Memorial Day 2008 at Section 60

I spent the Memorial Day at Arlington National Cemetery. All things considered, I would rather have been somewhere else, anywhere else. But sometimes you have to do the right thing, pull the covers off your head, get out of bed and face your life. On Memorial Day at Arlington, I have to literally face the headstone of my son, 1Lt Ken Ballard, who was killed in Iraq 4 years ago.

Brad Jacobsen over at at-Largely wrote a great posting putting some context into what Memorial Day 2008 should mean to this country. I encourage you to take a look.

As Brad mentioned in his post, the AP covered the events at Arlington with these words-

President Bush paid tribute Monday to America's fighting men and women who died in battle, saying national leaders must have "the courage and character to follow their lead" in preserving peace and freedom.

"On this Memorial Day, I stand before you as the commander in chief and try to tell you how proud I am," Bush told an audience of military figures, veterans and their families at Arlington National Cemetery. Of the men and women buried in the hallowed cemetery, he said, "They're an awesome bunch of people and the United States is blessed to have such citizens."

That provoked a standing ovation from the crowd in a marble amphitheater where Bush spoke. "Whoo-hoo!" shouted one woman, who couldn't contain her enthusiasm.

I agree with everything Brad writes, but I want to make it personal and add a different perspective of what happened over at Section 60 at Arlington National Cemetery, the section where my only child is buried and the section where I gathered with friends and family.

President Bush will never have the "courage and character" that those fighting men and women who died in battle had when he sent them into his battle without good reason. As Commander in Chief, he should be ashamed to stand in front of our military for any reason. This Commander in Chief hides behind the military and the vets when he does not provide adequate protection, adequate medical care, adequate training, and a fair GI Bill.

President George Bush has not attended a military funeral of anyone who died in Iraq or Afghanistan and he has not visited Section 60 at Arlington to see the more than 400 graves of young men and women who have died in the wars/occupations in Iraq & Afghanistan.

Perhaps this Commander in Chief could have had the courage and character to make time on Memorial Day to see the families who gathered at Section 60, to try to understand the pain and grief his war has caused these families. Seeing 400 white headstones in one place from these wars should be a sobering sight for anyone. But wait, Bush had to rush back to the White House to meet with with five NCAA head football coaches, who recently returned from a seven-day visit to military bases in the Middle East to boost troop morale. Meeting with football coaches on Memorial Day, but not families whose lives have been so affected by his war does send the wrong message to the families of the fallen.

I'm sure his handlers considered the possibility that a trip to Section 60 might have revealed some families who would ask him to leave, as I would have done. I do not want to be anywhere near George Bush on the anniversary of the day I got the knock on the door, and believe me, he doesn't want to be near me, either.

I can assure you that there were no "whoo-hoo's" in Section 60 on Monday. There were tears, sobs, hugs, and a palpable grief that I wouldn't wish on any one. Some families and visitors met each other for the first time and exchanged condolences and some reunited, having met in Section 60 on a prior visit. The majority of visitors while we were there were to visit the newer graves, where the pain is so fresh and is almost uncomfortable to see. We all remember intimately those excruciating early days too well.

Our family and friends travel to Arlington each Memorial Day to celebrate Ken's life. We gather to remember and celebrate how Ken lived his life and not how he died. Some visitors to Section 60 might have been caught off guard when we popped the champagne cork of the first bottle, and if they didn't understand why, I'm sorry. We all need to learn how to wake up to this new normal and figure out how to get out of bed each morning. If they aren't ready to celebrate their loved one's life, or if they cannot bear to show any joy of their loved ones lives yet, or ever, I understand.

Memorial Day is the day that Ken's grave site is to be the most decorated in Section 60 and we make a great effort to do that. We leave the leftover bottles (beer and/or champagne), flowers; lots of them, and other mementos to let Ken know that we were there and that we miss him every day. He deserves that much.

Remember the Gold Star Families; for us, everyday is Memorial Day.

Dog Tags: Meaningful Metal on Memorial Day

Dog Tags: Meaningful Metal on Memorial Day

May 19, 2008
BY Ginger Cucolo

During overseas tours, dog tags hang from the neck of every servicemember. They are intended to help identify remains of the fallen and have been a uniform requirement since World War I. When a servicemember is killed, their loved ones often find sentimental value in their dog tags. Photo by C. Todd Lopez

ARLINGTON, Va. (Army News Service, May 19, 2008) - In Section 60 of Arlington National Cemetery, where casualties from Iraq and Afghanistan are laid to rest, a mother recently clutched her son's dog tags.

The chain drooped over the mother's clinched fist as rifles were fired and Taps played. Those pieces of metal gave her comfort, she said. The tags had once hung beneath her son's shirt, and over his heart, and the mother said when she holds them now, she feels close to him.

Much like that mother, Karen Meredith wrote about her son, Ken Ballard, killed in Najaf, Iraq, May 30, 2004: "When my son's body was returned to me, they gave me what was on his body when he was killed; his belt-buckle, his spurs (Cavalry), and his dog tags. I immediately put them on and have not removed them for anything; not for airport security, not for a mammogram. They stay close to my heart where my son will always be."

These small pieces of metal hanging from the neck of every servicemember are intended to help identify remains of the fallen and have been a uniform requirement since World War I. Science has come a long way since then and future identification system just might render them obsolete, but the name, image, and personal connection many feel to their tags go beyond their simple, primary purpose.

At the American Civil War battle of Cold Harbor in 1864, before Union troops made a frontal assault on Confederate trenches, they wrote their names on pieces of paper and pinned them to their uniforms. They did not want to be forgotten.

During the Spanish American War, Chaplain Charles E. Pierce believed the identity of war dead should be practiced on a more scientific basis. He suggested a central collection agency where mortuary records would be gathered, and the addition of an "Identity Disk" in every Soldier's combat field kit. This "Identity Disk," in 1899, is considered the first institutionalized identification tag.

U.S. troops were issued identification tags en masse in 1908 and the tags have been a required part of the uniform ever since.

The nickname for the ID tag was first coined by William Randolph Hearst who printed unfavorable stories about the New Deal and President Roosevelt in 1936. Having heard the Social Security Administration was considering the use of a nameplate for personal identification, Hearst called it a "Dog Tag."
The tangible tags connect one personally to an otherwise large and anonymous world, and they are the center of countless stories -- like the one about Joe Beyrle, a paratrooper captured by the Nazis. A German soldier took Beyrle's dog tags and put them around his own neck. While wearing an American uniform and Beyrle's dog tags, the German soldier was killed. A telegram was sent to Beyrle's family in the states telling them he was dead.

In January 1945, Beyrle escaped and joined a Russian unit, fighting alongside them as a machine gunner for at least a month. After he was wounded by German bombers, he was taken to a hospital, and eventually made his way to the U.S. Embassy in Moscow, hoping to return home. Embassy officials at first, though, did not believe the fighter was Beyrle. It was not until Beyrle's fingerprints proved his identity that he finally was able to return home in September 1946. Ironically, he was married in the same church where his memorial service had taken place a year before.

Tanna Toney-Ferris was walking her dog on a beach in Southern California, when her
eyes caught an unusual rock piece. She bent down to pick it up and realized there was a military ID tag embedded in the rock.

"It seemed to be attached to a key ring, as there were a few other items embedded in the rock also -- a key, fingernail clippers and a small screwdriver. Much to my amazement, I could make out his name, ID #, branch of service and his religion," said Tanna. "My first thought was that this Sailor had perished at sea and I held his last farewell to this world in my hand. All I could think of was how much I wanted to return this brave Sailor's Dog Tags to his family and I wasn't sure how to go about doing that. So for the next 3 years, they sat on a shelf with other treasures that I had found on our many walks along the beach.'"

Tanna finally found the now 62 year old veteran living in Wisconsin. Having served in the Navy on the USS Pledge, he had lost his first set of tags more than 30 years ago. After numerous e-mails and phone calls, they met in person and Tanna was able to hand him his tags.

Tanna is a member of the Patriot Guard Riders. This group rides their motorcycles to show respect for fallen heroes, their Families, and their communities by shielding the mourning family. This is the type of emotional response and connection people have for many who serve.

General John A. Logan, National Commander of the Grand Army of the Republic, wrote General Order #11 on May 5, 1868, for the observance of Memorial Day. He wanted us to sustain the fraternal feelings of those having died for their country, and for us to guard their gravesites, "a fitting tribute to the memory of her slain defenders."

As much as Memorial Day is a day of remembrance, the dog tag is a daily reminder that in the professions of arms, to be forgotten is the cruelest fate. The dog tag is more than 100 years old, and this little piece of metal connects us to those slain defenders. To each it might mean something different, but to the millions of service members, past and present who were required to wear one, the Dog Tag is a symbol of service and personal sacrifice. Most importantly, it is a reminder of the possibility of the ultimate sacrifice. We shall not forget.

http://www.army.mil/-news/2008/05/19/9268-dog-tags-meaningful-metal-on-memorial-day/

McCain's Free Ride in the Corporate Media

I don't like when people accusingly use the term "flip-flop" in a political setting. It is a way to say "gotcha" and intimate that that person might be lying in that moment (Were you lying then or are you lying now?). When someone finds new information that wasn't available initially, and they change their mind, I call that wisdom or intelligent analysis. If, however, you change your mind for political expediency rather than stand by your principles, that's where I draw the line.

As the current presidential election cycle heads into the final stretch, we can expect the "flip-flop" term to be flung back and forth over the fence. Let's look at a few examples of John McCain's Straight Talk Express leaving the track.

Thanks to the good people of Brave New Films for their continued fine work. As they say, We're Putting the Brakes on McCain's Free Ride in the Press, and I'm all for that!





pssst, do something

Keith Olbermann to Bush- Shut the Hell Up!

This video is a post script or an exclamation point to an earlier posting here. Some days Keith Olbermann provides the only words that give me any sense of normal. When I listen to his Special Comments, I leap from my couch with wild applause.

Keith Olbermann is the real deal. He gets what is happening to military families more than some military families do. He has a powerful soapbox and for that, I am grateful. If you know his boss, will you please tell him to give Keith a big raise?

Do note in this Special Comment that he shows that Bush did not give up golf back in August 2003 as he said he did. Other evidence has been shown that the Columbus Day golf outing was not his only failure in his so-called solidarity; he also golfed at Andrews AFB on September 28, 2003 with Sen. Don Nickles (R-Okla) and Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio),

That's some sacrifice, Mr Bush. Imagine the sacrifices of the families that you so want to show solidarity to. Oh that's right, you can't, because sacrifice for your war all about you!

The Great Sacrifice, giving up Golf

President Bush and those in his family and administration can't seem to grasp the meaning of sacrifice or understand the impact war has on military families in this country. Prior to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, Barbara Bush said 'Why should we hear about body bags and deaths? It's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?' (yes, she did!)

In January 2006, when the Commander-in-Chief visited wounded troops at Brooke Medical Center and said As you can possibly see, I have an injury myself -- not here at the hospital, but in combat with a Cedar. I eventually won. The Cedar gave me a little scratch. Their Commander-in-Chief said this to soldiers wounded in a war of his choice. I'm pretty sure those wounded warriors didn't find the humor in his comments.

In April 2007 First Lady Laura Bush revealed how far removed she was from the American public when she said “believe me, no suffers more than their president and I do when we watch this (news of Iraq on TV)” The First Family will never suffer enough until they lose a child in a war that should never have begun. They will never suffer enough until they accept a folded flag that recently covered the cold coffin of their dead child as the mournful tones of Taps plays in the background.

When I first heard that George Bush gave up golf to show solidarity to the families of troops who have died in Iraq, I thought that was a little bit like a kid giving up green beans for Lent, a bit disingenuous. As it turns out, giving up golf might be a huge sacrifice in the mind of our 43rd president, who has a handicap of 15, which I am told is pretty good. Comparing giving up golf to the sacrifices of a Gold Star family, one who has lost a loved one in war, however, may well be the worst attempt at empathy, solidarity or sympathy that this president has ever shown. Bush was interviewed by Politico and was asked questions submitted by online listeners. Let's listen in:

Q Mr. President, you haven't been golfing in recent years. Is that related to Iraq?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, it really is. I don't want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the Commander-in-Chief playing golf. I feel I owe it to the families to be as -- to be in solidarity as best as I can with them. And I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal.

Q Mr. President, was there a particular moment or incident that brought you to that decision, or how did you come to that?

THE PRESIDENT: No, I remember when de Mello, who was at the U.N., got killed in Baghdad as a result of these murderers taking this good man's life. And I was playing golf -- I think I was in central Texas -- and they pulled me off the golf course and I said, it's just not worth it anymore to do.

This interview, of all the malignant narcissist interviews this President has given, rendered me speechless. That those thoughtless words could come out of any public figure is appalling. That this public figure could ever imagine that those words would provide solace to any grieving family is unimaginable, yet this president continues to disgrace his office and offend. Golf, indeed! This president gave up golf in some pathetic attempt at solidarity with me, while I wonder what it would be like to hear my son's voice one more time and while I wonder what it would be like to feel his arms hug me, just one more time. I go to bed clutching my son's baby blanket in hopes that long ago memories will bring me precious sleep to escape from the reality of my new normal and this president gave up a game!

People may wonder why we Gold Star Families just don't get on with our lives, perhaps they think this grieving thing is going on a little too long. I explain that until the last soldier comes home, until this dying ends and until January 19, 2009, when this pathetic, poor excuse of a president leaves office and shuts his mouth will I even be able to consider getting on with my life.

This President has never demonstrated one bit of empathy, one bit of sympathy nor has he ever shown a glimmer of recognition that anything has gone wrong in his presidency, nor a hint of recognition of individual responsibility for anything that has occurred in the past 7 years. Whenever George Bush opens his mouth I know what comes out is likely to be full of malapropisms and other mispronunciations, but I steel myself that he will not say anything painful or hurtful to or about anyone. In this interview, he stepped way over any line of decency or respect. When Ken was killed 4 years ago, I did not expect to be continually abused by the uncaring words of the president.

Playing golf doesn't send the wrong signal to Gold Star Families. The fact that this president is still in office sends the wrong signal. If giving up golf is the best he can do to show solidarity, then George Bush needs to leave the White House today, not in 252 days, but now.

Happy Mother's Day, Nancy Pelosi

Dear Speaker Pelosi,

I write to you this Mother's Day as the mother of Lt. Ken Ballard, who was killed in Najaf, Iraq four years ago, fighting in a war that you have criticized but continue to fund.

I hope that this Mother's Day you are lucky enough to be surrounded by your children and grandchildren, to share thanks and hugs. But I also hope that you will think about the thousands of mothers of U.S. troops who will never see their children again -- and the tens of thousands of mothers of troops now serving in Iraq who live in fear every day of the phone call or the knock on the door telling them their child has been injured or killed.

I raised a great man who was proud to serve his country. Ken cared about his friends and family and he was blessed to have plenty of both. We were lucky to have had him in our lives for 26 years. But it was only 26 years. Ken had spent 384 days in Iraq and he was killed during a fierce battle on May 30, 2004. To think that this Sunday will be the fourth Mother's Day that I won't be hearing from him is heartbreaking. He won't come bounding into my bedroom with the greatest greeting card that he always took such pride in picking out for me. This year, instead of going to the beach as we always did, I will be spending this special day remembering him. When the first stars twinkle in the sky that night, I will look to those stars and hope that he is happy where he is. I will ask those same stars, "Will I ever know happiness again?" I wish I knew.

I miss Ken every minute of every day. When Ken was killed, people told me it would get better. They were wrong; it is different, but life without Ken will never be better. As a friend described Ken at his memorial, There was "no secret icing on the cake, just a plain, honest man . . . who would get crazy every so often.'' As a single mom, Ken was my north star, my grounding. But when Ken died, so did my future. We Gold Star families are the human cost of this war. We are left behind to pick up the pieces of our broken lives. We will go on with our lives, but there will always be a part of our heart that is a desperately empty black hole.

When you became Speaker of the House I had great hopes that you would take the lead in bringing an end to the war that killed my son and so many others -- that you would spare other mothers that devastating pain. But since you were sworn in, 1,069 more U.S. troops have died in Iraq.

You said this week that "Democrats in Congress stand with Americans who want to bring our troops home responsibly, safely and soon" -- and yet you are asking the House to pass legislation funding the continuation of the war in Iraq well into 2009. It is likely that we will lose about 500 more members of the US military and thousands of wounded by the time Mother's Day 2009 rolls around. That may be acceptable to you, but it isn't acceptable to me.

While our country is entering the sixth year of the war in Iraq and hostilities continue in other parts of the world, and hundreds of thousands of mother's are separated from their loved ones, it is fitting that we know one of the origins of the Mother's Day in the United States.

Julia Ward Howe was a well known abolitionist during the Civil War. After the war, her efforts turned to peace.. In 1870 she was the first to proclaim Mother's Day, with her Mother's Day Proclamation. It was to be a day dedicated to peace. She pondered the question

"Why do not the mothers of mankind interfere in these matters to prevent the waste of that human life of which they alone bear and know the cost?"

"Arise then...women of this day! Arise, all women who have hearts! Our sons shall not be taken from us to unlearn all that we have been able to teach them of charity, mercy and patience. We, the women of one country, will be too tender of those of another country to allow our sons to be trained to injure theirs."

As a mother whose only child, was killed in Iraq, I wonder about the soul of this country as the death toll rises every day and yet there is silence from the mother's of this nation. And I can't comprehend how you as a mother can continue to approve the funding that will send other mother's sons and daughters off to fight in a war that you have known was illegal, immoral, and unjust from the start.

Speaker Pelosi, there are already too many Gold Star Mothers. Please show some of the same courage my son and his fellow troops displayed. Admit that you were wrong, and commit yourself to opposing any bill that will continue to fund this war that is killing our brave young men and women. Promise to do everything in your power to bring every mother's child home from Iraq quickly and safely, and to give all our troops the care they need when they get here. That's the best way to honor the mothers of our fallen soldiers this Mother's Day.

Sincerely,

Karen Meredith

Cremating our Fallen Soldiers with Respect

It seems that the military still hasn't figured out the proper & respectful treatment of fallen soldiers and their families.

We know that the administration has ruled that there will be no photographs of flag covered caskets as they make their last journey home. We don't see those images as the bodies are flown into Dover AFB, the mortuary for the military. We have been told that there is a reception for every fallen soldier arriving at Dover with a general officer and an honor team from the Old Guard. We are told that every step of the way, everyone involved exhibits great reverence and respect for each fallen soldier. But we don't have evidence of this because there are no photographs and families are not welcome at Dover. Even if a family requests a photograph of their loved one's caskest, as I did 4 years ago, they are denied becase it is 'against Army regulations" and "it is for the privacy of the families". Despite my persistence, I never received a photograph. I was and remain heartbroken because the Army refused my simple request for a photograph from Dover that would have documented the final journey home for my son, Lt Ken Ballard.

Still today, it seems that the military has figured out one more way to show their disrespect for fallen soldiers. At a 3:30 press conference this afternoon (nice timing, release sucky news on Friday afternoon when no one is likely to notice), the Pentagon is recommending changes in the handling of troops' remains, after it was revealed that crematoriums contracted by the military handle both human and animal cremations. A military official said there have been no instances or charges that human and pet remains were mixed. But officials are now recommending that troops' remains be incinerated at a facility that is dedicated entirely to humans, in order to avoid any appearance of a problem. Defense Secretary Robert Gates believed the earlier situation was "insensitive and entirely inappropriate for the dignified treatment of our fallen," said Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell.

"Our heroes deserve to be better treated than that," Morrell said, he said Gates offered an apology to military families for the insensitivity.

Late this afternoon, I got a call from my friend, Diane in Pennsylvania, Neil's Gold Star Mom, who had received a call from a local media outlet in Pittsburgh, PA informing her of this development. Diane called me immediately to alert me to this new Friday factoid, knowing that Ken was cremated. I didn't think much about it until I remembered that Ken had been classified by the Army as "unviewable" because of the devastating head injury he had suffered, so I never was able to view his body back in June 2004. I knew if I asked the Army today to confirm that Ken's body was returned to California, that I would never know the truth, regardless of their response, as the Army had so mishandled so much about Ken's casualty process.

After Diane's call, I thought I remembered seeing the name & a local location on the receipt for the cremation, but who knows what I remembered from those awful first days? I immediately called the local funeral home that handled Ken's funeral and cremation to confirm that Ken's body and not remains were shipped to California for the services. I was assured that the military escort officer knew Ken personally and was able to identify that it was his body to the Mortuary. The fact that Ken was cremated in accordance with proper mortuary protocol is good news to me; that I had to ask the question is problematic. The families whose loved ones were cremated out of Dover will always wonder.

There have been some improvements to the casualty process. In the early days of the war, some bodies were returned home to their families in the belly of a commercial aircraft and offloaded to the cargo area of the airport to await the arrival of the hearse. There is no ceremony or reverence to that; those loved ones underneath the red, white and blue were not treated as precious cargo, they were left to sit among the bags and boxes awaiting processing. Families soon demanded that our sons & daughters deserved better and the policy was changed to allow a family to request that the their loved ones be delivered home in a private jet to the nearest airport.

Even in the 6th year of this war/occupation, the Department of Defense seems to be unable to avoid appearances of problems, even if there are none. There are some people who work within the casualty process who just don't get it and probably never will. These "bodies" are some one's loved one. They are a precious part of some one's life and they should be treated with dignity and respect as military families are promised. A family should never doubt that their loved one is treated with the utmost respect as befitting someone who paid the ultimate sacrifice in service for their country.

Our heroes do deserve to be better treated than that and so do those left behind.

Misson Accomplished- Year 6

It feels like Groundhog's Day, the day that keeps replaying over and over, once a year to remind of us of one of the big lies of this war. "Mission Accomplished" wasn't the first lie about Iraq and it was not the last one. Today is the 5th anniversary of the day President George Bush playing his own personal version of Top Gun flying beside the pilot in the cockpit of an S-3B Viking Navy jet and landing on the deck of a carrier. The President of the United States in a flight suit on an aircraft carrier? Hollywood couldn't have written a better script.

Iraq fatigue has settled in around the country and maybe people are getting tired of being reminded of continued occupation and this day, this national embarrassment when the President strolled off the jet onto the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln and swaggered up to the microphone and announced that "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed" He also told us that "Iraq is free".

In the ensuing years, the White House told us, they didn't erect the banner, it was the Navy's idea, the White House actually made it, but the Navy put it up. One year later, President Bush explained that we had "achieved an important objective", sidestepping the real question of what mission, in fact, had been accomplished. Then spokesmodel, Dana Perino told the White House press corps that "we had toppled the Iraqi government and the Iraq Army", blaming the misunderstanding on the left. She said, "the left has decided to believe what they want to believe". The ever changing story of what was really meant with the "Mission Accomplished" banner on that day in May 2003, took one more twist today when Dana Perino said that the banner meant "mission accomplished for these sailors on this ship on their mission" adding that "we have paid a price for not being specific" about what the banner really meant.

What price exactly has the White House paid because of the misleading banner? Nothing, zero, zip and zilch. It is disingenuous and patronizing to even suggest that a price has been paid by anyone unless they have been handed a folded flag at the funeral of their loved one or sat by a bedside of their loved one trying to figure out what his or her normal will be after one, two, three or more deployments to Iraq. The occupants of this White House, and members of this administration have not and will never pay a personal price for the endless occupation. The troops and their families are carrying the burden of this continued occupation in blood & stress. The readiness of the military has been damaged, perhaps beyond the point of reasonable and simple repair, and this White House has the

Ken was alive 5 years ago today; he had not yet landed in Iraq, but in little more than a year I would be handed a folded flag, the same flag that honorably covered his casket that carried him home to California from the sands of Iraq.

On May 1, 2009, this country will have a new president. I am not hopeful that the mission in Iraq will have changed much by then. I am hopeful plans will have been put in place to bring the troops home once and for all. 3908 US troops have died since "Mission Accomplished" was announced. It is likely that we will lose about 800 more members of the US military and thousands of wounded before May 1, 2009 rolls around. That may be okay with you, but it isn't okay with me.

The $3 Trillion Spending Spree

Conservative estimates are that the War on Terror will cost $3 Trillion.

The good people at Brave New Films have put together a video that might give you an inkling of how much $3 Trillion dollars is. If it doesn't accomplish that, it certainly illustrates how difficult it is for an individual to fill up their own $3 trillion shopping cart. Think you can do a better job than George Bush? Go for it and then pass on a gift certificate to one of your friends so they can take a turn.




(Full disclosure- okay, I'll admit it, I threw a Wii and a tropical island in my shopping cart, but the rest of my $3 trillion went to noble and peaceful causes, really!)

psssst, Do something!

Waste, Fraud & Abuse hearings; the results

The Senate Democratic Policy Committee met today in Washington for the 13th time to examine contracting abuse in Iraq and to hear the testimony of former contractors in Iraq, KBR, WWNS & CAPE Environmental.

Senator Dorgan called the current behavior of contractors in Iraq the "the greatest waste, fraud and abuse in the history of this country" and insisted that we have got to stop the fleecing of the American taxpayer.

In his opening statement the Senator from North Dakota again suggested that an oversight committee based on the Truman Committee that performed oversight during WWII. He reminded us that that Committee held 60 hearings a year and saved the US taxpayers $15 billion at a cost of $15,000. He closed by reminding us that he had:

"proposed the creation of such a Committee three times in the 108th and 109th Congresses, and regrettably the vote each time was almost exactly along party lines.
But I still believe that we need to establish a bipartisan Truman Committee, with subpoena power, to exercise the oversight that these abuses demand, and I will continue to push until we create one."

The statements of each of the witnesses, as well as video of the testimony are posted here. Take a few minutes, if you dare, to see just exactly how your tax dollars are being spent. Here are a few highlights (or would that be lowlights?) from the day.

The contractor who worked for WWN & CAPE Environmental, Barry Halley said:

While I was working with this same defense contractor, the site manager was
involved in bringing prostitutes into hotels operated by the contractor. A co-worker unrelated to the ring was killed when he was traveling in an unsecure car and shot performing a high-risk mission. I believe that my co-worker could have survived if he had been riding in an armored car. At the time, the armored car that he would otherwise have been riding in was being used by a manager to transport prostitutes from Kuwait to Baghdad. There were other employees involved in the prostitution ring as well.
Although the activities had been going on for some time, nothing was done to stop it until the contractor’s home office was informed about the prostitutes. Instead of firing the ring leader, however, the contractor merely transferred him to another project in Haiti.

Linda Warren, a former employee of Halliburton/KBR gave her testimony:

From the first day I was in Baghdad, I noticed something happening which I felt to be very wrong. KBR employees who were contracted to perform construction duties inside the palaces and municipal buildings were looting. Not only were they looting, but they had a system in place to get the contraband out of the country so it could be sold on eBay. They stole art work, rugs, crystal and even melted down gold to make spurs for cowboy boots. At first, I just watched as these KBR employees pilfered, but when I was asked if I wanted some of the items, I became very outspoken about what was happening, and informed the looters that what they were doing was stealing, and that those items belonged to the Iraqi people. I was ostracized because I started objecting to the actions of my co-workers, and was very vocal in my belief that they were looting, trafficking, and stealing antiquities.

Former KBR employee, Frank Cassaday told a compelling story of Marines being denied ice-

During my time as an ice plant operator at Camp Webster, I witnessed numerous
illegal activities and rules violations by KBR managers and employees. Ice was a very valuable commodity in Iraq that was regularly stolen and bartered for other goods. One day a convoy of U.S. Marines was going out of the area for several days and they wanted 28 bags of ice. The ice was used to keep their food and drinks cool. I watched as the ice plant foreman refused to give the troops the ice they requested and offered them only 3 bags of ice. The foreman told the troops that he was only allowed to give them 2 pounds of ice per person per day, but in fact it was the foreman who made that rule. KBR had plenty of ice that could have been provided to these troops who were going off the base into the desert.

One Marine asked me, “Why won’t this man give us ice, you do?” I told the Marine that he should tell his superior officer because the ice foreman was cheating the
troops out of ice at the same time that he was trading the ice for DVDs, CDs, food and other items at the Iraqi shops across the street.

I could go on, but I have provided the links to the full testimony and video of the hearing held today, so the ball's in your court. April 15th was less than 2 weeks ago, a day where our taxes re-filled the governments coffers, and these examples of waste, fraud & abuse is how your tax dollars are being spent. It's not okay with me. What are you doing to raise your voice to say, STOP IT AND STOP IT NOW?

Where do you start? How about your member of Congress or one of members of the Senate Democratic Policy Committee Hearing?

• Senator Byron L. Dorgan, Chairman, Senate Democratic Policy Committee
• Senator Richard Durbin, Assistant Majority Leader
• Senator Jeff Bingaman
• Senator Maria Cantwell
• Senator Robert Casey
• Senator Amy Klobuchar
• Senator Claire McCaskill
• Senator Bernie Sanders
• Senator Sheldon Whitehouse

It's your tax money, is this okay with you?

Waste, Fraud & Abuse

When I saw this video of Senator Dorgan (D-North Dakota) talking about waste, fraud & abuse with regards to contracts in Iraq, the hair went up on the back of my neck.

Having worked as a Purchasing Agent for a defense contractor years back, "waste, fraud & abuse" are fighting words. Those 3 words were held over our heads like a guillotine waiting for us to trip up on some unknown or obscure sub paragraph in the procurement policy or contract. I'm pretty sure it was one of the worst offenses we could execute on the job. They held it up to us as it could relate to time cards, expense reports and especially in the area of the procurement of goods and services. To this day, I remember a phrase that was frequently noted on our purchase orders. It is the opinion of this buyer that this purchase order is fair and reasonable and is in the best interest of our company and the United States Government. I guess the current contractors never got that message.

Go get yourself a cup of your favorite beverage and take 10 minutes to watch this video from March 2008. A little research reveals that the good Senator from North Dakota has been presenting evidence of waste fraud & abuse to the Senate, requesting the implementation of a type of Truman Commission from World War II. (Then Senator Harry Truman as a member of the Senate Special Committee, the Truman Committee for short, wanted to look at wartime waste, fraud, and abuse so that the American government could get a proper handle on the federal spending that was going into mobilization and the projects that were being put on the line. The process saved American taxpayers $15 billion (in 1940 dollars).)

Others in Congress have tried to push the concept of oversight into war profiteering, but this administration is having nothing to do with that, not on their watch. Dina Roser from Huffington Post wrote that earlier this year, in January 2008,

Bush signed the 2008 Defense authorization bill into law. In it he singled out four of 2,887 sections for his now notorious signing statement. He said that these four provisions "purport to impose requirements that could inhibit the president's ability to carry out his constitutional obligations to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, to protect national security, to supervise the executive branch, and to execute his authority as commander in chief. The executive branch shall construe such provisions in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the president."

What were these egregious provisions that could tie the commander-in-chief's hands and threaten our national security? They all had to do with oversight.

According to the Congressional Quarterly: One such provision sets up a commission to probe contracting fraud in Iraq and Afghanistan. Another expands protections for whistleblowers who work for government contractors. A third requires that U.S. intelligence agencies promptly respond to congressional requests for documents. And a fourth bars funding for permanent bases in Iraq and for any action that exercises U.S. control over Iraq's oil money.

If there is any good news in all of this it's the persistence of the legislators who have the courage to stand up to this administration and actually do their job on behalf of the US taxpayers and the troops. In addition to Byron Dorgan, of note are Jim Webb (D-VA) and Claire McKaskill (D-MO) who sponsored the Wartime Contracting Commission, patterned after the old Truman Committee.

I received a notice from the Senate Democratic Policy Committee that they are holding a hearing on corruption in Iraq reconstruction on Monday, April 28 at 2:00 p.m. Three whistleblowers who have never-before appeared before Congress will be giving eye-witness accounts of corruption by private contractors in Iraq including: the use of government equipment to transport prostitutes from to Kuwait to Baghdad in a contractor-run prostitution scheme, still-useable government equipment worth millions thrown into "burn pits" and KBR employees selling items they looted from Iraqi government buildings on eBay. We'll be live streaming this hearing on our website at http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc-video.cfm.

This is not the first hearings into waste, fraud & abuse by government contractors, not by a long shot, and hopefully, it won't be the last. We taxpayers should stand in support. We owe these hearings to the troops continue to receive short shrift with regards to the occupation.

McCain- Anti-Choice

Before my son was killed in Iraq, the determining factor for any political candidate was their stance on abortion or choice. If a politician didn't think I deserved a choice about what happened to my body, they wouldn't be getting my vote. It really wasn't difficult. If I got past that, I would examine their platform on taxes, education, the environment, their character.

Unfortunately, the field of candidates hasn't passed on all of their platforms, and certainly not those on the national level, so you hold your nose and hope the ultimate "winner" will not be that bad.

Obama & Clinton both pass the "choice test". But, now in the 6th year of the occupation in Iraq, the determining factor is foreign policy, or even more narrow, how soon does a candidate plan on ending the occupation and bringing the troops and the subcontractors home from Iraq? While both Clinton & Obama said that as Commander in Chief, they would change the mission in Iraq and withdraw the troops, their timetable doesn't come close to what I think should happen. So, maybe Obama gets a B-, Hillary gets a D- (her hawkish attitude with regards to Iran should give her a failing mark, but her current statements on Iraq save her from an F, even though I don't think she means them), and bringing up the rear with an F for his comments that 100 years, or more in Iraq would be okay with McCain. He said he didn't really mean that, but he I think he did, so he gets an F on his foreign policy.

McCain does not pass the "choice test" either- another F. Back in 1999, McCain spoke to the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco saying "I'd love to see a point where [Roe v. Wade] is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force x number of women to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations." Not bad for a centrist. But wait, fast forward to 2006 when the senator declared that he does not merely favor overturning Roe, but supports a constitutional amendment that would ban abortion in almost all circumstances. I guess the Straight Talk Express left the station because when McCain recently appeared on "Meet the Press," he claimed that he has "always been pro-life, unchanging and unwavering." I wonder why he cannot keep track of his stand on such an important issue.

Frankly, the thought of John McCain as the 44th president of the US scares the hell out of me, possibly even more than the last 8 Bush years have.

Note to the voters who say that if their Democratic candidate (generally Clinton) is not nominated, they will vote for McCain. Please think again and reconsider the repercussions of the 3rd term of Bush policies that McCain will ocntinue. The US and the world cannot afford it, not in blood, not in treasure and not in standing.

The Petraeus-Crocker Show Gets the Hook

I'm turning this over to Frank Rich from the New York Times today. Well said, Mr Rich.

The Petraeus-Crocker Show Gets the Hook
By FRANK RICH

THE night before last week’s Senate hearings on our “progress” in Iraq, a goodly chunk of New York’s media and cultural establishment assembled in the vast lobby of the Museum of Modern Art. There were cocktails; there were waiters wielding platters of hors d’oeuvres; there was a light sprinkling of paparazzi. Then there was a screening. We trooped like schoolchildren to the auditorium to watch a grueling movie about the torture at Abu Ghraib.

Not just any movie, but “Standard Operating Procedure,” the new investigatory documentary by Errol Morris, one of our most original filmmakers. It asks the audience not just to revisit the crimes in graphic detail but to confront in tight close-up those who both perpetrated and photographed them. Because Mr. Morris has a complex view of human nature, he arouses a certain sympathy for his subjects, much as he did at times for Robert McNamara, the former defense secretary, in his Vietnam film, “Fog of War.”

More sympathy, actually. Only a few bad apples at the bottom of the chain of command took the fall for Abu Ghraib. No one above the level of staff sergeant went to jail, and no one remotely in proximity to a secretary of defense has been held officially accountable. John Yoo, the author of the notorious 2003 Justice Department memo rationalizing torture, has happily returned to his tenured position as a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley. So when Mr. Morris brings you face to face with Lynndie England — now a worn, dead-eyed semblance of the exuberant, almost pixie-ish miscreant in the Abu Ghraib snapshots — you’re torn.

Ms. England, who is now on parole, concedes that what she and her cohort did was “unusual and weird and wrong,” but adds that “when we first got there, the example was already set.” That reflection doesn’t absolve her of moral responsibility, but, like much in this film, it forces you to look beyond the fixed images of one of the most documented horror stories of our time.

Yet I must confess that, sitting in MoMA, I kept looking beyond the frame of Mr. Morris’s movie as well. While there’s really no right place to watch “Standard Operating Procedure,” the jarring contrast between the film’s subject and the screening’s grandiosity was a particularly glaring illustration of the huge distance that separates most Americans, and not just Manhattan elites, from the battle lines of our country’s five-year war. If Tom Wolfe was not in the audience to chronicle this cognitive dissonance, he should have been.

Mr. Morris’s movie starts fanning out to theaters on April 25. We don’t have to wait until then to know its fate. Sympathetic critics will tell us it’s our civic duty to see it. The usual suspects will try to besmirch Mr. Morris’s patriotism. But none of that will much matter. “Standard Operating Procedure” will reach the director’s avid core audience, but it is likely to be avoided by most everyone else no matter what praise or controversy it whips up.

It would take another column to list all the movies and TV shows about Iraq that have gone belly up at the box office or in Nielsen ratings in the nearly four years since the war’s only breakout commercial success, “Fahrenheit 9/11.” They die regardless of their quality or stand on the war, whether they star Tommy Lee Jones (“In the Valley of Elah”) or Meryl Streep (“Lions for Lambs”) or are produced by Steven Bochco (the FX series “Over There”) or are marketed like Abercrombie & Fitch apparel to the MTV young (“Stop-Loss”).

As The New York Times recently reported, box-office dread has driven one Hollywood distributor to repeatedly postpone the release of “The Lucky Ones,” a highly regarded and sympathetic feature about the war’s veterans, the first made with full Army assistance, even though the word Iraq is never spoken and the sole battle sequence runs 40 seconds. If Iraq had been mentioned in “Knocked Up” or “Superbad,” Judd Apatow’s hilarious hit comedies about young American guys who (like most of their peers) never consider the volunteer Army as an option, they might have flopped too. Iraq is to moviegoers what garlic is to vampires.
This is not merely a showbiz phenomenon but a leading indicator of where our entire culture is right now. It’s not just torture we want to avoid. Most Americans don’t want to hear, see or feel anything about Iraq, whether they support the war or oppose it. They want to look away, period, and have been doing so for some time.

That’s why last week’s testimony by Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker was a nonevent beyond Washington. The cable networks duly presented the first day of hearings, but only, it seemed, because the show could be hyped as an “American Idol”-like competition in foreign-policy one-upmanship for the three remaining presidential candidates, all senators. When the hearings migrated to the House the next day, they vanished into the same black media hole where nearly all Iraq news now goes. If the Olympic torch hadn’t provided an excuse to cut away, no doubt any handy weather disturbance would have served instead.

The simple explanation for why we shun the war is that it has gone so badly. But another answer was provided in the hearings by Senator George Voinovich of Ohio, one of the growing number of Republican lawmakers who no longer bothers to hide his exasperation. He put his finger on the collective sense of shame (not to be confused with collective guilt) that has attended America’s Iraq project. “The truth of the matter,” Mr. Voinovich said, is that “we haven’t sacrificed one darn bit in this war, not one. Never been asked to pay for a dime, except for the people that we lost.”

This is how the war planners wanted it, of course. No new taxes, no draft, no photos of coffins, no inconveniences that might compel voters to ask tough questions. This strategy would have worked if the war had been the promised cakewalk. But now it has backfired. A home front that has not been asked to invest directly in a war, that has subcontracted it to a relatively small group of volunteers, can hardly be expected to feel it has a stake in the outcome five stalemated years on.

The original stakes (saving the world from mushroom clouds and an alleged ally of Osama bin Laden) evaporated so far back they seem to belong to another war entirely. What are the stakes we are asked to believe in now? In the largely unwatched House hearings on Wednesday, Representative Robert Wexler, a Florida Democrat, tried to get at this by asking what some 4,000 “sons and daughters” of America had died for.

The best General Petraeus could muster was a bit of bloodless Beltway-speak — “national interests” — followed by another halfhearted attempt to overstate Iraq’s centrality to the war on Al Qaeda and a future war on Iran. He couldn’t even argue that we’re on a humanitarian mission on behalf of the Iraqi people. That would require him to acknowledge that roughly five million of those people, 60 percent of them children, are now refugees receiving scant help from either our government or Nuri al-Maliki’s. That’s nearly a fifth of the Iraqi population — the equivalent of 60 million Americans — and another source of our shame.

The prevailing verdict on the Petraeus-Crocker show is that it accomplished little beyond certifying President Bush’s intention to kick the can to January 2009 so that the helicopters will vacate the Green Zone on the next president’s watch. That’s true, but by week’s end, I became more convinced than ever that in January we’ll have a new policy that includes serious withdrawals and serious conversations with Mr. Maliki’s pals in Iran, even if John McCain becomes president.

General Petraeus and Mr. Crocker define victory as “sustainable security” in Iraq. But both Colin Powell and Gen. Richard Cody, the Army’s vice chief of staff, said last week that current troop levels in Iraq and Afghanistan are unsustainable and are damaging America’s readiness to meet other security threats. And that’s not all that’s unsustainable. An ailing economy can’t keep floating the war’s $3-billion-a-week cost. A Republican president intent on staying the Bush course will find his vetoes unsustainable after the Democrats increase their majorities in Congress in November. No war can be fought indefinitely if the public has irrevocably turned against it.

Mr. McCain says Americans want “victory,” whatever that means today, and yes, they would if it could be won on the terms promised by Mr. Bush five years ago — fast, and with minimal sacrifice. It’s way too late to ask for years of stepped-up sacrifice now in the cause of a highly debatable definition of “national interests.”

This war has lasted so long that Americans, even the bad apples of Abu Ghraib interviewed by Mr. Morris, have had the time to pass through all five of the Kübler-Ross stages of grief over its implosion. Though dead-enders like Mr. McCain may have only gone from denial to anger to bargaining, most others have moved on to depression and acceptance. Unable to even look at the fiasco anymore, the nation is now just waiting for someone to administer the last rites.

It's Time for a Filibuster

As a member of the Board of MFSO (Military Families Speak Out), I heartily support this effort. I hope you will do the same.

_______________________________

CALL TO ACTION!

CALL ON SENATOR CLINTON AND SENATOR OBAMA NOW
TO USE THEIR LEADERSHIP
TO END THE WAR IN IRAQ!

"Let me be clear: there is no military solution in Iraq, and there never was. The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year - now."

-- Sen. Barack Obama,September 12, 2007

"Our message to the president is clear. It is time to begin ending this war -- not next year, not next month -- but today."

-- Sen. Hillary Clinton,July 10, 2007

On the campaign trail, Senator Obama and Senator Clinton both say that the war in Iraq needs to end. Military Families Speak Out has one question for them: what are they doing now as sitting United States Senators, to bring our loved ones home from Iraq?

Military Families Speak Out is an organization of almost 4,000 military families with loved ones who are serving in Iraq, ready to deploy or re-deploy, have been wounded physically and/or psychologically, or have died as a result of the war in Iraq. We know first hand the devastation of this war.

We are more than five years into a war that Clinton and Obama say should never have begun. Over 4,000 U.S. troops and, by some estimates, over a million Iraqi children, women, and men have died in this unjustifiable war. Countless more have sustained devastating life long injuries to their bodies, minds, and spirits. More are killed and wounded every day. The suicide rate among active duty and returned Veterans is skyrocketing. We simply can't wait nine more months for a new President to begin a process for ending this war.

And we don't have to: Congress has the power to end the war in Iraq now. The President can't spend a dime on this war without the approval of both houses of Congress.

A single act of bold leadership by Senator Clinton or Senator Obama could be instrumental in ending this war. When the Senate takes up the next war funding bill, either one of them could lead a filibuster, refusing to stand down until their colleagues agree to vote against any bill that provides funding to continue the war rather than funding specifically for the swift and safe return of all our troops from Iraq. They wouldn't even need a majority of their colleagues to back them up -- all they need is 40 Senators prepared to unite behind their leadership and block additional funding to continue the war from making it through the Senate.

Democrats and Republicans alike have routinely used filibusters and the threat of filibusters around important issues. What could be more important that ending the war in Iraq?

If Senator Clinton and Senator Obama aren't willing to use the power they have now as U.S. Senators to end the war, what makes anyone think they will exercise bold leadership on January 20, 2009? If they fail to take action to stop funding the war that is killing our troops and the Iraqi people, we can only conclude that when their campaigns talk about ending the war, they are just using the memory of the fallen, the sacrifices of our troops, and the grief and pain of our families, for political gain.

As military families, we appeal to the American people: Call Senator Clinton, Senator, Obama, and your own two Senators and urge them to use the power of the filibuster to block any bill that continues to fund the war in Iraq rather than funding the swift and safe return of our troops. We also call on Congress to appropriate the funds needed for our troops to get the care they need when they return.

Senator Hillary Clinton -- (202) 224-4451
Senator Barack Obama -- (202) 224-2854
Senate Switchboard -- (800) 828-0498

Click here to find out who your Senators are.

Click here to sign our online petition.

MILITARY FAMILIES SPEAK OUT

Sgt Matt Maupin- RIP

The final knock on the door came to Batavia, OH this morning. The first knock came nearly 4 years ago, early in the war on April 9, 2003, and that first knock on the door told Carolyn & Keith Maupin that their son had been captured and was missing in Iraq.

Four long years of hope and prayers, good thoughts, good karma, and whatever allowed them to hold on to something, anything that would bring their son home alive. It's not the news that they wanted or maybe even expected, and Matt's father said probably the only thing a parent could say, "My heart sinks, but I know they can't hurt him anymore.

The AP reported tonight Matt Maupin was a 20-year-old private first class when he was captured April 9, 2004, after his fuel convoy, part of the 724th Transportation Company, was ambushed west of Baghdad.

A week later, the Arab television network Al-Jazeera aired a videotape showing Maupin sitting on the floor surrounded by five masked men holding automatic rifles.

That June, Al-Jazeera aired another tape purporting to show a U.S. soldier being shot. But the dark and grainy tape showed only the back of the victim's head and not the actual shooting.

The Maupins refused to believe it was their son, and the Army had listed him as missing-captured. The Maupins lobbied hard for the Army to continue listing their son as missing-captured, fearing that another designation would undermine efforts to find him.

Keith Maupin said the Army told him early on that there was only a 50 percent chance his son would be found alive. He said he doesn't hold the Army responsible for his son's death, but that he did hold the Army responsible for bringing his son home.

"I told them when we'd go up to the Pentagon, whether he walks off a plane or is carried off, you're not going to leave him in Iraq like you did those guys in Vietnam," Maupin said.

Another piece of my heart died tonight when I heard the terrible news. I cannot imagine these 4 years of hell for the Maupin family. At least when Ken was killed in Iraq 4 years ago, I knew that he was dead. I knew he was never coming back, it was final. What kind of cruel karmic twist is it to not know of your child's circumstances for 4 years? I imagine the Army will tell them the details they have, but I wonder if they, like the family of Pat Tillman will ever know the truth.

I met Carolyn & Keith Maupin the first time 3 years ago at Rolling Thunder at the Pentagon on Memorial Day weekend. They were distributing this photo pin of Matt so that people would be reminded that this war/ occupation has left us with soldiers Missing in Action or as they call them now, DUSTWUN (Duty Status Whereabouts Unknown). The pin has been hanging on my mirror in my bedroom, so I would think of Matt and his family every single day hoping that good news would arrive that day. The photo is inscribed "Love Never Loses it's Way Home". This story did not end the way we wished, but Matt is coming home, finally and the waiting is mercifully over. My condolences to the Maupin family and the friends who knew Matt and those who just knew of him.

Most people would be surprised to know that there are 3 other members of the military Missing in Action in Iraq. We should not forget Ahmed Qusai al-Taei: Status - missing-captured (23-Oct-2006), Spc. Alex R. Jimenez: Status - missing-captured
(12-May-2007), Pvt. Byron W. Fouty: Status - missing-captured 12-May-2007. Between 1900 - 2500 members of the military from the Viet Nam war are still listed as MIA. I'm sure a piece of their hearts died today when they heard the news about Matt. My thoughts are with all of these families, too, on this sad night. We will not forget.

The Real Meaning of 4,000 Dead

We would do well to read Lt Walsh's words-

The Real Meaning of 4,000 Dead

By Lieut. Sean Walsh
The passing of the 4,000th service member in Iraq is a tragic milestone and a testament to the cost of this war, but for those of us who live and fight in Iraq, we measure that cost in smaller, but much more personal numbers. For me those numbers are 8, the number of friends and classmates killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and 3, the number of soldiers from my unit killed in this deployment. I'm 25, yet I've received more notifications for funerals than invitations to weddings.

The number 4,000 is too great to grasp even for us that are here in Iraq. When we soldiers read the newspaper, the latest AP casualty figures are glanced over with the same casual interest as a box score for a sport you don't follow. I am certain that I am not alone when I open up the Stars and Stripes, the military's daily paper, and immediately search for the section with the names of the fallen to see if they include anyone I know. While in a combat outpost in southwest Baghdad, it was in that distinctive bold Arial print in a two-week-old copy of the Stars and Stripes that I read that my best friend had been killed in Afghanistan. No phone call from a mutual friend or a visit to his family. All that had come and gone by the time I had learned about his death. I sometimes wonder, if I hadn't picked up that paper, how much longer I would have gone by without knowing — perhaps another day, perhaps a week or longer until I could find the time and the means to check my e-mail to find my messages unanswered and a death notification from a West Point distro list in my inbox. The dead in Afghanistan don't seem to inspire the keeping of lists the same way that those in Iraq do, but even if they did it wouldn't matter; he could only be number 7 to me.

I'm not asking for pity, only understanding for the cost of this war. We did, after all, volunteer for the Army and that is the key distinction between this army and the army of the Vietnam War. But even as I ask for that understanding I'm almost certain that you won't be able to obtain it. Even Shakespeare, with his now overused notion of soldiers as a "band of brothers," fails to capture the bonds, the sense of responsibility to each other, among soldiers. In many ways, Iraq has become my home (by the time my deployment ends I will have spent more time here than anywhere else in the army) and the soldiers I share that home with have become my family. Between working, eating and sleeping within a few feet of the same soldiers every single day, I doubt I am away from them for more than two hours a day. I'm engaged to the love of my life, but it will take several years of marriage before I've spent as much time with her as I have with the men I serve with today.

For the vast majority of Americans who don't have a loved one overseas, the only number they have to attempt to grasp the Iraq War is 4,000. I would ask that when you see that number, try to remember that it is made up of over 1 million smaller numbers; that every one of the 1 million service members who have fought in Iraq has his or her own personal numbers. Over 1 million 8's and 3's. When you are evaluating the price of the war, weighing potential rewards versus cost in blood and treasure, I would ask you to consider what is worth the lives of three of your loved ones? Or eight? Or more? It would be a tragedy for my 8 and 3 to have died without us being able to complete our mission, but it maybe even more tragic for 8 and 3 to become anything higher.

5th Anniversary on CNN Headline News

On the 5th anniversary of the invasion of Iraq I was invited to talk about my son, Lt Ken Ballard, who was killed in Najaf, Iraq on 5.30.2004 on CNN Headline News. I like talking about Ken so I accepted immediately. I was in a studio in Mountain View, CA and Mike Galanos, the host was in Atlanta, GA. It's always kind of strange to be sitting alone in a room, except for the camera operator, talking to the camera. I didn't see the final results until my friend, Mike, posted the excerpt on You Tube (thanks, Mike!)

You never know what you will be asked in an interview; the request is typically general, but you don't know specific questions. The initial request was We’d like to hear from parents who think enough children have already been lost. I'm one of those parents, Bring 'em home! NOW! That wasn't exactly how the conversation turned out, but it went fine.

I liked the part most of all when Mike Galanos said that he was glad to share in celebrating Ken's life; so was I.

4,000 Dead for What?

I couldn't say it any better, so today I'm turning this over to Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post.

Four thousand

When U.S. military deaths in Iraq hit a round number, as happened Sunday, there's usually a week or so of intense focus on the war -- its bogus rationale, its nebulous aims, its awful consequences for the families of the dead. Not likely this time, though. The nation is too busy worrying about more acute crises, some of them real -- the moribund housing market, the teetering financial system, the flagging economy -- and some of them manufactured, such as the shocking revelation that race can still be a divisive issue in American society.

So the fact that 4,000 men and women serving in the U.S. armed forces have been killed in Iraq is somehow less compelling than the zillionth playing of snippets from a sermon that the Rev. Jeremiah Wright preached more than six years ago.

For now, that is: Sooner or later, attention is bound to turn back to the war and the stark choice voters will face in November.

It may happen sooner. A few weeks ago, it looked as if Iraq might be entering another cycle of headline-grabbing violence. Now, the increase in mayhem is clear. On Sunday alone, more than 60 people were killed in several incidents, including a car bombing. Insurgents even sent rockets crashing into Baghdad's ostensibly secure Green Zone, a rare occurrence. While the violence hasn't risen to the levels that prevailed at this time a year ago, when the country seemed to be coming apart, it is clear that both civilian and military deaths are on the rise.

Dick Cheney, who in 2005 told us that the insurgency was "in the last throes, if you will," was asked last week about polls showing that two-thirds of Americans don't think the fight in Iraq is worth it. Cheney's response: "So?"

At least Cheney was being candid, if breathtakingly arrogant. He and George W. Bush have never cared what the American people think about this elective war. A little bamboozling was necessary at the beginning -- overblown claims about weapons of mass destruction, mushroom clouds and being "greeted as liberators" by smiling Iraqi children. Once that hurdle was surmounted, and once Saddam Hussein's government had been destroyed, there was essentially nothing anyone could do to force the Bush administration to bring the war to an end.

Let me revise that, since on three counts it's not quite accurate. First, the war did end once, an occasion Bush marked nearly five years ago in his "Mission Accomplished" speech; according to Associated Press, 97 percent of the 4,000 U.S. military deaths in Iraq came after Bush stood on the deck of that aircraft carrier and declared major combat operations over. Second, we keep calling this conflict a war, but it's really an occupation, though the Bush administration doesn't like to use that word; it must not test well with focus groups. Third, the American people did what they could by snatching control of Congress from the Republicans. But even if Democrats in the House had the political will to end the occupation by cutting off funding, they don't have the 60 votes they would need in the Senate.

That's how we arrived at 4,000. And from the way John McCain talks, there's no telling what round-number milestones we'd have to mark if he were to become president.

On Iraq, McCain vows to continue the occupation as long as it takes for the United States to win. Like Bush and Cheney, he is quick to define any kind of withdrawal as defeat, but he makes no real attempt to describe what victory would look like. He at least realizes that the repressive and ambitious government of Iran has been the real beneficiary of the Bush administration's blundering in Iraq -- but the way he talks about Iran is just plain frightening.

The 71-year-old McCain's recent misstatement that al-Qaeda terrorists were being aided by the Iranian regime -- quickly corrected by Sen. Joseph Lieberman in a whispered aside -- might have been simply a senior moment. Or it might have reflected an intention to do something precipitous about Iran's growing stature in the region. Either way, scary.

It's understandable that Americans are riveted by the most exciting presidential nomination campaign in decades. It's natural that they're worried about the shrinking value of their homes and their 401(k) plans. Come the fall, though, they're going to have to decide on Iraq: Bring the troops home, as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both say they will do. Or keep them in, as McCain pledges -- and watch the numbers continue to rise.

The cost of the war..it isn't just dollars and cents

Hat tip to Dusty at OOIBC for one of the great posts from the March 19th Blogswarm:

4000 US Deaths in Iraq

In our 6th year of military operations in Iraq, we knew this day would come, we knew this number would come. 4000. Any death from Iraq is unacceptable, but to hear the announcement of the 4000th US death in Iraq on Easter, a day of joyous celebration, is an affront, one of those karmic ironies that should not happen.

This deathwatch started ticking on March 21, 2003 with 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 dead American soldiers. Jose Antonio Gutierrez, Kendall Damon Waters-Day, Brian Matthew Kennedy, Ryan Anthony Beaupre, Jay Thomas Aubin, Therrel Shane Childers were the first to die in Iraq. Why was this country not offended by the death of these 6 soldiers, these sons, brothers, fathers, friends? What number of deaths is okay or acceptable? We know 6 was okay. We know that 818, my son, Lt Ken Ballard's number from back in May 2004 was okay. If people don't take to the streets or write their Congressperson, or do something about ending this war and ending these deaths, then we know that 4000 US deaths is also okay. I don't know what number is unacceptable to the citizens of this country, but I do know that any number more than zero is unacceptable for a war based on lies. The 44th president will determine what number is acceptable. If military operations continue for 100 more years, as one candidate has suggested, we can only imagine what that number will be.

Some might wonder if the 4000th death is more notable than the 3999th, Morten Ender, a US Military Academy sociaologist who studies the military says "4000 is a good round number people can grab hold of, it reminds us of what's going on with a war that, since the (military's troop) surge, seems to have lost its place in the public mind" .

With the American media and public paying less attention than ever, marking this grievous milestone should put the occupation in Iraq back on the front page for at least one news cycle. It's the least we can do for the military who continue to be in harms way. Regardless of our politics, these men and women are occupying a country in our name. They need to know that they have the support of the people back at home, you know, support the warrior even if you don't support the war. It's a slap in their faces if we don't at least acknowledge their presence and the service to their country. With such a small percentage who do serve in the military, about 1% of the US population, we must remember that they serve.

The fear of any Gold Star family member, who has lost a loved one while serving in the military, is that their loved one will be forgotten. We Gold Star families can and will never forget and neither should our population. If only for this reason, we should mark this sad milestone.

According to USA Today, of the 4000 members of the military, one in six were too young to buy a beer. About two dozen were old enough for an AARP card. Eleven died on Thanksgiving Day, 11 on Christmas, and at least five on their birthdays.

Tonight 160,000 US families marked their Easter Sunday with an empty seat at their table because their loved ones are deployed to Iraq. 8 of those families do not even know that the life that they woke up to this morning is over. One roadside bomb, one IED 6000 miles away took care of their future and in one knock on the door, they will hear the words that every military family fears, "I regret to inform you".

My heart goes out to these families who have joined the ranks of other Gold Star Families. No one wants to be in this club. We can make sure their are no more Gold Star families. What will you do today to stop this occupation?