Tuesday, January 15, 2013

Idiots at the Boston Globe don't give a damn about lives

For anyone objecting to the headline, my first choice was "The Stupid F**ks at the Boston Globe," so I did clean it up.

The editorial board of the Boston Globe becomes the latest to weigh in, giving the mistaken appearance that they put some time into it, on the awful Chuck Hagel who is nominated for Secretary of Defense.  They title their idiotic piece "Hagel was right on Iraq -- and is being punished for it."

Let's tour the dance floor with them for just one moment.  Chuck Hagel, they argue, knew Iraq was going to be a disaster. He raised "early warnings that should have greatly enhanced his reputation as a strategic thinker."

No, he revealed he was a coward.  He revealed he was craven.  Let's not play dress up because a few goons on an editorial board need a hero.

Reality, Hagel spoke about the potential problems with an Iraq War ahead of the 2002 vote.  The problems didn't mean enough to him to vote against the resolution for war.  When it mattered he had no courage.  In 2003, when the war started, he had no courage.  In 2004, as the war continued, he had no courage, in 2005, after the emergence of Cindy Sheehan and over half the American public turned against the war, Hagel made a few bitchy remarks.  Still didn't seek answers in Congress, but whatever.

The takeaway from Chuck's Iraq experience is that, even if he knows something is wrong, he will go along with it until popular opinion turns against it.

That's not leadership.

That's not strategic thinking.

That's covering your own ass.

The Boston Globe chose the wrong day to show their ass.

As they rush to rescue a Beltway personality, they scorn the many who serve.  Chuck Hagel's not going to do a damn thing to help the problems DoD has to solve, the crises.  There are two big ones that the next Secretary of Defense will have to seriously address.  The first is rape and assault within the ranks which Robert Gates all but ignored.  The second?

It's all over the news again this week.

Robert Burns (AP) reports that 2012 saw 349 active-duty service members take their own lives -- an increase of 48 since last year, about "one per day."

Guess the Boston Globe forgot about that, huh?  Guess they were too busy having an orgasm over Chuck Hagel to put the needs of those who serve first.

Do we still not get the basics here?  The Secretary of Defense, whomever he or she may be, will not draw a war plan.  Contingency plans exist for the US to go to war with any number of countries.  The Secretary of Defense will also not give the order for war (Congress is supposed to delcare  a war, they long ago abidcated that role to the president).

Secretary of Defense is an administrative position.

Maybe if people started looking at the job duties, they'd stop cheering their own pet personality for a job?

John Kerry is qualified for Secretary of State because of his wide ranging knowledge about the world, his relations with foreign leaders, his general background and, most of all, his personality.  The State Dept was demoralized under Bully Boy Bush.  It needed Hillary Clinton -- and all the energy she brought with her -- to turn it into a talked about department, to give it glamor excitement, quite honestly, to attract press attention and so much more.  She came in knowing how low morale was and she addressed that -- not just once, but ongoing.  That's why it was so important that a Kerry-like personality follow her up.  If you don't bring in stability now, the message is: "Well that was just Hillary and her own personal magic."  And that might please some people, but it wouldn't please the State Dept and it wouldn't please Hillary.  The US State Dept is too important for it to again flounder.  It needs to build on the energy and life Hillary has brought to it.  I'm not talking about policies, I don't care about policies, it's an administrative post that carries out the policies of the White House.  Know what the job is, know what the duties are before you start swearing someone's perfect for the job.

Susan Rice would have been a bull in a china shop.  She would have destroyed all that Hillary had done because of her personality issues.  John Kerry cam provide encouragement and oversight and allow the pride that State Dept workers now feel to continue.

For all the reasons she was wrong for Secretary of State, Rice is right for the Defense Dept.  The next Secretary of Defense needs to be a bull in a china shop.  They need to have energy and passion and be focused on solutions.  If they step on toes within the department, oh well.

The reason that's needed is because you have two growing crises -- the rape and assault and the suicides.  They have got to be addressed and it is appalling that someone can serve in the US military and be attacked by those they serve with or that they can serve in the US military and feel so abandoned or alone that suicide feels like the only answer.

That has to stop.

It's going to require leadership and energy and drive and focus.  Susan Rice is one of the people who could do that job without breaking a sweat.  Some feel Michele Flournoy could as well.  Former US House Rep Patrick Murphy could do the job as well.  There are many people who are qualified.

But you need to know what the job duties are before you start vouching for people.

The editorial board of the Boston Globe clearly doesn't have a clue.

Some of us do.  Some of us have been at the hearings and we know how it will play out regardless of the person confirmed to the post.  A year from now, we'll be at a Senate Veterans Affairs Committee Hearing or, more likely, a joint-hearing with them and the House Veterans Affairs Committee.  And the Secretary of Defense will beam and insist that s/he's just finished talking with Eric Shineski about what they need to do -- DoD and the VA -- to reduce suicides.  And they're going to have a program soon.  And, by the way, they've just finished discussing making records more portable and they'll have a plan there soon as well.

It'll be like every other hearing we've sat through where a new person in a post means that a job that was supposed to have been done by the last Cabinet head wasn't done and now the new person has taken a year just to get briefed on it and maybe in another year, they'll start talking about how they'll address it and, before you know it, either the VA Secretary or the Defense Secretary or both will be gone and we'll get to start all over again.

Nothing in the Boston Globe's idiotic editorial reflects that reality.  Nothing even indicates they're aware of it. 

It sure is telling that when service members are in need, the interests of the editorial board isn't in them but in how not getting confirmed might effect Chuck Hagel.

'Oh, poor, Chuck Hagel, he's so much more important than the health and safety of the enlisted.  Oh, poor, Chuck Hagel, we need to put him first.'

It's patethic.  So is this: MSNnow covers the latest suicide figuresRT covers it here, and on and on it goes and nobody wants to point out that this is one of two chief issues that the next Secretary of Defense will have to address.

The following community sites -- plus The Diane Rehm Show, Jody Watley, Adam Kokesh, Susan's On the Edge, Pacifica Evening News, Chocolate City and NYT's At War blog --  updated last night and this morning:

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq