Upcoming Events

Order These Great Books Now!








Categories

Archives

Blogroll

Veteran’s Day: A simple way to honor those who have served

October 29th, 2009
November 11, 2009

I’d like to make a suggestion for those of you wishing to honor all veterans - regardless of when they served, where they served, if you agreed or disagreed with with their reason for serving, or even for what country they served:

Treat Veteran’s Day as the day of rememberance it’s intended to be.

There is a reason we create national holidays: to remind us not to forget! To remind us there are people, events and actions more important than ourselves, who have, in some small or large way, contributed to our having if not a better life then at least having the opportunity for a better life than those who came before us. We’re supposed to spend that time with our loved ones, many of whom are undoubtedly veterans, enjoying their company, thanking them for what they’ve done, hearing the stories of their time in service (and that just never gets old), laughing with them and sometimes crying with them, going to the parades and parks and beaches having events that do honor them - not showing up at Macy’s at 5am for another holiday sale.

And yet, every year, I see fewer and fewer businesses honor Veteran’s Day by closing their offices. Yes, banks close (most of them, anyway), the post office closes, state and federal offices close - but few others do. Personally, it angers me no end. It angers me all the more considering WE’RE AT WAR! Could we possibly show less thanks, admiration and respect for our troops right now than by not even being able to take one day out of our lives for them? After all, they’ve taken several years, and in far too many cases - all their years - out of their life for us.

Thanks for listening.

In Case You Missed This, I’m reposting: Wes Clark vs. Karl Rove

May 4th, 2009

Here’s a hint:  Rove lost ;-)

Wes v Rove

General Wesley Clark, Karl Rove faceoff at Univ. of Buffalo (Video)

Debate date: September 26, 2008 | Transcript by RegNYC

Article excerpts from The Buffalo News | Jay Rey | NEWS STAFF REPORTER

It wasn’t Obama-McCain, but Western New York had a pretty good debate of its own Friday night at the University at Buffalo. On one side was Karl Rove, Republican strategist and former White House deputy chief of staff.

On the other side was retired Army Gen. Wesley K. Clark, who had sought the Democratic Party’s nomination in 2004.

The two launched this year’s Distinguished Speakers Series in Alumni Arena with a bang, by debating some of the same contentious issues the presidential candidates faced, such as the economy, a $700 billion government bailout, health care and the war in Iraq.

Each started with five minutes for opening comments on his party’s slant.

“We are blessed to be citizens of this country,” Rove said. “There is something called the American Dream and people around the world want to share in it. Never lose sight this is the greatest country in the history of the world.”

“We’re a nation in trouble,” Clark said. “We need new ideas, and we need new leadership for America.”

For Links to the Video of the Debate click the “read more” link below, then scroll to the bottom of that page.  Well worth watching!

Go Sign VoteVets.org’s Petition

July 3rd, 2008

Thank General Clark for His Straight Talk, Tell Him To Not Back Down

Sign our petition, thanking General Wesley Clark for his clarity and honesty on what it takes to lead this nation’s military and veterans.


Join 24,971 Americans in signing our petition!

You can sign it here: http://ga3.org/campaign/petitionclark

These are the issues that are important, damn it.  If we sacrifice what’s right, and doing what’s right, for what we want - we will end up with neither.

NY-29 General Clark is right and just to question John McCain the politician

July 2nd, 2008

You really do want to read this diary over at the Orange place, by Eric Massa.  And Eric?  THANK YOU FOR STANDING UP  FOR WES!

Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 08:13:33 AM PDT

I was recently asked whether I support the comments made by General Wes Clark, regarding Senator John McCain’s qualifications to be Commander in Chief.  I know General Wes Clark, having served directly for him for many years both in and out of uniform. In some ways I feel that I know him better than many; therefore, I am compelled to speak out on behalf of the integrity, honesty and just plain old fashioned smarts that he has consistently shown throughout his tenure as a military leader and into his civilian life.  Let me be as clear as possible.  Speaking as a veteran, both General Clark and I, not only respect but, revere the service given to our country by John McCain, including his years spent as a prisoner of war; however, this is not about Lieutenant John McCain the war hero.  Make no mistake about it, Lieutenant McCain is a genuine American hero, but the issue at hand is about the judgment of Senator John McCain the politician.

Please go read the rest at: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/7/2/11101/80948/786/545337 .  Then recommend it while you’re there and let Eric know you appreciate what he said by leaving a comment and telling those you know about what he’s said here today.

DM

For ANYONE under the false impression Wes Clark demeaned John McCain’s service - I have news for you!

June 30th, 2008

General Clark DID NOT impune Senator McCain’s service in any way, shape, or form. In fact - he said Mccain was one of his heros, as well as a hero to millions, for his service. What he did say was simple logic - that McCain’s specific military service does not make him automatically qualified to be commander-in-chief anymore than being able to drive a car qualifies one to race at NASCAR.Furthermore - I ‘ve no doubt he would have made his comments no matter who the presumptive Dem nominee was. The comments have nothing to do with Obama.  And - considering they have nothing to do with Obama, I’m saddened and, frankly, disgusted, that an Obama campaign spokesman would denounce General Clark’s remarks.

There is nothing to denounce. Doing so smacks of political cowardice on the part of the Obama spoksman who issued the statement, at the very least.”

(am officially a fan of cell ophones thatt type!)

Open Letter to All Super Delegates:

April 19th, 2008

April 18th, 2008  

Dear Super Delegates,

In a few months, you will be asked to make a final and immensely difficult choice that will likely decide the Democratic nominee for president.  Unfortunately, that choice is not between Senator Obama or Senator Clinton – for everyone’s sake, I wish it were that simple.   The choice you must make is really much more personal – it’s the type of choice all of us must make at some point in our lives, and it’s never easy.   It’s the choice between what we personally want and hope will work vs. what we know is probably the greater good and best for others.  OK, that’s the kindest way I can put it.   The more blunt way is this: it’s the choice between doing what is best for yourself vs. doing what is best for everyone else, even and especially when it isn’t  what you personally want.

Over the last several months, and right up until the day of the national convention, you will continue to be wooed from all sides; the candidates want you to do what’s best for them, the party wants you to do what’s best for it, and the voters of your area want your vote to reflect their preference.  The pressure will only get worse, and no matter which way you go, you’re probably going to make someone unhappy.  That’s OK.   I’m guessing no where in the “Super Delegate Handbook” does it say one of your responsibilities is to make people happy. Hang on to that thought.  It’s one of two you’re going to need to remember most when you make your final decision on the convention floor. 

So – how are you to make this decision?   Let’s be honest – many of you will never have so much power to shape history, nor your own personal future, as you will have with this vote.  And it’s that last bit – the personal future part – where this starts to get complicated.   At some point in this process, don’t be surprised if someone suggests to you something along the lines of “if you play your cards right and vote for so-and-so, you can write your own ticket,” or “stick with me and I’ll make sure you have a seat at the table”’ or “so-and-so is who we want, and you don’t want to be on the wrong side of this when the day’s over”’ or, my personal favorite, the short and sweet, “you owe me”’ or some other version of a carrot or stick arm twist.   The less power you currently enjoy, the greater the pressure you’re likely to feel to do what someone with more power wants you to do.   This isn’t meant to be an indictment or condemnation of anyone.   It’s just what happens, so there’s no point in telling ourselves it doesn’t.

I’m not sending this out in order to tell you who I think you should vote for.   My state had its say on Super Tuesday.  I’m here to give you slightly different advice – presumptuous of me, I know – but it’s advice I don’t hear anyone else out there giving you.   So here goes…

Because you will cast the last votes in this contest, you have an incredible advantage over the general public voters; the advantage of time.  You will have had at least two months’ more time to examine each candidate than every other voter – for the nearly half of the country who voted by Super Tuesday, that’s six and a half months’ more information you’ve gained than we had when we voted.  That’s huge!  Consider how much more we’ve learned about the candidates in the last few months than in the previous year.  What more will we learn in the coming months?  I don’t know, but the longer the battle goes on, the better the odds we’ll get a clearer picture of the true mettle of these two people and the more informed your vote can be. 

A second advantage you have is that you’re party insiders.  You are privy to information, gossip, rumor, history and facts most of us will never know.  Those of you who are sitting politicians especially – you know how the game is played – you know the difference between sponsoring bills, co-sponsoring bills, and writing bills and what kind of leadership and talent is evidenced by each.  You know the difference between sitting on committees and working on them.  You know why these candidates have cast their senate votes as they have in detail we  will never hear, which of the hundreds of votes were critical, which weren’t and who showed up for each.  You know the kind of stress and pressure you and your colleagues face every day – and how much more intense it is for a president – and you’ve likely witnessed how each of these two candidates bears up under those stresses and pressures.  You know, better than any of the rest of us, the full breadth and depth of the problems the next president will have to face.   Rip through this information without mercy, but with every ounce of objectivity you can muster.   Close your ears to the charismatic cadence of campaign speeches and promises.  Ignore the polls – you know most of them are bullshit.  Forget who you like or hate.   Remember who gets the jobs done and who gets problems solved.  Those of us general public voters have the luxury of ‘falling in love’ with a candidate – you don’t.  You have to be smarter than us.  And don’t seek the counsel of others in the party – you’re on your own this time and you’ve got to suck it up and trust your own instincts and brains.   Let me repeat that: trust only your own instinct and brains.  This time our future really does depend on your ability to do just that.

It is because of these two advantages, your votes carry the power to essentially save us from ourselves.   In all likelihood, that’s precisely what you may have to do.   You must not falter.  Earlier, I told you it wasn’t your responsibility to make people happy, and to hold on to that thought as it was one of two you would most need to remember.   Here’s the second one: in this vote, your responsibility isn’t to choose the best person for the party – but to choose the best, strongest, most capable person to lead the country.  They may not be one and the same, and this is why Party must never come before Country.  Forgetting this dooms us all.

I know what I’m asking of each of you is far from easy, and I’m sorry for that.   I do understand the political risks you face should your choice go against the wishes of allies and friends. 

Good luck, God speed, and thank you,

K.A. Flinn

H.R. 4156 - Congress is batting 1000! (snark)

November 15th, 2007

 What was that phrase again?? Something about repeating the same actions in hopes of getting a different result…now, tell me again…was that the definition of insanity, or stupidity?

If you haven’t had the opportunity to read this bill, which uselessly passed the House last night by a vote of 218 to 203, and will either fail to pass the Senate entirely, or fail to pass it in a veto-proof manner, here it is: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:h4156ih.txt.pdf

Why do Congressional Dems keep doing this? Haven’t they figured out yet that as long as Bush is in office, no bill using troop withdrawl as a condition will get passed? Or, gee, are they more interested in looking like they really tried to hold the Bush admin’s feet to the fire come election day? It’s beginning to look a lot like the latter rather than the former. How sad for the institution. How disgusting, unethical and reprehensible for the harm it causes everyone - including them - and especially the military!

In my unqualified opinion - this is a badly conceived bill. If it had been the first such bill the House Dem majority had floated, it would only be a less lousy bill. Unfortunately, this is just the latest in a series of failed efforts to force this administration to end the war and bring the troops home before the end of the Bush term. This particular leverage doesn’t work. Stop using it. You are wasting time, and quite probably, lives, dear Congress.

Why not try writing a bill that will actually accomplish much of what we want, and that actually has a snowball’s chance in Hell of getting passed by both houses and not vetoed for a change? Baby steps…

For instance - give him the $50 Billion, with three provisions: one tied to the last provision in the bill…

(g) Not later than February 15, 2008, the President shall submit to the Congress in classified and unclassified form a comprehensive regional stability plan for the Middle East, which shall include a military, diplomatic, political and economic strategy that provides for the national security interests of the United States in the region and for the engagement of targeted counterterrorism oper ations. The plan shall include a detailed description of the projected United States military force presence in and around the Middle East region for the 5-year period beginning on October 1, 2008.

one tied to diplomacy: Bush has to form and send, by March 1st, 2008, a bi-partisan diplomatic team to work the region, including Iran, along the lines of the Dayton Accord group,

one tied to some specific, significant, goals the Iraqi Parliament must complete, by, say, October 31st, 2008. If either fails to complete their end of the bargain, no more money.

This possibly accomplishes a few of things :

  • Bush loses much of his incentive to veto the bill, because he’s being asked to do nothing that will make him lose ground, or more importantly to him, lose face
  • He may actually gain a win in the region before he leaves office
  • By the time the final deadline is over, he’ll be only weeks away from it becoming the next president’s problem
  • His deadline is first, early and relatively easy - as long as he completes his end by March 1st, he’s off the hook
  • It places the easiest half of the responsibility on Bush, the harder half on the Iraqi Parliament, none on the troops, and none on the Dems
  • If the Iraqi parliament fails to meet their goals - then it starts to become, in the eyes of both the US and the world, their failure, not ours. It gives us the leverage to begin to force the Iraqi government to stand up - right now, they have little incentive to do so until they are good and ready.

Just a thought or two from an idiot…

UPDATE: 

I left out an important point in this, and I really apologize for that!  Here it is:  what’s missing from this bill??

There’s no “or else”. Lots of sticks that sorta look like carrots, but no actual sticks! When I said: “If either fails to complete their end of the bargain, no more money.” I should have finished the thought with: “…until you comply.”  That means the only money that will be paid is troop salaries, and necessary costs to house, feed, and otherwise take care of our troops, no diplomatic salaries, no reconstruction money, no aid packages, no contractor payments, nothing.  Everything will come to a grinding, deafening, halt.  And, oh yeah…the troops will be taking a little vacation (but will stay where they are) until you do comply.

There is a way to play hardball and get the desired outcome - they just have use their brains and stop playing politics first.

Dumping Rush: Why it IS the right thing to do, and not a 1st amendment issue

October 9th, 2007

Over the past week or so, I’ve run into a number of people very upset about Wes’ campaign to get Rush Limbaugh dumped from Armed Forces Radio. Most are Clark supporters, and most are upset enough about this to consider no longer supporting Wes because of it. I’ve probably had this debate with about 20 people so far, and there is a common, understandable, theme. Their objection to this campaign is that, however much they detest Limbaugh and what he’s doing, going to Congress to have him removed amounts to a breech of Limbaugh’s first amendment rights/freedom of the press and censorship. So, it seemed like a good idea to write a blog about this, and try to add some points unique to this particular issue because it involves members of the armed forces and Armed Forces Radio Service, that many who are upset about this may not be taking into consideration. Here goes…

Actually, firing Rush Limbaugh (no matter who does it) violates neither his first amendment, nor does it constitute censorship, because he’s isn’t protected by that when he commits libel and defamation. Calling members of the armed services “phony soldiers” because they disagree with him constitutes libel and defamation. I’m also not too sure one can be a victim of censorship for being removed from one, of many, networks, in part, for openly censoring members of his audience on the network removing him. That would be a little like saying convicting me of murder is a violation of my first amendment rights. I was engaging in my right to freedom of expression when I went on my killing spree.(ok - yeah, that’s a little extremem, but you get the idea.)

As I read, and re-read Wes’ emails asking us to send a letter to Congress to ask them to remove Limbaugh, this is how I interpret what he’s asking, what he wants, and perhaps why he wants it and why he’s the one spearheading it. This is my opinion/interpretation, of course. So, Wes? If i’m wrong on any of this - jump in and correct it please!

I can’t see where Wes is advocating Limbaugh be removed from the airwaves, unilateraly. He’s advocating he be fired (removed) - as one of the two conservative radio talk show hosts broadcast as representative of the conservative part of the American population. Sean Hannity is the other. There are also two liberal radio talk show hosts who are broadcast as counterpoints: Ed Schultz and Alan Colmes.

The idea behind airing two conservative and two liberal political talk radio shows is, obviously, to give service members and their families as balanced a ‘touch of home’ as possible, in that particular arena.

However, when talk radio moves from open debate between a show’s host and its callers, to a host doing little more than spouting his specific viewpoint, then berating, insulting and libeling anyone who disagrees with his viewpoint in any degree, then that host no longer fulfills the purpose for which he/she was chosen to be broadcast and should be replaced by someone who does.

Wes isn’t asking Congress to stifle free speech, quite the contrary - he’s asking them to remove a host who stifle’s free speech under the guise of patriotism, and insults and disrespects the very people whose morale he’s supposed to help lift.

Below are a couple of quotes from the FAQ’s of AFN, and the History:

1. Q: Why does AFN air political-talk radio programs?

A: AFN has an obligation, backed by Congressional mandate, to provide our audience access to the same variety and diversity of programming that they would enjoy if they were back in the States. Because political talk radio is among the most popular stateside radion formats, AFN currently offers four political radio talk shows on our AFN radio schedule: Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity represent the conservative viewpoint and Ed Schultz and Alan Colmes represent the liberal viewpoint. We make our choices based on popularity with the American audience. We don’t censor programs. We strive to provide our overseas audience with a choice and let them decide for themselves what they want to see and hear. There is no requirement for our audience to listen to anything they personally disagree with. To review the balance we strive to achieve via the totality of our radio and TV schedules, please visit http://www.myafn.net. 2. History: On May 26, 1942, the War Department officially established AFRS with the mission of providing programming, shortwave service and broadcast equipment for U.S. military locations overseas. AFRS was to give servicemembers a “touch of home” and combat “Axis Sally and Tokyo Rose.”

Now, granted, as stated above, the AFN makes their choices based on popularity. So, yes, it would be great if his popularity could be reduced to the point he lost his show but that’s unlikely to happen if the measurement is how popular he is throughout the US, versus throughout the military and foreign service.

Limbaugh has crossed a major line by calling soldiers, whether active or veteran, “phony” for disagreeing with him primarily. But, he crossed an even bigger line by calling anyone “phony soldier” who has served, and/or are now serving during wartime. For someone who has never served in the Armed Forces, and who weilds the political clout he does, to be allowed to consider himself the arbiter of what makes a soldier “real” or “phoney” is the height of insult to anyone who serves or has served, and their loved ones.

Allowing Limbaugh to call service members “phony” is little different than allowing him to call them cowards. And that’s exactly what he’s doing. Which brings up point 2. above - one of the primary reasons for the creation of the AFRS (Armed Forces Radio Service), which was to do all possible to counteract the demoralizing influences of Tokyo Rose and Axis Sally. It was to rebuild the morale of troops far from home, not to insult them and call them phony or fake or cowardly if they dared to question or even disagree with the reasons they were fighting.

No one has a greater right to voice dissent than those charged with protecting that right with their very lives - and especially when they already must take care in how they voice that dissent. However, those on active duty are not afforded the same rights they protect and defend for the rest of us. Active duty personel can’t openly voice disagreement to their Commander in Chief, “(attack) the war aims of the United States”, etc (see Article 134 - Disloyal Statements of the UCMJ. and I might be quoting the wrong article, so if Fred or Jai are reading this hopefully they’ll post the correct article.) - to do so can be a court-martialable offense.

So - how do active duty personel get redress for Limbaugh’s statements? They can’t exactly call in to the show, announce their name and rank, tell Rush they are on active duty in Iraq or Afghanistan, then tell him they think we need to start leaving Iraq, and that he’s an asshole for calling them ‘”phony soldiers” for believing we should start leaving. We civilians can do that. But soldiers can’t.

How can active duty personel even petition to have him removed for what he’s saying, without possibly being labeled as openly dissenting the war aims of the U.S.? It’s a real tightrope, and falling off it costs people their careers and possibly their freedom for a while.

What about getting a lot of retired military and vets to lobby the DoD to have him removed? Ok - that might work, but there probably aren’t enough to make it happen.

What if we civilians lobby the DoD? Probably won’t work. The DoD is subject to Civilian Authority - that’s big “C”, big “A”, as in Congress and the President, not little “c” as in us. So for us to exert our will on the DoD, we must first exert it on our Congress members to do the right thing, and get them to tell the DoD to fire Rush. Probably this would be in the form of a congressional resolution, probably non-binding but with enough pressure to get the job done. It is not the same as passing a law to remove Rush from the air. It’s firing him for failing to perform the primamry function of his job, as it applies to AFRS - provide a ‘touch of home’ as a means to inform and lift morale, and for libeling and defaming members of the Armed Forces.

Wes isn’t asking Congress to remove Limbaugh’s right to free speech - he is heard on thousands of radio stations across the planet and has every right to his opinion. But he does not have the right to libel anyone for any reason, least of all because they might dare disagree with him. For that, he should be fired, and Wes is right to ask that, and we are right to help him ask that.

Observation #10

August 18th, 2007

Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.”

Gen. Omar Bradley

And have we progressed since Gen. Bradley made this statement?   Not so much.

Houston Chronicle reports “Team closer to finding Iwo Jima Marine”

July 5th, 2007

June 26, 2007, 11:58PM
Team closer to finding Iwo Jima Marine

IWO JIMA, Japan — The U.S. search team looking for the remains of a Marine killed after filming the iconic flag-raising on Iwo Jima has found two possible sites and will recommend a larger team excavate them, officials said Wednesday.

“Our investigation has been very successful,” U.S. Army Major Sean Stinchion told The Associated Press, the only civilian media with the search team that had been surveying and digging on the island for 10 days.

“We found two caves and tunnels. We will recommend a follow-up team be brought in to use heavy equipment,” he said.

He said the team did not find the remains of sergeant William H. Genaust, who filmed the flag-raising nine days before he was killed during combat on the island.

“We are the initial investigation. We surveyed the hill. We will need to return to actually dig for specific remains,” Stinchion said.

The seven-man team, including an anthropologist, focused mainly on surveying Hill 362 A where Genaust was believed to have been killed.

It was the first U.S.-led search on Iwo Jima — one of the fiercest and most symbolic battlegrounds of World War II — in nearly 60 years.

The seven-member team arrived on Iwo Jima on June 17 and began slashing its way through thick, thorny brush on the island’s interior in search of the area where Genaust is believed to have been killed.

A combat photographer with the 28th Marines, Genaust filmed the raising of the flag atop Iwo Jima’s Mount Suribachi on Feb. 23, 1945, standing just feet away from AP photographer Joe Rosenthal as he took the photograph that won a Pulitzer Prize and came to symbolize the war in the Pacific.

Genaust, then 38, died nine days later when he was hit by machine-gun fire as he was helping fellow Marines secure a cave, said Johnnie Webb, a civilian official with the Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command, headquartered at Hickam Air Force Base in Hawaii.

Some 88,000 U.S. service members are listed as missing from World War II, and JPAC conducts searches throughout the world to find them.

Iwo Jima — inhabited only by a small contingent of Japanese troops — continues to be an open grave.

Though most of the American dead were recovered in 1948, some 250 U.S. troops are still missing from the Iwo Jima campaign. Many were lost at sea, meaning the chances of recovering their remains are slim. But many others died in caves or were buried by explosions.

Japan’s government and military are helping with the search on Iwo Jima, which this month was officially renamed Iwo To — the island’s name before the war.

Japan sent its first search parties to the island in 1952 and others have followed every year since Iwo Jima was returned to Japanese control in 1968. They have recovered sets of 8,595 remains — but, to date, no Americans, said Health Ministry official Nobukazu Iwadate.

The U.S. officially took the tiny volcanic island on March 26, 1945, after 31-day battle that pitted some 100,000 U.S. troops against 21,200 Japanese. Some 6,821 Americans were killed; only 1,033 Japanese survived. Of 82 U.S. Medals of Honor won by Marines in World War II, 26 were won on Iwo Jima.

Genaust paid the ultimate price.

On March 4, 1945, Marines were securing the cave, and are believed to have asked Genaust to use his movie camera to light their way. He volunteered to shine the light in the cave and was killed by enemy fire. The cave was secured after a gunfight, and its entrance sealed.

As a combat photographer, Genaust was trained to use a firearm, and he and another Marine protected the AP photographer as they climbed 546-foot Mount Suribachi. Genaust did not need to use his weapon; under heavy attack, the Japanese did not fire on the three men.

Genaust’s footage also helped prove that the raising — the second one that day — was not staged, as some later claimed. He got no credit for his footage, however, in accordance with Marine Corps policy.

In 1995, a bronze plaque was put atop Suribachi to honor Genaust, who before coming ashore on Iwo Jima fought and was wounded in the battle on the Pacific island of Saipan. An actor portraying him appears in the Clint Eastwood movie “Flags of Our Fathers,” and the annual Sgt. William Genaust Award has been established to honor the best videotape of a Marine Corps related news event.

The search was prompted in large part by information provided to JPAC by Bob Bolus, a Scranton, Pa., businessman who became intrigued by Genaust after reading a Parade magazine story about him two years ago. Using his own money, Bolus put together a team of experts, including an archivist, forensic anthropologist, geologist and surveyor, that was able to pinpoint where Genaust’s remains were likely to be found.

JPAC officials stressed that searchers came to the island hoping to find other remains as well.

“Our motto is ‘until they are home,’” said JPAC spokesman Lt. Col. Mark Brown. “‘No man left behind’ is a promise made to every individual who raises his hand.”

Like Genaust, few of the troops involved in either of the flag-raisings survived the battle.

The last known surviving flag-raiser, Charles W. Lindberg, who helped put up the first flag, died Sunday in the Minneapolis, Minn., suburb of Edinaone. He was 86.

But there remain lingering disputes over the identity of at least one man in the first flag-raising.

A California veteran of Iwo Jima, Raymond Jacobs, has said he believes he is the man with a radio on his back who had usually been identified as Pfc. Gene Marshall, a radio operator with the 5th Marine Division who died in 1987. The other men involved in the raising all have died.

Iwo Jima flag raiser dies at 86

June 27th, 2007

Posted in the Obituaries section of my local paper. Should have been posted to the front page, in my not-so-humble opinion!

Richfield, Minn. (AP)–

Charles W. Lindberg, one of the Marines who raised the first American flag over Iwo Jima during World War II, has died. He was 86. Charles W. Lindberg, one of the U.S. Marines who raised the first American flag over Iwo Jima during World War II, holds a photo of the event in this June 7, 1999, photograph in Grand Forks, N.D. Lindberg is the Marine standing behind the one holding a rifle. Lindberg died Sunday at Fairview Southdale hospital in the Minneapolis suburb of Edina. He was 86.Jackie Lorentz: Grand Forks Herald

Lindberg died Sunday at Fairview Southdale hospital in the Minneapolis suburb of Edina, said John Pose, director of the Morris Nilsen Funeral Home in Richfield, which is handling Lindberg’s funeral.

Lindberg spent decades explaining that it was his patrol, not the one captured in the famous Associated Press photograph by Joe Rosenthal, that raised the first flag as U.S. forces fought to take the Japanese island.

On Feb. 23, 1945, Lindberg fired his flame thrower into pillboxes at the base of Mount Suribachi and joined five Marines fighting their way to the top. He was awarded the Silver Star for bravery.

“Two of our men found this big, long pipe there,” he said in 2003. “We tied the flag to it, took it to the highest spot we could find and we raised it.”

“Down below, the troops started to cheer, the ship’s whistles went off, it was just something that you would never forget,” he said. “It didn’t last too long, because the enemy started coming out of the caves.”

The moment was captured by Sgt. Lou Lowery, a photographer from the Marine Corps’ Leatherneck magazine. It was the first time a foreign flag flew on Japanese soil, according to the book “Flags of Our Fathers,” by James Bradley with Ron Powers.

The Houston Chronicle adds:

Three of the men in the first raising never saw their photos. They were among the more than 6,800 U.S. servicemen killed in the five-week battle for the island.

By Lindberg’s account, his commander ordered the first flag replaced and safeguarded because he worried someone would take it as a souvenir. Lindberg was back in combat when six men raised the second, larger flag about four hours later.

Rosenthal’s photo of the second flag-raising became one of the most enduring images of the war and the model for the U.S. Marine Corps memorial in Washington.

Rosenthal, who died last year, always denied accusations that he staged the photo, and he never claimed it depicted the first raising of a flag over the island.

In Honor of All Who Gave Their Lives…

May 28th, 2007

Thank you Uncle Kenny. And thanks Dad - for making sure we knew who he was.

I love Harper’s Magazine!…

May 21st, 2007

…if for no other reason than their Index. Here’s June’s: http://harpers.org/archive/2007/06/page/0015

HARPER’S INDEX

  • Percentage change since 2000 in the number of Americans living at less than half the federal poverty line: +32
  • Factor by which uninsured children in U.S. hospitals are more likely to die of their injuries than are insured children: 2
  • Chances that a large U.S. metropolitan area has seen its homicide rate increase since 2004 : 7 in 10
  • Rank of New Orleans among cities with the highest per-capita murder rate last year: 1
  • Rank of Houston and Atlanta, respectively, among U.S. cities with the most Fortune 500 headquarters: 2, 3
  • Number of the sixteen states of the South where more than 25 percent of adults are clinically obese: 12
  • Number of all other states where this is true: 5
  • Number of states in 1990 and 2005, respectively, where more than 14 percent of adults were clinically obese: 0, 50
  • Ratio in 1985 of the number of new homes with two or fewer bedrooms to the number with four or more: 4:3
  • Ratio today: 1:3
  • Minimum number of copies sold of Flipping Houses for Dummies since its publication last year: 17,000
  • Chance that the buyer of a U.S. home in 2006 now has “negative equity,” i.e., the debt on the home exceeds its value: 1 in 6
  • Percentage of CEOs of S&P 500 companies whose homes are at least 10,000 square feet or sit on more than ten acres: 13
  • Average percentage by which growth in their companies’ stock prices lagged behind that of CEOs with smaller homes: 7
  • Percentage of white-collar Americans who brought work with them on vacation in 1995 : 23
  • Percentage last year: 43
  • Percentage change since 1900 in Americans’ average amount of leisure time: 0
  • Percentage of U.S. households that will have a Nintendo Wii by 2011, according to Merrill Lynch: 30
  • Portion of all Internet traffic today that is file sharing of music, films, and videos: 2/3
  • Percentage change since 1990 in worldwide demand for newsprint: +18
  • Percentage change in North America: -26
  • Minimum number of different books sold in the U.S. last year, as tracked by Nielsen BookScan: 1,446,000
  • Number of these that sold fewer than 99 copies: 1,123,000
  • Number that sold more than 100,000: 483
  • Days after the DVD release of Borat that it became the top item shipped to Kazakhstan by Amazon.co.uk : 4
  • Percentage of British Muslims aged 16 to 24 who advocate death for Muslims who convert to another faith: 36
  • Percentage who say they “admire organizations like al-Qaeda that are prepared to fight the West” : 13
  • Number of months that mud has been erupting from the ground in eastern Java, Indonesia: 10
  • Amount that is currently emerging per day, in gallons: 36,900,000
  • Number of recent computer models that a team of climate experts studied to assess Arctic warming: 15
  • Number of the models that showed the North Pole having ice-free summers by 2100: 7
  • Grant that NASA has given an Arizona astronomer to study how to block solar rays with a cloud of small spacecraft: $70,000
  • Number of two-foot-wide spacecraft he says would be required: 16,000,000,000,000
  • Chance that a watt of U.S. nuclear energy is generated in part by material from former Soviet warheads: 1 in 2
  • Number of UFO sightings in France since 1950, according to newly released French government documents: 1,650
  • Portion of these sightings that France has classified as inexplicable: 1/4
  • Cost, from a California company, for a headset that can control a video game with brain waves: $50
  • Number of different moods it can read, in order to select an appropriate MP3 plavlist : 3
  • Amount that Lockheed Martin has spent so far on Polecat, a new unmanned stealth aircraft: $27,000,000
  • Date on which the only prototype crashed when the self-destruct mode was accidentally activated: 12/18/06

Figures cited are the latest available as of April 2007. Sources are listed on page 94.
“Harper’s Index” is a registered trademark.
HARPER’S INDEX 13

VoteVets.org airs second ad

May 14th, 2007

Today, VoteVets.org launched its second of three ads. There’s a common theme to these ads - that despite President Bush’s comments to the contrary, he does not listen to his commanders on the ground - and that’s an enormous problem. Civilian control of the military is one thing - civilian deafness due to arrogance is quite another…and it’s getting our troops, and Iraqi civilians, killed and maimed daily, not to mention blowing the Hell out of one of the cradles of civilization. (Yes. I’m still pissed about the looting of the museum in Baghdad!)

This second ad features Maj. General Paul Eaton (ret.), whose most recent operational assignment was Commanding General of the command charged with reestablishing Iraqi Security Forces 2003-2004, where he built the command and established the structure and infrastructure for the Iraqi Armed Forces. (re: votevets.org)

The first ad featured Maj. General John Batiste (ret.), who resigned from the Army in order to speak out about the failed strategies the Bush Administration has for Iraq. These strategies are breaking our armed forces, who are doing everything they can to prop up a fatally flawed plan.

Maj. General Batiste’s (ret.) final assignment in the Army was commanding general of the 1st Infantry Division from August 2002-June 2005. During this timeframe, the “Big Red One” conducted successful peace enforcement operations in Kosovo and combat operations in Iraq in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom II. In Iraq, the division was deployed to north-central Iraq from February 2004 until February 2005 and included 22,000 soldiers from active and reserve component units from throughout the United States. (re: votevets.org)

I’m telling you about the final assignments of these two men for obvious reasons - they know what the hell they’re talking about when they tell you Bush doesn’t listen to his commanding generals on the ground. They were two of those generals! So, it behooves us to do what our president repeatedly fails to do: listen,learn and react accordingly.

These videos are targeting several key members of Congress, who are finally demonstrating an ability, at long last, to listen and learn from these commanders who have been in Iraq leading our troops and tried repeatedly to tell the President what’s going on, as well as to the only General who fought and won a war without losing a single American life. Next week, they will air a third ad featuring that particular general - General Wesley K. Clark (ret.), and I’ll post it here.

It’s about damn time everyone in Congress listens. You can help nudge them in the right direction too. Here’s how:

1. Click the StopIranWar.com picture to the right. It’ll take you to the www.stopIranWar.com, where you can sign a petition asking both the President and Congress to listen and think before they escalate us right into another war, with a far better equiped and trained army than Iraq ever had.

2. StopIranWar.com (which is a joint project of VoteVets.org and General Clark), is also asking people to call or write these members of Congress who are the targets of the current ads. A different member will be featured each week. This is a great grassroots effort by General Clark’s volunteers - please give them a hand with it by going to http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/12090 and reading the following posted by Susan Meara:

WE ARE GOING TO GIVE THIS CAMPAIGN A BOOST WITH A GRASSROOTS PHONE AND EMAIL BLITZ!

Some of our elected officials are going to be treated to a SPECIAL DAY
when they will be showered with attention for the purpose of delivering a message. By joining us, you can help MAKE THEIR DAY!
They need to know that people are paying attention to what they’re doing.

The message is this:

Do not support the Presidents failed policy!
A MILITARY ONLY STRATEGY WILL NOT WORK IN IRAQ.
We need POLITICAL help from the Maliki government, and REGIONAL DIPLOMACY with Iraq’s neighbors, including IRAN.
Please support diplomatic & political efforts–we owe this to our troops.

(It doesn’t matter if you live in a different state or district. They know you can provide support for their opponents in the next election if they continue to defy the will of the American people!)

Today’s Special Day belongs to…SENATOR JOHN WARNER of Virginia!
(tomorrow or the next day is okay too)

CALL:
Washington office: (202) 224-2023
TOLL FREE NUMBERS (ask the operator for Senator Warner’s office):
800-828-0498, 800-459-1887 or 800-614-2803

EMAIL: You can also use the online contact form to send this message to Senator Warner in email instead of calling.

http://www.senate.gov/~warner/contact/contactme.cfm

Never Forget:

"Our public servants work for us - we don't work for them. We have an obligation, as citizens of this country, to always remember that - and to never let them forget it." - DeadMessengers

 

Translate

Search

 

Get this widget from Widgetbox