1,1,2,2-TETRABROMOETHANE VOC
Groundwater 1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE VOC
Groundwater 1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE VOC
Groundwater 1,1-DICHLOROETHENE VOC
Groundwater, Surface Water 1,1-DICHLOROETHYLENE VOC
Groundwater 1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE Base Neutral Acids
Groundwater 1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE VOC
Groundwater, Surface Water 1,2-DICHLOROETHANE VOC
Groundwater 1,2-DICHLOROETHENE VOC
Groundwater, Surface Water 1,2-TRANS-DICHLOROETHYLENE VOC
Groundwater 1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE Base Neutral Acids
Soil 2-HEXANONE VOC
Sediment 2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE PAH
Sediment 4,4-DDE Pesticides
Sediment, Soil 4,4-DDT Pesticides
Groundwater ACETONE VOC
Groundwater ALUMINUM (FUME OR DUST) Metals
Groundwater, Sediment, Soil, Surface Water ANTIMONY Metals
Soil AROCLOR 1248 PCBs
Soil AROCLOR 1254 PCBs
Soil AROCLOR 1260 PCBs
Groundwater, Sediment, Soil, Surface Water ARSENIC Metals
Groundwater, Soil BARIUM Metals
Groundwater BENZENE VOC
Soil BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE PAH
Groundwater BENZOIC ACID Base Neutral Acids
Soil BENZO[A]ANTHRACENE PAH
Sediment, Soil BENZO[A]PYRENE PAH
Groundwater, Sediment, Soil BERYLLIUM Metals
Groundwater BORON OXIDE Inorganics
Groundwater, Soil, Surface Water CADMIUM Metals
Groundwater CALCIUM Metals
Soil CALCIUM CARBONATE Inorganics
Groundwater CARBON DISULFIDE VOC
Groundwater CARBON TETRACHLORIDE VOC
Sediment CHLORDANE Pesticides
Groundwater CHLOROBENZENE VOC
Groundwater CHLOROFORM VOC
Groundwater, Soil CHROMIUM Metals
Groundwater CIS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE VOC
Groundwater COBALT AND COMPOUNDS Inorganics
Groundwater, Sediment, Soil, Surface Water COPPER Metals
Groundwater CYANIDE Inorganics
Soil DIBENZO(A,H)ANTHRACENE PAH
Groundwater ETHYLBENZENE VOC
Soil HEPTACHLOR Pesticides
Soil HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE Pesticides
Soil HEXACHLOROBENZENE Base Neutral Acids
Groundwater HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE Base Neutral Acids
Groundwater, Soil HEXACHLOROETHANE VOC
Soil INDENO(1,2,3-CD)PYRENE PAH
Solid Waste INORGANICS Inorganics
Groundwater, Sediment, Soil, Surface Water IRON Metals
Groundwater, Sediment, Soil, Surface Water LEAD Metals
Soil LEWISITE Base Neutral Acids
Groundwater, Sediment MAGNESIUM Metals
Groundwater, Soil, Surface Water MANGANESE Metals
Groundwater, Soil MERCURY Metals
Groundwater, Surface Water METHYLENE CHLORIDE VOC
Soil MUSTARD GAS Organics
Groundwater NICKEL Metals
Groundwater NITRATE Inorganics
Solid Waste NOT PROVIDED Not Provided
Soil OIL & GREASE Oil & Grease
Soil, Solid Waste PCBs PCBs
Sediment PHENANTHRENE PAH
Soil PHOSGENE Pesticides
Soil PHOSPHORUS (YELLOW OR WHITE) Inorganics
Groundwater POTASSIUM Metals
Groundwater, Surface Water SELENIUM Metals
Groundwater, Soil SILVER Metals
Groundwater SODIUM Metals
Groundwater TETRACHLOROETHENE VOC
Groundwater TETRACHLOROETHYLENE VOC
Groundwater, Soil THALLIUM Metals
Groundwater TOLUENE VOC
Groundwater TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE VOC
Groundwater TRICHLOROETHENE VOC
Groundwater, Surface Water TRICHLOROETHYLENE VOC
Groundwater VANADIUM (FUME OR DUST) Metals
Groundwater, Surface Water VINYL CHLORIDE VOC
Solid Waste VOC VOC
Groundwater XYLENES VOC
Groundwater, Soil, Surface Water ZINC Metals
Return to Search Results Return to Search Superfund Site Information
DISCLAIMER: Be advised that the data contained in these profiles are intended solely for informational purposes use by employees of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for management of the Superfund program. They are not intended for use in calculating Cost Recovery Statutes of Limitations and cannot be relied upon to create any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable by any party in litigation with the United States. EPA reserves the right to change these data at any time without public notice.
OSWER Home | Superfund Home
The Veterans Administration calls this document internet trash when you file a compensation claim using this as evidence of exposure, I guess they think people can be there for months and years without drinking water, coffee or kool aid made with the water, showering, brushing your teeth, or swimming in the post pool filled with this water. How much of this toxic soup is healthy for anyone? At what point does the government become liable?Sphere: Related Content
Who in We'll Tell You Washington Really Support Our Troops and Vets?
Who in We'll Tell You Washington Really Support Our Troops and Vets?
From their flag lapel pins to their yellow ribbon bumper stickers, every politician in America wants you to believe they "support the troops." But actions speak louder than words. When veterans' issues actually came to a vote in Washington, what did your representatives do?
Now, it's easy to find out, thanks to IAVA Action Fund's 2008 Congressional Report Card. At IAVA Action Fund, we tracked every bill and vote on veterans' issues. We've crunched the numbers, and today we're releasing letter grades for every single Senator and Representative on Capitol Hill (including McCain, Obama and Biden). In just a few clicks, you can find out how your representatives voted.
How did Congress do this year? Over all, they scored very well. From the passage of the landmark Post-9/11 GI Bill to fully funding the Department of Veterans Affairs, we have tremendous progress to celebrate this year. More than 150 legislators earned a perfect score, a grade of A+.
But some lawmakers failed to vote in support of our troops and veterans. This year, 9 politicians earned Ds or Fs. If you want to ask your Senator or Representative why they failed to show real support for our troops and vets, we've made that easy - just click here.
There are many serious issues at stake this election year. Unfortunately, Iraq and Afghanistan have gotten pushed to the back burner, even as the media have found plenty of time for Paris Hilton and other silliness. For a country at war, this kind of neglect is simply shameful.
Our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are hard at work every day. It's time that our lawmakers put their money where their mouth is, and show the same devotion to their jobs here in Washington. As we head into tonight's presidential debate, please help keep the needs of our troops and veterans in the public eye. Visit VeteranReportCard.org, and share it with your friends.
Do We Need Change, You're Damn Right We Do, And The World Needs Us To Change, Now!!
=Paul Rieckhoff
Veteran Report Card
The numbers crunched on the report card
How your reps voted
Senate "D List"
Below you will find a complete list of Senators who earned a D or lower from IAVA Action this year. These legislators must improve their voting records if they are to legitimately claim that they support our troops and veterans.
Tom
Coburn
OK
Michael
Enzi
WY
John
McCain
AZ
Jim
DeMint
SC
The A team and the D team
Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL)
1st term Democrat from Illinois. First elected in 2004.
B
(5 out of 9 votes with IAVA Action, plus 2 points for Post-9/11 GI Bill cosponsorship)
← Back to previous page
Sen. Joseph Biden Jr. (D-DE)
6th term Democrat from Delaware. First elected in 1972.
B
(6 out of 9 votes with IAVA Action, plus 2 points for Post-9/11 GI Bill cosponsorship)
Monday, October 6, 2008
"Country First" ?
Country First?
a one minute you tube video on McCains judgement
Some issues congress needs to address
Go to web site: http://www.2ndbattalion94thartillery.com/Chas/CongressmanHall.htm
For full list & inclosures..pass this on to congress & congressional candidates
Some issues congress needs to address...should be on candidate web sites
OVERVIEW OF HERBICIDE VETERANS ISSUES… STILL UNRESOLVED by the 110th Congress
VA parsing of words in diagnosis and pathology reports in order to stall or deny a Veterans/Widows claim. {Reference Attachment 1}
Department of Defense via Air Force Ranch Hand Study (Dioxin Gold Standard) refusing to correct the record of scientific findings of ‘all site cancers’ in published reports paid for by taxpayers (‘Purposeful Exclusion of data violating study and government integrity rules.) {Reference Attachment 2}
Lack of transparency and defining measurable criteria in establishing presumptive disorders by VA leaving the stakeholders with no legal challenge as to the protocols being used and to percentage of certainty required. {Reference Attachment 3}
Lack of transparency and defining measurable criteria in establishing presumptive disorders by IOM leaving the stakeholders with no legal challenge as to the protocols being used and to percentage of certainty required. {Reference Attachment 4}
Presumptive disorder claims (mortality cancers) requiring the validation of ‘three simple data points’ taking six to eighteen months while the Veteran dies. (No one can justify this treatment or lack of performance.) {Reference Attachment 5}
Herbicide disorders found “at least as likely as not associated” and approved at the Board of Veterans Appeals being constantly denied by local VA when all cases are similar except for the case number and the Veteran or Widows name. {Reference Attachment 6}
Korean DMZ Herbicide Veterans being denied service connection because of inclusive time limits of herbicide application. Veterans Affairs refusing to consider the half-life of herbicides after application. {Reference Attachment 7}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sp5kelley2nd94th@aol.com [mailto:Sp5kelley2nd94th@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2008 9:50 AM
To: undisclosed-recipients:
Subject: 110th Congress - a Few Unresolved Herbicide Issues
110th Congress - a Few Unresolved Herbicide Issues
The following will be hand carried to Congressman Hall the Chairman of the Veterans Affairs Oversight in the House.
The others on the copy list will be mailed hard copies.
http://www.2ndbattalion94thartillery.com/Chas/CongressmanHall.htm
Kelley
