Thursday, December 16, 2004

AP: Woman Died During Gov't AIDS Study

AP: Woman Died During Gov't AIDS Study

17 minutes ago

By JOHN SOLOMON and RANDY HERSCHAFT, Associated Press Writers

A pregnant Tennessee woman who enrolled in federally funded research in hopes of saving her soon-to-be-born son from getting AIDS (news - web sites) died last year when doctors continued to give her an experimental drug regimen despite signs of liver failure, government memos say.

Photo
AP Photo

AP Photo Photo
AP Photo
Slideshow Slideshow: HIV/AIDS



Family members of Joyce Ann Hafford say the 33-year-old HIV (news - web sites)-positive woman died without ever holding her newborn boy. They also said they never were told the National Institutes of Health (news - web sites) concluded the drug therapy likely caused her death.

The family first learned of NIH's conclusions when The Associated Press obtained copies of the case file this month. For the past year, they say they were left to believe Hafford, of Memphis, Tenn., died from AIDS complications but began pursuing litigation to learn more.

"They tried to make it sound like she was just sick. They never connected it to the drug," said Rubbie King, Hafford's sister.

"If it were the disease, solely the disease, and the complications associated with the disease, that would be more readily acceptable than her being administered medication that came with warnings that the medical community failed to get ... to her."

Documents show Hafford's case reverberated among the government's top scientists in Washington, who were monitoring reports of her declining health in late July 2003 as she lay on a respirator.

NIH officials quickly suspected the drug regimen because it included nevirapine, a drug known to cause liver problems, and the case eventually reached the nation's chief AIDS researcher.

"Ouch! Not much wwe (we) can do about dumd (dumb) docs," Dr. Edmund Tramont, NIH's AIDS Division chief, responded in an e-mail after his staff reported that doctors continued to administer the drugs nevirapine and Combivir to Hafford despite signs of liver failure.

Nevirapine is an antiretroviral AIDS drug used since the mid-1990s, and the government has warned since at least 2000 that it could cause lethal liver problems or rashes when taken in multiple doses over time.

Asked about the case Thursday, White House press secretary Scott McClellan called Hafford's death "tragic and terrible." He gave no view on whether use of multiple doses of the drug should be halted.

"We want to see what the National Institute of Medicine (news - web sites) says," said McClellan. But he reiterated that the single dose of nevirapine used in the president's emergency AIDS relief plan in Africa is considered safe.

NIH officials acknowledge that experimental drugs, most likely nevirapine, caused Hafford's death, and that keeping the family in the dark was inappropriate. But NIH usually leaves disclosures like that to the doctors who treated her, officials said.

"We feel horrible that something like this would happen to anyone in any circumstance," said Dr. H. Clifford Lane, NIH's No. 2 infectious disease specialist. "There are risks in research and we try to minimize them."

Jim Kyle, a lawyer representing Regional Medical Center in Memphis where Hafford died, declined comment because of the family's pending litigation. The doctors there referred a call seeking comment to NIH.

The study during which Hafford died recently led researchers to conclude that nevirapine poses risks when taken over time by certain pregnant women.

"Continuous nevirapine may be associated with increased toxicity among HIV-1 infected pregnant women" with certain liver cell counts, the study concluded.

Lane said Hafford should have signed a 15-page, NIH-approved consent form at the start of the experiment specifically warning her of the risks of liver failure. The family says Hafford seemed unaware of the liver risks. They even kept the bottle of nevirapine showing it had no safety warnings.

"My daughter didn't know any of the warning signs," said Rubbie Malone, Hafford's mother and now caretaker of Hafford's new baby and older son. "She never got to hold her baby."

Lane confirmed the nevirapine bottle Hafford received likely wouldn't have had safety warnings because the experiment's rules called for the patient to be unaware of the exact drug effects to avoid patient influence on the test results. That means the consent form would have been her lone warning about potential liver problems, he said.

That 15-page, single-spaced consent form is chock full of complex medical terms like "hypersensitivity reactions" and "pharmacokinetic test." The warning about potential liver problems shows up on the sixth page, where it said liver inflammation was possible and "rarely may lead to severe and life threatening liver damage and death."

Hafford, who was HIV-positive but otherwise healthy, agreed to participate in the NIH-funded research project that provided her multiple doses of nevirapine, also known as Viramune, to protect her soon-to-be-born son, Sterling, from getting HIV at birth.

The project was an outgrowth of earlier research in Africa that concluded the drug could be taken in single doses safely to protect newborns half the time.

"She didn't want her baby to be born with HIV infection if it could be prevented at any cost," said King, her sister.

Hafford died Aug. 1, 2003, less than 72 hours after giving birth. Sterling was delivered prematurely by Caesarean section as his mother was dying. Though premature, he was spared from HIV and is healthy.

NIH's documents suggest Hafford's life might also have been spared if the drug had been stopped when the first liver problems showed up in her blood work two weeks before death.

"This case was particularly unfortunate b/c (because) the PI (principle investigative doctor) didn't stop drug when grade 3 liver enzymes were reported," Dr. Jonathan Fishbein, NIH's chief of good research practices, told Tramont in an August 2003 e-mail.

Fishbein, who is seeking federal whistleblower protection after raising concerns about NIH's practices, told AP that Hafford's death is attributable to a bigger problem in government research.

"This is not just a clinical trial issue this is a healthcare issue. The public expects that diagnostic test results are promptly evaluated and acted on, if need be," Fishbein said. "Sadly, this is but one example where an assessment was not done quickly and it cost this young mother her life."

NIH's official review determined the Memphis hospital failed to react to lab results that showed her liver failure was starting well before she died. "The site had identified that there was a delay in reviewing laboratory evaluations from the clinic visit the week before she presented with clinical hepatitis," an Aug. 15, 2003, report concluded.

The official investigative files cited "drug-induced hepatitis" of the liver as the cause of death.

As is routine after a research-related death, NIH ordered changes to the rules its researchers followed in the nevirapine studies to ensure the early detection of liver problems, the memos show.

___

On the Net:

Documents gathered by AP for this story are available at: http://wid.ap.org/documents/nevirapine3.html

National Institutes of Health: http://www.nih.gov

Fishbein's whistleblower Web site: http://www.honestdoctor.org/

THANKS, BUSH FOR "BRING IT ON!"

The New York Times

December 16, 2004

A Flood of Troubled Soldiers Is in the Offing, Experts Predict

By SCOTT SHANE

WASHINGTON, Dec. 15 - The nation's hard-pressed health care system for veterans is facing a potential deluge of tens of thousands of soldiers returning from Iraq with serious mental health problems brought on by the stress and carnage of war, veterans' advocates and military doctors say.

An Army study shows that about one in six soldiers in Iraq report symptoms of major depression, serious anxiety or post-traumatic stress disorder, a proportion that some experts believe could eventually climb to one in three, the rate ultimately found in Vietnam veterans. Because about one million American troops have served so far in the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to Pentagon figures, some experts predict that the number eventually requiring mental health treatment could exceed 100,000.

"There's a train coming that's packed with people who are going to need help for the next 35 years," said Stephen L. Robinson, a 20-year Army veteran who is now the executive director of the National Gulf War Resource Center, an advocacy group. Mr. Robinson wrote a report in September on the psychological toll of the war for the Center for American Progress, a Washington research group.

"I have a very strong sense that the mental health consequences are going to be the medical story of this war," said Dr. Stephen C. Joseph, who served as the assistant secretary of defense for health affairs from 1994 to 1997.

What was planned as a short and decisive intervention in Iraq has become a grueling counterinsurgency that has put American troops into sustained close-quarters combat on a scale not seen since the Vietnam War. Psychiatrists say the kind of fighting seen in the recent retaking of Falluja - spooky urban settings with unlimited hiding places; the impossibility of telling Iraqi friend from Iraqi foe; the knowledge that every stretch of road may conceal an explosive device - is tailored to produce the adrenaline-gone-haywire reactions that leave lasting emotional scars.

And in no recent conflict have so many soldiers faced such uncertainty about how long they will be deployed. Veterans say the repeated extensions of duty in Iraq are emotionally battering, even for the most stoical of warriors.

Military and Department of Veterans Affairs officials say most military personnel will survive the war without serious mental issues and note that the one million troops include many who have not participated in ground combat, including sailors on ships. By comparison with troops in Vietnam, the officials said, soldiers in Iraq get far more mental health support and are likely to return to a more understanding public.

But the duration and intensity of the war have doctors at veterans hospitals across the country worried about the coming caseload.

"We're seeing an increasing number of guys with classic post-traumatic stress symptoms," said Dr. Evan Kanter, a psychiatrist at the Puget Sound veterans hospital in Seattle. "We're all anxiously waiting for a flood that we expect is coming. And I feel stretched right now."

A September report by the Government Accountability Office found that officials at six of seven Veterans Affairs medical facilities surveyed said they "may not be able to meet" increased demand for treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder. Officers who served in Iraq say the unrelenting tension of the counterinsurgency will produce that demand.

"In the urban terrain, the enemy is everywhere, across the street, in that window, up that alley," said Paul Rieckhoff, who served as a platoon leader with the Florida Army National Guard for 10 months, going on hundreds of combat patrols around Baghdad. "It's a fishbowl. You never feel safe. You never relax."

In his platoon of 38 people, 8 were divorced while in Iraq or since they returned in February, Mr. Rieckhoff said. One man in his 120-person company killed himself after coming home.

"Too many guys are drinking," said Mr. Rieckhoff, who started the group Operation Truth to support the troops. "A lot have a hard time finding a job. I think the system is vastly under-prepared for the flood of mental health problems."

Capt. Tim Wilson, an Army chaplain serving outside Mosul, said he counseled 8 to 10 soldiers a week for combat stress. Captain Wilson said he was impressed with the resilience of his 700-strong battalion but added that fierce battles have produced turbulent emotions.

"There are usually two things they are dealing with," said Captain Wilson, a Southern Baptist from South Carolina. "Either being shot at and not wanting to get shot at again, or after shooting someone, asking, 'Did I commit murder?' or 'Is God going to forgive me?' or 'How am I going to be when I get home?' "

When all goes as it should, the life-saving medical services available to combat units like Captain Wilson's may actually swell the ranks of psychological casualties. Of wounded soldiers who are alive when medics arrive, 98 percent now survive, said Dr. Michael E. Kilpatrick, the Pentagon's deputy director of deployment health support. But they must come to terms not only with emotional scars but the literal scars of amputated limbs and disfiguring injuries.

Through the end of September, the Army had evacuated 885 troops from Iraq for psychiatric reasons, including some who had threatened or tried suicide. But those are only the most extreme cases. Often, the symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder do not emerge until months after discharge.

"During the war, they don't have the leisure to focus on how they're feeling," said Sonja Batten, a psychologist at the Baltimore veterans hospital. "It's when they get back and find that their relationships are suffering and they can't hold down a job that they realize they have a problem."

Robert E. Brown was proud to be in the first wave of Marines invading Iraq last year. But Mr. Brown has also found himself in the first ranks of returning soldiers to be unhinged by what they experienced.

He served for six months as a Marine chaplain's assistant, counseling wounded soldiers, organizing makeshift memorial services and filling in on raids. He knew he was in trouble by the time he was on a ship home, when the sound of a hatch slamming would send him diving to the floor.

After he came home, he began drinking heavily and saw his marriage fall apart, Mr. Brown said. He was discharged and returned to his hometown, Peru, Ind., where he slept for two weeks in his Ford Explorer, surrounded by mementos of the war.

"I just couldn't stand to be with anybody," said Mr. Brown, 35, sitting at his father's kitchen table.

Dr. Batten started him on the road to recovery by giving his torment a name, an explanation and a treatment plan. But 18 months after leaving Iraq, he takes medication for depression and anxiety and returns in dreams to the horrors of his war nearly every night.

The scenes repeat in ghastly alternation, he says: the Iraqi girl, 3 or 4 years old, her skull torn open by a stray round; the Kuwaiti man imprisoned for 13 years by Saddam Hussein, cowering in madness and covered in waste; the young American soldier, desperate to escape the fighting, who sat in the latrine and fired his M-16 through his arm; the Iraqi missile speeding in as troops scramble in the dark for cover.

"That's the one that just stops my heart," said Mr. Brown. "I'm in my rack sleeping and there's a school bus full of explosives coming down at me and there's nowhere to go."

Such costs of war, personal and financial, are not revealed by official casualty counts. "People see the figure of 1,200 dead," said Dr. Kanter, of Seattle, referring to the number of Americans killed in Iraq. "Much more rarely do they see the number of seriously wounded. And almost never do they hear anything at all about the psychiatric casualties."

As of Wednesday 5,229 Americans have been seriously wounded in Iraq. Through July, nearly 31,000 veterans of Operation Iraqi Freedom had applied for disability benefits for injuries or psychological ailments, according to the Department Veterans Affairs.

Every war produces its medical signature, said Dr. Kenneth Craig Hyams, a former Navy physician now at the Department of Veterans Affairs. Soldiers came back from the Civil War with "irritable heart." In World War I there was "shell shock." World War II vets had "battle fatigue." The troubles of Vietnam veterans led to the codification of post-traumatic stress disorder.

In combat, the fight-or-flight reflex floods the body with adrenaline, permitting impressive feats of speed and endurance. But after spending weeks or months in this altered state, some soldiers cannot adjust to a peaceful setting. Like Mr. Brown, for whom a visit to a crowded bank at lunch became an ordeal, they display what doctors call "hypervigilance." They sit in restaurants with their backs to a wall; a car's backfire can transport them back to Baghdad.

To prevent such damage, the Army has deployed "combat stress control units" in Iraq to provide treatment quickly to soldiers suffering from emotional overload, keeping them close to the healing camaraderie of their unit.

"We've found through long experience that this is best treated with sleep, rest, food, showers and a clean uniform, if that is possible," said Dr. Thomas J. Burke, an Army psychiatrist who oversees mental health policy at the Department of Defense. "If they get counseling to tell them they are not crazy, they will often get better rapidly."

To detect signs of trouble, the Department of Defense gives soldiers pre-deployment and post-deployment health questionnaires. Seven of 17 questions to soldiers leaving Iraq seek signs of depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder.

But some reports suggest that such well-intentioned policies falter in the field. During his time as a platoon leader in Iraq, Mr. Rieckhoff said, he never saw a combat stress control unit. "I never heard of them until I came back," he said.

And the health screens have run up against an old enemy of military medicine: soldiers who cover up their symptoms. In July 2003, as Jeffrey Lucey, a Marine reservist from Belchertown, Mass., prepared to leave Iraq after six months as a truck driver, he at first intended to report traumatic memories of seeing corpses, his parents, Kevin and Joyce Lucey, said. But when a supervisor suggested that such candor might delay his return home, Mr. Lucey played down his problems.

At home, he spiraled downhill, haunted by what he had seen and began to have delusions about having killed unarmed Iraqis. In June, at 23, he hanged himself with a hose in the basement of the family home.

"Other marines have verified to us that it is a subtle understanding which exists that if you want to go home you do not report any problems," Mr. Lucey's parents wrote in an e-mail message. "Jeff's perception, which is shared by others, is that to seek help is to admit that you are weak."

Dr. Kilpatrick, of the Pentagon, acknowledges the problem, saying that National Guardsmen and Reservists in particular have shown an "abysmal" level of candor in the screenings. "We still have a long ways to go," he said. "The warrior ethos is that there are no imperfections."

Richard A. Oppel Jr. contributed reporting from Baghdad for this article.

Monday, December 06, 2004

Army LIED About Ill-Fated Mission





The Bush administration has lied and covered up for the Iraq war from before the beginning. Here's another bit of evidence of how low they will go to exploit any angle to suit their goals. It's un-American and an insult to our troops who fight bravely for our country while believing in justice and truth from its leaders.

washingtonpost.com
Army Spun Tale Around Ill-Fated Mission

By Steve Coll
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, December 6, 2004; Page A01

Second in a two-part series.

Just days after Pat Tillman died from friendly fire on a desolate ridge in southeastern Afghanistan, the U.S. Army Special Operations Command released a brief account of his last moments.

The April 30, 2004, statement awarded Tillman a posthumous Silver Star for combat valor and described how a section of his Ranger platoon came under attack.

"He ordered his team to dismount and then maneuvered the Rangers up a hill near the enemy's location," the release said. "As they crested the hill, Tillman directed his team into firing positions and personally provided suppressive fire. . . . Tillman's voice was heard issuing commands to take the fight to the enemy forces."

It was a stirring tale and fitting eulogy for the Army's most famous volunteer in the war on terrorism, a charismatic former pro football star whose reticence, courage and handsome beret-draped face captured for many Americans the best aspects of the country's post-Sept. 11 character.

It was also a distorted and incomplete narrative, according to dozens of internal Army documents obtained by The Washington Post that describe Tillman's death by fratricide after a chain of botched communications, a misguided order to divide his platoon over the objection of its leader and undisciplined firing by fellow Rangers.

The Army's public release made no mention of friendly fire, even though at the time it was issued, investigators in Afghanistan had already taken at least 14 sworn statements from Tillman's platoon members that made clear the true causes of his death. The statements included a searing account from the Ranger nearest Tillman during the firefight, who quoted him as shouting "Cease fire! Friendlies!" with his last breaths.

Army records show Tillman fought bravely during his final battle. He followed orders, never wavered and at one stage proposed discarding his heavy body armor, apparently because he wanted to charge a distant ridge occupied by the enemy, an idea his immediate superior rejected, witness statements show.

But the Army's published account not only withheld all evidence of fratricide, but also exaggerated Tillman's role and stripped his actions of their context. Tillman was not one of the senior commanders on the scene -- he directed only himself, one other Ranger and an Afghan militiaman, under supervision from others. And witness statements in the Army's files at the time of the news release describe Tillman's voice ringing out on the battlefield mainly in a desperate effort, joined by other Rangers on his ridge, to warn comrades to stop shooting at their own men.

The Army's April 30 news release was just one episode in a broader Army effort to manage the uncomfortable facts of Pat Tillman's death, according to internal records and interviews.

During several weeks of memorials and commemorations that followed Tillman's death, commanders at his 75th Ranger Regiment and their superiors hid the truth about friendly fire from Tillman's brother Kevin, who had fought with Pat in the same platoon, but was not involved in the firing incident and did not know the cause of his brother's death. Commanders also withheld the facts from Tillman's widow, his parents, national politicians and the public, according to records and interviews with sources involved in the case.

On May 3, Ranger and Army officers joined hundreds of mourners at a public ceremony in San Jose, where Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Denver Broncos quarterback Jake Plummer and Maria Shriver took the podium to remember Tillman. The visiting officers gave no hint of the evidence investigators had collected in Afghanistan.

In a telephone interview, McCain said: "I think it would have been helpful to have at least their suspicions known" before he spoke publicly about Tillman's death. Even more, he said, "the family deserved some kind of heads-up that there would be questions."

McCain said yesterday that questions raised by Mary Tillman, Pat's mother, about how the Army handled the case led him to meet twice earlier this fall with Army officers and former acting Army secretary Les Brownlee to seek answers. About a month ago, McCain said, Brownlee told him that the Pentagon would reopen its investigation. McCain said that he was not certain about the scope of the new investigation but that he believed it is continuing. A Pentagon official confirmed that an investigation is underway, but Army spokesmen declined to comment further.

When she first learned that friendly fire had taken her son's life, "I was upset about it, but I thought, 'Well, accidents happen,' " Mary Tillman said in a telephone interview yesterday. "Then when I found out that it was because of huge negligence at places along the way -- you have time to process that and you really get annoyed."

Army Cites Probable Friendly Fire

As memorials and news releases shaped public perceptions in May, Army commanders privately pursued military justice investigations of several low-ranking Rangers who had fired on Tillman's position and officers who issued the ill-fated mission's orders, records show.

Army records show that Col. James C. Nixon, the 75th Ranger Regiment's commander, accepted his chief investigator's findings on the same day, May 8, that he was officially appointed to run the case. A spokesman for U.S. Central Command, or CENTCOM, which is legally responsible for the investigation, declined to respond to a question about the short time frame between the appointment and the findings.

The Army acknowledged only that friendly fire "probably" killed Tillman when Lt. Gen. Philip R. Kensinger Jr. made a terse announcement on May 29 at Fort Bragg, N.C. Kensinger declined to answer further questions and offered no details about the investigation, its conclusions or who might be held accountable.

Army spokesmen said last week that they followed standard policy in delaying and limiting disclosure of fratricide evidence. "All the services do not prematurely disclose any investigation findings until the investigation is complete," said Lt. Col. Hans Bush, chief of public affairs for the Army Special Operations Command at Fort Bragg. The Silver Star narrative released on April 30 came from information provided by Ranger commanders in the field, Bush said.

Kensinger's May 29 announcement that fratricide was probable came from an executive summary supplied by Central Command only the night before, he said. Because Kensinger was unfamiliar with the underlying evidence, he felt he could not answer questions, Bush said.

For its part, Central Command, headquartered at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, handled the disclosures "in accordance with [Department of Defense] policies," Lt. Cmdr. Nick Balice, a command spokesman, said in an e-mail on Saturday responding to questions. Asked specifically why Central Command withheld any suggestion of fratricide when Army investigators by April 26 had collected at least 14 witness statements describing the incident, Balice wrote in an e-mail: "The specific details of this incident were not known until the completion of the investigation."

Few Guidelines for Cases

The U.S. military has confronted a series of prominent friendly-fire cases in recent years, in part because hair-trigger technology and increasingly lethal remote-fire weapons can quickly turn relatively small mistakes into deadly tragedies. Yet the military's justice system has few consistent guidelines for such cases, according to specialists in Army law. Decision-making about how to mete out justice rests with individual unit commanders who often work in secret, acting as both investigators and judges. Their judgments can vary widely from case to case.

"You can have tremendously divergent outcomes at a very low level of visibility," said Eugene R. Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice and a visiting lecturer at Harvard Law School. "That does not necessarily contribute to public confidence in the administration of justice in the military. Other countries have been moving away" from systems that put field commanders in charge of their own fratricide investigations, he said.

In the Tillman case, those factors were compounded by the victim's extraordinary public profile. Also, Tillman's April 22 death was announced just days before the shocking disclosure of photographs of abuse by U.S. soldiers working as guards in Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison. The photos ignited an international furor and generated widespread questions about discipline and accountability in the Army.

Commemorations of Tillman's courage and sacrifice offered contrasting images of honorable service, undisturbed by questions about possible command or battlefield mistakes.

Whatever the cause, McCain said, "you may have at least a subconscious desire here to portray the situation in the best light, which may not have been totally justified."

A Disaster Unfolds

Working in private last spring, the 75th Ranger Regiment moved quickly to investigate and wrap up the case, Army records show.

Immediately after the incident, platoon members generated after-action statements, and investigators working in Afghanistan gathered logs, documents and e-mails. The investigators interviewed platoon members and senior officers to reconstruct the chain of events. By early May, the evidence made clear in precise detail how the disaster unfolded.

On patrol in Taliban-infested sectors of Afghanistan's Paktia province, Tillman's "Black Sheep" platoon, formally known as 2nd Platoon, A Company, 2nd Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, became bogged down because of a broken Humvee. Lt. David Uthlaut, the platoon leader, recommended that his unit stay together, deliver the truck to a nearby road, then complete his mission. He was overruled by a superior officer monitoring his operations from distant Bagram, near Kabul, who ordered Uthlaut to split his platoon, with one section taking care of the Humvee and the other proceeding to a village, where the platoon was to search for enemy guerrillas.

Steep terrain and high canyon walls prevented the two platoon sections from communicating with each other at crucial moments. When one section unexpectedly changed its route and ran into an apparent Taliban ambush while trapped in a deep canyon, the other section from a nearby ridge began firing in support at the ambushers. As the ambushed group broke free from the canyon, machine guns blazing, one heavily armed vehicle mistook an allied Afghan militiaman for the enemy and poured hundreds of rounds at positions occupied by fellow Rangers, killing Pat Tillman and the Afghan.

Investigators had to decide whether low-ranking Rangers who did the shooting had followed their training or had fired so recklessly that they should face military discipline or criminal charges. The investigators also had to decide whether more senior officers whose decisions contributed to the chain of confusion around the incident were liable.

Reporting formally to Col. Nixon in Bagram on May 8, the case's chief investigator offered nine specific conclusions, which Nixon endorsed, according to the records.

Among them:

• The decision by a Ranger commander to divide Tillman's 2nd Platoon into two groups, despite the objections of the platoon's leader, "created serious command and control issues" and "contributed to the eventual breakdown in internal Platoon communications." The Post could not confirm the name of the officer who issued this command.

• The A Company commander's order to the platoon leader to get "boots on the ground" at his mission objective created a "false sense of urgency" in the platoon, which, "whether intentional or not," led to "a hasty plan." That officer's name also could not be confirmed by The Post.

• Sgt. Greg Baker, the lead gunner in the Humvee that poured the heaviest fire on Ranger positions, "failed to maintain his situational awareness" at key moments of the battle and "failed" to direct the firing of the other gunners in his vehicle.

• The other gunners "failed to positively identify their respective targets and exercise good fire discipline. . . . Their collective failure to exercise fire discipline, by confirming the identity of their targets, resulted in the shootings of Corporal Tillman."

The chief investigator appeared to reserve his harshest judgments for the lower-ranking Rangers who did the shooting rather than the higher-ranking officers who oversaw the mission. While his judgments about the senior officers focused on process and communication problems, the chief investigator wrote about the failures in Baker's truck:

"While a great deal of discretion should be granted to a leader who is making difficult judgments in the heat of combat, the Command also has a responsibility to hold its leaders accountable when that judgment is so wanton or poor that it places the lives of other men at risk."

Gen. John P. Abizaid, CENTCOM's commander in chief, formally approved the investigation's conclusions on May 28 under an aide's signature and forwarded the report to Special Operations commanders "for evaluation and any action you deem appropriate to incorporate relevant lessons learned."

Deciding Accident or Crime

The field investigation's findings raised another question for Army commanders: Were the failures that resulted in Pat Tillman's death serious enough to warrant administrative or criminal charges?

In the military justice system, field officers such as Nixon, commander of the 75th Ranger Regiment, can generally decide such matters on their own.

In the end, one member of Tillman's platoon received formal administrative charges, four others -- including one officer -- were discharged from the Rangers but not from the Army, and two additional officers were reprimanded, Lt. Col. Bush said. He declined to release their names, citing Privacy Act restrictions.

Baker left the Rangers on an honorable discharge when his enlistment ended last spring, while others who were in his truck remain in the Army, said sources involved in the case.

Military commanders have occasionally leveled charges of involuntary manslaughter in high-profile friendly-fire cases, such as one in 2002 when Maj. Harry Schmidt, an Illinois National Guard pilot, mistakenly bombed Canadian troops in Afghanistan. But in that case and others like it, military prosecutors have found it difficult to make murder charges stick against soldiers making rapid decisions in combat.

And because there is no uniform, openly published military case law about when friendly-fire cases cross the line from accident to crime, commanders are free to interpret that line for themselves.

The list of cases in recent years where manslaughter charges have been brought is "almost arbitrary and capricious," said Charles Gittins, a former Marine who is Schmidt's defense lawyer. Gittins said that senior military officers tend to focus on low-ranking personnel rather than commanders. In Schmidt's case, he said, "every single general and colonel with the exception of Harry's immediate commander has been promoted since the accident." Schmidt, on the other hand, was ultimately fined and banned from flying Air Force jets.

Short of manslaughter, the most common charge leveled in fratricide is dereliction of duty, or what the military code calls "culpable inefficiency" in the performance of duty, according to military law specialists. This violation is defined in the Pentagon's official Manual for Courts-Martial as "inefficiency for which there is no reasonable or just excuse."

In judging whether this standard applies to a case such as Tillman's death, prosecutors are supposed to decide whether the accused person exercised "that degree of care which a reasonably prudent person would have exercised under the same or similar circumstances."

Even if a soldier or officer is found guilty under this code, the punishments are limited to demotions, fines and minor discipline such as extra duty.

Records in the Tillman case do not make clear if Army commanders considered more serious punishments than this against any Rangers or officers, or, if so, why they were apparently rejected.

Staff writer Josh White contributed to this report.

AP STORY: Report: Tillman's Final Minutes a Horror

Mon Dec 6, 8:36 AM ET

WASHINGTON - The last minutes of Pat Tillman's life were a horror of misdirected machine-gun fire and signals to firing colleagues that were misunderstood as hostile acts, according to an account published Sunday of the death of the NFL player-turned-soldier.

Photo
AP Photo

It took the Army a month to change the record to show that Tillman, the Arizona Cardinals defensive back who gave up a $3.6 million contract to become an Army Ranger, was killed last April not by Afghan guerrillas but by his Ranger colleagues.

Even then, the statement by Lt. Gen. Philip R. Kensinger Jr., head of the Army's Special Operations Command, gave few specifics of the corporal's death and implied that he was trying to suppress enemy fire when he "probably died as a result of friendly fire."

The Washington Post on Sunday, in the first article of a two-part series, published what it described as the first full telling of how and why Tillman died. The newspaper said it had access to "dozens of witness statements, e-mails, investigation findings, logbooks, maps and photographs."

A series of mishaps and missteps began the chain of events that resulted in Tillman's death in eastern Afghanistan (news - web sites), the newspaper said. A Humvee broke down, which led to the splitting up of his platoon.

The segment of the platoon with Tillman, Serial One, passed through a canyon and was near its north rim. The other segment, Serial Two, changed its plans because of poor roads and followed the same route into the canyon. It came under fire from Afghan Taliban fighters.

Men in Serial One heard an explosion that preceded the attack, and Tillman and two other fire team leaders were ordered to head toward the attackers, the Post said. The canyon's walls prevented them from radioing their positions to their colleagues, just as Serial Two had not radioed its change in plans.

Tillman's group moved toward the north-south ridge to face the canyon, and Tillman took another Ranger and an Afghan ally down the slope.

"As they pulled alongside the ridge, the gunners poured an undisciplined barrage of hundreds of rounds into the area Tillman and other members of Serial One had taken up positions," the Post said Army investigators concluded. It said the gunner handling the platoon's only .50-caliber machine gun fired every round he had.

The first to die was the Afghan, whom the Americans in the canyon mistook for a Taliban fighter.

Under fire, Tillman and almost a dozen others on the ridge "shouted, they waved their arms, and they screamed some more," the Post said.

"Then Tillman `came up with the idea to let a smoke grenade go.' As its thick smoke unfurled, `This stopped the friendly contact for a few moments,'" a Ranger was quoted as saying.

Assuming the friendly fire had stopped, the Ranger said, he and his comrades emerged and talked with each other, the Post reported.

"Suddenly, he saw the attacking Humvee move into `a better position to fire on us.' He heard a new machine gun burst and hit the ground, praying, as Pat Tillman fell," the Post reported.

The Ranger said Tillman had repeatedly screamed out his name and shouted for the shooting to stop, the Post said. He and others waved their arms, only attracting more fire. Tillman was shot repeatedly by rifles, finally succumbing to the machine gun.

The second part of the Post series, published on the newspaper's Web site Sunday night, tells of "a broader Army effort to manage the uncomfortable facts of Pat Tillman's death."

"Commemorations of Tillman's courage and sacrifice offered contrasting images of honorable service, undisturbed by questions about possible command or battlefield mistakes," the Post reported.

Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., told the Post, "You may have at least a subconscious desire here to portray the situation in the best light, which may not have been totally justified."

Mary Tillman told the Post that when she learned friendly fire had killed her son: "I was upset about it, but I thought, 'Well, accidents happen.' Then when I found out that it was because of huge negligence at places along the way — you have time to process that and you really get annoyed."

Eventually, one member of Tillman's platoon received formal administrative charges; four others, including an officer, were discharged from the Rangers but not from the Army; and two additional officers were reprimanded, Lt. Col. Hans Bush, chief of public affairs for the Army Special Operations Command at Fort Bragg, told the Post.


Sunday, December 05, 2004

False Hopes In Iraq

style="font-family:helvetica,arial;font-size:-1;color:#000000;">washingtonpost.com

By Richard Hart Sinnreich

Sunday, December 5, 2004; Page B07

Gradualism rarely is a productive way to apply military power. War, as theorist Carl von Clausewitz reminded us, is not just the application of force against an unresisting object. Enemies adapt, and piecemealing combat power allows them that much more freedom to do it.

All of which is relevant to Iraq troop levels -- which, the Pentagon announced last week, will climb for the next few months to 150,000, the highest level since the war began. Only about 1,500 will be troops not already scheduled to deploy. The rest of the increase will come from extending the tours of the units the new deployments were intended to replace.

That's likely to arouse justifiable unhappiness among affected soldiers and their families. For all the benefits of unit rotation, raising expectations only to shatter them isn't one. As many have noted, the human burdens of this war are being borne by a very small number of our citizens in and out of uniform. Overstraining their undoubted dedication isn't wise.

But the broader question is what, in a military sense, 12,000 more troops for a few months will buy us. In that connection, recent trends are anything but encouraging.

This year alone U.S. troop levels in Iraq rose from 115,000 in February, to 130,000 in March, to 138,000 in May, to 140,000 in July, before dipping to 138,000 in September. During the same period, insurgent attacks on coalition forces, never mind Iraqis, rose from around 400 a month to 2,400.

That's an ominous correlation. It suggests that the insurgents have been able not only to withstand incremental U.S. troop increases but also to expand their operations significantly despite them.

There's no obvious reason to expect that another marginal troop increase will reverse that pattern. On the contrary, official announcement of the increase as merely a temporary measure to dampen violence in advance of January's scheduled election offers the insurgents every incentive to ride it out.

Given the overall scarcity of coalition forces in relation to Iraq's populated geography, that shouldn't be too difficult. From the outset, the military problem in Iraq has never been insufficient troops to defeat the enemy in battle, but rather insufficient troops to secure what they've won.

Now that we've belatedly decided to clear the insurgents from urban strongholds such as Samarra and Fallujah rather than simply hoping they would disarm, the problem is likely to mount. Each local success implies a subsequent requirement to secure the cleared locality, and troops committed to such occupation can't also continue to attack.

Nor, apparently, can we count on Iraq's fledgling security forces to bail us out. Even the most encouraging reports of their performance confirm that their reliability and effectiveness depend entirely on their continued integration with better equipped, trained and led coalition forces. Turning cleared areas over to them lock, stock and barrel isn't feasible yet.

Meanwhile, far from seeing an increase in other than U.S. forces, all the indications are that January may well see the departure or reduction of some current allied contingents. Presuming that these cutbacks would not include our British allies, the military consequences would be relatively modest, however uncomfortable the political ramifications. But they certainly wouldn't help.

All of which suggests that, as has been true from the first day of the invasion, this is America's war to win or lose. Barring an unlikely change of heart by those with little reason to have one, we had better start thinking seriously about what it will take to win it.

The odds are that continued gradualism won't. The temptation is to blame it on politicians too stubborn to admit that their predictions of cheap success in Iraq were monumentally wrong.

But that doesn't excuse military commanders who should know better and who repeatedly have insisted that they have all the troops they need even as events just as repeatedly have proved otherwise. A brand new lieutenant would blush at so consistent a pattern of military misjudgment.

That also happened 40 years ago, and we're still paying the price. Even the most stubborn leaders should be reluctant to risk making the same mistake again.

Richard Hart Sinnreich writes about military affairs for the Lawton, Okla., Sunday Constitution.

© 2004 The Washington Post Company

Saturday, December 04, 2004

Economy Continues Drop Under Bush

Job Growth Slows Down in November

Employers add far fewer positions than expected. But the unemployment rate declines to 5.4%.

By David Streitfeld
Times Staff Writer

December 4, 2004

The nation's hiring engine sputtered again in November, as the Labor Department reported Friday that the economy added an unimpressive 112,000 net jobs during the month.

That was much less than the 200,000 jump economists were expecting, and only about two-thirds of what is needed each month just to keep up with population growth.

The unemployment rate fell to 5.4%, from 5.5% the previous month.

"Just when I thought it was safe to say the job market had finally firmed up, we discovered once again we were wrong," said economist Joel Naroff of Naroff Economic Advisors. "There's a new psychology in the corporate sector. If they need to hire 10 people, they try to get by with five."

Employment growth has seesawed all year, with brief periods of strength followed by extended episodes of weakness. November's numbers looked particularly poor in contrast to October's total, an impressive 303,000 even after being revised downward Friday.

October's numbers were probably inflated by temporary jobs stemming from cleaning up Florida after four successive hurricanes, economists said.

It's not surprising that business executives are cautious. Consumer confidence is down and interest rates are moving up, both of which could foreshadow a drop in household spending.

"Employers sense the economy will slow in the first several months of 2005 and thus see no reason to rush out and add to their payroll, especially now that analysts are projecting slimmer corporate profit growth next year," said Bernard Baumohl of Economic Outlook Group.

The Bush administration put a positive spin on the report. The jobs numbers are "a confirmation that the American economy is on a steady growth path," Treasury Secretary John W. Snow said. The economy has created more than 2 million net jobs this year, averaging nearly 200,000 a month, he said.

Others drew a more pessimistic picture.

The liberal Economic Policy Institute noted that in July 2003 the administration called its tax cut a "Jobs and Growth Plan." The White House's Council of Economic Advisors estimated then that 5.5 million jobs would be created by the end of 2004.

With one month to go, the institute said, the forecast is 3 million jobs short.

"Any time there's been a month of good job growth, people think it's going to settle down into consistently good job growth," said Lawrence Mishel, president of the institute. "That hasn't happened. It's very uncertain that it will."

If job creation has been underwhelming, wages have lately turned that way too. Average weekly wages fell $1.25 in November to $533.47. Over the last year, wages rose more slowly than inflation.

That might be a reason why the number of people holding down two jobs increased by 346,000 in the last year, to 7.6 million. Multiple jobholders are now 5.4% of the labor force.

November's job growth was held down by the elimination of 16,200 retailing positions. That restraint by merchants now looks smart in light of disappointing holiday sales. Manufacturers, whose four-year-old slump seemed to have ended in the spring, tightened their belts again, cutting another 5,000 jobs.

One bright spot was the lodging industry, up 18,000. However, the Labor Department said about half of that growth was because of the return of striking workers. Other strong categories included hospitals, up 8,000; nursing and residential care facilities, up 7,000; and physicians' offices, up 6,000.

Sluggish job reports imply a weakening economy. But the consensus viewpoint is still that the Federal Reserve will raise its benchmark short-term interest rate another quarter point, to 2.25%, at its next meeting Dec. 14.

Despite even softer payroll numbers in the summer, "the Fed kept tightening," said Ian Shepherdson, chief U.S. economist for High Frequency Economics, in a report to clients. Another increase in February, he added, was "still more likely than not."

Wells Fargo Bank's chief economist, Sung Won Sohn, didn't believe the weak employment report boded trouble for the economy.

"It is too early to be pessimistic," Sohn said, pointing out that "uncertainties have diminished in recent months. We have gone through the Olympics and the national election without terrorism, the price of oil is trending down…. Business spending on equipment, software, inventories, etc., has been rising."

On Wall Street, the bad news about employment was offset by a continued fall in oil prices and a bullish revenue outlook from chip giant Intel Corp. Oil prices dropped below $43 for the first time in more than two months.

The Dow Jones industrial average rose 7.09 points, or 0.07%, to 10,592.21.

Bond yields, however, tumbled, reflecting views of a slower economy.

Copyright 2004 Los Angeles Times

National Guard Not Getting Proper Training For Iraq

Guard's Iraq Fears Spark Inquiry

The officer who oversees the military branch says training is suitable but could be relayed better.

By Scott Gold
Times Staff Writer

December 4, 2004

HOUSTON — The chief of the National Guard said Friday that an informal inquiry at an Army base where soldiers had alleged they were being poorly trained found instead that they were being prepared "to be successful and survive their mission in Iraq."

"Are they finely honed and ready to go today? No," said Lt. Gen. H. Steven Blum, adding that he had found some problems at the Ft. Bliss Training Complex, which straddles the border between Texas and New Mexico.

"But that's why they've got more training to do."

Since soldiers at the Army's Doña Ana Range leveled their charges in a Los Angeles Times article, however, additional Guard members had reiterated the battalion's concerns.

"We're not being prepared for our mission," one sergeant said in a telephone interview Thursday night. "A lot of times we don't even know what our mission is."

The soldiers said the training was so poor that they feared there would be needless casualties in Iraq.

Blum, who has served in the National Guard since 1968, was appointed by President Bush last spring. He oversees the half-million people who serve in the Army and Air National Guards.

The soldiers, members of a Modesto-based battalion of the California Army National Guard, said they were under lockdown at Doña Ana and were being treated more like prisoners than soldiers.

Although supportive of the war in Iraq and eager to serve, they said that they had received very little training that was "theater-specific" — that would prepare them for the missions they expected to face when they arrived overseas in January or February. For example, they said, they have had virtually no instruction regarding convoy protection or guarding against insurgents' roadside bombs.

At the center of their allegations is the changing role of the National Guard and reservists, who, as the war in Iraq continues, have been moved rapidly to the front lines. About 40% of the troops in Iraq are either National Guard troops or reservists.

The Guard troops at Doña Ana have alleged that the military commanders do not trust them to go to war, and have implemented a two-tier training regimen — one for them and one for active-duty soldiers. The Army denies that, and Blum said he found no evidence of "second-class citizen stuff" after visiting Ft. Bliss and Doña Ana on Thursday and Friday.

Blum said it had not been easy to change the role of the National Guard, but that he embraced its new mission.

"This country should never go to war for any reason without the National Guard," he said. "When you call up the Guard, you call up America…. Does it make it politically harder? Absolutely. It should be a hard decision to send young men and women to war."

Blum said his visit did reveal some shortcomings in Guard training, but he said he believed the issues would be addressed.

For instance, he said, commanders probably should have given the soldiers more time off; the soldiers said they received one day off prior to Thanksgiving since they were activated in August. And Blum said the training regimen had not been adequately explained to soldiers, leaving some with the impression that their training was substandard.

"Leadership has an obligation to explain it to the last guy in the last rank," he said.

Copyright 2004 Los Angeles Times

Thursday, December 02, 2004

Records: Frist Campaign Lost $500,000 IN THE STOCK MARKET!

This guy Frist and his elite GOP pals runs the Senate and the government and they want to change Social Security to private investment accounts? On top of this the bank is giving him a sweetheart deal by rolling over the loan on his campaign debt! The corruption of the GOP knows no bounds.



CHATTANOOGA, Tenn. - Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's campaign committee lost more than $500,000 in the stock market since the 2000 election and could not cover a bank loan that came due in August, records showed.

Campaign treasurer Linus Catignani said U.S. Bank "rolled over" the $360,000 loan and the money is now due in 2007. U.S. Bank spokesman Steve Dale said the company does not comment on individual loans.

The committee had paid off about $10,000 as of Sept. 30, according to its federal campaign filing.

It had $362,000 at the beginning of July, enough to pay off the loan, but lost $32,057, or 8.8 percent, in the stock market in July and August, the records showed.

By the end of September, after paying other expenses, the campaign had $312,807, the Chattanooga Times Free Press reported this week after reviewing the records.

Altogether, the committee lost more than $524,000 on stocks since November 2000, the records showed.

A Nashville office of U.S Bank made the loan with a 4 percent interest rate in August 2001. Catignani told The Washington Post that the campaign committee took out the loan to pay various political expenses so it would not have to cash out its stock holdings.

Interest earnings will pay the loan off by its new due date, Catignani said.

Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, D.C., questioned whether the bank provided special privileges to Frist.

"Are the policies U.S. Bank used to extend his loan the same as what is offered to members of the public?" she said.

A Federal Election Commission audit approved in September found accounting mistakes and inadequate disclosure in reporting from Frist's political action committee during 2002. The errors were not serious, the FEC said.

Frist, a heart surgeon before he turned to politics, was first elected to the Senate in 1994 and re-elected in 2000. He became majority leader in 2002 when his predecessor, Sen. Trent Lott, was forced to give up his leadership position after he praised Strom Thurmond's pro-segregationist presidential run of 1948.

Monday, November 29, 2004

Time to Get Real, Governor

L.A. TIMES EDITORIAL

November 29, 2004



Happy holidays, Gov. Schwarzenegger. You have about a month left to compile a spending plan for a state that operates like a miraculous but defective ATM, continuously spewing out more than comes in. You'll finally have to be candid with the people who elected you about how little can be done through cuts alone or "blowing up the boxes" of the bureaucracy.

A year ago, Arnold Schwarzenegger boasted that he'd tear up the state credit card and put state finances back in the black. Big talk. Little action. The budget shortfall was largely papered over. Voters had to approve a $15-billion debt bond, and billions more in spending was pushed into the future. Government-watchers at the time generally gave him a pass because he was so new to the job. Those days are over.

Rising state revenues are not nearly enough to close a multibillion-dollar spending gap. Schwarzenegger seems to be relying on his massive California Performance Review, a catch-all study of ideas for reorganizing government and saving money. But a stream of experts last week told the Little Hoover Commission, a long-standing and sober analyst of government, how difficult it will be to pull off even a limited reorganization. Though efficiency is a fine goal, the billions in savings aren't really there.

The California Taxpayers Assn., an anti-tax group, tried its own spin, declaring that holding general fund spending to a 4.2% increase would balance the budget. Sounds good, but even if the group hadn't used any little tricks to reach the figure, much of the budget goes to programs such as Medi-Cal and welfare, for which levels of spending are dictated by federal or state law or both. That means gutting more vulnerable agencies, for instance a Department of Parks and Recreation that is already pared to the bone.

To balance the budget on cuts alone could require a slash of up to 10% in health and social services, an area that accounts for nearly a third of the budget, yet one that helps those most in need. Democrats vow to prevent that, which they should, but they also must be willing to negotiate some savings.

On the other hand, Schwarzenegger and Republicans need to back off their absolute opposition to any new revenue. Californians have enjoyed billions of dollars in tax cuts over the last 10 years, $4 billion alone last year in the vehicle license fee. A better balance could be reached with minimum pain simply by extending the sales tax to a variety of services that are routinely taxed in other major states. Movies, sports and other entertainment would send state coffers nearly $500 million a year; auto repairs and maintenance, more than $1 billion.

Both Schwarzenegger and Democrats are claiming mandates from the Nov. 2 election results in putting forth their early budget positions. Sometimes "mandate" is just an excuse for lazy thinking. Drawing lines in the sand will only lead to more budget deadlocks and new multibillion-dollar shortfalls passed to the next generation.

Governor, remember all those recall petitions? Government paralysis and mounting debt were among the reasons people signed them. Use your month to produce the real solutions you promised voters, then get the Legislature to take similar action.

Saturday, November 27, 2004

GOP Hates Democratic Government

November 28, 2004
NY TIMES EDITORIAL

Mr. Smith Goes Under the Gavel

Republicans control the White House, both houses of Congress and the Supreme Court. But the greater their power, the more they have focused on one of its few limits: the Senate filibuster. They are so concerned that Democrats will use the filibuster to block a few far-right judicial nominees that they are talking about ending one of the best-known checks and balances in government. Rather than rewrite the rules of government for a power grab, Republicans should look for ways to work with Democrats, who still represent nearly half the country.

The filibuster is almost as old as America itself. In 1790, senators filibustered to prevent Philadelphia from becoming the nation's permanent capital. In the centuries since, senators have used their privilege of unlimited debate to fend off actions supported by a bare majority of the Senate, but deeply offensive to the minority. In 1917, the Senate adopted a formal resolution allowing senators to delay actions unless debate is cut off by a supermajority, which Senate rules now set at 60 votes.

The filibuster has a storied place in the nation's history, and in popular culture. During the Great Depression, Huey Long of Louisiana fought off a bill he opposed by reciting recipes for fried oysters and potlikker. In the 1939 film "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," Jimmy Stewart triumphed over crooked politicians with a 23-hour filibuster. Filibusters were used, notoriously, by Southern senators to fight civil rights legislation, notably the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But even during those dark days, the Senate considered the right to filibuster sacrosanct.

Judicial nominees have never been immune from filibusters. When Republicans opposed President Lyndon Johnson's choice for chief justice, Abe Fortas, they led a successful filibuster to stop him from getting the job. More recently, in the Clinton era, Republicans spoke out loudly in defense of their right to filibuster against the confirmation of cabinet members and judicial nominees. Republican senators, including Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and Mike DeWine of Ohio, used a filibuster in 1995 to block President Bill Clinton's nominee for surgeon general. Bill Frist, now the Senate majority leader, supported a filibuster of a Clinton appeals court nomination. Senator Christopher Bond, a Missouri Republican, was quoted in The St. Louis Post-Dispatch in 1993 saying, "On important issues, I will not hesitate to join a filibuster."

Now that Republicans are doing the appointing, they see things very differently. Dr. Frist recently declared on "Fox News Sunday" that preventing votes on judicial nominees is "intolerable." Among the proposals Republicans are floating is the so-called nuclear option. According to Senate rules, changing the filibuster rule should require a two-thirds vote. But in the "nuclear option," Vice President Dick Cheney, as Senate president, would rule that filibusters of judicial nominees could be ended by a simple majority.

That would no doubt put the whole matter in the courts, an odd place for the Republicans - who are fighting this battle in the name of ending activist courts - to want it resolved. The Republicans would have a weak case. The Constitution expressly authorizes the Senate to "determine the rules of its proceedings." That is precisely what it has done.

If it came to a vote, it is not at all clear that the Republicans would be able to command even a majority for ending the filibuster. Senators appreciate their chamber's special role, and much of its uniqueness is based on traditions like the filibuster. Senator Charles Schumer, the New York Democrat who has led the opposition to extremist judicial nominees, says as many as 10 Republican senators could vote against changing the rule.

The Republicans see the filibuster as an annoying obstacle. But it is actually one of the checks and balances that the founders, who worried greatly about concentration of power, built into our system of government. It is also, right now, the main means by which the 48 percent of Americans who voted for John Kerry can influence federal policy. People who call themselves conservatives should find a way of achieving their goals without declaring war on one of the oldest traditions in American democracy.

Thursday, November 25, 2004

Guardsmen Say They're Facing Iraq Ill-Trained

Troops from California describe a prison-like, demoralized camp in New Mexico that's short on gear and setting them up for high casualties.

By Scott Gold
Times Staff Writer

November 25, 2004

DOÑA ANA RANGE, N.M. — Members of a California Army National Guard battalion preparing for deployment to Iraq said this week that they were under strict lockdown and being treated like prisoners rather than soldiers by Army commanders at the remote desert camp where they are training.

More troubling, a number of the soldiers said, is that the training they have received is so poor and equipment shortages so prevalent that they fear their casualty rate will be needlessly high when they arrive in Iraq early next year. "We are going to pay for this in blood," one soldier said.

They said they believed their treatment and training reflected an institutional bias against National Guard troops by commanders in the active-duty Army, an allegation that Army commanders denied.

The 680 soldiers of the 1st Battalion of the 184th Infantry Regiment were activated in August and are preparing for deployment at Doña Ana, a former World War II prisoner-of-war camp 20 miles west of its large parent base, Ft. Bliss, Texas.

Members of the battalion, headquartered in Modesto, said in two dozen interviews that they were allowed no visitors or travel passes, had scant contact with their families and that morale was terrible.

"I feel like an inmate with a weapon," said Cpl. Jajuane Smith, 31, a six-year Guard veteran from Fresno who works for an armored transport company when not on active duty.

Several soldiers have fled Doña Ana by vaulting over rolls of barbed wire that surround the small camp, the soldiers interviewed said. Others, they said, are contemplating going AWOL, at least temporarily, to reunite with their families for Thanksgiving.

Army commanders said the concerns were an inevitable result of the decision to shore up the strained military by turning "citizen soldiers" into fully integrated, front-line combat troops. About 40% of the troops in Iraq are either reservists or National Guard troops.

Lt. Col. Michael Hubbard of Ft. Bliss said the military must confine the soldiers largely to Doña Ana to ensure that their training is complete before they are sent to Iraq.

"A lot of these individuals are used to doing this two days a month and then going home," Hubbard said. "Now the job is 24/7. And they experience culture shock."

But many of the soldiers interviewed said the problems they cited went much deeper than culture shock.

And military analysts agree that tensions between active-duty Army soldiers and National Guard troops have been exacerbated as the war in Iraq has required dangerous and long-term deployments of both.

The concerns of the Guard troops at Doña Ana represent the latest in a series of incidents involving allegations that a two-tier system has shortchanged reservist and National Guard units compared with their active-duty counterparts.

In September, a National Guard battalion undergoing accelerated training at Ft. Dix, N.J., was confined to barracks for two weeks after 13 soldiers reportedly went AWOL to see family before shipping out for Iraq. (Sam note: see article listed below)

Last month, an Army National Guard platoon at Camp Shelby, Miss., refused its orders after voicing concerns about training conditions and poor leadership.

In the most highly publicized incident, in October, more than two dozen Army reservists in Iraq refused to drive a fuel convoy to a town north of Baghdad after arguing that the trucks they had been given were not armored for combat duty.

At Doña Ana, soldiers have questioned their commanders about conditions at the camp, occasionally breaking the protocol of formation drills to do so. They said they had been told repeatedly that they could not be trusted because they were not active-duty soldiers — though many of them are former active-duty soldiers.

"I'm a cop. I've got a career, a house, a family, a college degree," said one sergeant, who lives in Southern California and spoke, like most of the soldiers, on condition of anonymity.

"I came back to the National Guard specifically to go to Baghdad, because I believed in it, believed in the mission. But I have regretted every day of it. This is demoralizing, demeaning, degrading. And we're supposed to be ambassadors to another country? We're supposed to go to war like this?"

Pentagon and Army commanders rejected the allegation that National Guard or reserve troops were prepared for war differently than their active-duty counterparts.

"There is no difference," said Lt. Col. Chris Rodney, an Army spokesman in Washington. "We are, more than ever, one Army. Some have to come from a little farther back — they have a little less training. But the goal is to get everybody the same."

The Guard troops at Doña Ana were scheduled to train for six months before beginning a yearlong deployment. They recently learned, however, that the Army planned to send them overseas a month early — in January, most likely — as it speeds up troop movement to compensate for a shortage of full-time, active-duty troops.

Hubbard, the officer at Ft. Bliss, also said conditions at Doña Ana were designed to mirror the harsh and often thankless assignments the soldiers would take on in Iraq. That was an initiative launched by Brig. Gen. Joseph Chavez, commander of the 29th Separate Infantry Brigade, which includes the 184th Regiment.

The program has resulted in everything from an alcohol ban to armed guards at the entrance to Doña Ana, Hubbard said.

"We are preparing you and training you for what you're going to encounter over there," Hubbard said. "And they just have to get used to it."

Military analysts, however, questioned whether the soldiers' concerns could be attributed entirely to the military's attempt to mirror conditions in Iraq. For example, the soldiers say that an ammunition shortage has meant that they have often conducted operations firing blanks.

"The Bush administration had over a year of planning before going to war in Iraq," said Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor who has acted as a defense lawyer in military courts. "An ammunition shortage is not an exercise in tough love."

Turley said that in every military since Alexander the Great's, there have been "gripes from grunts" but that "the complaints raised by these National Guardsmen raise some significant and troubling concerns."

The Guard troops in New Mexico said they wanted more sophisticated training and better equipment. They said they had been told, for example, that the vehicles they would drive in Iraq would not be armored, a common complaint among their counterparts already serving overseas.

They also said the bulk of their training had been basic, such as first aid and rifle work, and not "theater-specific" to Iraq. They are supposed to be able to use night-vision goggles, for instance, because many patrols in Iraq take place in darkness. But one group of 200 soldiers trained for just an hour with 30 pairs of goggles, which they had to pass around quickly, soldiers said.

The soldiers said they had received little or no training for operations that they expected to undertake in Iraq, from convoy protection to guarding against insurgents' roadside bombs. One said he has put together a diary of what he called "wasted days" of training. It lists 95 days, he said, during which the soldiers learned nothing that would prepare them for Iraq.

Hubbard had said he would make two field commanders available on Tuesday to answer specific questions from the Los Angeles Times about the training, but that did not happen.

The fact that the National Guardsmen have undergone largely basic training suggests that Army commanders do not trust their skills as soldiers, said David Segal, director of the Center for Research on Military Organization at the University of Maryland. That tension underscores a divide that has long existed between "citizen soldiers" and their active-duty counterparts, he said.

"These soldiers should be getting theater-specific training," Segal said. "This should not be an area where they are getting on-the-job training. The military is just making a bad situation worse."

The soldiers at Doña Ana emphasized their support for the war in Iraq. "In fact, a lot of us would rather go now rather than stay here," said one, a specialist and six-year National Guard veteran who works as a security guard in his civilian life in Southern California.

The soldiers also said they were risking courts-martial or other punishment by speaking publicly about their situation. But Staff Sgt. Lorenzo Dominguez, 45, one of the soldiers who allowed his identity to be revealed, said he feared that if nothing changed, men in his platoon would be killed in Iraq.

Dominguez is a father of two — including a 13-month-old son named Reagan, after the former president — and an employee of a mortgage bank in Alta Loma, Calif. A senior squad leader of his platoon, Dominguez said he had been in the National Guard for 20 years.

"Some of us are going to die there, and some of us are going to die unnecessarily because of the lack of training," he said. "So I don't care. Let them court-martial me. I want the American public to know what is going on. My men are guilty of one thing: volunteering to serve their country. And we are at the end of our rope."

Copyright 2004 Los Angeles Times



For more on this problem, check out the earlier article on another National Guard unit from the WASHINGTON POST at:

Strains Felt By Guard Unit on Eve Of War Duty

By Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, September 19, 2004; Page A01

FORT DIX, N.J. -- The 635 soldiers of a battalion of the South Carolina National Guard scheduled to depart Sunday for a year or more in Iraq have spent their off-duty hours under a disciplinary lockdown in their barracks for the past two weeks.

The trouble began Labor Day weekend, when 13 members of the 1st Battalion of the 178th Field Artillery Regiment went AWOL, mainly to see their families again before shipping out. Then there was an ugly confrontation between members of the battalion's Alpha and Charlie batteries -- the term artillery units use instead of "companies" -- that threatened to turn into a brawl involving three dozen soldiers, and required the base police to intervene... (Click for rest of story)

Wednesday, November 24, 2004

Even The Pentagon Says It's Looking Bad (after the election)



Voting for Bush based on his policies (or worse, just because you "liked" him) hasn't made us safer but less so. Or that's what a Pentagon report says. I repeat, before my conservative friends explode with a Limbaugh-incensed harumph, this is a PENTAGON report. The war in Iraq hasn't limited Muslim terrorists and terrorism, it's elevated them from being crazies on the fringe into an international movement. It's the exact opposite of the rationale that was used to invade Iraq (if you still believe an honest rationale was ever in place). We could have worked with our own patriotic Arab Americans (there are millions of them) to reach out to the specific Muslim areas that they came from (and who still have friends and relatives living there) to boost relations (while engaging in covert intelligence in the process, thus increasing BETTER CIA ties in trouble spots around the world with culturally and language-fluent "ground" personnel). This administration, according to the Pentagon report, is failing to create a more secure America and world by its lack of understanding of the complexities of the dangerous problems confronting it and how to deal with such in a responsible manner. Engaging the Muslim world less while blowing up more of it, acting like an insensitive asses along with supporting the most hated of the Muslim tyrannies (Why? Oil) only creates the hatreds that caused the 9/11 attacks. (I know, I know. So what the #@$% else is new?)


Meanwhile as the war rages our military branches are experiencing a drop in enlistment. Even the nation's various military academies have seen a drop in enrollment. Add in the fact the economy is now officially TANKING (seen the report on the decline of the dollar? The increase in public debt over the last four years -- some 1 trillion dollars -- has been almost all financed by foreigners) and it's looking like an exceptionally bleak four more years.


Reuters
Panel Sees U.S. Losing 'War of Ideas' Among Muslims

Wed Nov 24, 3:33 PM ET

By Will Dunham

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States is losing the war of ideas in the Islamic world, failing to elucidate its policies to Muslims wary of American intentions and "self-serving hypocrisy," a Pentagon advisory panel has found.

The Defense Science Board, in a report made available on Wednesday, urged the creation of a "strategic communication" apparatus within the White House and an overhaul of public diplomacy, public affairs and information dissemination efforts by the Pentagon and State Department.

"If we really want to see the Muslim world as a whole and the Arabic-speaking world in particular move more toward our understanding of 'moderation' and 'tolerance,' we must reassure Muslims that this does not mean that they must submit to the American way," the report stated.

The toughly worded report said that while America's efforts to explain its policies have failed, improved public relations efforts cannot sell faulty policies. "Muslims do not hate our freedom, but rather they hate our policies," the panel stated.

"The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the long-standing, even increasing, support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan and the Gulf states." (Sam note: Just remember our support of the infamous Iranian despot, the Shah, our ignorance of the realities in that world at that times, and look what THAT led to.)

"Thus, when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy," the report stated.

The Bush administration has portrayed the war in Iraq launched last year as a mission to bring democracy to that country in the hope that it could serve as a model to others in the Middle East.

U.S. intervention in the Muslim world, including wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, had actually elevated the stature of radical enemies of America, the report stated.

"In the eyes of Muslims, American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering. U.S. actions appear in contrast to be motivated by ulterior motives, and deliberately controlled in order to best serve American national interests at the expense of truly Muslim self-determination," the report stated.

The Defense Science Board is made up of civilian experts appointed by the Pentagon, and offers the department advice on scientific, technical and other matters.

WHAT IS PERMISSIBLE?

There has been a debate inside the U.S. government on what actions are permissible in providing information intended to influence allies and foes alike.

In 2002, the Defense Department shut down its new Office of Strategic Influence after critics accused the department of creating a propaganda office to spread lies around the world under the premise of misleading U.S. enemies.

"The information campaign -- or as some still would have it, 'the war of ideas' or the struggle for 'hearts and minds' -- is important to every war effort," but was crucial in the U.S.-declared global war on terrorism, the report said.

"In this war, it is an essential objective because the larger goals of U.S. strategy depend on separating the vast majority of nonviolent Muslims from the radical-militant Islamist-Jihadists," it said.

"But American efforts have not only failed in this respect. They may also have achieved the opposite of what they intended," the report added.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said no decisions have been made on the report's recommendations, but added that "the Pentagon will not deviate from its guiding principle of making information available in a timely and accurate manner."

Copyright © 2004 Reuters Limited.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&e=9&u=/nm/mideast_usa_ideas_dc

For more on the economy and consumer debt:

Debtor Nation
by Robert B. Reich

November 24, 2004

Robert Reich, Paul Krugman, Stephen Roach. All say the economy is tanking. Not might tank. Not eventually tank. It's happening. Here, Robert Reich sketches out the sources of our self-made economic hole. Debt—both consumer and federal. This is the real deal, folks.

Robert B. Reich is the Maurice B. Hexter Professor of Social and Economic Policy at Brandeis University, and was the secretary of labor under former President Bill Clinton.

The holiday buying season is upon us. You might as well spend your cash now because the dollar is dropping like a stone in international currency markets. It’s dropped nearly 30 percent since 2001, and is now at a record low. Even without the recent dour pronouncements of Alan Greenspan and Treasury Secretary John Snow, the greenback is likely to fall further. And the reason is simple: We’re living beyond our means. American consumers are deep in debt. The nation is importing more than we’re exporting. Most importantly, the federal budget deficit is out of control.

Nearly all of the increase in public debt over the last four years -- some 1 trillion dollars -- has been financed by foreigners, lending us the money. But who wants to lend more and more to a drunken sailor? Foreigners are bailing out of dollars. Even the Chinese and Japanese, who have kept lending so we’ll keep buying their exports, are starting to wise up.

American exporters are cheering because a lower dollar makes everything they sell abroad cheaper. But it’s bad for the rest of us because as the dollar drops everything we buy from abroad -- including oil -- becomes that much more expensive. And these higher prices will ripple through the economy, threatening inflation and higher interest rates -- and, ultimately, reducing our living standards.

It’s one of the oldest of economic laws: When you’re living too high on the hog, eventually you’re gonna fall off and find yourself in pig slop... (click for entire article)