Code Blue Alert Part III -- Stuck in the Middle

Well if people are tired of talking about the war, we can at least talk about the economics of war.

The proposed "surge" in Iraq - which I assume will be semi-permanent for the next 2 years - will cost the American taxpayers $97 billion in the first year.... The two wars are draining our country of resources and worsening the national debt - it is like throwing money into a river - it will never be seen again. In addition, Bush has just announced that Afghanistan will need more U.S. troops in the spring as the Taliban are planning an offensive as the weather improves....

http://www.thesoapboxroadshow.com

This should be posted again and not buried:

This is a link to very sad video of Hillary, in 2003, announcing in front of group of Code Pink women that she will vote to go to war with Iraq:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYATbsu2cP8

I find it very difficult to believe that Hillary's position on the war can make her a viable candidate for president. (Another problem for Clinton is that she voted in favor of the Patriot Act, which many folks have come to abhor...)

BTW: when looked at the video it already had 20,000 hits

Anyone looking for a good reason to join the "anyone but Hillary" campaign need only read this NY Times piece:

"Her approach to leadership and national security was forged during her eight years in the White House: She believes in executive authority and Congressional deference, her advisers say, and is careful about suggesting that Congress can overrule a commander in chief."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/18/us/politics/18clinton.html

Who does she think she is, Dick Cheney in a dress? I've had it with the Imperial Presidency. It's time to restore the authority of the United States Congress, and a return to the system of checks and balances that the Framers intended.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070217/pl_nm/iraq_usa_rebuilding_dc
Ex-envoy says Iraq rebuilding plan won't work

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070217/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq
Senate gridlocks on Iraq war resolution
The Senate gridlocked on the Iraq war in a sharply worded showdown Saturday as Republicans foiled a Democratic bid to repudiate President Bush's deployment of 21,500 additional combat troops.

The 56-34 vote fell four short of the 60 needed to advance a nonbinding measure identical to one the House passed Friday.

Democrats swiftly claimed victory anyway. "A majority of the United States Senate is against the escalation in Iraq," said Majority Leader Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record) of Nevada. "As for the Republicans who chose once again to block further debate and protect President Bush, the American people now know they support the escalation" in troops.
~~~~~
The vote marked the second time this winter that Senate Republicans have blocked action on nonbinding measures critical of the president's war policies. This time, seven Republicans broke with their leadership — including five whose term ends with the next election — compared with only two on the previous test vote.

The day's events ended what amounts to the initial phase of what looms as a yearlong confrontation between the new, Democratic-controlled Congress and the commander in chief.

Reid told reporters he would no longer attempt to win passage for nonbinding measures and would turn his attention to legislation designed to force Bush to change course. House Democratic leaders intend to do likewise.
~~~~~
The unusual weekend session sent presidential contenders in both parties scrambling to make the roll call.

One of them, Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, squeezed in a morning appearance in New Hampshire, where she told one audience, "We have to end this war and we can't do it without Republican votes."

Nine Republicans skipped the Senate session, calculating that because they support Bush's policies, their votes would not affect the outcome of the vote.

Among them was Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record) of Arizona, a presidential hopeful who campaigned in Iowa. He called the Senate vote meaningless, and told one audience the symbolic measures are "insulting to the public and the soldiers."

At least two Republican lawmakers chose to leave on an official trip to Iraq rather than to remain behind for the vote.
~~~~~
Even before the House acted, Bush had made it clear that congressional opposition would not deter him from proceeding with the deployment of another 21,500 troops, designed primarily to quell sectarian violence in heavily populated Baghdad.

Already, troops of the Army's 82nd Airborne have arrived in Iraq. Another brigade is in Kuwait, in final training before going to Iraq. Three more brigades are ticketed for the Baghdad area, one each in March, April and May.

In addition, the Pentagon is sending two Marine battalions to Anbar province in the western part of the country, the heart of the Sunni insurgency.

Polls show strong public opposition to the war, which as killed more than 3,100 U.S. troops. Tens of thousands of Iraqis have died, the majority of then since Saddam Hussein was toppled from power in the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003.
~~~~~
In the Senate, the seven Republicans who voted to advance the measure were Norm Coleman (news, bio, voting record) of Minnesota, Susan Collins (news, bio, voting record) of Maine, Chuck Hagel (news, bio, voting record) of Nebraska, Gordon Smith (news, bio, voting record) of Oregon, Olympia Snowe (news, bio, voting record) of Maine, Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record) of Pennsylvania and John Warner (news, bio, voting record) of Virginia. All but Snowe and Specter could face the voters in 2008.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman (news, bio, voting record) of Connecticut, an independent who caucuses with the Democrats, sided with Republicans on the vote.

{Full story on link. IMHO, the neoCons need brain transplants, and the few who voted with the Dems are only covering their own butts for the '08 election.... This makes me SO mad...!!!}

I swear this time I will vote for the nominee, but alot of people around here seem to favor Obama. Can the American people grow up a bit and accept someone with an ususual name? Just wondering.

Quote:

Anyone looking for a good reason to join the "anyone but Hillary" campaign need only read this NY Times piece:

"Her approach to leadership and national security was forged during her eight years in the White House: She believes in executive authority and Congressional deference, her advisers say, and is careful about suggesting that Congress can overrule a commander in chief."

@@@@@@@@@

YIKES!!!! There are several things I don't like about Hillary's persona: she seems arrogant, aloof and hungry for power. She will not connect with the "average voter" (read: working class) etc.. She is a modern day Lady Macbeth.

Make sure you check out the March issue of Vanity Fair.

It's packed full of great anti-boosh articles. You can read the articles online, but make sure you check out the photo of the "No Torture" demonstrators (with Karen starring as the second "T") on page 338 in the newstand edition in the article "Taking On Guantanamo."

http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine

I swear this time I will vote for the nominee, but alot of people around here seem to favor Obama. Can the American people grow up a bit and accept someone with an ususual name? Just wondering.

@@@@@

Once again this presidential primary season has brought us very limited choices. It looks like, for the Democrats, the choice is between Hillary or candidate "B".

I can tell you that the Peace and Justice movements across the country will be repulsed by Clinton - who voted in favor of the war and supported the war right through her campaign for Senate. On the biggest issue facing the country - the war in Iraq, Hillary has been on the wrong side for almost 4 years... In fact, Hillary doesn't even want to talk about Iraq. In New Hampshire, she completely avoided the subject in her speach but was grilled by the audience on Iraq in the Q & A period afterwards...

I shudder to think of the Clinton campaign:

Her husband is a "draft-dodger", a sex addict, a rapist etc....

The Rose law firm billing records...

Vince Foster suicide....

The "baking cookies" comment and interview

MONICA will be back in the news....

The Votes on Iraq and the Patriot Act....etc...

I'd be happy with Edwards, Gore, even Obama (who is right on the issues and is drawing big crowds). I cannot support Hillary. I will have a hard time voting for her if she is nominated. When the Dems nominate crumby people at the top, I work on the lower part of the ballot...

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/17/bush.moles/

My internet access is back - first thing I see - Britney Spears is bald and tattooed & possibly gay, & Bush is having warts & moles removed from his temple.

I think maybe it was better not to be wired.

I am uncomfortable talking about Presidential primaries this early. (Though I'll mention to Madam that my former-Bush supporting (Republican) non-political brother went with my sister to see Obama in Chicago and very much liked his ideas.

But on a different topic from candidates, I wanted to let you know about a great opportunity to promote progressive ideas. It's called wethepeoplemarch4th.org and it's from the people who brought us the backbone campaign.

So please join in. March is coming up soon.

http://www.wethepeoplemarch4th.org

Posted by: DiAnne at February 17, 2007 05:54 PM

Guess they didn't give him any laughing gas to take care of those moles. (They'd be afraid of what he'd say without an earpiece and while undeer the influence!)

The campaign season has begun whether people feel comfortable about it or not. Edwards is running, Wes Clark is running, Joe Biden is running, Obama is running, Dodd is running etc... there is a draft Gore movement

and HILLARY - she has raised over $40 million already

Here is quote from that New York Times article which seems to look at the Clinton campaign the way I do:

QUOTE:

Navigating the antiwar anger, and toughing it out for 11 months until the primaries, is now perhaps Mrs. Clinton’s biggest political challenge. Indeed, in many ways at this stage, Iraq has overtaken her and other candidates’ campaigns, as was evident yesterday as she rearranged her schedule to appear briefly in New Hampshire before returning to the Senate for a debate on Mr. Bush’s war strategy.

The campaign began a push yesterday to deal with its Iraq challenge. Besides her remarks in New Hampshire, Mrs. Clinton submitted a bill in the Senate to block sending more troops to Iraq, though she would not cut off financing. In a new video on her Web site, she called for starting to redeploy troops within 90 days — or else, she threatened, Congress should revoke authorization for the war.

Posted by: sparrow at February 17, 2007 05:57 PM

Uncomfortable, you say! This is nutty, truly nutty.

Tucker Carlson had some graphics the other day, showing that at this time in previous campaigns the eventual winner of the primary/general election was typically somewhere between 1-10% in the polls. Clinton was 1% in '92, Dukakis was 1% in '88, etc.

Meanwhile, I keep getting stories about the political version of a NY subway series between Rudy and Hillary shoved down my throat every day.

Ralph, I haven't heard about Wes Clark running. Are you sure?

God, Condi Rice is in Bagdad. Wonder what she's wearing?
That would be as relevant as anything else. She sure messed up the situation last summer with Israel & Lebanon, when she could have been more helpful, with her talk about remaking the New Middle East (neocon-style).

Sparrow
Yes! I am excited about the March 4th thing - the Backbone Campaign will have a giant Constitution to sign & I guess it's happening all over, wherever people are willing to do it.

http://www.backbonecampaign.org

Times of India's headline now says "Bush Suffers Worst Political Defeat" - thinking often about how newspaper headlines & news about the US look to those in other countries and that's one reason I follow foreign papers, other than to see a different slant & to find out what's perceived as important there.

If you go to this link and scroll to the 2nd drawing, then click on it to make it bigger, you can see all the people I think are running in 2008 from both parties, with little comments taken from their websites or the press. If anyone else did jump in, like Wes Clark or Newt Gingrich, then I have to paste them in.

http://silencedmajority.blogs.com/silenced_majority_portal/2007/02/sunday_scribble.html#comments

Ralph, I haven't heard about Wes Clark running. Are you sure?

Posted by: Matthew Carnicelli at February 17, 2007 06:30 PM

@@@@@

Clark may not have declared officially but I get a constant stream of notices from Wes Clark at my My Space site. I can't imagine Clark emailing me regularly unless he were thinking about running for president or vice-president... I also get regular emails from Biden and I stopped the emails from Vilsack.....

Yep, the Backbone Campaign's March Forth! movement is definitely a big deal. In fact, I'll bet that it might even have been the centerpiece of yesterday's thread header here at the DCP. *wink*

Posted by: Otter at February 17, 2007 07:05 PM

I'll go back and read yesterday's thread since I wasn't around the last few days.

Regardless, I encourage everyone to find anything to do to get involved. Have an impeachment party. Have a candlelight vigil.

The point is that it doesn't have to be big and rowdy and in your face. A small private party with family and friends can still change one person's mind.

That's the key point, sparrow -- it doesn't have to be a huge peace march on the mall, or even a few dozen people watching 'An Inconvenient Truth' together at a local meeting hall -- small-d democracy happens in small groups too. One might even say that it happens best in small groups. (Or, dare we call them... democracy cells?)

Oh..and by the way...sorry about the 'repost' of what was in your thread header that I missed, but also, I had promised Bill that I would keep spreading the word about it to my blog and other blogs.

Not a problem, not a repost, and besides it wasn't my thread header, it was Molly's.

On a more cheerful note...North Dakotaans attempt to break the snow angel record. Wonder if TSP was there.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070217/ap_on_re_us/snow_angel_record

I think maybe it was better not to be wired.

Posted by: DiAnne at February 17, 2007 05:54 PM

I sometimes feel that way too.

Besides, I consider Britney's career over anyway.

Sparrow, thanks for keeping us in the know, regarding the healthcare mess.

Some still have the galls to say that single-payer universal healthcare is socialist. I recently withdrew from a bipartisan state-level small business advocacy group because it feels the same way - regarding a California state-level proposal for single-payer healthcare by a state legislator from Santa Monica.

Since when did healthcare become a privilege rather than a right, and when did a *true* culture of life - one that cherishes the born as much as the unborn - become part of a failed economic system?

From now on, anybody who yells "healthcare is not a right" in my face is GUILTY of a DEATH THREAT.

Mexican economy slumps, and more Mexicans may be headed for US - illegally.

I have little sympathy, as they voted for Felipe Calderon, a W puppet, as their new president. Most of those migrants will be Calderon supporters AFAIK.

I certainly won't have any welcome mats out for them.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-mexico17feb17,0,3975830.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Another story of Asian-American hysteria re: anything remotely related to Communism:

In Alhambra, California, some Chinese-Americans are offended by an image of Mao Zedong next to George Washington, both taken from the respective countries' banknotes for an artwork.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-alhambra18feb18,1,7927610.story?coll=la-headlines-california&ctrack=1&cset=true

Single payer is a good idea, but fraught with potential nightmares. As it is today, Medicare for the most part is single payer (there is part B coverage picked up by private insurers). Medicare therefore is a good example of what can go wrong when financial resources become limited. There are many reasons why resources are limited, and that is not the point of this post.

When medical dollars become limited, the first to feel the pinch are those who need their medications, surgeries, and most importatntly have their preventative care options continued.

Medical practice can not function in a vacuum. It is a part of this economy. When medicare benefits are decreased (a first choice among those looking to "save" a buck), the patients and health care providers are the ones who ultimately pay the price.

Here is another interesting perspective, the vouchure system:
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/02/single_payer_he.html

Huge Italian rally against keeping post Cold war US air bases there (we have many), not to mention the notoriety of the case involving the CIA and extraordinary rendition:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/18/wmolin18.xml

Ally
Interestingly, had a long conversation today with a friend in France. She has had a couple of American students rooming in her flat and both came from immigrant backgrounds (South America, China). She noted that they weren't into politics, for the most part, and didn't make many connections between the poor in their parents' original countries & the way they themselves were living in America. She also noted that they left doors open and lights on when they were not occupying the room, which most Americans do and most Europeans don't. She feels free to tell me such things, knowing that I don't take it as a prsonal accusation.

I told her that most Americans would only become more politically aware, esp on a global scale, and more ecologically-inclined, on a personal level, now that we are in crisis - at war and possibly at a point of no return with global warming and potential flu endemics, terrorism etc. Her own kids do sometimes think she's trying to save money on utilities but it's much more than that. She grew up in places like Africa and realizes that we are all rich compared to some people on the planet, but then there are others much much more wealthy than us, like the top 1-2% who benefit from hypercorporations, globalization and wars.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/02/15...

SAN FRANCISCO -- Former Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader said he is considering a presidential run in 2008 and strongly suggested today he would enter the race if Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton wins the Democratic Party nomination.

"She's just another bad version of (former President) Bill Clinton,'' Nader told KGO radio host Ronn Owens in San Francisco.

Asked to describe Clinton, a front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination a year in advance of the primaries, Nader said: "Flatters, panders, coasting, front-runner, looking for a coronation, not taking on the huge waste in the military budget as a member of the Armed Services commission, never going after the corporate crimes against pensions, against workers. ... She has no political fortitude.''

Asked specifically if he would run in 2008, Nader said it is "too early to say. ... (I'm) considering it. We're going to see what the Democrats come up with.''

(snip)

I never thought I would say this but if Hillary is nominated by the Democrats, I might vote Green in protest.

One can only take so much abuse and insults from the national Dem. party.

Ralpheh
By the time I vote, the election is already decided anyway - by cheating in Florida and Ohio and the four-hour time difference, not to mention the corporate donations, campaign promises & media bias/echo chamber, the Swift Boating. Call me a cynic. I will vote Democrat but not with enthusiasm. The Green candidate could always be a Republican plant. We had a candidate locally that was Green in name but Republican funded (partially). & Nader was helped by Republicans and reputed to have been seen in a limo with Catherine Harris. I hold him partially responsible for the Iraq war. It's the nature of the society we live in & it goes back decades. Until we find a way around the military-industrial complex, we haven't many alternatives, no matter who runs. In Europe, during the primaries, all the candidates have the same amount of media exposure and funding. That is a far cry from what we have here. Even so, people I know in Europe are complaining about poor choices and corruption.

I would never vote for Nader. I sued Nader for holding a fake nominating convention & I lost. He gathered petitions on street corners on seven different occasions & locations - then lumped them together as part of his "nominating convention" - quite illegal. But the Republican Secretary of State here sided with him and our case was thrown out.

I would never vote for Nader.

Posted by: not my president at February 18, 2007 12:30 AM

I'm with you there.

A friend just spotted this on Democratic Underground, written by a guy in the Reserves:

Yours truly was one of those lucky souls flying out of NYC on Wednesday (JFK to LAS (Las Vegas) only took 18 hours, gate-to-gate). But before we got on the plane, he struck up a conversation with me at the gate. Turns out he is in Naval Reserve. Military types usually spot me right away as one of them. He long ago left active duty but has been called back for Desert Storm, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Told me that he has around 30 friends who are Navy and Marine pilots in IRR Individual Ready Reserve). They have been called back and are undergoing a two week training regimen so they can drive convoys in Iraq. Think about it. Some of the best (and most expensively trained) pilots in the world will soon be driving trucks thru red-hot zones. He said that they were picked because of vision and reaction times. I think this is absolutely outrageous.

Part 2:
She referred me to a WaPo article for tomorrow, that talks about mistreatment of military - at Walter Reed! She cited a story on DailyKos and someone suggested they stop all diaries but this for 24 hours, to call attention to it. Someone wrote: If I were Markos, I'd simply take down every story and every diary and every front page but this one for the next 48 hours. Just to make sure everyone sees it.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/2/17/203419/567
Another guy noted: we should get permission to print the entire article. IMAGINE.... if Dem underground, Dkos, Atrios, Americablog, My Left Wing, TPM, CrooksandLiars all did this at the same time. ONE POST of this story and that's it. For 24 hours! It could save LIVES and END THE WAR. Now that's blogging power. (That's what she said and right now she is writing to the blog biggies about it and wrote to WaPo)

Then I got the "blurb" on the same article seconds later from my friend Alan here, who works with homeless vets and is a Quaker. The Quaker center here recently opened up a shelter for the homeless. Anyway, he sent the following out to about 100 people, many of whom work at the VA, the Salvation Army, other agencies for the homeless or are Quakers.

Soldiers Face Neglect, Frustration At Army's Top Medical Facility

Behind the door of Army Spec. Jeremy Duncan's room, part of the wall is torn and hangs in the air, weighted down with black mold. When the wounded combat engineer stands in his shower and looks up, he can see the bathtub on the floor above through a rotted hole. The entire building, constructed between the world wars, often smells like greasy carry-out. Signs of neglect are everywhere: mouse droppings, belly-up cockroaches, stained carpets, cheap mattresses.

This is the world of Building 18, not the kind of place where Duncan expected to recover when he was evacuated to Walter Reed Army Medical Center from Iraq last February with a broken neck and a shredded left ear, nearly dead from blood loss. But the old lodge, just outside the gates of the hospital and five miles up the road from the White House, has housed hundreds of maimed soldiers recuperating from injuries suffered in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

...The wounded manage other wounded. Soldiers dealing with psychological disorders of their own have been put in charge of others at risk of suicide.
...
"We've done our duty. We fought the war. We came home wounded. Fine. But whoever the people are back here who are supposed to give us the easy transition should be doing it," said Marine Sgt. Ryan Groves, 26, an amputee who lived at Walter Reed for 16 months. "We don't know what to do. The people who are supposed to know don't have the answers. It's a nonstop process of stalling."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

Let's make this go viral if we can.

Posted by: DiAnne at February 17, 2007 09:17 PM

Understood right there. The profit makers are very few and far in between.

However, when I mentioned the Mexican migrants, I know for a fact that the vast majority of Mexicans in SoCal are Calderon/PAN supporters. That's a given. In fact, most immigrant communities here are more conservative than the average population of their home countries - in fact, US-based expat communities are where right-wing parties like Taiwan's Kuomintang and South Korea's Grand National get their major source of support.

One can only take so much abuse and insults from the national Dem. party.

Posted by: Ralpheh at February 17, 2007 10:14 PM

Not just the nationals, but the state-level parties too.

Texas Democrats no longer believe in antidiscrimination laws.

California Democrats have completely written off Los Angeles and San Diego suburbs, the motorists, and the sportsmen. They surely no longer represent me - and certainly have no interest in doing so.

I read all five pages of the WaPo article about mistreatment of soldiers at Walter Reed. I read it aloud to my husband.

If you were ever afraid of Big Brother, don't worry. It's all a big bureaucratic bungle. They couldn't bomb their way out of a paper bag and somewhere in Texas a village is missing its idiot. If you read this article, you will know why our country is in debt to the Chinese. If you read this article, you will know why we lost Vietnam and are losing in Iraq and Afghanistan and why if we go into Iran, we will get our butts kicked there too.

It's because of bureaucracy. The military-industrial complex has become a big lumbering, bucking, drooling, staggering, drunk menace to the entire planet and they cannot even do it in an efficient way. They cannot even kill properly. They're a Ted Bundy of a military - inebriated and drunken and possessed. They cannot heal their wounded or take care of their own. They speak of family values but they cannot even recognize their own patients. They lose their records. Patients have to stagger up to the desk on their stumps with their Purple Hearts, begging to be acknowledged. A soldier too young to drink died of alcohol poisoning right in the hospital. Somehow I always thought Walter Reed was a reputable hospital.

You've got to read this article. My friend is working on her letter to the blog mucky mucks and has asked if we'll post it on her blog and I've asked her if I can post it on this blog. I plan to put this whole saga on our blog - as a progressive saga about trying to expose the bureaucracy by using blogs to spread a good investigative story by the Washington Post, where someone actually did their job.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070218/ap_on_re_us/wiesel_accosted
N.J. man arrested in attack on Wiesel
SAN FRANCISCO - A man accused of roughing up Nobel laureate and Holocaust scholar Elie Wiesel at a San Francisco hotel earlier this month was arrested Saturday, authorities said.
Montgomery Township police arrested Eric Hunt, 22, of Sussex County, N.J., at 1:30 p.m. EST Saturday. He faces charges that include attempted kidnapping, false imprisonment, elder abuse, stalking, battery and the commission of a hate crime, according to San Francisco police.

He was being held without bail in the Somerset County Jail in New Jersey, awaiting extradition to San Francisco.

{More on link.}

THERE WAS NO 'SMART' WAY TO INVADE IRAQ
By Sam Rosenfeld, Matthew Yglesias, The American Prospect 'Liberal' hawks are stuck on blaming Bush's incompetent handling of the Iraq war instead of arguing that we should never have invaded in the first place.
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/47717/

Now I sent my post about the WaPo article to the guy who sent the article out to all the VA people and to my friend who is writing to the blogs about her idea of really focussing on the article. Wondering if anyone else is interested or has any more ideas on how to make this thing go viral. Where the hell are all the "Support the Troops" clones and do they give a damn about what is happening (isn't happening) at places like Walter Reed? It's Vietnam all over again. How many Vietnam Vets are still homeless on the streets, the ones that didn't commit suicide already, that is.

DiAnne, thanks for the heads-up about the Washington Post article and the move to blogswarm it today. I agree with that sentiment entirely -- it's on the top page of www.culturekitchen.com now, and I've added my otter $.02 to the comments about it at http://blog.johnkerry.com and, um, I suspect there'll be a race to make sure it gets turned into a DCP threader today as well. I'll also be spending the rest of the day making sure it gets into various other corners of the blogosphere as well.

It's our turn to support the troops now. So get on out there and raise hell, people. They should never have had to be there, but they were there anyway, and now they're getting treated like abandoned pets that we have to hide from the public eye. And that is just so very many kinds of wrong, in so very many ways.

From testvet at Kos. The True Shame of a Nation.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/2/18/3125/18851

Sparrow
Thanks for linnking to testvet here!

& here is part II. On the treatment of vets.

part II - The Hotel Aftermath
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/18/AR2007021801335_
pf.html