Adam Levine of CNN has posted a new article concerning the Balad burn pit.  Concern of the effects of the contaminated air in Balad, Iraq has hit the desks of Congress as the medical problems of the veterans and civilians who were stationed in Balad, Iraq and exposed to the toxic emissions simply won’t go away:

Concerns about the effects of toxins emitted from burning trash at military installations in Iraq and Afghanistan have members of Congress demanding more tests and research.

The members of Congress want information from the military to see if there is statistical validity to complaints about illness and disease suffered by troops who served in those countries.

The Balad burn pit circa 2006

The emissions, from what are known as “burn pits,” have been a concern for troops, especially those who served at Balad Air Force Base in Iraq.

Many of the soldiers who went through Balad since the beginning of the war became used to “Iraqi crud,” as they dubbed the symptom of excessive coughing and black phlegm. Soldiers complained of respiratory problems and skin infections, and in some cases believe they developed leukemia and tumors from the exposure.

Here are some comments from Patriot Missive readers who have been exposed to the burn pit during their military deployments:

I was a civilian contractor assigned to Balad AB in 2005/2006. My office was near the pit. I remember inhaling the fumes daily and the concern of their effects on my health. The base was often clouded by the smoke from the pit. The pit was located right beside the main road which “Circled” the base.

I saw plastics and much more being burned in the pit. Large black birds would hover over the pits in search of food items or whatever was edible and didn’t burn. I would always attempt to hold my breath as I passed the pit even though the speed limit was around 10 mph on the base. Not a pleasant memory.

My husband as in iraq he was near the burning pit he was there from 2006-2007 my husband didnt have bronchitis before he has been very sick since he came back. I see my husband suffer with this medical condition every day he gets sick very offen im worried about him

Do you have concerns that you’ve been exposed to toxic chemicals while deployed to Iraq? Leave a comment.

Barack Obama is about to step down as Congressman for the State of Illinois.  The whole state’s in a tiff about who’ll take over.

That’s when disabled Iraq war veteran Major Tammy Duckworth’s name was mentioned.

And why not? Tammy Duckworth might as well BE Barack Obama. They’re both minorities. They both lived in Hawaii as youngsters. They both hold master’s degrees. They both lost their legs in the Iraq war flying a helicopter… er… wait:

U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin said he’s got a short list of people he’d like to see replace Barack Obama in the Senate, and he acknowledged Illinois Veterans Affairs Director Tammy Duckworth is among the mix. |

“I have several names and certainly Tammy would be on that list,” said Durbin, visiting an Illinois Wesleyan University class Wednesday.

He said he’s asked Gov. Rod Blagojevich for a meeting to talk about possibilities, but he stressed the decision of the appointment lies solely with the governor.

Major Duckworth currently runs the Illinois Department of Veterans Affairs and is no slacker when it comes to politics.   Her undergrad is in political sciences with a masters in international affairs.

Hell, she’s already more qualified to be the Vice President than Sarah Palin!

Watch her amazing story:

I came across an amazing article by Politico about the support from military veterans the Republican party has enjoyed for the last thirty years.  After analyzing the voter turnout information, there’s something funny going on with military voters:  they’re moving Dem!

In the past two election cycles, Democrats have added ten new Democratic veterans to Congress. Last week, President-elect Barack Obama helped close the gap among military voters, winning 44 percent of veterans as opposed to John F. Kerry’s 41 percent in 2004.

To anyone who survived the bruising campaigns of the 1990’s, the thought that the Republican Party would surrender its stranglehold on military voters seems unbelievable. But the reality is that this image was never more than surface deep. All those political operatives who seemed to care so deeply about the heroic service of Republican nominees in 1992 and 1996 thought nothing of denigrating and attacking the service of Al Gore and John Kerry when it was the Republican candidate who had avoided serving in Vietnam.

But the really fascinating part is that military personnel haven’t always cared so much whether a candidate was a Republican or a Democrat.  It’s a relatively recent trend that we’re seeing more service members and veterans voting for Republicans.

Republicans did not always have a lock on military voters. Prior to Vietnam, military service was seen as an obligation of all Americans – regardless of political affiliation or wealth. George H.W. Bush and John F. Kennedy were both sons of privileged, politically-connected families who served heroically in the military during World War II. Back then, this was seen as your duty as an American – and no political party could lay an exclusive claim to the flag.

The Republican strangle-hold on military voters is actually rooted in nothing more than a campaign strategy:

The GOP’s ability to market itself as the “Party of the Military” grew in large part from schisms in the electorate arising during the Vietnam era. For a generation, Republicans exploited George McGovern’s 1972 campaign as a means to brand Democrats as unpatriotic and weak on national security – never mind the fact that McGovern flew 35 bombing missions over Europe during WWII and earned the Distinguished Flying Cross.

It was during these formative years as a budding Republican operative that Karl Rove learned the tools of the trade. Ironically, Rove avoided serving in Vietnam so he could sharpen the political skills he would later use to brand Al Gore a fraud, Max Cleland a coward, and John Kerry a traitor. Never mind that Al Gore enlisted in the Army; Max Cleland left three limbs on the battlefield; and John Kerry fought his way to three Purple Hearts and a Silver Star.

Senator McCain was the one true American hero of the Republican party.  Something many of his counterparts could never lay claim to:

For all the GOP’s patriotic imagery and testosterone-infused rhetoric, the sad truth is that most of the current crop of Republican leaders – Rudy Giuliani; Mitt Romney; Newt Gingrich; Mitch McConnell; John Boehner; etc. – were all of age at the time of Vietnam but avoided serving in the military.

Just one more irony of the Republican party.   But at this point, is it really any suprise?

The United States has spent $4 billion more on intelligence than any other previous year.

What exactly does that amount of money get you?

The majority of the money supports electronic eavesdropping, wiretapping and the vast, high-speed data-mining operations of the National Security Agency, which has headquarters at Fort Meade. The budget also funds satellite photo reconnaissance and collection and analysis by agents of the CIA, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Treasury Department and others.

The budget appropriations, which were highly classified until 2007, do not include funds for tactical, or localized, military intelligence collection and analysis done by the armed forces and the Pentagon. Disclosure of the overall budget appropriation number was required by Congress in 2007 at the recommendation of the 9/11 Commission.

I guess that doesn’t include the brave men and women in uniform monitoring Twitter for terrorist activity.

This may be the one email forward I enjoyed receiving. I’m reposting it here because it’s never too late to resurrect hilarity:

To the citizens of the United States of America, in the light of your failure to elect a competent President of the USA and thus to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective today.

Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchical duties over all states, commonwealths and other territories. Except Utah, which she does not fancy. Your new prime minister (The Right Honourable Tony Blair, MP for the 97.85% of you who have until now been unaware that there is a world outside your borders) will appoint a minister for America without the need for further elections. Congress and the Senate will be disbanded. A questionnaire will be circulated next year to determine whether any of you noticed. To aid in the transition to a British Crown Dependency, the following rules are introduced with immediate effect:
Read the full story

Yeah, it’s true, we’ve had several posts about the $700 billion bailout plan on this site and I’m expecting to post several more in the future.  Why?  First because it’s THAT huge for the American economy. Second because it’s drastically effecting my exchange rate in Israel and I need my hummus.  (Let’s be honest here.  The closer to home this thing hits, the more we pay attention.)

Everyone was all excited for this damn thing to pass so that we could finally start walking on the road to financial healing.  But why didn’t Congress pass it bill?

Politicker gives an interesting theory as to why the majority voted no:

There are 41 incumbent House members on Politicker.com’s The Pindell Report of the nation’s most competitive House races. Of that group 31 voted against the bailout, possibly proof that that a yes vote might be politically toxic just a little over a month from Election Day. Of the four House members running for the Senate only Maine’s Tom Allen voted for in favor.

Ok, so it’s because the politicians don’t want to make a mistake that would jeopardize their reelection. Because who wants to vote for the guy who had a hand in the bankruptcy of the United States?

Let’s be sure that we acknowledge that there are MANY reasons besides reelection that effected the vote:

Even Congressional leaders admitted on the House floor that this was less than a perfect bill for any member. Conservatives said the bill would was basically socialism. Liberals said the bill didn’t do enough to protect the Middle Class.

The bill simply doesn’t sit well with most Congressional leaders; both Liberals and Conservatives.  Maybe it takes a crisis like this to finally create bipartisan leadership.

See also Anatomy of the Bailout Breakdown from Time.

If you’re like me then you’ve been hearing all sorts of mentions about the Bailout but not finding many explanations (even from our Presidential Candidates, because they didn’t seem to be able to answer any questions about it on Friday night either).

It’s hard to find a single coherent description of what it actually is (aside from it cost $700 billion).

Apparently Congress has come to an agreement on one of the biggest government involvements in the financial market since the Great Depression, and here’s what I have been able to fathom…

The Treasury will get the previously mentioned $700 billion in smaller portions one at a time to purchase mortgages from failing lending companies either at a predetermined price, or in a bid with the market itself. Once the Treasury buys up the debts, they will then sell them in an attempt to make the money back. I’ve heard there’s a provision in the event the gov’t doesn’t make it’s money back, but haven’t heard anything about what it might actually be. Not sure who we’re selling it to in the effort to make the money back too. Aaaannnnd… yeah, that’s about all I’ve got right now.

The only other thing I’ve seen is that pretty much no one in government seems happy about the Bailout; McCain, Obama, Pelosi, etc… and they’re only going through with it because they all somehow came to the same agreement that it had to happen, because if it doesn’t happen, the whole U.S. will suddenly collapse or something.

I guess we’ll see what happens.

UPDATE: 29 Sept 08 Afternoon

I suppose it doesn’t matter now what the details of the Bailout are, or should I perhaps say were… as the House of Representatives voted against the bill 228 to 205, with 2 non-votes.  As a result, stocks are plummeting and the gov’t going right back to the drawing board.

UPDATE:  30 Sept 08 5:13 am (from Ms. Missive)

Kevin Drum over at Mother Jones muses why the financial crisis still isn’t 100% clear to the public:

Our current financial crisis has never been explained well to the public because (a) it’s mind-bogglingly complex and (b) even the experts don’t entirely know what’s going on. And the Paulson plan was never sold well because (a) the initial draft was indefensible and (b) the theory underlying it was uncertain and complicated.

On Thursday the House shocked everyone- including itself, with it’s votes on a 3-part war funding bill.

The surprise action left antiwar activists on and off Capitol Hill exultant, Republicans gloating and Democratic leaders baffled. Recriminations from all sides quickly followed.

House leaders had broken the war funding bill into three separate measures. The first, to continue funding combat operations, needed Republican votes to pass over the objection of antiwar Democrats. The second would impose strict Iraq-related policy measures strongly opposed by President Bush, and the third would fund domestic priorities, including a new G.I. Bill and levees around New Orleans.

That legislative legerdemain became the plan’s undoing. Rather than go along, 131 House Republicans voted “present” on the war funding provision, saying they were incensed that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and a few of her lieutenants had drafted the bill in secret, then expected them to play along.

Reps say their action is a boycott of shady Dem dealings, Dems say the Reps had a choice between funding the war, or not funding it, and they chose to wash their hands of it altogether.

(T)he impact is likely to be short-lived. The Senate will take up its version of the war funding bill next week; it is expected to restore the war funds and strip out the policy prescriptions most disagreeable to the White House. The White House reiterated its veto threat of the overall package yesterday morning, demanding a new version stripped of policy prescriptions and domestic spending, including the bill’s $52 billion expansion of veterans’ education benefits. The supplemental appropriations vote is the last major clash on Iraq policy between Congress and Bush.

Had it become law, the House bill would have brought the total cost of the war in Iraq to around $660 billion, according to the Congressional Research Service, more expensive than any U.S. military effort except World War II.

As passed, the House bill would require troop withdrawals from Iraq to begin within 30 days, with a goal of removing all combat forces by December 2009. The Iraqi government would have to match U.S. reconstruction funding dollar for dollar, and would be required to offer the U.S. military the same fuel subsidies it provides its own citizens.

Basically as it stands, rather than continue to flush money in a situation that taxes our country’s resources and money more than we can afford, this bill will improve scholastic options for troops who have served, begin bringing the troops home as well as giving them more time off inbetween deployments to recouperate, and make the Iraqi gov’t begin to pull it’s actual fair share of the load. Sounds pretty reasonable to me, but of course reasonable dealings have never been the current admin’s strong point, as evidenced by the fact that the White House has promised to veto this thing to death should it even reach their door.

And while the improvement of educational benefits to the troops sounds like something anyone, regardless of political affiliation could get behind- leave it to Prez hopeful John McCain to try to use it as a tool for keeping the troops in the military (which in turn makes it all the more difficult to use the benefits to get to college, because, you know- deployments tend to make it hard to get to get to class on time).

The measure has attracted broad bipartisan support, but it is opposed by Bush because of its cost, its tax increase and fears that its generosity could entice service members to leave the military rather than reenlist at the end of their tours. Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the presumptive Republican nominee, has put forward a less generous alternative that would save its richest benefits for service members doing multiple tours.

But McCain’s efforts have run into bipartisan opposition — from lawmakers, veterans organizations and educators. Former homeland security secretary Tom Ridge, a close McCain ally, came out for Webb’s measure yesterday.

“I have tremendous regard for Senator McCain, but I can’t figure out where he is right now,” said Dartmouth College President James Wright, a former Marine who helped negotiate the Webb-Warner language. “It seems to me our posture as a nation cannot be to say to servicemen and -women, ‘We do not value you unless you reenlist.’ That wasn’t the contract they signed.”

But no matter what happened in the House, expect the Senate to sink the whole thing and bring it right back to war spending where this gov’t seems to think it belongs.

Just when you thought politics couldn’t get any weirder, Jack Kevorkian is running for Congress.  That’s right.  The man jailed for 8 years for assisting the suicides of over 100 individuals is running for a seat in Michigan’s 9th district.

In the 1990s Kevorkian became one of the most prominent and polarizing figures in the debate over euthanasia by assisting in some 130 suicides and for his outspoken advocacy of the “right to die.”

Kevorkian, who was paroled in 2007, said he will run as an independent for a congressional seat representing the Detroit suburbs, near the area where he presided at dozens of suicides in cheap hotel rooms and the back of his rusty van.

He was convicted after a CBS news program aired a video showing Kevorkian administering lethal drugs to a 52-year-old man suffering from debilitating amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or Lou Gehrig’s disease.

His candidacy will pit Kevorkian against Republican incumbent Joe Knollenberg and Democrat Gary Peters in Michigan’s 9th District, which includes the upscale suburbs of Bloomfield Hills and Birmingham. Political analysts rate the race between the two main candidates could be close.

Kevorkian had been required to gather 3,000 voter signatures on a petition in order to qualify for the ballot.

As a condition of his parole, Kevorkian vowed not to assist with any suicides although he said he would continue to lobby for the legalization of assisted suicide in the United States.

His run is a long shot to say the least… but who knows?  Stranger things have happened.