Steve King, An Iowa Republican Satan Sent To Plague America

When Blue America asked our supporters to pick the worst congressman in the country for an ad, loudmouthed Iowa reactionary Steve King was a finalist. In the end Virginia Foxx won and the ad is marvelous but I have to admit we would have enjoyed taking on King as well. He's a negative political force from the western end of the otherwise moderate, populist state. And this year he has a formidable opponent in Matt Campbell, who was endorsed Sunday by the Des Moines Register, which called King an "embarrassment" to the state. "He is provocative, not focused on getting results for Iowans. He is reactive, not visionary."

There is not enough space in this editorial to remind readers of all the inflammatory statements King has made. Here are a few: suggesting terrorists would be "dancing in the streets" if President Barack Obama were elected and calling the "vast majority" of anti-war protesters "communists, socialists and radicals."

During a recent meeting at the Register, we asked King if he regretted any of his comments. He stood by them, saying it served the country to "tell the truth." He clarified a statement he had made on Abu Ghraib prisoner abuses in Iraq as being "little more than hazing."

King has shown Iowa what kind of representative he is. It's time for voters to replace him.

This week I was going through the congressional ratings list just released by the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America and I noticed that King, a self-proclaimed super-patriot, was given a failing grade. IAVA has taken a position that King has not supported veterans with his votes in Congress, and, in fact, that he's among the worst Members of Congress when it comes to veterans' issues.

But then it turns out that King was another GOP chickenhawk, cheering wars while personally avoiding the military, much the way Cheney did. In fact... exactly the way Cheney did. In 1967, 1968 and 1969 he avoided the military draft with a series of deferments. Documents obtained from the National Archives and Records Administration confirm that King-- Selective Service number 13-24-49-88-- obtained three student draft deferments during those years, one for each year. Student deferments carried a “2S” designation.

Classification records are a matter of public information and are available upon written request. Congressman King’s classification record shows that he obtained his first “2S” deferment on October 19th, 1967. Subsequent deferments were granted on December 12th, 1968 and November 17th, 1969. It's similar to my own record in fact. Except for one thing. King dropped out of school-- Northwest Missouri State, Maryville, in 1970, after 3 years. He never earned a degree.

After graduating from Denison High School in Denison, Iowa, in the spring of 1967 and after turning eighteen on May 28th of that year, King registered with the Selective Service as was required by law. All eighteen-year olds were required by law to register. King was mailed his classification questionnaire on June 6th. His initial classification on July 20th, 1967, was “1AG,” which meant that he was immediately available for military service. Sometime after July 20th, 1967, King enrolled at Northwest Missouri State University. He subsequently sought and was granted his first “2S” deferment on October 19th, thus shielding him from the draft.

More than two years later, on November 17th, 1969, Steve King was granted his third student deferment, his second one having been granted on December 12, 1968. Nine days after receiving his third deferment, Nixon signed an amendment to the Military Service Act of 1967 that created the draft lottery. Under the new lottery system, draft deferments were still allowed. Draft-age men could only be exposed to the draft for one year, unless they were in the group of men having deferments when the lottery system was introduced. In the case of those men holding deferments, which would have included King, if they ever allowed their deferments to cease, they would have been exposed to every draft lottery until their 25th birthday.

The first draft lottery took place Dec. 1, 1969, and all men born between 1944 and 1950 were subject to it, including Steve King-- as well as myself. Subsequent lotteries would not involve these men. The lotteries of 1970, 1971 and 1972 involved men born in 1951, 1952 and 1953 respectively and men who had allowed their previous deferments to expire as explained above.

King had received his final deferment two weeks prior on November 17th, 1969. Because he had been receiving deferments under the old draft system, King was still shielded from being drafted in the lottery system as long as he maintained his deferments and stayed in school.

In the first lottery held on December 1st, 1969, 366 numbers were assigned, one for each possible birth date. The birth date of May 28, Steve King’s birth date, was assigned number 308. This was an extremely high number-- and mine was even higher. Anyone receiving that number in 1969 would have been tremendously relieved. The number 308 virtually guaranteed that Steve King would not have been drafted, even if he hadn’t had a student deferment. The highest number drafted that year was, in fact, 195. Furthermore, King’s draft number was assigned to him permanently. This was significant. It meant that he would be protected from the draft by his high number even if he allowed his draft deferment to expire by leaving school.

Unlike myself, King did leave school. He quit Northwest Missouri State University in 1970, right after the lottery numbers were assigned and he was "safe." No reason has ever been publicly offered as to why he chose to leave Northwest Missouri State three years into his college education without earning a degree. During those three years King spent in Maryville, the United States suffered its greatest losses in Vietnam with 39,721 soldiers killed.

King’s departure from school meant his “2S” deferment was no longer valid, but his draft number insulated him in the draft lotteries held in 1970, 1971 and 1972 when more than 306,000 men were drafted into the Army. That number-- 308-- enabled him to avoid military service for the duration of the war. Maintaining his student deferment and continuing his education at Northwest State were no longer necessary to achieve the same end.

Student deferments were not uncommon, but in the case of Steve King the deferments seem in contrast with the public persona that has defined him as a politician in the years since the draft and the Vietnam War. He has been an outspoken proponent of hard-right, conservative principles. He was a strong supporter of the Iraq War and an advocate for increased troop levels. When Democrats gained control of the House of Representatives following the 2006 elections and began questioning the policies of the Iraq War through legislative actions, King frequently voiced strident opposition.

Throughout his political career, King has laced his rhetoric with strong anti-communist, anti-Marxist, anti-socialist, anti-leftist sentiments and remarks. In 2005, he received widespread attention for a comment he made about one of California's most admired and respected Members of Congress. “I think that if Barbara Lee would read the history of Joe McCarthy, she would realize that he was a hero for America.” Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin was a
noted anti-communist crusader in the 1950s.

The Vietnam War that Congressman Steve King of Iowa avoided was a war intended to halt the spread of Communism in Southeast Asia. In a speech delivered on the House floor on May 3rd, 2006, King concluded that we lost that war “because we lost the will in this country.” On April 30th, 1975, Saigon fell to the North Vietnamese. That same year, Steve King started his bull dozing business in Kiron, Iowa. The draft had ended two years earlier in 1973. Steve King never was drafted, nor did he ever volunteer to serve during the Vietnam War.

No one who's followed his political could possibly not include Steve King in a list of the worst and most bloodthirsty warmongers in Washington. It may be hypocritical that he dodged the draft when he had the opportunity to defend his country but it's also ironic that he's among the most virulently opposed to allowing patriotic gay men and women to fight openly for their country in time of war. If you'd like to help Matt Campbell make his case with a donation, you can do it on our page dedicated to candidates fighting Congress' worst homophobes.

Fighting wars without pain might be OK if it were possible, but merely ghetto-izing the pain is unacceptable

"The idea that fewer than 1 percent of Americans are being called on to fight in Afghanistan and Iraq and that we’re sending them into combat again and again and again -- for three tours, four tours, five tours, six tours -- is obscene. All decent people should object. . . .

"The reason it is so easy for the U.S. to declare wars, and to continue fighting year after year after year, is because so few Americans feel the actual pain of those wars. . . .

"What we are doing is indefensible and will ultimately exact a fearful price, and there will be absolutely no way for the U.S. to avoid paying it."

-- Bob Herbert, in his Tuesday NYT column, "A Fearful Price"

by Ken

I've been content to let Howie do the heavy lifting on Afghanistan. I don't disagree with the strong position he's taken against increased American involvement in a war there, but I still feel conflicted about it.

As Hendrik Hertzberg begins his "Comment" piece in this week's New Yorker, "Bad Choices": "There are no good options for the United States in Afghanistan. That has been the conventional wisdom for some years now, and this time the conventional wisdom—the reigning cliché—happens to be true."

Later Hertzberg writes, "The principal virtue of [the president's] choice remains the vices of the others." He writes further:

The botched war in Afghanistan, like the economic crisis and the broken health-care system, is an inheritance from which Obama is trying to extricate the country. In each case, the institutional, historical, and political constraints under which a President must operate mean that the solutions—or, if there are no solutions, the ameliorations—are doomed to be nearly as messy as the problems.

However, one thing about the war in Afghanistan -- and indeed the last war in Iraq, and the ones currently being lined up for Iran et al. by the enthusiasts -- needs to be flagged down. As Bob Herbert wrote Tuesday, it "is indefensible and will ultimately exact a fearful price, and there will be absolutely no way for the U.S. to avoid paying it." It was an innovation of the Bush-Cheney regime, and unfortunately like so many other innovations that expand the power of the executive branch, the chances of its being reversed by succeeding administrations, even those run by less despicable, megalomaniacal leaders, are slim. Giving up power one finds oneself heir to isn't something politicians do a lot of.

Nothing characterizes the hypocrisy and general doodyheadedness of Movement Conservative thuggery more surely than what has come to be known as its "chickenhawkishness" -- the truly astonishing percentage of these Bombs-Away Bozos, screeching to start a new war every day, who have never served in the military and are offended by the mere suggestion that they should.

When our friend Max Blumenthal was honing his videographer's skills, he took his video camera to one of those conclaves of Daring Young Doodyheads (Values Voter Summit, perhaps?) and put the question to all those blood-thirsty doodyheads frothing at the mouth for more invasions, more wars: Would you fight in those wars? Not only wouldn't they, most of them were clearly mystified, or offended, by the fact that someone would ask them such a question.

One especially irritating far-right doodyhead said simply that he could contribute to the war better in other ways. I wonder whether those delicate geniuses (as I hope George Costanza won't mind my calling them) are aware that they get to make that choice because of the elimination of the draft, under which previous American wars, both declared and undeclared, were fought. But can the delicate geniuses really not see how philosophically and ethically repulsive it is to advocate a war in which neither you nor your family, friends, and associates is put at risk of any sort?

Of course this point has been made before, but it never seems to stick, and each time it's brought up, it's as if nobody's ever said it before. I'm not sure anyone's said it as well, though, as Bob Herbert did the Tuesday column from which I've quoted above.

To drive the point home, the column begins with Herbert's encounter with a Columbia University student "who was enthusiastic about the escalation of U.S. forces in Afghanistan," and "argued that a full-blown counterinsurgency effort, which would likely take many years and cost many lives, was the only way to truly win the war."

He was a very bright young man: thoughtful and eager and polite. I asked him if he had any plans to join the military and help make this grand mission a success. He said no.

Hmm. Is there a cognitive-dissonance monitor in the house?

Herbert relates this to a RAND Corp. study --

showing that the eight years of warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan were taking an emotional toll on the children of service members and that the difficulties increased the longer parents were deployed.

There is no way that the findings of this study should be a surprise to anyone. It just confirms that the children of those being sent into combat are among that tiny percentage of the population that is unfairly shouldering the entire burden of these wars.

The idea that fewer than 1 percent of Americans are being called on to fight in Afghanistan and Iraq and that we’re sending them into combat again and again and again -- for three tours, four tours, five tours, six tours -- is obscene. All decent people should object.

We already knew that in addition to the many thousands who have been killed or physically wounded, hundreds of thousands have returned with very serious psychological wounds: deep depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and so on. Other problems are also widespread: alcohol and drug abuse, family strife, homelessness.

The new study, by the RAND Corporation, was published in the journal Pediatrics. The children surveyed were found to have higher levels of emotional difficulties than their peers in the general population.

According to the study:

"Older youth and girls of all ages reported significantly more school, family and peer-related difficulties with parental deployment. Length of parental deployment and poorer non-deployed caregiver mental health were significantly associated with a greater number of challenges for children, both during deployment and deployed parent reintegration."

The air is filled with obsessive self-satisfied rhetoric about supporting the troops, giving them everything they need and not letting them down. But that rhetoric is as hollow as a jazzman’s drum because the overwhelming majority of Americans have no desire at all to share in the sacrifices that the service members and their families are making. Most Americans do not want to serve in the wars, do not want to give up their precious time to do volunteer work that would aid the nation’s warriors and their families, do not even want to fork over the taxes that are needed to pay for the wars.

To say that this is a national disgrace is to wallow in the shallowest understatement. The nation will always give lip-service to support for the troops, but for the most part Americans do not really care about the men and women we so blithely ship off to war, and the families they leave behind.

The National Military Family Association, which commissioned the RAND study, has poignant comments from the children of military personnel on its Web site.

You can tell immediately how much more real the wars are to those youngsters than to most Americans:

"I hope it’s not him on the news getting hurt."

"Most of my grades dropped because I was thinking about my dad, because my dad’s more important than school."

"Mom will be in her room and we hear her crying."

Which brings Herbert to the point that I made my second extract above, and eventually the third:

The reason it is so easy for the U.S. to declare wars, and to continue fighting year after year after year, is because so few Americans feel the actual pain of those wars. We’ve been fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan longer than we fought in World Wars I and II combined. If voters had to choose right now between instituting a draft or exiting Afghanistan and Iraq, the troops would be out of those two countries in a heartbeat.

I don’t think our current way of waging war, which is pretty easy-breezy for most citizens, is what the architects of America had in mind. Here’s George Washington’s view, for example: "It must be laid down as a primary position and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government owes not only a proportion of his property, but even his personal service to the defense of it."

What we are doing is indefensible and will ultimately exact a fearful price, and there will be absolutely no way for the U.S. to avoid paying it.

A cruel irony in this new way of waging war is that the 1 percent of the country doing the fighting, which tends toi support these military adventures, seems largely ignorant of the way the way they are used by militarily adventurous pols to shield them from the proper scrutiny of the American people at large.

If it turns out that there is an afterlife that involves rewards and punishments for earthly deeds, you have to hope that there is a sufficiently fierce punishment for sending other people's children off to die.

#

WOULD McCAIN INSTITUTE A DRAFT IN JANUARY? OR WOULD HE WAIT UNTIL FEBRUARY?

Art by tw3k: More war means a draft. Period.

Maybe I've just missed it-- perhaps because of all the breathless distractions about Obama's pastor and bowling score-- but I could swear the corporate media isn't informing their audience that a vote for John McCain is a vote for the re-instatement of a military draft. Now, call me naive, but I have to believe that even his barbeque buddies would agree that most voters would be more interested in a discussion of the prospects of a draft-- something McCain's plans absolutely guarantee-- than in Obama's lack of skill on the bowling alley. (John Stewart actually showed a clip of some Fox talking head suggesting he should have "stuck to the hoops.")

Last week I was reminiscing about my very first arrest, which was for protesting against the draft in 1967. If the media is able to mislead voters drastically enough so that McCain actually gets into the White House, there will be many more arrests at many more protests all over America.

McCain's policies-- whatever the meaning about his constant rhetorical stumblings about Iraq and Iran, Sunni and Shi'a, and 100 years in Iraq-- can't be put in place without a military draft. (By the way, when I was protesting in 1967 Nixon was coming up with a strategy about how to make the American people vote for him-- by claiming to have "a plan." McCain also claims to have "a plan"-- to capture Osama bin-Laden-- so one wonders why he doesn't share this with his pals George W. and Cheney.)

Republicans are forever hectoring about how we should just do whatever the generals tell us to. That's typical right wing cynicism since generals don't make policy in the U.S.-- elected officials do-- and since every single general who has spoken out professionally in a way that didn't hew completely to Bush-Cheney dogma has been sacked. So listen to the generals? Which ones? The Bush toadies or the ones who helped Darcy Burner come up with the Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq?

Today's Washington Post mentions a hearing yesterday at the Senate Armed Services Committee in which Army Vice Chief of Staff, General Richard Cody, put his career in jeopardy, like so many before him have done, by implicitly criticizing the incompetence of the Bush Regime.

"I've never seen our lack of strategic depth be where it is today," said Cody, who has been the senior Army official in charge of operations and readiness for the past six years and plans to retire this summer.

This morning Brandon Friedman at VetVoice analyzed the session in light of McCain's aggressive military agenda.

Cody laments the "lack of balance" in today's Army, and says the "current demand for our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan exceeds the sustainable supply and limits our ability to provide ready forces for other contingencies... Current operational requirements for forces and insufficient time between deployments require a focus on counterinsurgency training and equipping to the detriment of preparedness for the full range of military missions." The stress on the fighting men and women, their families and the equipment is at dangerous levels.

Bush's response is to just stay the course and then get out of Dodge... and leave it for whomever comes in after him to sort it out. McCain would institute a draft and pour billions of more dollars into the military. (I think he wants to make up for all that time he lost sitting ignobly in the Hanoi Hilton; lots of wars out there to be waged if one wants to.) The draft is the only difference between Bush and McCain I've seen in regard to Iraq.


UPDATE: WILL CONGRESS ASK PETRAEUS ANYTHING USEFUL?

When the Republican nominee for president in 2012 puts on his fancy dress uniform next week and marches into Congress to be questioned, it's unlikely anything beyond a polite and meaningless piece of kabuki theater will be played out. But... just in case, David Corn asked some national security experts for the questions Congress should be asking Petraeus. I hope some members of Congress see the list and get some ideas from it. Some of the ones by military officers who wished to remain anonymous are particularly... provocative.

ONE TERM OF McCAIN WOULD BE WORSE THAN BOTH BUSH TERMS: A MILITARY DRAFT, MORE WARS AND LESS SECURE HOUSING

My friend Helen and I were teenagers when we met. Not long after that we drove in to New York City to participate in the city's first mass anti-Vietnam War protest. I wound up in a jail cell with Dr. Spock, Allen Ginsberg and other organization leaders by telling the arresting officers that I was Dr. Spock's aide and they couldn't arrest him unless they arrested me too. Helen wound up in jail that day too; 264 people were arrested.

Today Helen is a school psychologist in the New York suburbs. She has two sons around the same age as she and I were when we first became lifelong friends. Like millions of parents across America, Helen worries that McCain's promises to extend the Iraq War for as many as 100 years is liable to bring on the dreaded draft-- exactly what she and I were arrested for protesting in 1967.

I hope she doesn't read a report in yesterday's CongressDaily by Otto Kreisher which strongly suggests the wind is blowing in the wrong direction-- a wind that would turn into a cyclone were Americans to lose their collective minds and elect John W. McBush president.

The armed services' struggle to attract the number of young men and women needed each year to maintain their required force levels is increasingly handicapped by a hard set of demographic facts that sharply reduces the pool of potential recruits and by emotional barriers that may block access to the best prospects. "We should not lose sight of the fact that, although the youth population is large, a relatively small proportion of American youth is qualified to enlist," David Chu, undersecretary of Defense for personnel and readiness, testified recently. "It is an unfortunate fact that many in the contemporary youth population are currently ineligible to serve."

Chu and service officials point out that only about three of every 10 Americans of military age-- generally considered 17 to 24 years old-- can meet the standards for military service. In testimony to Congress, Chu cited the grim statistics: About 35 percent are medically disqualified, with obesity a large contributing factor; 18 percent are barred due to a record of abusing drugs or alcohol; 5 percent have serious conduct/criminal problems; 6 percent have too many dependents, and 9 percent scored in the lowest aptitude category on the enlistment test. Another 10 percent are qualified but considered unavailable because they are attending college.

That leaves few than 5 million potential recruits out of the total of about 31 million Americans of age to serve in the military. From that reduced field, the services need about 300,000 recruits a year for their active, reserve and National Guard forces. The number of potential recruits is reduced by the Pentagon's requirement-- based on years of studies on what qualities indicate a high probability of being able to perform necessary tasks and completing a term of enlistment-- that 90 percent of recruits have a high school diploma, or a GED. Nationally, 70 percent of young peoples graduate from high school, with the averages as low as 50 percent in some urban areas and among minorities. Military recruiting officials note that many young people with high school diplomas cannot pass the enlistment tests.

To make the situation worse, access to that limited pool of eligible recruits often is blocked by opposition from parents, teachers or other influencers, or by a young person's inclinations. Service leaders say the percentage of military aged Americans indicating any interest in military service is the lowest on record.

In the face of these limits, the services are taking extraordinary steps to meet recruiting quotas. The Army, which must attract about 170,000 new soldiers this year for its active and reserve force, initiated programs to help young men or women get their GED or pass the aptitude tests and one that gives slightly overweight individuals a year after enlisting to meet weight standards. All of the services provide some waivers for the high school education requirement or other factors. Again, the Army has had to use this authority the most, offering three times as many this year as in 2005. Army Secretary Pete Geren said a study showed that the 17,000 soldiers brought into Army on waivers have performed better than the average enlistee.

Martin Heinrich, the Blue America-endorsed Democrat running for the open congressional seat in Albuquerque is facing Darren White, someone every bit as militaristic as McCain and Bush. Martin's campaign has been emphasizing a speedy end to the American occupation of Iraq. "If John McCain plans to spend 100 years in Iraq, I'm not surprised he thinks we need to reinstate the draft," Martin explained this afternoon. "I reject the premise. I say that if we leave Iraq now, there will be no reason to reinstate the draft. That's what I call supporting our troops."

McCain's much ballyhooed militaristic approach to "problem solving" and his aggressive agenda for military solutions to complex international problems virtually guarantees the reinstatement of a draft. On the other hand, he has a far less aggressive agenda for solving the domestic problems that are plaguing American families. His speech on the mortgage crisis was so short on substance that it made me wonder if he was even aware that there is a mortgage crisis. His promise to convene "roundtables" to chat about it is something that he and other Republican senators who voted to rubber stamp Bush's heinous economic policies should have thought about over the last 7 years. People are losing their homes now because of these policies.

McCain-- like Bush-- actually brags about his ignorance. He freely admits he knows nothing about the economy-- which might help account for one of the worst voting records in the Senate on one economic issue after another-- and he was recently quoted in the Washington Post disparaging people who want to solve economic problems instead of starting the Crusades up again:

"Even if the economy is the, quote, number one issue, the real issue will remain America's security," he said. "If it's not the most important issue in the minds of many voters, America's security will remain the number one issue with me. And if they choose to say, 'Look, I do not need this guy because he's not as good on home loan mortgages,' or whatever it is, I understand that. I will accept that verdict. I am running because of the transcendent challenge of the twenty-first century, which is radical Islamic extremism, as you know."

Sounds like Cheney and Lieberman have hypnotized him! The Center For American Progress has compiled McCain's voting record regarding consumer concerns about mortgages. His votes on this, like on almost all issues important to American families, is in sharp contrast to how he is portrayed by the corporate media, which never looks at what he does, but only at what the well-oiled hype machine tells them. A few days ago we saw how McCain aspires to be to George Bush what Herbert Hoover was to Calvin Coolidge. Like Hoover on the precipice of economic catastrophe, McCain wants to wait out the problems. Most people who married multimillionaire heiresses might feel the same way-- if they were selfish and greedy. The Real McCain:

– McCain voted against discouraging predatory lending practices. In 2005, McCain voted against an amendment prohibiting law-breaking high-cost predatory mortgage lenders from collecting funds from homeowners who are forced into bankruptcy court. [S. 256, 3/03/05]

– McCain failed to vote on bill to overhaul mortgage lending practices of FHA. In 2007, McCain failed to vote on passage of a bill that would overhaul the mortgage lending practices of the Federal Housing Administration (FHA). The bill would reduce the required minimum down payment for an FHA-insured loan and simplify its calculation, requiring a flat 1.5 percent of the appraised value of the home. [S. 2338, 12/14/07]

- McCain failed to sign on to the Predatory Lending Consumer Protection Act. In 2003, McCain failed to add his name to this legislation, which was intended to “protect consumers against predatory practices.” The bill, which was endorsed by a host of civil rights and housing advocates, including the U.S. Conference of Mayors, ACORN, and the Consumer Federation of America. [S. 1928, 11/21/03]

– McCain failed to sign on to Truth in Lending Act. Less than four months ago, McCain failed to sign on to this bipartisan initiative providing protection to consumers taking out home mortgage loans. Among other measures, it was designed to “establish new lending standards to ensure that loans are affordable and fair.” McCain also refused to co-sponsor this legislation in the 107th Congress as well. [S. 2452, 12/12/2007]

After McCain's lame and clueless speech in Orange County today, Howard Dean was as puzzled as everyone else was:

"Just as he doesn't know the difference between Iraq's Sunnis and Shiites, John McCain today showed that he doesn't understand the economy, the mortgage crisis, or its impact on America's families and communities. Instead of offering a concrete plan to address the crisis at all levels, McCain promised to take the same hands off approach that President Bush used to lead us into this crisis. While John McCain promises a third Bush term, Democrats are offering real solutions to help the millions of American families who played by the rules and are still fighting to keep their homes."

Carly Fiorina, on the other hand, after leaving Hewlett Packard in a shambles, has signed on to the McCain economic team and thinks his approach is just swell. Of course what she knows about mortgages is considerably different from what normal Americans have to deal with.


UPDATE: FDL RESIDENT PSYCHIATRIST, DR. KIRK MURPHY, TAKES A LOOK AT McCAIN'S BRAIN

And finds him unfit for command-- and possibly incontinent.

After we hit our mid 20's we start a slow downhill slide in neuronal function. Like other hills, the farther up the neuron slope we start, the farther we have to coast. Alcohol, head injury (even one), severe stress (including PTSD), toxins (including some forms of chemo) and ionizing radiation (like that used for some cancer radiotherapies) accelerate the trip. If we're lucky, we cross the finish line of the slide-- death-- with sufficient neuronal function to keep us and those around us happy and safe, and to be able to know that.

Sadly for him, Senator McCain has a documented history of conditions known to cause CNS injury (repeated blows to the head in boxing/ heavy alcohol use/ torture /severe stress from imprisonment) as well as possible exposure to chemotherapy and radiation therapy.

Loss of neuronal function affects not only self-control, but also comprehension.

Impaired CNS inhibitory function greatly diminishes comprehension of even mildly complex situations. Thinking about complex stuff requires not only sustained attention (compromised in diminished inhibitory function), but also the capacity to tolerate the frustration inherent in confronting discordant possibilities (also compromised in diminished inhibitory function).

For these reasons, McCain's repeated bizarre mangling of basic information - together with his documented history of severely impaired impulse control - suggest that McCain's neuronal function impairs his capacity to comprehend complex realities. With advanced age, cognitive dysfunction as severe as Senator McCain evinces tends to grow worse with each passing year-- as does the severity of the emotional lability which so troubles senior military officers.

Sadly for Senator John McCain, he's exhibited labile mood for decades - and advancing age tends to accelerate neuronal death, further compromise inhibitory cerebral function, and hence lead to more severe emotional dysfunction.

In the Oval Office, progressively worsening intellectual comprehension and emotional dysfunction would not merely be sad-- but catastrophic.

A planet's a terrible thing to waste - especially when we only have one.

THE CATHOLICS ARE ATTACKING-- AND FOR GOOD REASON

A couple days ago CNN took a look at the McCain-Hagee love affair. It's worth watching if you haven't been following this explosive story closely:



None of the CNN commentators mentioned that McCain pursued the Hagee endorsement relentlessly for a very long time. He and his allies-- like Lieberman-- knew exactly what Hagee was all about and tried to rope him in anyway. You listen to McCain now and you almost get the idea that Hagee just forced his way up on the stage and started screaming "I endorse you, I endorse you." That isn't what happened at all. Few mainstream Americans know-- since the media has kept it a secret-- that McCain publicly admitted last year that he belongs to the radical Christian Nationalist cult.

Now, Farrakhan endorsed Barack Obama out of the blue and with no consultation with Obama or his staff. Obama wasn't on stage with Farrakhan and he didn't accept the endorsement and, in fact, publicly rejected it. McCain repeatedly begged Hagee to endorse him and appeared onstage with him as them embraced each other's venal agendas. Is McCain anti-Catholic? Not that I've ever seen. Would he sell out Catholics or Jews or African-Americans or gays or anyone else to get to the White House? In one second flat-- and he'd throw that poor old mother of his he drags around the country to imply he might live long enough to be president if he wins, right under the Double Talk Express-- and tell one of the lobbyists to drive over her if that's what it took.

So should anyone, logically speaking, support, or even vote for, McCain? Well, if you're one of the 19% of Americans who think George Bush has done a good job as president, McCain is your man. And if you-- like him and Hagee-- see no future and you'd like to kick that notion off with a military draft, McCain is the man for you.

Meanwhile, wouldn't you love to be a fly on the wall when McCain, Lieberman and Hagee-- 3 stooges-- sit down for a chit chat and some java?

BUSH'S MISSION STILL ISN'T ACCOMPLISHED-- WE'RE STILL BREATHING

The British military is telling the new Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, to withdraw the 5,500 British troops left in southern Iraq immediately. According to the Sunday Independent, all the British are hoping for is "an orderly withdrawal."

Two generals told The Independent on Sunday last week that the military advice given to the Prime Minister was, "We've done what we can in the south [of Iraq]". Commanders want to hand over Basra Palace – where 500 British troops are subjected to up to 60 rocket and mortar strikes a day, and resupply convoys have been described as "nightly suicide missions" – by the end of August. The withdrawal of 500 soldiers has already been announced by the Government. The Army is drawing up plans to "reposture" the 5,000 that will be left at Basra airport, and aims to bring the bulk of them home in the next few months.

The Bush Regime is apoplectic over the decision to leave at least in part because it threatens the crucial U.S. supply line from Kuwait as well as depriving the U.S. on important facilities used to spy on Iran. Oh... and it's where most of the oil is.

But, according to Sunday's Times the Brits have more on their mind that Cheney's favorite liquid. Murdoch's once respected right-wing Times claims that the Bush Regime has information that the Iraqis plan to make the British eat shit on their way out.

Stephen Biddle, who also advises the US commander in Iraq, said Iranian-backed Shi’ite militias in the south would try to create the impression they were forcing a retreat. “They want to make it clear they have forced the British out. That means they’ll use car bombs, ambushes, RPGs [rocket-propelled grenades]... and there will be a number of British casualties.”

The comments coincide with British military estimates that withdrawal could cost the lives of 10 to 15 soldiers.

Some British officers believe they are facing a “humiliating” retreat under fire to Kuwait or the southern Iraqi port of Umm Qasr.

“I regret to say that the Basra experience is set to become a major blunder in terms of military history,” said a senior officer. “The insurgents are calling the shots... and in a worst-case scenario will chase us out of southern Iraq.”

In all likelihood, new U.S. troops will have to be sent to southern Iraq to replace the withdrawing British. That means more surgin'. And a draft? Tom Mazzie from MoveOn thinks it's a distinct possibility.

Americans have seen some news reports over the last few days suggesting that the White House "might-maybe-could-possibly" bring some troops home from Iraq next year. If this happens, that's great. But don't break out the confetti just yet. Every other indicator is that these are fairy tales cooked up by the White House PR machine to try to cauterize their bleeding support. Almost like clock work the White House breaks the glass of their magical PR machine every time they're about to lose it.

The story hasn't changed. This is still an endless war. And, now a military draft is on the table.

Today's NY Times has a powerful OP-ED by 7 American military men who are serving in Iraq, half a dozen sergeants and an Army specialist, The War As We Saw It. They politely point to the lies emanating from the Bush Regime propaganda machine that claims the "surge" is working. "To believe that Americans, with an occupying force that long ago outlived its reluctant welcome, can win over a recalcitrant local population and win this counterinsurgency is far-fetched. As responsible infantrymen and noncommissioned officers with the 82nd Airborne Division soon heading back home, we are skeptical of recent press coverage portraying the conflict as increasingly manageable and feel it has neglected the mounting civil, political and social unrest we see every day."

A few nights ago, for example, we witnessed the death of one American soldier and the critical wounding of two others when a lethal armor-piercing explosive was detonated between an Iraqi Army checkpoint and a police one. Local Iraqis readily testified to American investigators that Iraqi police and Army officers escorted the triggermen and helped plant the bomb. These civilians highlighted their own predicament: had they informed the Americans of the bomb before the incident, the Iraqi Army, the police or the local Shiite militia would have killed their families.

As many grunts will tell you, this is a near-routine event. Reports that a majority of Iraqi Army commanders are now reliable partners can be considered only misleading rhetoric. The truth is that battalion commanders, even if well meaning, have little to no influence over the thousands of obstinate men under them, in an incoherent chain of command, who are really loyal only to their militias.

To these seven men the Bush-Cheney-Lieberman-McConnell-McCain escalation is just dragging out the inevitable. And that's really the question. How soon before the Americans are facing what the British are facing in trying to achieve that orderly withdrawal? Or will our governing elite demand more deaths and more destruction and... a draft?

I read this kind of stuff and I go into psychological orbit. I know I'll never be happy because until Bush and Cheney are punished for what they have done-- and I know that will never happen-- I'll always been dissatisfied. Lackies and enablers, however, are reachable. No one, for example, is more responsible for Bush being able to thwart the will of the American public that his disgraceful puppet in the U.S. Senate, Mitch McConnell. And he'll be facing a restive electorate next year when he has to fight for re-election. Our Blue America page is very much dedicated to helping to remove these cancerous ulcers on the body politic of this country. You want to end the war in Iraq? Help Tom Allen defeat Susan Collins. Help Rick Noriega defeat John Cornyn. David Reichert is a rubber stamp Republican who has voted for every Bush-Cheney disaster. Darcy Burner has opposed this madness from the beginning; trade in Reichert in the eastern Seattle suburbs for Darcy and you will be one step closer to ending the war. Same in northern California, where fanatic warmonger John Doolittle faces defeat by Charlie Brown. In Colorado and Ohio, Angie Paccione and Victoria Wulsin are seeking to replace two of the worst rubber stamp imbeciles in the enter Congress, Marilyn Musgrave and Mean Jean Schmidt. Donate $5 or $10 today; it may make you feel good. No? Then watch this short video clip about Mitch McConnell's role in the deaths of our soldiers in Iraq.