Archives for June 2005

Sometimes I read something and I have to re-read it several times to let it sink in. This is one of those times:

Several Senate Republicans denounced other lawmakers and the news media on Thursday for unfavorable depictions of the Iraq war and the Pentagon urged members of Congress to talk up military service to help ease a recruiting shortfall.

Families are discouraging young men and women from enlisting “because of all the negative media that’s out there,” Sen. James Inhofe, an Oklahoma Republican, said at a U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.

Inhofe also said that other senators’ criticism of the war contributed to the propaganda of U.S. enemies. He did not name the senators.

Army Chief of Staff Peter Schoomaker urged members of Congress to use “your considerable influence to explain to the American people and to those that are influencers out there how important it is for our young people to serve this nation at a time like this.”

The Army on Wednesday said it was 14 percent, or about 7,800 recruits, behind its year-to-date recruitment target even though it exceeded its monthly target in June. With extended deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan, recruiting also is down for the National Guard and the Reserves.

“With the deluge of negative news that we get daily, it’s just amazing to me that anybody would want to sign up,” said Sen. Pat Roberts (news, bio, voting record), a Kansas Republican.

The real problem I guess, is that the prospective recruits are hearing this is dangerous work, if you believe Sen. Inhofe and Sen. Roberts. So what should we do? Dress up all our recruiters like large Boy Scouts, and tell kids they are going off for two years of smores, nature hikes, homoerotic male bonding activities, and campfire tales? Oh, and by the by, you might get killed. Here is a signing bonus.

Nice to see it took so long to break out the sharp knives on this story (I guess the ‘we met our diminished recruiting goals’ story didn’t stick. No doubt the fault of the media.). Yes, the media is reporting that people are getting killed in Iraq. That is because it is their job to, well, report that people are being killed in Iraq.

Pretending that this would not be an issue if only the media had covered more school openings or spent more time talking about the free chapstick, toothbrushes, and playing cards our soldiers will get is simply idiotic. Sure, I would like more positive news coverage out of Iraq. I would also like more positive news.

I hate it when the media screws shit up as much as anyone, but blaming the media for low recruiting numbers is asinine. It is the job of this President and this administration to point out that this is a mission that is worth undertaking, and that their sacrifice is not only needed but will lead to something better. The President needs to use his bully pulpit and make a direct appeal for volunteers, and stop with the ‘noble calling’ act. Put it plain- “we need brave men and women, and we need them now.” Roberts and Inhofe need to do the same. But pinning this all on bad war coverage is a non-starter, as the members of the media are just doing their job when they report casualties.

*** Update ***

I don’t agree with Kos that people have to offer up their children (despite the fact that I think Operation Yellow Elephant is funny), because military service is a choice adults should make on their own. I do, however, think this administration needs to come forward and do everything they can to aid enlistment, and Kos and I do agree that blaming the media and/or Democratic lawmakers for recruiting shortfalls is offensive, unproductive, and indefensible.

Damned Liberal MediaPost + Comments (85)

My new favorite idiot is in the news again, and he isn’t taking the Supreme Court decisions well:

A deeply divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled this week that it’s OK for the government to display the Ten Commandments if the intent is secular, but it is unconstitutional if the monument’s purpose is solely religious.

Many in Congress are troubled by the decision and intend to do something about it. One of them is Rep. John Hostettler, R-Ind., who said the “unconstitutional decisions” by the high court do not have to be tolerated by either Congress or the White House.

“Congress can remove funds for the enforcement of this unconstitutional ruling,” he said. “And the president, in his executive prerogative, exercising his executive prerogative, can, as we say, just say no to the court.”

Hostettler added that a constitutional amendment is not the best route, though, because the Constitution is not the problem.

“The clear wording of the Constitution is in no way violated by what is going on in McCreary County, Kentucky, or Texas,” he said, referring to the locations of the two Commandments displays ruled on by the Supreme Court on Monday. “Congress does not need to suggest a deficiency in the Constitution by suggesting an amendment.

Because, as we all know, no one is prepared to determine matters of Consitutionality like a wingnut from the Corn Belt. Not even the Supreme Court. They don’t understand that we must display the Ten Commandments everywhere, because God would want it that way. Otherwise I might start lusting for my neighbor’s wife, begin thieving from convenience sotres, or, poray tell, I might turn the dismissive and disrespectful attitude I have towards Hostettler and his ilk and aim it at my elders.

Unfortunately, there was no immediate word on why God wouldn’t like an amendment to the Constitution.

*** Update ***

And then there is this:

Ms. Pelosi: Again, without focusing on the actual decision, just to say that when you withhold funds from enforcing a decision of the Supreme Court you are, in fact, nullifying a decision of the Supreme Court. This is in violation of the respect for separation of church — powers in our Constitution, church and state as well. Sometimes the Republicans have a problem with that as well. But forgive my digression.

So the answer to your question is, I would oppose any legislation that says we would withhold funds for the enforcement of any decision of the Supreme Court no matter how opposed I am to that decision. And I’m not saying that I’m opposed to this decision, I’m just saying in general.

Q: Could you talk about this decision? What you think of it?

Ms. Pelosi: It is a decision of the Supreme Court. If Congress wants to change it, it will require legislation of a level of a constitutional amendment. So this is almost as if God has spoken. It’s an elementary discussion now. They have made the decision.

Q: Do you think it is appropriate for municipalities to be able to use eminent domain to take land for economic development?

Ms. Pelosi: The Supreme Court has decided, knowing the particulars of this case, that that was appropriate, and so I would support that.

Ugh. Dear Ms. Pelosi- you can have your own thooughts irrespective of Supreme Court decisions. Blind fealty and total subservience is not expected nor wanted.

Just looking Out For GodPost + Comments (9)