In this OpEd piece, the Tag Team of cartoonist Garry Trudeau and U.S. Army Medical Corps Retired Brigadier General Loree Sutton teamed up to write a scathing indictment of the entire Armed Forces Chain of Command accusing them of failing to enforce certain provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); specifically Article 121: Rape and Carnal Knowledge, Article 125: Sodomy, and Article 92: Failure to Obey Orders and Regulations. Just because recently someone at the very TOP of the Chain of Command, namely the Command-in-Chief, may have conveniently elected to suspend enforcement of certain provision of Federal Law does not mean that everyone in the Chain or even a majority are doing likewise.
As a 30 year Soldier with multiple line commands from Company to Brigade levels, I strongly agree rape is a problem that must be dealt with in the harshest possible terms and I have NEVER “looked the other way” once becoming aware of a violation so I do take personal exception to a lot of what is passed off as “fact” in this Opinion piece. Also, much of the piece is devoted to promoting a new Hollywood film being released this week about military sexual assault – “The Invisible War” – a pseudo-documentary that takes great lengths to show the U.S. Military in only the most derogatory light.
Garry Trudeau of Doonesbury fame is no friend of the Military dating back to his anti-Vietnam days bashing Soldiers. Although Loree Sutton may be a retired Army Brigadier General, she was a Medical Corps psychiatrist and thus prohibited by law from commanding any Line formation in the entire Army. Hence, I would maintain neither of the authors has any first hand experience commanding a real Military unit and are therefore unqualified to criticize SECDEF Panetta’s initial corrective action of transferring authority to act on rape accusations further up the chain of command but keeping the responsibility within the Chain of Command. Although Rape is a terrible crime, so is murder and no one has suggested that the normal military Chain of Command is incapable of dealing with murder charges or any other capital crime for that matter.
One need look no further than to this quote in the OpEd piece for proof of both authors lack of understanding of military structure: “The many victims who have looked in vain to majors and lieutenant commanders for justice can be forgiven for a little eye-rolling at the suggestion that they will receive it from colonels and captains in the future… In our view, the only credible solution is to create an independent special victims unit completely outside the unit chain of command, under civilian oversight.”
A minor point but in the Army and Marine Corps Command Structures, the lowest level of actual command is the Company which is commanded by a Captain. The next level is a Battalion which is comprised of several Companies and is commanded by a Lieutenant Colonel. There are virtually no commands for an officer in the grade of Major. Majors serve as Battalion executive officers (XO) and Operations Officers (S-3) and are NOT commanders. Hence, almost no victims should be looking to a Major for justice. A minor point but one that serves to illustrate how totally unqualified and ignorant of the Military that Trudeau and Doctor Sutton are to suggest that the Military Chain of Command is incapable of dealing with Rape while can be trusted to handle murders and other serious crimes.
Bottom line, the Tag Team of Trudeau and Sutton should not infer that all members of the Chain of Command can not be trusted to enforce the Federal Law just because the Commander in Chief at the very top of the Chain of Command has decided he will selectively not enforce some Federal Statutes.
Sunday, July 1, 2012
Friday, May 25, 2012
Memorial Day 2012 - Honor ALL Vets But Reserve a Special Place for the WWII Heroes!
As a Vietnam combat Vet who spent 30 years in the Army (and was in Afghanistan as a civilian last year), I honor ALL Veterans but this Memorial Day 2012 I will especially remember those from the wars where we still have living Veterans and especially from World War II.
In the almost 11 years we’ve been in Afghanistan (Oct 2001-Today/24 May 2012), we’ve lost 1964 military killed from all causes in country and the surrounding regions (1360 Soldiers, 402 Marines, 96 Airmen and 106 Sailors).
In the 9+ years we were in Iraq (Mar 2003-until our withdrawal), we lost 4478 military killed from all causes in country and the surrounding regions (3294 Soldiers, 1022 Marines, 57 Airmen, 104 Sailors and 1 Coast Guardsmen).
Between Vietnam and our present wars, our military also saw combat in Grenada (total lost from all causes = 19), Panama (24), The Gulf War (293).
The Vietnam War lasted 10 years but 51,585 of the total 58,220 killed occurred during the real 5 years (1966-70) of the war when we were heavily engaged (at the height of that war in 1968 we were losing 50+ a day killed and in May 1968 alone we had 2416 Killed!)
The Korean War lasted 3 years and one month (Jun 1950 – Jul 53) and total US Killed was 36,516 (that averages ~32+ killed a day).
All these conflict pale in comparison to World War II where the US lost almost half a million men. The Battle of the Bulge alone lasted 40 days (16 Dec 44 – 25 Jan 45) with almost 90,000 U.S. casualties; 19,000 killed, 47,500 wounded, and 23,000 captured or missing. The 36-day Iwo Jima assault resulted in more than 26,000 American casualties, including 6,800 dead while the 82-day Battle for Okinawa lasted from early April until mid-June 1945 and U.S. (5 Army and 2 Marine Corps Divisions) casualties were over 62,000 with over 12,000 killed.
To me, the real heroes of WWII were the men of the 8th Air Force (one of 16 numbered Air Forces in the War). The 8th AF sustained more than 27,000 killed; that’s more than the entire Marine Corps (24,500) lost in that war. I will never understand how men had the courage to board those bombers day after day knowing they would often sustain 40-50% casualties on a single mission.
Honor ALL Veterans but reserve a special place for the Heroes from World War II!
In the almost 11 years we’ve been in Afghanistan (Oct 2001-Today/24 May 2012), we’ve lost 1964 military killed from all causes in country and the surrounding regions (1360 Soldiers, 402 Marines, 96 Airmen and 106 Sailors).
In the 9+ years we were in Iraq (Mar 2003-until our withdrawal), we lost 4478 military killed from all causes in country and the surrounding regions (3294 Soldiers, 1022 Marines, 57 Airmen, 104 Sailors and 1 Coast Guardsmen).
Between Vietnam and our present wars, our military also saw combat in Grenada (total lost from all causes = 19), Panama (24), The Gulf War (293).
The Vietnam War lasted 10 years but 51,585 of the total 58,220 killed occurred during the real 5 years (1966-70) of the war when we were heavily engaged (at the height of that war in 1968 we were losing 50+ a day killed and in May 1968 alone we had 2416 Killed!)
The Korean War lasted 3 years and one month (Jun 1950 – Jul 53) and total US Killed was 36,516 (that averages ~32+ killed a day).
All these conflict pale in comparison to World War II where the US lost almost half a million men. The Battle of the Bulge alone lasted 40 days (16 Dec 44 – 25 Jan 45) with almost 90,000 U.S. casualties; 19,000 killed, 47,500 wounded, and 23,000 captured or missing. The 36-day Iwo Jima assault resulted in more than 26,000 American casualties, including 6,800 dead while the 82-day Battle for Okinawa lasted from early April until mid-June 1945 and U.S. (5 Army and 2 Marine Corps Divisions) casualties were over 62,000 with over 12,000 killed.
To me, the real heroes of WWII were the men of the 8th Air Force (one of 16 numbered Air Forces in the War). The 8th AF sustained more than 27,000 killed; that’s more than the entire Marine Corps (24,500) lost in that war. I will never understand how men had the courage to board those bombers day after day knowing they would often sustain 40-50% casualties on a single mission.
Honor ALL Veterans but reserve a special place for the Heroes from World War II!
Saturday, May 5, 2012
How Do You Cure the Common Cold? Turn It into Pneumonia! - How Does Obama Lower Unemployment? Shift People from the Labor Force to Welfare!
How do you cure the common cold? Turn it into pneumonia! How does Obama lower unemployment? Shift people from the labor force to unemployment to welfare! Obama is just now touting that unemployment fell to 8.1% this week, the lowest since January 2009. Unfortunately the rate dropped because fewer people are searching for jobs; unemployment only includes those seeking work. If the same percentage of adults were in the workforce today as when Obama took office, the unemployment rate would be 11.1% and when Bush 43 took office it would be 13.1!
Appears Abe Lincoln was right when he said "you can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time; but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." Obama's economic plan for reducing unemployment by moving people onto welfare is a novel approach but probably not a good reelection strategy and one the electorate is beginning to catch onto!
On Friday/4 May 2012 the Bureau of Labor Statistics released the April numbers and it showed the US economy added a paltry 115,000 jobs – not even enough to keep up with what would normally enter the work force each month. Because the “labor force participation rate” (tracks the number of working-age Americans hold or seeking jobs) dropped by 342,000 in April, in Obama’s alternate universe that was enough to drive unemployment down?
This phenomena is termed Obamanomics - Reducing unemployment by having 3 million unemployed workers just call it quits! Perversely, under Obamanomics a poor economy is “good” for reelection because if the economy were to improve, more workers might start looking for work and the unemployment rate would go up.
The percentage of Americans in the labor force the month Obama took office (Jan 09) was 65.7%. Now it’s fallen to 63.6%. That’s about the same as Reagan’s first year in office despite there being 26.6% (82.2 Million) more Americans now. That means with the labor force growing about 90,000 a month, to reach “full employment” it would take 8 years if the economy were to create 200,000 jobs a month and 14 if it only grows by 125,000 a month.
Of course the added benefit to Obama under Obamanomics is that about 41% of the unemployed have been out of work for more than 27 weeks and the longer a worker is jobless the harder it is to return to the labor force – lose skills, become lazy, enjoy daytime TV. These folks move from being unemployed to unemployable so become totally dependent on Government assistance. This is the voter demographic that most appeals to Obama - those totally dependent on the “Nanny State.”
With only 50% of Americans now paying Federal income tax, we've about reached the tipping point where we've got more "people in the wagon than pulling the wagon." Obama's solution to ask China to help pull the wagon by lending us money as we run up larger and larger deficits is a short term fix but I can't understand how young people are falling for this dodge; they are the people that will someday be saddled with this horrendous debt. A child born today in America enters this World with a $50,000 debt! When today’s youth reach middle age and are strapped with high taxes to pay off this debt they will look back to this time when they were cheering at Obama reelection events and wonder "what was I thinking!"
Appears Abe Lincoln was right when he said "you can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time; but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." Obama's economic plan for reducing unemployment by moving people onto welfare is a novel approach but probably not a good reelection strategy and one the electorate is beginning to catch onto!
On Friday/4 May 2012 the Bureau of Labor Statistics released the April numbers and it showed the US economy added a paltry 115,000 jobs – not even enough to keep up with what would normally enter the work force each month. Because the “labor force participation rate” (tracks the number of working-age Americans hold or seeking jobs) dropped by 342,000 in April, in Obama’s alternate universe that was enough to drive unemployment down?
This phenomena is termed Obamanomics - Reducing unemployment by having 3 million unemployed workers just call it quits! Perversely, under Obamanomics a poor economy is “good” for reelection because if the economy were to improve, more workers might start looking for work and the unemployment rate would go up.
The percentage of Americans in the labor force the month Obama took office (Jan 09) was 65.7%. Now it’s fallen to 63.6%. That’s about the same as Reagan’s first year in office despite there being 26.6% (82.2 Million) more Americans now. That means with the labor force growing about 90,000 a month, to reach “full employment” it would take 8 years if the economy were to create 200,000 jobs a month and 14 if it only grows by 125,000 a month.
Of course the added benefit to Obama under Obamanomics is that about 41% of the unemployed have been out of work for more than 27 weeks and the longer a worker is jobless the harder it is to return to the labor force – lose skills, become lazy, enjoy daytime TV. These folks move from being unemployed to unemployable so become totally dependent on Government assistance. This is the voter demographic that most appeals to Obama - those totally dependent on the “Nanny State.”
With only 50% of Americans now paying Federal income tax, we've about reached the tipping point where we've got more "people in the wagon than pulling the wagon." Obama's solution to ask China to help pull the wagon by lending us money as we run up larger and larger deficits is a short term fix but I can't understand how young people are falling for this dodge; they are the people that will someday be saddled with this horrendous debt. A child born today in America enters this World with a $50,000 debt! When today’s youth reach middle age and are strapped with high taxes to pay off this debt they will look back to this time when they were cheering at Obama reelection events and wonder "what was I thinking!"
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
If You've Never Had the Guts to "Participate" in Combat, Don't be To quick to Condemn US Troops Posing with Dead Afghan Insurgents
Not to condone indiscipline but believe we need put thing into perspective before we convict and condemn these soldiers. Exactly what did they do that thousands in previous wars have not done and did they do anything that violated the UCMJ?
There are 18 photographs taken by troops of the famous 1st Battalion, 508th Parachute Infantry Regiment (4th Brigade Combat Team), 82d Airborne Division in 2010 in Zabul province that show soldiers posing next to Afghan corpses, including the mangled body of a suicide bomber hoisted by his ankles and one of two soldiers hold up a dead man’s hand, extending his middle finger. Of course it was the ultra-Left leaning Los Angeles Times that published the pictures.
Of course SecDef Panetta and the Obama installed senior uniformed leadership have all been quick to throw these Soldiers under the bus as have a host of Democrat members of congress. Even Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI.), a former Army 82d paratrooper and member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, was quick to chime in. I might add, although he is a West Point Grad, Jack didn’t stick around in service long enough to ever hear a shot fired in anger!
Former Army Captain Andrew M. Exum, who served in Iraq and Afghanistan and is now a Center for a New American Security analyst in Washington, said he doubted the photos would cause a big stir among Afghans. “Speaking bluntly, most Afghans are probably not going to be terribly offended by the body of a suicide bomber being treated in less than respectful ways,” and he noted Afghan public reaction to the Marine urination video was relatively muted.
Colonel George S. Patton III, son of the famous WWII general, was the very effective commander of the 11 Armored Cavalry Regiment in Vietnam and his 1968 Christmas cards from the war zone read: “From Colonel and Mrs. George S. Patton III -- Peace on Earth.” But instead of Christmas appropriate pictures it had photographs of dismembered Viet Cong soldiers stacked in a pile. Patton also posed grinning with his going away present from his men, a guerrilla’s skull with a bullet hole above the left eye. His punishment for all this was he was promoted to the rank of Major General before he retired.
Of course in 1968 Vietnam where US Killed numbered 2000 a month, not 1906 in 10½ years (May 68 alone we lost 2415 killed), we might have been a little more callus but War is Hell and unless you’ve “participated,” don’t be so fast to judge others.
There are 18 photographs taken by troops of the famous 1st Battalion, 508th Parachute Infantry Regiment (4th Brigade Combat Team), 82d Airborne Division in 2010 in Zabul province that show soldiers posing next to Afghan corpses, including the mangled body of a suicide bomber hoisted by his ankles and one of two soldiers hold up a dead man’s hand, extending his middle finger. Of course it was the ultra-Left leaning Los Angeles Times that published the pictures.
Of course SecDef Panetta and the Obama installed senior uniformed leadership have all been quick to throw these Soldiers under the bus as have a host of Democrat members of congress. Even Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI.), a former Army 82d paratrooper and member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, was quick to chime in. I might add, although he is a West Point Grad, Jack didn’t stick around in service long enough to ever hear a shot fired in anger!
Former Army Captain Andrew M. Exum, who served in Iraq and Afghanistan and is now a Center for a New American Security analyst in Washington, said he doubted the photos would cause a big stir among Afghans. “Speaking bluntly, most Afghans are probably not going to be terribly offended by the body of a suicide bomber being treated in less than respectful ways,” and he noted Afghan public reaction to the Marine urination video was relatively muted.
Colonel George S. Patton III, son of the famous WWII general, was the very effective commander of the 11 Armored Cavalry Regiment in Vietnam and his 1968 Christmas cards from the war zone read: “From Colonel and Mrs. George S. Patton III -- Peace on Earth.” But instead of Christmas appropriate pictures it had photographs of dismembered Viet Cong soldiers stacked in a pile. Patton also posed grinning with his going away present from his men, a guerrilla’s skull with a bullet hole above the left eye. His punishment for all this was he was promoted to the rank of Major General before he retired.
Of course in 1968 Vietnam where US Killed numbered 2000 a month, not 1906 in 10½ years (May 68 alone we lost 2415 killed), we might have been a little more callus but War is Hell and unless you’ve “participated,” don’t be so fast to judge others.
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
Obama’s Secretary of the Navy Mabus – What’s Next, Selling Navy Ship Naming Rights to Political Contributors as if They’re NFL Football Stadiums?
The 3 April 2012 Fort Worth Star-Telegram had an interesting article by J.R. Labbe commemorating the countdown to the 22 September 2012 commissioning of the Navy’s newest littoral combat ship (LCS) in Galveston, the USS Fort Worth. The christening took place on 4 Dec 2010 and was reportedly “a day of tradition, patriotism and honor -- with special emphasis on tradition.” Bush 43's Secretary of the Navy Donald Winter had selected the name which was in keeping with Naval tradition. The Navy is big on tradition -- from its naming to the keel laying to the mast stepping to the christening – its been done thousands of times before -- or at least that is how things were done before the Obama Administration decided to abandoned all tradition. Instead of naming ships to honor a Service Hero, a significant Military leader or recognize a place or an event that exemplifies the character, spirit and commitment to the Service, the current SecNav, Ray Mabus has decided to substitute time-honored Navy tradition for an exercise in political pandering. Granted the Navy secretary has sole discretion in naming Naval Vessels but this guy has taken politics to a new level. I would not be at all surprised to wake up one morning to find Mabus “selling ship naming right” to Obama bundlers as if a war ship was an NFL Football stadium. Even Mabus’ Wikipedia page notes he is the target of heavy criticism from Military veterans and several members of Congress for abandoning the norms of ship naming protocol to make political statements.
In 2010, Mabus, a former Mississippi governor, named a San Antonio-class amphibious transport ship after deceased Pennsylvania Rep. John P. Murtha -- the defense appropriation's king of pay-to-play who did more to divert scarce Military resources from sorely needed service priorities to political cronies (a la Obama with Solyndra) than any politician in recent memory. Then in May 2011, he named a Lewis and Clark-class cargo ship after migrant labor leader Cesar Chavez. Rumor has it there’s a USS Rev. Jeremiah Wright, a USS Jane Fonda and a USS George Soros in our future.
Granted, Chavez and Murtha both may have once been in the military like millions of others but to be worthy of a ship to bear a person’s name they should have at least demonstrated great courage in actual combat. Then, to add insult this February Mabus decided to name the 10th LCS the USS Gabrielle Giffords after the former Arizona Democrat Congresswoman. Now she may be worthy of admiration and respect for her courage in overcoming her injuries in a January 2011 town hall shooting and she did serve on the House Armed Services Committee but she wasn't exactly any outspoken champion of the Military. In her favor she is married to a now retired Navy Captain (and former NASA astronaut) but so is my wife and no one is talking about naming a ship after her! Maybe a post office or a government building in her Tucson hometown, but a Navy man of war, are you kidding?
Every Veteran ought to be outraged by this politicizing of the Navy and demand that President Obama ask for Ray Mabus’ immediate resignation. With the average life of a Naval vessel almost 50 years, can you imagine one of your grandchildren having to serve aboard the USS Oprah Winfrey?
Than again, with the Obama Five Year Defense Program, this might be all the Navy's bankrupt Shipbuilding Program can afford so maybe a name like the USS Jon Corzine would be appropriate?
Update 24 April 2012: In a letter released today sent to Navy Secretary Ray Mabus and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Rep. Bob Filner (D-CA San Diego) asks that the Navy name a ship after slain gay activist Harvey Milk who was murdered on Nov. 27, 1978, while serving as a San Francisco supervisor. Milk served in the Navy in the early 1950s but had a rather undistinguished service record.
Now granting Filner’s wishes would be right in character for Mabus who has substituted time-honored Naval ship naming tradition for an exercise in political pandering but this would take it to a new level. A USS Harvey Milk would quickly become the joke of the fleet with the ship's Motto being: “Never Leave Your Shipmates' Behinds!” Does anyone really believe sailors would be clammering to serve on this ship?
In 2010, Mabus, a former Mississippi governor, named a San Antonio-class amphibious transport ship after deceased Pennsylvania Rep. John P. Murtha -- the defense appropriation's king of pay-to-play who did more to divert scarce Military resources from sorely needed service priorities to political cronies (a la Obama with Solyndra) than any politician in recent memory. Then in May 2011, he named a Lewis and Clark-class cargo ship after migrant labor leader Cesar Chavez. Rumor has it there’s a USS Rev. Jeremiah Wright, a USS Jane Fonda and a USS George Soros in our future.
Granted, Chavez and Murtha both may have once been in the military like millions of others but to be worthy of a ship to bear a person’s name they should have at least demonstrated great courage in actual combat. Then, to add insult this February Mabus decided to name the 10th LCS the USS Gabrielle Giffords after the former Arizona Democrat Congresswoman. Now she may be worthy of admiration and respect for her courage in overcoming her injuries in a January 2011 town hall shooting and she did serve on the House Armed Services Committee but she wasn't exactly any outspoken champion of the Military. In her favor she is married to a now retired Navy Captain (and former NASA astronaut) but so is my wife and no one is talking about naming a ship after her! Maybe a post office or a government building in her Tucson hometown, but a Navy man of war, are you kidding?
Every Veteran ought to be outraged by this politicizing of the Navy and demand that President Obama ask for Ray Mabus’ immediate resignation. With the average life of a Naval vessel almost 50 years, can you imagine one of your grandchildren having to serve aboard the USS Oprah Winfrey?
Than again, with the Obama Five Year Defense Program, this might be all the Navy's bankrupt Shipbuilding Program can afford so maybe a name like the USS Jon Corzine would be appropriate?
Update 24 April 2012: In a letter released today sent to Navy Secretary Ray Mabus and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Rep. Bob Filner (D-CA San Diego) asks that the Navy name a ship after slain gay activist Harvey Milk who was murdered on Nov. 27, 1978, while serving as a San Francisco supervisor. Milk served in the Navy in the early 1950s but had a rather undistinguished service record.
Now granting Filner’s wishes would be right in character for Mabus who has substituted time-honored Naval ship naming tradition for an exercise in political pandering but this would take it to a new level. A USS Harvey Milk would quickly become the joke of the fleet with the ship's Motto being: “Never Leave Your Shipmates' Behinds!” Does anyone really believe sailors would be clammering to serve on this ship?
Sunday, April 1, 2012
When Obamacare Goes Down in Flames – Who Should Get the Credit? – Attorney General Eric Holder, of Course!
When Solicitor General of the United States Donald B. Verrilli Jr. suffered an episode of Ankyloglossia (aka tongue tied) during his historically inept presentation before the Supreme Court attempting to defend the indefensible -- Obamacare, it just might have doomed the Government's chances of victory. If (or when) the Court strikes it down, the decision is expected to be announced in late June, Verrilli should get his fair share of the credit but Obamacare opponents should be most grateful to Verrilli’s immediate Boss – Attorney General Eric Holder.
It was AG Holder that selected Verrilli to argue the administration’s case for the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act and it was the AG and his staff that “prepared” him for the task. Hence, the AG should be hailed as a Conservative Hero for his selecting and preparing the Government’s “legal representative” who is probably the second most gaff prone Democrat in Washington – second to only the “Gaffmister” himself, VP Joe “Five-Deferment” Biden (see previous Bolg articles below: 9 Oct 10 - Joe Biden - The Consummate Gaff-mister and Some of My Favorite “Biden-isms” and 23 Oct 11 - Biden Ties President's Washington Post Four Pinocchios with "Absurd Claims About rising Rape & Murder Rates").
For Liberals, selecting Verrilli was probably AG Holder’s worst lapse of judgment since at least his approving shipping arms to Mexican drug cartels in “Operation Fast and Furious” and maybe even as far back as his recommending to President Clinton that he Pardon International Fugitive Marc Rich on his last day in office.
One thing AG Holder can be thankful for is that the Court did NOT permit C-SPAN to stream live video of the proceeding because the court released audio was bad enough. It was during the second day of proceedings, the day dedicated to debating the constitutionality of the individual mandate, where Verrilli really excelled! He started out by repeatedly pausing, excusing himself and generally appearing lost during his presentation – then things really began going down hill! It was truly painful to hear but watching it was reportedly excruciating.
As a matter of fact, Verrilli performed so poorly in defending the individual mandate that the liberal justices continually interrupted him to help him make his case by beginning their comments with “what I really think you mean to say,” thus underscoring how badly he was struggling to make his case. The obvious question neither Verrilli nor his handlers appear to have ever considered or prepared him to answer was: What is the limiting principle to the Government’s power to interfere into the private affairs of a citizen? The credit for that oversight falls right at the feet of AG Holder!
Now none of this should detract from the brilliant performance of Paul Clement who was representing the 26 states opposing the law but in defense of Verrilli, it’s tough for any advocate to compare well to him in a courtroom, especially when your argument is so weak on the merits. Also, unlike Verrilli, Clement was able to make his arguments without any "assistance" from "friendly" Justices. Any sane liberal or conservative would have to admit that Clement is just about the best in the business — one of the great oral advocates of all times – the William Jennings Bryant of our generation -- and he delivered a slam-dunk performance.
The Court won’t rule solely based on Verrilli’s dubious oratory skills but having both sides in a position to claim credit for overturning Obamacare will be a novel outcome. Clements for his superb arguments while Holder’s and Verrilli’s contributions will be because of an inept presentation and a complete lack of preparation. But among Attorney Clement, Attorney General Holder and Solicitor General Verrilli, Holder deserves the lion’s share of the credit because he was the one that sent Verrilli into a fight with a knife when Clement had a gun!
It was AG Holder that selected Verrilli to argue the administration’s case for the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act and it was the AG and his staff that “prepared” him for the task. Hence, the AG should be hailed as a Conservative Hero for his selecting and preparing the Government’s “legal representative” who is probably the second most gaff prone Democrat in Washington – second to only the “Gaffmister” himself, VP Joe “Five-Deferment” Biden (see previous Bolg articles below: 9 Oct 10 - Joe Biden - The Consummate Gaff-mister and Some of My Favorite “Biden-isms” and 23 Oct 11 - Biden Ties President's Washington Post Four Pinocchios with "Absurd Claims About rising Rape & Murder Rates").
For Liberals, selecting Verrilli was probably AG Holder’s worst lapse of judgment since at least his approving shipping arms to Mexican drug cartels in “Operation Fast and Furious” and maybe even as far back as his recommending to President Clinton that he Pardon International Fugitive Marc Rich on his last day in office.
One thing AG Holder can be thankful for is that the Court did NOT permit C-SPAN to stream live video of the proceeding because the court released audio was bad enough. It was during the second day of proceedings, the day dedicated to debating the constitutionality of the individual mandate, where Verrilli really excelled! He started out by repeatedly pausing, excusing himself and generally appearing lost during his presentation – then things really began going down hill! It was truly painful to hear but watching it was reportedly excruciating.
As a matter of fact, Verrilli performed so poorly in defending the individual mandate that the liberal justices continually interrupted him to help him make his case by beginning their comments with “what I really think you mean to say,” thus underscoring how badly he was struggling to make his case. The obvious question neither Verrilli nor his handlers appear to have ever considered or prepared him to answer was: What is the limiting principle to the Government’s power to interfere into the private affairs of a citizen? The credit for that oversight falls right at the feet of AG Holder!
Now none of this should detract from the brilliant performance of Paul Clement who was representing the 26 states opposing the law but in defense of Verrilli, it’s tough for any advocate to compare well to him in a courtroom, especially when your argument is so weak on the merits. Also, unlike Verrilli, Clement was able to make his arguments without any "assistance" from "friendly" Justices. Any sane liberal or conservative would have to admit that Clement is just about the best in the business — one of the great oral advocates of all times – the William Jennings Bryant of our generation -- and he delivered a slam-dunk performance.
The Court won’t rule solely based on Verrilli’s dubious oratory skills but having both sides in a position to claim credit for overturning Obamacare will be a novel outcome. Clements for his superb arguments while Holder’s and Verrilli’s contributions will be because of an inept presentation and a complete lack of preparation. But among Attorney Clement, Attorney General Holder and Solicitor General Verrilli, Holder deserves the lion’s share of the credit because he was the one that sent Verrilli into a fight with a knife when Clement had a gun!
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Tom Hanks Scores 3 Pinocchios for Misleading Account of Obama Mother's Insurance Dispute in His Dem Campaign Flick: ‘The Road We’ve Traveled’
Does Tom Hanks have no shame? Not only did he produce HBO's "Game Change" - a Democrat hit piece masquerading as entertainment and history (see my critique of that piece of trash below) but had the audacity to continue trying to mislead the public in his 17 minute Obama campaign film “The Road We’ve Traveled.” Here, even the Washington Post Fact Checker had to call him out and award him THREE PINOCCHIOS for his series of out right misstatements about Obama and his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, including these concerning her health insurance. (See below graphic to see what the WaPo Fact Checker actually said.)
Narrator Tom Hanks: “He (Obama) knew from experience the cost of waiting [on health care reform].”
President Obama : “When my mom got cancer, she wasn’t a wealthy woman and it pretty much drained all her resources”
Michelle Obama: “She developed ovarian cancer, never really had good, consistent insurance. That’s a tough thing to deal with, watching your mother die of something that could have been prevented. I don’t think he wants to see anyone go through that.”
Hanks: “And he remembered the millions of families like of his who feel the pressure of rising costs and the fear of being denied or dropped from coverage.”
This series of words and images was a blatant attempt to perpetuate the misleading falsehood first evokes by candidate Obama during the 2008 campaign that his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, fought with her insurer over whether her cancer was a pre-existing condition that disqualified her from coverage. During the campaign Obama frequently suggested his mother had to fight with her health-insurance company for treatment of her cancer and said: “For my mother to die of cancer at the age of 53 and have to spend the last months of her life in the hospital room arguing with insurance companies because they’re saying that this may be a pre-existing condition and they don’t have to pay her treatment, there’s something fundamentally wrong about that.”
If this had been true, I would agree with Obama that there would have been “something fundamentally wrong about that.” But as journalist Janny Scott reveals in her excellent biography, “A Singular Woman: The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s mother,” letters from Dunham to the CIGNA insurance company clearly shows her dispute was over disability coverage, not health insurance. Disability coverage helps replace lost wages due to illness and has NOTHING to do with Medical Insurance. When she became ill, Dunham was working in Indonesia for Development Alternatives Inc. of Bethesda and her base pay was $82,500, plus housing and car allowances. Her 1995 salary is the equivalent of $123,000 today.
Dunham died in 1995 of uterine and ovarian cancer and her health insurance covered most of the costs of her medical treatment…The hospital billed her insurance company directly, leaving her to pay only the deductible and any uncovered expenses.
Dunham did filed a disability insurance claim which CIGNA denied because her doctor had suspected uterine cancer during an office visit 2 ½ months before Dunham started the job in Indonesia. Disability insurance is different than health insurance coverage denied because of a pre-existing condition. Disability insurance is NOT part of Obama’s health care law.
The White House dismisses the President’s misstatements as: “The president has told this story based on his recollection of events that took place more than 15 years ago.”
So how does Hanks deal with this story? He never directly repeats Obama’s false claim that his mother had to fight for treatment in her hospital room because she was being denied health insurance coverage but look at what Hanks' film does say:
1. Hanks says: “The president knew the cost of waiting on reform.” (Though disability coverage was not an issue in the health care debate.)
2. The president says cancer “drained all her resources.” (Health insurance paid most of her bills, so this is not the case of someone being bankrupted by tens of thousands of dollars in bills and her today’s equivalent salary of $123,000 should have provided her some savings.)
3. Michelle Obama says Dunham “never really had good, consistent insurance.” (Regardless, Dunham had good health coverage when the cancer was discovered.)
4. The first lady also suggests the death “could have been prevented.” (That’s not an insurance issue! Dunham skipped an important test recommended by her US doctor that might have spotted the cancer earlier and then her Indonesian doctor later diagnosed her problem as appendicitis and removed her appendix. By the time the cancer was finally discovered it was third-stage.)
5. Hanks says that Obama’s family felt “the pressure of rising costs and the fear of being denied or dropped from coverage.” (She was NEVER in jeopardy of losing health insurance.)
Bottom line, Hanks' Obama propaganda film creates a false impression very similar to Obama’s 2008 campaign rhetoric that his mother was denied health-insurance coverage that drained her resources and with better coverage she might have lived longer. Nothing could be further from the truth! To skirt the truth the film never uses the words “health insurance” but instead the first lady says “insurance” and Hanks says “coverage” which gives them the out that they were not really out right lying but were talking about disability insurance. Only problem, disability insurance is different than health insurance coverage and has nothing to do with Obama’s health care law.
So what earned Hanks and his film Three Pinocchios? Hanks goes out of his way to give the false impression that Dunham was involved in a fight over health-insurance coverage rather than disability-insurance. Hanks must have known he had a problem with his film or he would have used Obama’s false 2008 campaign phrases like “pre-existing conditions,” “health insurance,” and “treatment.” Instead, he just arranged the quotes and images to leave the misleading and false impression of what really happened. This was an effort consistent with his other "falsehood filled" film, "Game Change!" Good Job Tom!
Narrator Tom Hanks: “He (Obama) knew from experience the cost of waiting [on health care reform].”
President Obama : “When my mom got cancer, she wasn’t a wealthy woman and it pretty much drained all her resources”
Michelle Obama: “She developed ovarian cancer, never really had good, consistent insurance. That’s a tough thing to deal with, watching your mother die of something that could have been prevented. I don’t think he wants to see anyone go through that.”
Hanks: “And he remembered the millions of families like of his who feel the pressure of rising costs and the fear of being denied or dropped from coverage.”
This series of words and images was a blatant attempt to perpetuate the misleading falsehood first evokes by candidate Obama during the 2008 campaign that his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, fought with her insurer over whether her cancer was a pre-existing condition that disqualified her from coverage. During the campaign Obama frequently suggested his mother had to fight with her health-insurance company for treatment of her cancer and said: “For my mother to die of cancer at the age of 53 and have to spend the last months of her life in the hospital room arguing with insurance companies because they’re saying that this may be a pre-existing condition and they don’t have to pay her treatment, there’s something fundamentally wrong about that.”
If this had been true, I would agree with Obama that there would have been “something fundamentally wrong about that.” But as journalist Janny Scott reveals in her excellent biography, “A Singular Woman: The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s mother,” letters from Dunham to the CIGNA insurance company clearly shows her dispute was over disability coverage, not health insurance. Disability coverage helps replace lost wages due to illness and has NOTHING to do with Medical Insurance. When she became ill, Dunham was working in Indonesia for Development Alternatives Inc. of Bethesda and her base pay was $82,500, plus housing and car allowances. Her 1995 salary is the equivalent of $123,000 today.
Dunham died in 1995 of uterine and ovarian cancer and her health insurance covered most of the costs of her medical treatment…The hospital billed her insurance company directly, leaving her to pay only the deductible and any uncovered expenses.
Dunham did filed a disability insurance claim which CIGNA denied because her doctor had suspected uterine cancer during an office visit 2 ½ months before Dunham started the job in Indonesia. Disability insurance is different than health insurance coverage denied because of a pre-existing condition. Disability insurance is NOT part of Obama’s health care law.
The White House dismisses the President’s misstatements as: “The president has told this story based on his recollection of events that took place more than 15 years ago.”
So how does Hanks deal with this story? He never directly repeats Obama’s false claim that his mother had to fight for treatment in her hospital room because she was being denied health insurance coverage but look at what Hanks' film does say:
1. Hanks says: “The president knew the cost of waiting on reform.” (Though disability coverage was not an issue in the health care debate.)
2. The president says cancer “drained all her resources.” (Health insurance paid most of her bills, so this is not the case of someone being bankrupted by tens of thousands of dollars in bills and her today’s equivalent salary of $123,000 should have provided her some savings.)
3. Michelle Obama says Dunham “never really had good, consistent insurance.” (Regardless, Dunham had good health coverage when the cancer was discovered.)
4. The first lady also suggests the death “could have been prevented.” (That’s not an insurance issue! Dunham skipped an important test recommended by her US doctor that might have spotted the cancer earlier and then her Indonesian doctor later diagnosed her problem as appendicitis and removed her appendix. By the time the cancer was finally discovered it was third-stage.)
5. Hanks says that Obama’s family felt “the pressure of rising costs and the fear of being denied or dropped from coverage.” (She was NEVER in jeopardy of losing health insurance.)
Bottom line, Hanks' Obama propaganda film creates a false impression very similar to Obama’s 2008 campaign rhetoric that his mother was denied health-insurance coverage that drained her resources and with better coverage she might have lived longer. Nothing could be further from the truth! To skirt the truth the film never uses the words “health insurance” but instead the first lady says “insurance” and Hanks says “coverage” which gives them the out that they were not really out right lying but were talking about disability insurance. Only problem, disability insurance is different than health insurance coverage and has nothing to do with Obama’s health care law.
So what earned Hanks and his film Three Pinocchios? Hanks goes out of his way to give the false impression that Dunham was involved in a fight over health-insurance coverage rather than disability-insurance. Hanks must have known he had a problem with his film or he would have used Obama’s false 2008 campaign phrases like “pre-existing conditions,” “health insurance,” and “treatment.” Instead, he just arranged the quotes and images to leave the misleading and false impression of what really happened. This was an effort consistent with his other "falsehood filled" film, "Game Change!" Good Job Tom!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)