Share
 

While this is NOT a story decrying the continuing sin of “Stop-Loss”, it very well could be as Sgt. John Russell, who shot and killed five of his fellow soldiers Monday while serving at Camp Liberty in Baghdad was on his THIRD tour of duty at the time. But this isn’t a story about Stop-Loss.

No, as it turns out, the military was aware Russell was having emotional difficulty BEFORE the tragedy ever took place. Judged a potential danger to himself and others a week before the incident, Russell’s weapon was confiscated and he was admitted to an on-base mental health facility there in Baghdad where (according to the military) he was due to return home “soon”. I’m sure he’d heard that before… at least twice before. The investigation now is “where did he get the weapon” he used to shoot his fellow soldiers.” But that’s not MY question.

My question is, “why was he still there at all?” Once you’ve confiscated his weapon and hospitalized him, what good is he to you in Iraq? If he’s mentally unfit to the point where he needs to be hospitalized, SEND. HIM. HOME.

So I’m wondering, “why do they even have a mental hospital ON Camp Liberty? I can understand having psychiatrists and therapists there on base to help troops deal with the stresses of combat, threat of injury from IED’s, the loss of friends killed in the line of duty… any of the myriad of nightmares soldiers must deal with on a daily basis. But why a “mental hospital“??? I can only assume someone believed that “hospitalized” soldiers could be rehabilitated to the point of being returned to combat. So even if Russell was “hospitalized” and his weapon confiscated, Russell had no reason to trust that he wouldn’t be sent back into combat despite Army claims he was “due to return home soon”. And what now happens when all those troubled soldiers come home? These tragedies that are confined to the warzone(s) will start taking place in homes, streets and workplaces across the country.

President Obama has said that he wants all troops out of Iraq by August of next year. But not all of those troops will be coming home. Many of them will simply be redeployed to Afghanistan… the second of two wars left to us by the Bush Administration… which brings me to point #2: Dick Cheney going around claiming the Bush Administration’s policies “made us safer” and President Obama’s policies are making us “less safe”.

Okay,,, if we’re so much safer today, why are we still at war nearly eight years after 9/11? Seriously. Is our security so good today that we no longer need to send troops to the Middle East? Pakistan… a nuclear armed country… is in threat of political collapse, with a resurgent Taliban looking to take over. Legions of angry Muslim men (and women) that might of otherwise of remained neutral, have been radicalized by a war without end by an invading force that defends the use of torture and bombs civilian populations.

The mortal threat to America and Americans has never been greater. This is Cheney’s definition of “success“?

Keep on attacking President Obama, you tool. PLEASE tick him off to the point he opens an investigation and prosecutes your a$$ for war crimes.
 

Some “quick hit” responses to some Right-wing stupidity:

Rove: Ending Torture Gives Terrorists ‘A Tool To Make It More Attractive To Recruit People’

  • No, the use of torture RADICALIZES the enemy. The use of torture at Abu Ghraib, Gitmo and secret detention facilities around the world, were used as a recruiting tool. Rove needs to explain why “suicide bombers” and Jihadists that believe there is no greater honor than to martyr themselves care about capture?
     
    These people aren’t worried about getting caught. Those who are, are less likely to surrender and are more likely to fight to the death. Knowledge that the U.S. treats its prisoners well led to the early surrender of tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers… not only hastening the end of the 1991 Gulf War… but (as even Fox News reported) continued on into the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Fox Condemns Sykes’s Act: If A Talk Radio Host Compared Obama To A Terrorist, He Would Be Fired

‘Smokey’ Joe Barton: Regulating CO2 Could ‘Close Down The New York And Boston Marathons’

  • TX state Rep. Joe Barton picks up the “Obama thinks CO2 is a pollutant” idiocy we’ve been hearing lately (most notably from John Boehner, who suggested the Obama Administration would have to regulate “cow farts” as greenhouse gas emissions) to suggest we might have to close the New York and Boston Marathons because “if you put 20,000 marathoners into a confined area, you could consider that a single source of pollution, and you could regulate it”.
     
    Sometimes the stupidity is SO dumb you almost want to scream: “My God, these Luddites are representing millions of people???” I mean, REALLY! Are these people REALLY that stupid or do they KNOW what they’re saying is complete nonsense simply to make some unintelligible point? I pray it’s that later.
     
    You know, water is “natural” and necessary to promote life. But no one can survive having a firehose shoved down their throat and turned on full blast. And in response to Barton’s particularly unique and spectacularly stupid comment, I’d be willing to bet those “20,000 runners” will be exhaling a whole lot less CO2 than all the cars taken off the street to make room for the marathon that day.

 

Now, if you will excuse me, I have to go scream into a pillow right now. Thanks.

Share