This past Sunday’s Parade had a list of things one can do to help out veterans, including sending coupons (even one’s that have expired – service members and their families can use them even after they have expired up to six months, coupsfortroops.com) to old dvds either dropped off at the local VA or sent here dvds4vets.org, from where they distribute them to veterans, there are a number of things one can do. Please check the list provided by Parade to see if there are things that you can do.

The most important thing any of us can do is to extend our deepest gratitude and thanks for the tremendous sacrifices these veterans, and their families, have endured in service to our nation. Not just today as we celebrate Veterans Day, but every day. Buy a service member a meal if you’re eating out, or just say thank you. And if you know a veteran, please take a moment to let them know you appreciate their willingness to serve.

In honor of those who have served, living and dead:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Bless you, and your families. Thank you from the bottom of our hearts.

NOW. Mr. President. What will you do with them? Will you deploy them to another oil-rich country and take out another gang leader so that you look like a hawk? Will you let them just come home and wander the streets looking for a job?

Some folks would say that they are sorry if it looks like they are laying this responsibility upon you. I say. It is your job, as the Commander and Chief of the United States Army, to take care of your folks. So, what are you going to do?

Your Jobs Bill is dead on arrival and it does nothing in January, 2012, to employ the troops. You have thought out how and when to introduce legislation that will peak voter anger about the Republican blockade of your bill that would put people to work. But have you thought about these soldiers Bush is bringing home?

Maybe you should call him and ask him what he had in mind for them to do when they came home.

For now, I ask, what are your plans for these kids?

Their unlikely agreement came as all three insisted it would have been better for the White House to release the post-mortem photos of Osama bin Laden, rather than doing what Sarah Palin called “pussyfooting around.” Sarah Palin via CBS News:

“Show photo as warning to others seeking America’s destruction. No pussy-footing around, no politicking, no drama; it’s part of the mission.”

Most shocking is that the WaPo’s Eugene Robinson agreed with her, although he did so in more polite language. Here is his reasoning:…

[E]ven if they would have “inflamed some jihadists and wannabes, I believe they would have disillusioned and deflated others. A heroic myth of invulnerability had been built around bin Laden. He was supposed to have cheated death while fighting the Russians in Afghanistan, walking tall through fields of fire as the bullets somehow missed. He escaped the Americans who cornered him at Tora Bora. He evaded capture for a decade, despite the best efforts of the West’s spies and soldiers.

Showing him in death would definitively refute any notion that bin Laden enjoyed some kind of divine protection. The myth would die with the man.

Robinson, like WSJ’s Peggy Noonan, believes this would have also quieted conspiracy theorists. But most importantly, Mr. Robinson stated,

The reason to display the photos is to show bin Laden for what he really was: not a holy warrior, not a holy anything, but a deluded mass murderer who met the end he so richly deserved.

In her article Show the Proof, Mr. President, WSJ’s Peggy Noonan offered her deepest admiration and congratulations to the U.S. Navy Seal team who accomplished this difficult and dangerous mission. While she also congratulated President Obama for telling CIA Chief Leon Panetta to “get this guy,” Noonan acknowledged that “with our president there is always a however….”:

[H]e has spent almost every moment since his Sunday night speech [announcing bin Laden's death] displaying both a tin ear and a chronic tendency to misunderstand his own country. His refusal to release more evidence that Osama is dead is allowing a great story to dissolve into a mystery. He is letting a triumph turn into a conspiracy theory
.
[In this age]… “People believe nothing. They think everything is spin and lies.”

And why not – the spin from a number of administrations, especially this one and the last, would make anyone dizzy. Noonan states:

Mr. Obama misunderstands all this. He tells Steve Croft Sunday on Sixty Minutes that showing photos of the dead Osama would be to “spike the football.” “We don’t trot this stuff out as trophies.” Trophies? Who does he think we are?

I can understand her disgust at his comment. The idea of the “spiking the football” refers to a self-congratulatory, self-aggrandizing mode of behavior. Perhaps the president is viewing this event through his own paradigm. There is nothing resembling a victory lap about those needing to see for themselves that a criminal who delivered a “gutshot” to America has been brought to justice. Noonan states:

It’s not about pride, it’s about proof. “We got him, shot him and immediately threw him in the sea” is not enough. The U.S. government should release all the evidence it has that does not compromise security. Pictures of Osama are said to be gruesome. Then get the least gruesome one and put it out. Release the DNA evidence, incriminating information found in the house, and pictures of the raid. If there was a passport under the mattress, make it public. And let the SEALs tell their story. Allow them, if they are willing and eager, to go on “Nightline,” “Frontline” and “60 Minutes.” If they cannot be identified or don’t wish to be, put a blue dot over their faces, filter their voices, and don’t use their names….

Americans don’t want to spike the ball. They just want to show they crossed the goal line.

She discussed Sunday night’s celebration in the streets. While it may have felt odd and at once discomfiting, it offered at least some small measure of justice – that the architect of this horror was finally punished for his heinous crime.

The National Journal also polled some of our top officials to see who “voted” yes or no on the release of such photos. Interestingly, the divide was not on party lines.

Secretary of State Clinton and Defense Secretary Gates voted no, worrying that the photos would provoke a backlash in the Middle East, endangering our troops. House Speaker John Boehner voted “no” saying he had no doubts as to bin Laden’s death, while Senators Joe Lieberman and Susan Collins felt the most important reason to release these pictures would be to dispel suspicions he might still be alive. CIA director Leon Panetta has said he “expected” a photo proving bin Laden’s death to be released.

Apparently, President Obama disagreed.

While I have no wish to look at these gruesome photos myself, it seems to me we should defer to the troops who are currently in harm’s way and then to the families who lost loved ones on 9/11 before we consider anyone else’s.

What say you?

**************
*Although (Prez Obama cheerleader) Eugene Robinson did reluctantly admit that Palin had a point on her characterization of Obamacare “death panels.”

No, I don’t mean whatever flu or cold this is going around right now. I mean what is happening to a number of our women who serve their country in the military.

This is a disheartening result, and is a stain on the honor of those who serve. And that would be this – there is an epidemic of rape and sexual assault against (primarily) women in the Armed Services.

But some of these women are fighting back, as this article highlights
Gates, Rumsfeld Sued Over U.S. Military’s Rape Epidemic:

A landmark lawsuit filed Tuesday against Defense Secretary Robert Gates and his predecessor, Donald Rumsfeld, alleges that the military’s repeated failures to take action in rape cases created a culture where violence against women was tolerated, violating the plaintiffs’ Constitutional rights.

“There are three types of women in the Army,” says Rebecca Havrilla, a former sergeant and explosive-ordnance-disposal technician. “Bitch, dyke, and whore.” During the four years that Havrilla was on active duty, she was called all three—by fellow soldiers, team leaders, even unit commanders. Once, during a sexual-assault prevention training, the 28-year-old South Carolina native claims, she watched a fellow soldier—male—strip naked and dance on top of a table as the rest of the team laughed. While deployed in Afghanistan, Havrilla spent four months working under a man she alleges bit her neck, pulled her into his bed, and grabbed her butt and waist—on a daily basis. When, on the last day of her deployment, she alleges she was raped by a soldier she considered a friend, it was, she says, “the icing on the cake.”

But Havrilla calls herself lucky: the end of her military commitment was in sight. In other cases, soldiers have had to keep fighting alongside, or even under, the person who assaulted them; been ostracized by their units for reporting an attack; or, as another woman says, simply “shoved to the side.” Havrilla and 16 others are now plaintiffs in a class action suit filed Tuesday against Defense Secretary Robert Gates and his predecessor, Donald Rumsfeld, alleging that their failure to act amounted to a violation of the plaintiffs’ Constitutional rights. The suit, brought by Washington, D.C. attorney Susan Burke, and filed in the Eastern Virginia federal court, charges that despite ample evidence of the problem, both Gates and Rumsfeld “ran institutions in which perpetrators were promoted; … in which Plaintiffs and other victims were openly subject to retaliation… and ordered to keep quiet.” The plaintiffs, in turn, have been “directly and seriously injured by Defendants’ actions and omissions.” “It’s shocking,” the case’s lead investigator, Keith Rohman, tells The Daily Beast. “And it’s just hard to understand why they’ve held off. Families all over America send their young men and women to serve and they do that at tremendous personal risk and danger. But this is not a risk that those families want to assume.”

Nor is it a risk they SHOULD assume. Too often, these perpetrators get off scot-free, with the victims further victimized by the very institution they serve.

I have to say, while reading about this lawsuit, and seeing what has happened to these women at the hands of their commanding officers and/or colleagues, often resulting in their dismissal, I am reminded of the story of the 14 year old Bangladeshi girl, raped by her uncle, and then charged with adultery. It is a matter of degrees. The woman is still blamed, and still bears the brunt of both the assault, and loss of vocation, employment, or career (in the matter of the Bangladeshi girl, she lost her life after being lashed to death).

But I am getting ahead of myself. This kind of treatment of women has been going on for a while, but it is getting worse, not better:

[snip] Meanwhile, the numbers continue to rise. In 2009 reported sexual assaults went up 11 percent, according to Department of Defense statistics, with one in three women reporting having been sexually violated while serving in the military. The Pentagon itself admits that reported incidents probably represent just 20 percent of those that actually occur. Female recruits are now far more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed in combat. But women aren’t the only victims; statistics from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs indicate that more than half of those who screen positive for Military Sexual Trauma are men.

“The military is so focused on operational readiness that all these other issues can be labeled ‘minor.’ But the fact of the matter is, it’s destroying the military internally.”

Even when rape cases are reported, the ACLU finds that only 8 percent of them are prosecuted—the civilian system prosecutes 40 percent of alleged perpetrators—and the military trials are often stunningly mishandled. Prosecutors in a case brought by Christine Smith—a civilian who was says that in 2006 she was raped by a man serving in the airborne division—said that they’d lost her underwear, so didn’t introduce it as evidence. But after the soldier was acquitted Smith received a phone call saying she could come retrieve the underwear from the military investigative office.

Oh, dear goddess. That is a staggeringly low percentage. But to first claim evidence was lost to then offer to return it post-trial is the height of callous disregard. What is worse, there is little one can do:

In such cases, the plaintiff has little recourse. “For lots of reasonable historical bases, the military has a level of civil immunity in our society which is quite high,” investigator Rohman says. “There’s a downside to that: their lack of external accountability means that they have not had to adjust in the way the rest of society has.” In particular, a 1950 Supreme Court ruling, known as the Feres Doctrine, places the military beyond the reach of workplace laws regarding sexual discrimination and sexual harassment. To make matters worse, charges are usually investigated within the immediate chain of command. “There’s no investigatory training. They don’t tell you to look for evidence,” says Greg Jacob, who spent 10 years in the Marines and rose to the rank of captain. Instead, they hand over a manual for courts martial, which explains, among other things, that the investigating officer should consider, first and foremost, “the character and military service of the accused.” Jacob says that essentially means weighing each soldier’s past and future value to the unit. “It’s an HR approach to criminal conduct,” he says. “Military justice imbued me with the ability to be judge and jury. Honestly, I had no idea what to do.”

It was watching the military bungle one such investigation that eventually caused Jacob to leave the service. When a course critique revealed that a senior enlisted marine in his company was systematically assaulting “dozens and dozens” of female trainees, Jacob investigated, got more than 80 corroborations of the behavior, and sent the report up along the chain of command. Less than a week later, the offender was sent to Camp Lejune and subsequently deployed for Iraq. When Jacob asked why he hadn’t been prosecuted, Jacob says he was told, “He’s a good soldier. He just can’t handle an integrated training environment.” In Iraq, the marine was killed, leaving a widow and five children. “If they’d prosecuted him, he would have stayed here and lost some stripes, but not been killed,” Jacob says. “That’s when I decided to get out. I’d been in for ten years. I was a decorated combat Marine. They were going to send me to take a unit to Iraq. But they lost out on all my experience, all the money they’d spent on me. The reach of this problem stretches a long way.” (A spokesperson for the Marine’s Manpower and Reserves Public Affairs office said that she couldn’t comment on individual cases.)

Jacob left the military. Ultimately, Havrilla left as well. Three months after returning to the States she was discharged, having been diagnosed with both combat PTSD and sexual assault PTSD. She’s now living in Missouri and is currently unemployed. She hopes that the lawsuit, and the attention it will receive, will compel the military to start outsourcing sexual assault training. “You’re not going to change hearts and minds overnight,” she says. “Someone who is a misogynistic asshole isn’t going to change their minds because of some PowerPoint presentation. But at that point, at least you can’t claim ignorance. There’s no wishy-washy ‘Oh, it’s just boys being boys.’ If you have a leadership that doesn’t give a shit, nothing’s going to change. It has to start from the top down.” And while the suit seeks significant monetary damages, a payout is neither expected nor entirely the point. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

This is disturbing on so many levels. As noted above, often these victims are victimized repeatedly, through the deliberate lack of action taken, as was the case here:

[snip] In one incident, an Army Reservist says two male colleagues raped her in Iraq and videotaped the attack. She complained to authorities after the men circulated the video to colleagues. Despite being bruised from her shoulders to elbows from being held down, she says charges weren’t filed because the commander determined she “did not act like a rape victim” and “did not struggle enough” and authorities said they didn’t want to delay the scheduled return of the alleged attackers to the United States.

“The problem of rape in the military is not only service members getting raped, but it’s the entire way that the military as a whole is dealing with it,” said Panayiota Bertzikis, who is a plaintiff in the lawsuit and claims she was raped in 2006. “From survivors having to be involuntarily discharged from service, the constant verbal abuse, once a survivor does come forward your entire unit is known to turn their back on you. The entire culture needs to be changed.” [snip]

Indeed, the culture does need to be changed, though it is too late for these women, whose victimization continues through the “trial,” or the threat or actual loss of career, as was the case for Kori Cioca:

[snip] Even though the man confessed to having sex with her, Cioca said in the lawsuit she was told if she pressed forward with reporting the sex as a rape, she would be court-martialed for lying. She said the man pleaded guilty only to hitting her and his punishment was a minor loss of pay and being forced to stay on the base for 30 days. She said she was discharged from the military for a “history of inappropriate relationships.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Court-martialed for “lying.” So, not only was she assaulted by this man physically, but sexually as well, and SHE as the one court-martialed. There is something seriously, seriously wrong with this.

Here is Ms. Cioca detailing what happened to her:

“It wasn’t important. I wasn’t important.”

I don’t know about you, but I need a minute after watching this video. Wow.

That is one helluva message for the military to be sending to women. Now you know, I appreciate those who are willing to serve their country, and have a nephew now serving his 3rd tour in the Middle East. But this kind of behavior is systemic, and must be addressed as such. Anyone willing to give of themselves in service to the country deserves to know that the very people in their unit are not going to assault them. And if they DO, they must face the consequences in a sober, serious, meaningful way. Whatever the military is doing now is clearly not working.

I hope these women and men win this lawsuit. But until we, as a nation, are willing to address how women are treated in our country, in our culture, any changes as a result of the lawsuit will be window dressing. As Havrilla said above, “You’re not going to change hearts and minds overnight,” she says. “Someone who is a misogynistic asshole isn’t going to change their minds because of some PowerPoint presentation.” Indeed, we need real, systemic change. Nothing else will do.

The repeal does not immediately put a stop to “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Mr. Obama must still certify that changing the law to allow homosexual and bisexual men and women to serve openly in all branches of the military will not harm readiness, as must Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Admiral Mullen, before the military can implement the new law. There remains significant resistance within the military to the change in policy, especially within the Marine Corps. But Mr. Gates and Admiral Mullen have both said they are committed to implementing the change.

At the signing ceremony, Obama claimed he would not drag his feet on certification. Let’s hope that is indeed the case (though I am not holding my breath).

But there is more to this issue than meets the eye. David Crary of the Associated Press wrote an interesting article on the next steps facing the military, “Blacks, Women, Now Gays: Military To Adjust Again.” If the implementation of having women in the military is an indicator, this could be a difficult time for openly gay, lesbian, or bisexual service members:

[snip] Now the military has a new social challenge: Allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the ranks. It is expected that commanders will dutifully implement the policy, and overall it will likely be judged a success, but recent history provides some cautionary lessons.

On one hand, the military has earned a deserved reputation as a meritocracy in which minorities and women can flourish. On the other hand, sexual assault remains a rampant problem, and racism was minimized only after years of friction within the ranks.

Perhaps the impending repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy will unfold more easily, but some female veterans say that will be the case only if commanders are vigilant and aggressive in quashing anti-gay harassment.

“When women come forward to report sexual harassment, that’s when a commander’s courage is tested,” said Anuradha Bhagwati, a former Marine captain who heads the Service Women’s Action Network. “Even though we have fairly decent policies on paper, enforcement of basic harassment policies is very shoddy.”

Bhagwati’s network is a plaintiff in a federal lawsuit filed Dec. 13 seeking access to Pentagon records on the thousands of sexual assault and harassment cases reported in the past decade. In fiscal year 2009 alone, the Defense Department said there were 3,230 reports of sexual assault involving service members.

Sadly, the incidences of sexual assault against women in the military academmies is on the rise according to a recent report. That is putting it mildly, though, as this Eleanor Clift article makes clear:

No matter how much things change, they stay the same. That was my first reaction to a new Pentagon report that shows an eye-popping rise in incidents of sexual assault at the nation’s prestigious service academies — the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y.; the Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md.; and the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs. The number is up 64 percent, from 25 cases in the 2008-2009 academic year to 51 cases in 2009-2010. The Pentagon attributes the increase to students being more willing to report these crimes. But the report also acknowledges student discomfort at reporting sexual misconduct, despite steps the military has taken to ensure confidentiality. Students, mostly women but presumably some men too, are afraid of being singled out and somehow being made to pay, either by their superiors or their peers, for disturbing the illusion that all is well between the sexes.

There is also confusion among students as to whether behavior they consider offensive rises to the level of initiating a reporting procedure with built-in safeguards for the accused as well as the accuser. Physical assault and rape are clearer to define, but misconduct that occurs in a social context and triggers what is known as date rape becomes harder to prove, especially when alcohol is involved. Women, who are a minority in the service academies, no doubt feel that the burden is on them to justify making a complaint. The military for too long looked the other way, rather than confront sexual misconduct in its ranks, to expect the kind of trust necessary to encourage candor. [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.}

YIKES. Those numbers are staggering, no matter how one wants to paint them. While people have been saying they don’t care what someone’s sexual orientation is when they are under attack in the foxhole, they just want them to do their jobs, how about who women can trust?

But I digress. Back to the Crary article, “Blacks, Women, Now Gays“:

[snip]Several military-policy scholars suggested that the armed forces had done better in regard to racial equality than it has in curtailing harassment of women.

“With race, the military led the way,” said David Segal, a University of Maryland sociologist who has studied military personnel policies. “It was not that way with gender – lots of other workplaces were ahead, and I’m surprised it has taken us this long to get to where we are now.”

[...]

Marcus S. Cox, a professor who teaches black military history to cadets at The Citadel in Charleston, S.C., believes generational factors are at work,

“My students say they’d have no problem serving with someone gay as long as they’re able to do their jobs,” he said. “For young people, raised with MTV and same-sex marriage, it’s not as unsettling as for some older people.”

Segal said incidents of gay-bashing had occurred on a regular basis under “don’t ask, don’t tell” and would likely continue, but not increase, after repeal enabled gays and lesbians to be open about their sexual orientation.

He noted that many members of the military already knew they had gays in their units, despite “don’t ask, don’t tell,” and suggested this could make the upcoming transition smoother than the changes involving blacks and women. [snip]

Well, that is certainly a positive in terms of incorporating openly out service people, but still disconcerting in terms of women.

And then there are those who face discrimination on both fronts:

[snip] Sue Fulton, of North Plainfield, N.J., has seen military prejudice from two directions – as a lesbian and as a woman who was in the first coed class at the U.S. Military Academy in 1976.

“At the academy, it was all about leadership,” she said. “Many of the problems we had came from instructors and staff who would make derogatory comments about women in front of cadets.”

Those staffers were a minority, she said, and most officers were supportive.

Now, with gays soon able to serve openly, Fulton says officers will face similar choices on how to exercise leadership.

“There is a chasm of difference between saying, `We got our orders’ and saying, `This is a good. This will make us stronger, and here’s how we’ll go about it.” [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

Indeed. Though I think it will make the military stronger when members do not have to hide who they are, when there will be comeuppance for gay bashing, and when there will be no “benefit” of outing members of a unit. For people to not have to worry about scrutiny for every word they say, or every action they make, or who they meet on leave, it will of necessity make units stronger.

I am thrilled that DADT has finally, after too many years, been repealed. I know people for whom this will be a huge deal, and which will mean they can continue in their military career without fear of being outed. It is about time.

But this change is far from a done deal, as the treatment of too many women in the academies and the military itself attest. I hope, and pray, that the assaults against women in the military, primarily from other service members, will be addressed swiftly and completely. And I hope and pray that those who will soon be allowed to serve openly will not face reprisal from their fellow service members.

Until that time that Certification is complete, however, we must be vigilant that Obama will keep his word, and not drag his feet on this. The work is not yet over, but still, Wednesday was a good day indeed…

Here are a couple of ways you can help, even if you, personally, do not celebrate Christmas. This is just a good time of year to share with those less fortunate. We have all heard about Toys for Tots (more on that below), but the Army and Air Force, along with some civilian organizations, have an answer to the Marines. It’s pretty darn cool:

Neat, eh? The idea was conceived 12 years ago by Randy Oler to help out families in need, and to give paratroopers the opportunity to get their foreign wings (you can also go watch these paratroopers jump). And, as this article highlights, these paratroopers get to opt for foreign jump wings (German or Irish this year).

Of course, Toys for Tots, sponsored by the Marine Corps (pronounced “core,” in case Obama is reading this), has been operating for many years. The video below says it all:

And I just have to put this one up, too:

If you are able, and willing, please consider giving to one of these organizations this year. You don’t need to buy a toy, if time and ability do not permit. They take monetary donations, too.

Brighten a child’s Christmas this year, if you can. A little bit from you can go a long way for a child. These are just two ways you can do so. Feel free to list your favorite organization.

Today, Thursday, is the day we recognize the sacrifices of our men and women who have donned the uniform of our country in her service. Many are gone, those brave souls who fought early in our nation’s history, and in the Great War, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam, too. We have lost brave troops in both Iraq wars, as well as Afghanistan. And we have many veterans returning from those two wars in which we are still engaged. Today is the day we remember them, their willingness to put themselves second, and their country first.

We honor your service, we honor you, veterans past and present, living and dead:

Norah Jones’ “American Anthem” seems appropriate for this day:

As the very name of the following video acknowledges, “All Gave Some, Some Gave All”:

One day seems insignificant considering the sacrifices veterans, and their families make. Many have made the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of our nation. We salute you, we thank you, and we remember you, on this Veterans Day, this week, and every day.

UPDATE: I wanted to share with you this post by Michael Coady, who serves as the Marine Security Guard Branch Chief in the Bureau of Diplomatic Security (State Department), “Salute To Our Marine Security Guards“:

Today, we honor the men and women who have served so honorably and with great courage in our armed forces, helping to defend the nation’s citizens and interests throughout the world.

But this November 11, we in the State Department should pay special tribute to those service members who have helped protect and defend our diplomatic missions abroad as members of the Marine Security Guard program.

More than 1,100 Marines now serve in 150 diplomatic posts in 138 countries, helping to protect classified information and equipment and to safeguard the lives of the people who work there.

The skill, devotion to duty and country, and valor that the Marine Security Guards bring to these diplomatic posts has been a comfort to many of us in the Foreign Service, especially those assigned to U.S. Embassies in high-threat or hostile environments. We know that in times of crises and emergencies, our colleagues the Marine Security Guards will be there to help us protect the nation’s secrets and embassy personnel.

The bonds between the Marine Security Guard program and the Foreign Service are strong and enduring. That relationship, and the MSG program itself, continue to grow. This past year we welcomed two new MSG detachments into our State Department family, and we expect at least eight more detachments over the next five years.

As part of our commitment to the MSG program, the Department of State is helping design a new Marine Security Guard training facility in Quantico, Virginia. The new installation will replicate the State Department’s new embassy compound design and will provide training on the most advanced security equipment that we have at our embassies worldwide.

And some of those Marine Corps veterans who once served so honorably in the Marine Security Guard program have returned to the Department of State as Foreign Service officers, civil servants, and contractors, including many of my own colleagues here in the Bureau of Diplomatic Security. So in some instances, we can truly say that we are one with the MSGs.

This Veterans Day, let us remember all who have served the nation through their military service. But let us also especially thank those who have served as Marine Security Guards, for they are part of our State Department family.

While there may be debate on what constitutes success in Iraq, there is one area in which strides are being made:

That is good news indeed, though, clearly, women have a long, long way to go in countries where Sharia Law is dominant, like Afghanistan. Certainly it is my hope that women’s rights will be written into the Constitution in Iraq, and that women will obtain equality.

As for this most auspicious occasion, surely President Obama weighed in. Wait, what? He didn’t? Well, um, you know, he was busy. Yeah, right, that’s the ticket. Yep, he was on his way to vacation on Martha’s Vineyard. Hey, being president is “hard work,” so he needs another vacation after a few days of working. Leave Barry aloooonnnneeeee!

Well, Stephen Colbert has a few suggestions for Obama about what he SHOULD have done to mark this day as only Colbert can:

So glad you are on your way back, troops. Welcome home!

So about that new person at West Point. He may be new there, but he is definitely not a “newbie.” That would be Lt. Gen. David Huntoon, the new Superintendent of West Point, the prestigious military academy. How refreshing to see someone so accomplished, especially these days (talking about you, Obama).

Below Lt. Gen. Huntoon gives his first interview as Superintendent to Fox & Friends Brian Kilmeade:

The General is an impressive man, to be sure. His three sons, all currently in service to our country, are chips off the old block, apparently. Wow.

I admit, Kilmeade is not my favorite, but he is right – the courage these young people demonstrate by their sheer desire to attend not just West Point, but any military academy, knowing they will see combat, speaks volumes.

One last thing, speaking of West Point. One of their best, and brightest, Katherine Miller, ranked #9 in her class, has decided to tender her resignation to West Point. Why? Because she is a lesbian, and can no longer abide hiding who she is as a result of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” While she has had a stellar career at West Point, she has also endured some hardships as a result of her sexual orientation. That is disturbing. It is one thing to abolish a poorly conceived (though way better than what they had before) law, but it is another thing to change attitudes.

Certainly, I hope for both to happen – DADT abolished, and attitudes changed, but we are not there yet. That is sad for Ms. Miller, and sad for both West Point and the Army in losing such a tremendous young woman.

I wonder how Lt. Gen. Huntoon’s tenure will change the environment at West Point, or will it? Time will tell.

The following video, about which I learned from my oldest niece, also speaks volumes. Her husband, a Marine, is about to re-deploy, leaving his four young children. My niece suggested people get a box of Kleenex, and I concur with that suggestion. Get some tissues before you watch:

Finally, you know I was not a fan of George W. Bush, to put it mildly. But, I have to hand it to him for what he and his wife, Laura, did the other day:

Thank you, indeed…

(Katmoon, Ferd, and Armymom, thinking of you…)

But now, Argentina also has legalized same sex marriage. All that is needed to make it official is the signature of their (woman) president, Christina Fernandez.

Do I even have to say what a big deal this is? I didn’t think so. This article provides the highlights:

Argentine Senate Backs Bill Legalising Gay Marriage
The Argentine Senate Debate continued until the early hours of Thursday

Argentina has become the first country in Latin America to legalise gay marriage after the Senate voted in favour.

The country’s Chamber of Deputies had already approved the legislation.

The vote in the Senate, which backed the bill by just six votes, came after 14 hours of at times heated debate.

Now, don’t think that everyone was all happy about this legislation, though. Not everyone is:

The law, which also allows same-sex couples to adopt, had met with fierce opposition from the Catholic Church and other religious groups.

[Snip]

Outside Congress, as the debate continued into the early hours of Thursday, supporters and opponents of the bill held rival demonstrations.

“Nearly every political and social figure has spoken out in favour of marriage equality,” said Maria Rachid, president of the Argentine Federation of Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and Transsexuals.

“And we hope that the Senate reflects this and that Argentina, from today forward, is a more just country for all families,” she told the Associated Press.

Click HERE to read the rest of the story.

What a great day for the people of Argentina, affirming the inherent worth of all of their citizens, and affording all their citizens the same rights. What a concept. My hat’s off to them.

In case you are wondering, they also dropped their ban against openly gay people serving in their military in 2009. To me, it just begs the question: If Argentina can do it, why can’t we?

And now for that tango:

Right? Wow…

This is an Open Thread. What is on your mind?

I would add, “and girls” who have sacrificed as well.

As a special thank you to those soldiers who guard the Tomb of the Unknowns 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, come hell or high water, I offer this report by Chris Wallace about the guards:

Thank you to those soldiers who guard the Tomb of the Unknowns morning, noon, and night. Your dedication and devotion to those who were lost and have yet to be identified is awe-inspiring.

We can remember those who have died in service to the country together today. The Memorial Day Foundation states:

The National Moment of Remembrance was created by President William Clinton to observe a moment of silence to occur at 3:00 p.m. (local time) on each Memorial Day. This is to encourage Americans everywhere, to pause for one minute at 3:00 p.m. (local time) on Memorial Day, to remember and reflect on the sacrifices made by so many to provide freedom for all…(Click HERE to read a copy of the official White House Press Release announcing “The National Moment of Remembrance.”) To learn more about the National Moment of Remembrance, go to www.remember.gov.

We remember you. We will not forget you. From a grateful nation, we thank you.

“We have learned something important since the days that I served in Vietnam,” Mr. Blumenthal said to the group gathered in Norwalk in March 2008. “And you exemplify it. Whatever we think about the war, whatever we call it — Afghanistan or Iraq — we owe our military men and women unconditional support.”

He is right that we need to support our military. But he is wrong about his own service. He received five deferments, and served in the Marine Reserves Stateside. Oops.

Over the years Blumenthal has embellished his record, something that caused concern for his old friend, Christopher Shays, as detailed in this article, “Shays Watched As Blumenthal’s Claims Evolved.” Apparently, this was over a period of years:

[snip] Mr. Shays, a 10-term incumbent who lost a re-election bid in November 2008, was a conscientious objector during the Vietnam War. He said he and Mr. Blumenthal began their careers in politics at roughly the same time and frequently addressed the same groups. He recalled that early on, Mr. Blumenthal spoke humbly about his military record, rarely discussing it and always making clear that he had held only desk jobs and had not been in the line of fire, though he remained proud of having been a Marine.

“But as time went on, he would mention it more often, and Vietnam would show up,” even when Mr. Blumenthal was not speaking to veterans, Mr. Shays said.

Eventually, Mr. Shays said, he began hearing Mr. Blumenthal refer to having served in Vietnam. Mr. Shays said he assumed, wrongly, that Mr. Blumenthal had perhaps been a military lawyer there. That alone, he said, was enough for him to have had the impulse to advise Blumenthal to be careful, that people could interpret his remarks as a claim to have seen action there.

“I felt inclined to go to him and say, ‘Dick, in your service in Vietnam, you weren’t on the firing line, you don’t want to overstate that,’ ” Mr. Shays said. “I just felt like he was raising the stakes in a way that was inconsistent with what he’d said in the past. I was actually going to go up and speak to him. And I wish I had.”

Oh dear. Well, CT AG Blumenthal finally addressed his claim:

Um, no one is impugning your character, AG Blumenthal. You did that all by your very own self when you flat out LIED and said you served in Vietnam, and by your dissembling now. I commend you for your decision to join the Marine Corps during the Vietnam War. So did my uncle, only he actually DID go to Vietnam. You dishonor those who actually did serve overseas, who lived through a horrendous war, from which many never recovered even though they made it back to these shores. And you blame OTHERS for pointing out what you yourself said, and what is on video?

Blumenthal’s opponent, Rob Simmons, actually did serve in Vietnam, and has this to say about such a claim:

I think Mr. Simmons summed this up beautifully. And, the additional insult of Blumenthal appearing at a VFW post did not pass Simmons by. Blumnthal had no right to be there, and compounded his infraction by choosing that locale.

Why can Mr. Blumenthal not just admit he lied?? He DOES owe an apology to those who did serve in country. Moreover, he owes an apology for taking the victim stance he is claiming now. It is unbecoming of someone of his stature, and someone who is a Marine (once a Marine, always a Marine).

Perhaps Mr. Blumenthal has forgotten the motto, Semper fidelis:

Semper Fidelis distinguishes the Marine Corps bond from any other. It goes beyond teamwork – it is a brotherhood and lasts for life.

Latin for “always faithful,” Semper Fidelis became the Marine Corps motto in 1883. It guides Marines to remain faithful to the mission at hand, to each other, to the Corps and to country, no matter what.

Becoming a Marine is a transformation that cannot be undone, and Semper Fi reminds us of that. Once made, a Marine will forever live by the ethics and values of the Corps.

I think that says it all, don’t you?

And that is what the following video depicts. I was just stunned listening to Captain Mantz talk about what happened to him in Iraq, and marveled that he was even here to tell his story. I will leave it to him to explain:

Isn’t that just amazing? It is incredible that Captain Mantz is alive, much less that he completed his tour, is still serving his country, is such an amazing spokesperson for the Army, and helps ease the sorrows of others. What an outstanding individual. What a truly astonishing story of dedication, determination, and sheer awe at the mystery of life.

In honor of Captain Mantz, and for all those who have put on the uniform, I leave you with this:

Well, Gay Rights groups aren’t the only ones upset about the lack of action on DADT. Honestly, I was a bit surprised by this article, but I am glad for it:

Dems In Congress Unwilling To Wait On Lengthy Repeal Of Military “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”

WASHINGTON — The White House is facing a budding revolt over its carefully crafted strategy for repeal of the ban on gays serving openly in the military that would have pushed the decision past the November election.

Democrats in the House and Senate — including two key lawmakers from Colorado — say they are unwilling to wait for completion of a 10-month Pentagon study on repeal of the policy known as “don’t ask, don’t tell” and are instead moving to include immediate repeal in the defense reauthorization bill, scheduled for mark-up next month.

Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., among the Democrats on the Senate Armed Services Committee backing the move, said the committee was “within a vote or two” of including repeal in the must- pass legislation. He met with three discharged members of the military Tuesday, using their stories to highlight the need for repeal this year.

Rep. Jared Polis, a Boulder Democrat and one of three openly gay members of Congress, holds a key position on the Rules Committee that he is willing to use to insert a similar provision in the House version of the spending bill, he said Tuesday.

Congressional aides said both approaches are likely to face opposition from the White House, which in February laid a timetable built around an extensive Pentagon study that won’t be completed until Dec. 1, pushing a final move on the contentious issue past what’s expected to be Democrats’ toughest election cycle in years.

That’s just it – this study, which is basically reinventing the wheel in terms of openly homosexual military personnel since many other countries already have LGB people serving openly. Not to be too cynical or anything, but it does provide cover for Obama to NOT have DADT repealed. If the study isn’t completed until AFTER the elections, when Republicans are expected to at least reclaim the House, he can blame THEM for it not being repealed down the road.

Meanwhile, real people are being affected by DADT:

3 tales of careers ended

But the White House is facing pushback on several fronts at once. On Monday, repeal activists heckled President Barack Obama for several minutes at a fundraiser for Sen. Barbara Boxer in California.

“The sooner we can end this policy, the better,” Polis said. “There have been plenty of studies about this policy and how it continues to weaken our military every day that it exists.”

The three former military personnel gathered in Udall’s Senate office Tuesday each had stellar careers cut short when officials discovered they were gay.

Mike Almy was an Air Force major commanding a sensitive communications unit in the Middle East when a colleague discovered personal e-mails sent to relatives back home. After a 16-month investigation, he was discharged and escorted from the base by police “as if I were a common criminal or a threat to national security,” he said.

David Hall spent five years loading bombs and missiles on F-15 fighter jets when he was accepted into an officer-training program, with a chance to become a fighter pilot. Ranked No. 1 in his cadet class, he was discharged when a female cadet told his superiors he was gay.

Stacey Vasquez had a career as a distinguished noncommissioned officer, including being named the top recruiter in the Army. It ended when a colleague’s wife saw her kissing another woman in a club in Dallas, she said.

“Once I was discharged, I remember a distinct feeling as I was driving away from Fort Hood thinking, How could my country let me down like this?” Vasquez said.

“How could I give 12 years, how could I go out and tell kids how great the service was, and then one day — due to no misconduct — my country tells me that I’m not a valuable asset?” she said.

Udall cited the record of each and called repeal “the most common-sense step we could take to enhance our national security.”

There are so many stories like these, TOO many stories like these. How is it that these people who have sacrificed so much, and are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice, be turned away like common criminals from serving? It is heartbreaking to hear these stories, to endure one’s country turning its back on years of service.

What will it take to repeal this law then? The article continues:

Backers’ strategy

Opponents of repealing don’t ask, don’t tell, which allows gays to serve in the military as long as their sexual orientation remains a secret, make the opposite argument: Allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military presents of risk of significant disruption in the midst of fighting two wars.

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, supports including immediate repeal in the defense spending bill, aides said, a strategy that would require a super majority of 60 votes to remove it. Two or three Democrats on the committee are opposed, which means supporters will have to pick up some Republican allies.

But the most significant factor may be how far the White House is willing to go in opposing the idea.

“I’m going to push everybody possible to see this happens this year. We’ve had this discussion long enough,” Udall said.

“The Pentagon has taken some big forward steps that they’ve never been willing to take,” he said. “I don’t under estimate the steps they’re taking, but in the end we need to change the law.” (Michael Riley: 303-954-1614 or mriley@denverpost.com)

I think we have already seen how far the White House is willing to go. Obama commissioned a study to end AFTER the mid-term elections. I think that says it all.

I continue to marvel at the intestinal fortitude of those who continue this fight to serve their country when their country has let them down, when their Commander in Chief has let them down. This speaks volumes about them, and the stuff of which they are made.

And so, I would like to conclude by thanking those service members who have been discharged under this policy for their service; for those who are fighting to serve their country; and to all who put on the uniform for this country, past and present. I know this isn’t Veterans Day, or Armed Services Day, but it doesn’t mean this cannot be a “Thank Our Military” Day, especially for those who are fighting to stay in the service:

This is a story about which we have not heard much in the news of late:

Two Senators Subpoena Obama Administration For Information On Fort Hood Shootings

Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) issued the first congressional subpoenas of the Obama administration Monday after accusing the White House of stonewalling their requests for information about the Fort Hood shootings.

In a letter with the subpoenas, the chairman and ranking member of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee said the FBI and Defense Department had ignored their requests for five months. The Nov. 5 shootings at the Texas base, the largest Army post in the United States, left 13 people dead.

Lieberman and Collins said they sought witnesses and documents about what the government previously knew about the alleged gunman, Army psychiatrist Nidal M. Hasan, and whether it had adequately investigated his pre-shooting communications with Yemeni cleric and suspected terrorist Anwar al-Aulaqi.

Lawmakers gave the administration until April 26 to respond or face a committee vote to take the administration to court.

Well, that time is fast approaching. It will be telling to see how Obama responds:

“Given the warning signs of Major Nidal Malik Hasan’s extremist radicalization and growing hostility toward the U.S. military and the United States generally, why was he not stopped before he took thirteen American lives, and how can we prevent such a tragedy from happening again?” Lieberman and Collins wrote Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates.

“Unfortunately, it is impossible for us to avoid reaching the conclusion that the departments simply do not want to cooperate with our investigation,” they wrote in the letter, which they said followed four other formal letters to the Pentagon and two to the Justice Department.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs referred questions about the matter to the Defense Department.

On Friday, Gates said that the military had “no interest in hiding anything” but that its most important priority was to prevent the release of materials that could compromise Hasan’s prosecution on 13 charges of murder and 32 charges of attempted murder.

“We are going to be reviewing the subpoena and determining the proper way forward,” Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said Monday. “We will continue to cooperate with the Congress as we go forward, but it has to be with the caveat that whatever we do does not have a potentially negative impact on our ability to prosecute.”

The senators said senior Pentagon and FBI personnel had provided closed briefings to lawmakers, but added, “Congress cannot conduct effective oversight based only on those facts the agencies want Congress to have.”

Collins and Lieberman said the FBI and Pentagon had permitted their personnel to speak to internal investigators — including the FBI’s deputy director and a Gates-appointed panel led by former Army secretary Togo West and retired Adm. Vernon Clark, a former chief of naval operations — but not to their committee. “Congress cannot settle for less access than the West-Clark review received,” they said.

In an April 12 letter, Justice and Defense lawyers said that interviews could compromise agents’ testimony at trial and chill future investigations, and that information about how Hasan’s associates and superiors at Walter Reed Army Medical Center dealt with complaints about his alleged radicalization could not be provided until internal disciplinary proceedings were completed.

The following report hits the highlights of this action by Senators Lieberman and Collins:

Here is an interesting comparison. While Major Hasan was allowed to spout jihadist rhetoric and generally appear, well, nuts, including calling the war in Iraq a “War On Islam,” no significant move was made to impede his career in anyway by the Army.

Meanwhile, Lt. Col. Lakin, another doctor, will face a court martial for his refusal to follow an order from Obama, seeing it as unlawful (Lakin is a “birther”). I am not in any way, shape, or form, defending Lakin’s refusal to follow an order to deploy, but it is telling that he is facing a court martial, as well as the Army suggesting this decorated flight surgeon get a brain scan because he doesn’t believe Obama is natural born.

Hey, even the Arizona House has voted to force Obama to prove his citizenship if he hopes to be on the ballot in that state again (better late than never, I’m sure some would say!), so I guess they all need brain scans, too?

Interesting how the two doctors were treated. One, according to this article, injected his political beliefs in a most inappropriate manner in the classroom, and about whom people say they are not surprised he killed a slew of his fellow soldiers. Did anyone suggest a brain scan for him prior to the killings for his rhetoric? Not that I have seen reported.

The other, a highly decorated flight surgeon, questions the authenticity of the president to be president. As a result, he has defied an order to muster to another post, and a return to the theater. His actions are being treated as far more serious than Hasan’s. Not saying he is right, just saying there is a vast disparity between the two. Curious.

And now the Obama Administration is stonewalling Congress on the release of documents related to the Fort Hood shooting. I wish I could say I am surprised, but I am not. Are you?