Gee, I wonder why

Despite extensive efforts to shed light on and address the issue, the Army reports that suicides by its soldiers hit 32 last month, the highest number since the days of the Vietnam War. In 2009, a record 245 soldiers killed themselves, and it looks, unfortunately, as if there’s a good chance that record will be broken this year, considering that 145 soldiers had committed suicide through June. It’s a sad state of affairs, and Army leaders are trying everything they can think of to get their men and women the help they need. But they come off as disingenuous when, as in the story I read Friday, they express puzzlement as to what is behind the epidemic. Do you think maybe it’s the fact that our servicemen and women have been sent over and over and over again to Iraq and Afghanistan? Might want to look into that.

Weird world of crime and the courts

When it comes to crime, the court system and people's greed and stupidity, if you think you've seen everything, just wait a little bit. Some examples:

– You've probably heard by now about the Michigan woman who claims she was asleep on a plane when she was left behind and locked in the United Express airplane for several hours on the tarmac in Philadelphia. Of course, Ginger McGuire (shown above) is suing. Her attorney, Geoffrey Fieger, the guy who came to fame by representing Jack Kevorkian, will be bringing a suit alleging false imprisonment, emotional distress and negligence. This whole story smells funny to me. How does one stay asleep through the landing of the aircraft and the resulting hubbub of people banging their luggage out of overhead bins and deplaning? And this woman didn’t stir for four hours after the plane was empty? I have my doubts.

– There’s a hearing going on in Ohio for a chief master sergeant who has been accused of sexually harassing nine female subordinates. William Gurney, who once was the top enlisted man at the Air Force Materiel Command at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base but has been reassigned since the allegations cropped up, was accused by one of the women of having sex with her against her will. But here again, this story has some odd twists. The woman claims she was afraid of Gurney because he was a “powerful man.” But she testified that they had kissed in previous meetings, and she admitted that Gurney never made any threats or used force as they had sex. Gurney’s lead defense attorney, Maj. Gwendolyn Beitz, said the woman had never described the sex as anything but consensual until she was faced with telling her husband that she might be demoted for having an affair. Gurney also is married. I certainly don't condone forcing someone to have sex, or engaging in any sort of sexual harassment, but weak accusations like this one hurt the cases of women who really have been wronged.

– There’s some really nasty video circulating on the Web that was disseminated by a group called Mercy for Animals. The video purportedly shows cows at Conklin Dairy Farms Inc. near Marysville, Ohio, being punched, kicked and poked with pitchforks. And those are the nicer things. Also shown are workers holding down newborn calves and taking their boots to the calves’ heads. Another snippet depicts a cow’s nose being wired to a metal bar close to the ground while another metal bar is used to beat the animal bloody. Just lovely. One worker faces a host of criminal charges in the case. Conklin Farms says it does not condone animal abuse, and it fired the worker facing charges. But the farm doesn’t do itself any favors when it announces that it wants veterinarians to independently review the video. For what purpose? Are they planning to defend some of these actions? And according to an Associated Press story, Conklin also said the undercover video fails to include “context of how the farm is operated responsibly.” Doesn’t that seem almost the same as saying, “Yeah, some animals were tortured, but we’re usually not that mean”? Conklin would do better to just quit trying to engage in damage control and do everything it can to help authorities identify and prosecute each and every farm worker guilty of cruelty and abuse.

– Speaking of digging a bigger hole for oneself, Duchess of York Sarah Ferguson, who never has come off as the sharpest tool in the shed, made the mistake of going on “Oprah” in an attempt to explain how she ended up being secretly videotaped by an undercover tabloid reporter while offering to sell access to her ex-husband, Prince Andrew, for about three-quarters of a million dollars. Ferguson attempted to explain her influence peddling by saying it started as an attempt to get $40,000 for a friend in need. How did that escalate to $724,000? Well, she really wasn’t too sure about that. She also told Oprah that she proceeded with her dealings with the “businessman” even though she had her suspicions that he was an undercover reporter. That's about as dumb as the guys who got nabbed on “To Catch a Predator” and admitted seeing previous installments of the anti-pedophile program. As for Ferguson’s future plans, she says bankruptcy is a possibility. I have to assume that it’s fiscal bankruptcy, since she’s clearly already morally bankrupt, and dumb as a box of rocks, to boot.

Bums from both parties

I'm not sure which one of these guys is the most despicable, but Congressman Mark Souder and Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal are both on about the same level as whale poop. Let's start with Souder, shown in the bottom photo. Turns out, the "family values," evangelical Christian Republican from Indiana is a fraud. He's the latest member of the holier-than-thou-oops Hall of Shame. The hypocrite congressman, who said all the "right" things about gay people, abortion and abstinence couldn't keep his own pants on. Souder got caught having an affair with a female staff member, a staffer who once worked with him producing a video about the virtues of abstinence-only sex education. Hah. Nice. He has decided to resign and renew his "walk with the Lord." Souder might want to pick up the pace, because the Lord sure lost him on their last stroll. Then there's the sorry story of Blumenthal, who currently is running for the U.S. Senate in Connecticut. Blumenthal spoke on several occasions about his proud service with the Marines in Vietnam. Just one problem. He was never in Vietnam. In reality, Blumenthal was granted about a half-dozen deferments that enabled him to go to school at Harvard and a fancy school in England. When it finally looked as if was running out of deferments, he managed to snag a spot in the Marine Reserves, greatly reducing any chance of him ending up in the war zone. Blumenthal explained that he "misspoke" or "misplaced my words." Bull. He's a liar. Plain and simple. Blumenthal also said he wasn't going to allow anyone to "impugn my service." They don't have to, dummy. You did it yourself. And this is not scientific by any means, but when you look at the photos of these two sorry excuses for public servants, does the word "weasels" spring to mind? It did for me. Bottom line, Blumenthal has to be considered the most despicable. Souder is just the latest in a long line of "family values" frauds. He only hurt himself, the other woman and his family. Blumenthal has disgraced the memory of all those men and women who gave their lives by actually going to Vietnam. Anyone who votes for him should be ashamed of themselves.

Quagmire redux?

President Obama will speak to the nation tomorrow night about his decisions regarding the ongoing conduct of the war in Afghanistan. According to an Associated Press report, the president is expected to commit to an escalation of the war that will involved perhaps 35,000 more U.S. servicemen and women. That, the AP said, would take the number of troops in Afghanistan to more than 100,000, at an annual price tag of $75 billion. I've made clear in the past my disgust over the war in Iraq, and the toll it took on our efforts in Afghanistan. Admittedly, I bashed Bush over his war decisions, and if Obama is going down the same path, committing who knows how many American lives and billions of our tax dollars to a military engagement with a highly uncertain outcome, I won't hesitate to criticism him. What I'd like to know from you folks is how you feel about a massive troop buildup and what you might do differently.

Security before political correctness

Sen. Joe Lieberman and I don't end up on the same side of issues much these days, but the senator is absolutely correct in calling for an investigation into whether the government and/or the military missed indications that Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the alleged gunman in the Fort Hood shootings, held potentially dangerous extremist views. An Associated Press story today said that classmates of Hasan’s in a 2007-08 master’s degree program at a military college told members of the faculty about Hasan’s apparent anti-American beliefs, including a presentation he made that justified suicide bombing and remarks to classmates that Islamic law overrode the U.S. Constitution. At that point, the faculty members should have reported Hasan to his military higher-ups, and if the allegations against him were found to be true, he should have been removed from the military without delay. As Lieberman said, "If Hasan was showing signs ... that he had become a Muslim extremist, the U.S. Army has to have zero tolerance. He should have been gone.” The military, or the populace at large, should not be in the business of discriminating against Muslims solely because of their faith, but if a soldier shows any signs of favoring another country or his religion over the United States government and his fellow servicemen and women, appropriate action should be taken immediately. As the facts emerge, it's likely to become clear that people in positions of authority had multiple opportunities to, at the very least, kick Hasan out of the service. Their failure proved deadly.

Smoke 'em if you got 'em

Folks like me who heard the above phrase frequently during our military training are most likely stunned by a story out today that says the Pentagon is weighing the possibility of making the armed forces smoke free at some point down the road. Images of soldiers catching a smoke on the front lines are as old as photography itself, and studies show that military people smoke at a higher rate than civilians. Staff Sgt. Jerry Benson, who is serving with the Army in Afghanistan, doesn't like the idea of a ban. He told the AP, "Your nerves get all rattled, and you need something to calm you down." Benson needn't worry, however, unless he's planning a very long career in the military. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has no plan to impose such a ban. The idea stems from a study commissioned by the Pentagon and the Veterans Administration, and the authors of the report were looking toward a ban perhaps 20 years down the road. Certainly, there are costs associated with smoking, primarily for treating illnesses linked to lighting up. But where do we stop in legislating or commanding healthy living? Will superior officers someday have to follow their men and women home to make sure they're not using too much butter on their rolls? Will they ban beer drinking by the troops? Good luck with that. These are battles that the military probably shouldn't be fighting.

Time to give it up

A federal appeals court this week tossed out a slander suit filed against Rep. John Murtha by a Marine facing charges in the killings of Iraqis in Haditha in 2005, but that hasn't stopped a local attorney from pursuing essentially the same case against the lawmaker. The U.S. Court of Appeals panel from the District of Columbia found in a case brought by Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich that Murtha, who suggested publicly that the Haditha civilians were killed "in cold blood" by U.S. troops, was covered by a 1998 law that protects federal employees from lawsuits over comments and actions in the course of their official duties. Somehow, attorney Noah Geary thinks that the slander suit he brought on behalf of former Marine Justin Sharratt of Canonsburg is different and will withstand a legal challenge. I sure don't see how. In a new amendment to the suit, Geary, shown above with Sharratt, claims Murtha made his comments about the Haditha incident in order to "curry favor" with soon-to-be House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Puh-leeze! He also contends that Murtha was wrong to offer his views while a Pentagon probe of the killings was in progress. "It is wholly foreign to employment as a member of the legislative branch to make conclusory statements of fact about an ongoing criminal investigation conducted by the executive branch." Hogwash. Murtha is a representative of his constituents in Pennsylvania, not just when he's on the floor of the House, but 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year – much as a soldier is always on duty. Also, Murtha should not be expected to be a "potted plant," just sitting mum in his office. Murtha is a Vietnam combat veteran who also is chairman of the Defense Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee. Seems to me that he has legitimate reason to be concerned about how a foreign war is being conducted, and the right to comment about incidents therein. It would have been better if Murtha had said there were "allegations" of misdeeds by the Marines in Haditha, but no one can say, categorically, that his comments, made after consultations with high-ranking military officials, were incorrect. The only ones who really know what went down that day in a dusty Iraqi town are the Marines who pulled the triggers and the people on the other end on their weapons. One group has a self-interest in how the story is told, and the other group ain't talking.