In the last two weeks, the papers told us that Pres. Bush sought advice from the DOJ on what is acceptable "manipulation" of prisoners and what is torture.
I read about that Gene and also saw it on the News. Does it prove he ordered the cruel treatment of those Iraqis?
We also learned thet Pres. Bush consulted a lawyer about the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame. Plame is the wife of Joseph Wilson, a former U.S. ambassador and career Foreign Service officer.
With all the black helacopter theories about can you Blame him for consulting a lawyer? What about innocent until proven guilty? Thanks for telling me about the specifics involved with agent Plame. I didn't know her name but I do remember the story breaking months ago. All we know is that there was a leak. Hell a democrat could have done it to make Bush look responsible... but that is a black copter theory. I don't know Gene. Pick your liars and stand by them I guess.
And it's only June. Imagine the press and these forums by October.
She wasn't just making fun of the size of his weenie. It's blurred out because he had been forced to masturbate while the photo was taken. (source: New Yorker I read in May).
Is prisoner abuse a surprise? No. The responsibility issue isn't that prisoner's were abused, the responsibility issue, as I see it, is if the abuse was being covered up from the Red Cross, from the American people, and from higher-ups in the military.
Interrogation isn't pretty. Interrogation in time of war used to almost always end up with more bodies than prisoners. But one of my naive and fundamental hopes is that we will take the higher road instead of the lower road. And hope that when we fail, we are able to acknowledge our failures, review them, and try not to repeat them.
Never Forget. Never Repeat.
That's carved into a giant stone at the entrance to the concentration camp in Dachau. It is the slippery slope of prisoner abuse we've started sliding down - and it is a bottomless pit.
True elightened vision and leadership would drop a heavy hand on the practice and stop the buck somewhere. The first buck should stop with the woman assigned to manage the prison. Granted she had no training to manage a prison - but obviously she wasn't up to the task. And from there - follow the thread.
Am I willing to sacrifice a few American lives so that we don't repeat the errors of our own Japanese internement camps and the Nazi Concentration camps? Yes. My own life, did you ask? That is out of my hands.
Never said Pres. Bush ordered the maltreatment at all. But, no matter how far fetched the possibilty is, it also can't be truly discounted....yet. But, as I mentioned, and you concurred, I'm not entrenched in any position...yet. I have my hunch as to what happened, but it is just that. And, I also remind you that much is still to be determined.
The outing of Valerie Plame was in an article written by CNN newsman Bob Novak, a self-admitted conservative writer. Plame's wife, Joseph Wilson, had written critically about Pres. Bush's foreign policy. Connect the dots from there as to why Novak outed Plame (a felony, in case you're wondering).
And, unlike others, I absolutely do not blame anyone for consulting with a lawyer on issues that involve them.
This letter from a serving officer in Iraq reflects the same themes I have
read repeatedly in similar letters from in country: their devotion to duty,
their willingness to risk all, their sense of accomplishment, their
incredulity at the duplicity of the news media.
Press on,
Bill
>Subject: Letter From Iraq
>Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 21:26:22 -0400
>
>An Open Letter to All of You Who "Support the Troops but do not Support
>the War"
>
>To Whom It May Concern:
>
>With the passing of this, I thought it would be appropriate to send a
>message from those of us who are fighting that same fight now to those of
you back home. In particular, I'd like to Memorial Day, as we honor those
that have served and fallen in service to our great nation send this message
to any and everyone of you who over the past 18 months or so has relayed a
sentiment which has become more or less accepted in the American political
dialogue, yet has never really made sense to those of us toward whom that
sentiment is usually directed. That statement is "I support the troops but
I don't support the war" and has been repeated ad nauseum by a large cross
section of Americans but largely by Democrats and others who disagree with
the current administration and its foreign policy.
>
>As November comes closer, more and more politicians repeat the phrase
>in what I suppose is an attempt to relay the message that they do not agree
with the current occupation of Iraq, yet lack the wherewithal to even so
much as hint that they do not support American troops. I, along with many
others like me, find this idea of support for the man yet not for the
mission to be disingenuous and hypocritical. I have special insight into
this problem because I am an American soldier currently stationed in Iraq.
I work for the US Army's Special Operations Command as a Civil Affairs
Officer. I have been trained in a variety of Arab/ Islamic historical and
cultural issues, I speak Arabic, and I have had a great deal of experience
living and working in the Middle East. My job, as a part of a very skilled,
experienced, and dynamic four-man team, is to go out and engage Iraqis
on a
personal level in order to help provide them with basic needs and services
while at the same time pr!
oviding an interface between the populace and US commanders on the ground.
Having said that, I think that I am qualified to address the issue of
support of this war and whether it is or is not warranted.
>
>Now, let me begin by explaining why hearing people (especially
>politicians in places of power who are seeking election or re-election) say
they support soldiers and not the war is counterintuitive to service
members. Waging this war on terror is not some disease, habit, or character
flaw that you can choose to dislike while still loving the soldier. This
endeavor is something we have volunteered freely to undertake. Our goal is
and always has been to preserve the American way of life and this
mission in
Iraq is an activity toward that end. This mission in Iraq is what we do and
what we do, quite frankly, IS who we are. We wake up, literally, each day
with the possibility that we may not see that day's end. We know that the
work we do in stabilizing this country is worthwhile. We believe in the
idea that with the right help, this nation can become a place where
democratic ideals can flourish in one form or another. In short, we believe
in this mission. We have to. !
It would make our jobs a lot easier if you did, too. Knowing that back
home you cry out against everything we live, breath and sacrifice for on a
daily basis makes our job that much more difficult. Toward that end, I
thought I'd give you a few reasons to support our efforts so that you can
stop being torn and get behind this undertaking. Then, maybe we can get it
behind us all that much sooner.
>
>First of all, I think it's fair to say that in many ways skepticism
>towards this war is understandable based on the media's portrayal of this
conflict and how it has progressed (or not progressed) thus far. It might
surprise you to know that many of us here in Iraq have satellite TV. As is
the case in many burgeoning capitalistic societies, it did not take long for
Iraqis to realize that Americans are infophiles and then, consequently, for
Iraqi vendors to supply a product to meet our demand. Thanks to this
arrangement, we are able to keep up with major media outlets like CNN, Fox
News, and BBC World service fairly easily. I can say having seen the
reality of this war in person, that the global media's portrayal of this
conflict has been woefully unbalanced to the point of being outright
misleading. Time and time again we have seen stories such as the
scandal at
Abu Ghraib or clashes with the Muqtada militia in Najaf played out in the
international media well past their half-life here in Iraq. Make no
mistake, the Abu Ghraib situation is one where a few misguided soldiers and
civilians have left a scar on the military's image which we all feel and
regret deeply, yet in countless discussions with Iraqis over Abu Ghraib, I
have yet to meet one who was enraged over the scandal. Instead the issue is
met mostly with apathy by locals who will plainly tell you that they have
greater concerns.
>
>In the case of Muqtada al-Sadr, locals here in Northeast Iraq laugh at the
very mention of his name. One Turkman village leader recently told me that
Sadr was like "Michael Jackson" and that young, disaffected youth would
claim support for him publicly because they see him on television but that
they wouldn't actually follow him anywhere. Those kinds of loyalties are
saved for what he called "real men of God" like the Ayatollah al-Sistani.
The media almost never reports on those kinds of common everyday Iraqi
sentiments. Instead they seem to find a few unhappy Iraqis and use their
opinions as harbingers of our sure defeat in this war. One example of this
irrational negativism was found in a May 25 Associated Press release about
the US-sponsored UN resolution on the upcoming handover of sovereignty. In
the article, Edith Lederer wrote that US post occupation plans for Iraq
"have been severely shaken by violence in the country." That simply is not
true. Iraqis are concerned about the upcoming handover, no doubt, but to
say they are "severely shaken" is an alarmist overstatement. Most
Iraqis I
come in contact with have shown a guarded optimism towards the future. They
simply want to wait and see how it goes. That's understandable considering
that Iraqis are about to do something they essentially never have done: rule
themselves freely. All this "the sky is falling" reporting about the
situation here is just not accurate and that is terribly unfair to those of
you back home who rely on the news to provide you with an accurate portrayal
of the situation here in Iraq. So support the war because it isn't as bad
as you think.
>
>Now for the good news. So many positive things have happened for the Iraqi
people that it could fill volumes, yet has mostly gone unreported. So,
support the war because today in Iraq my team medic, Sergeant First Class
Dennis Guthrie of Cincinnati, diagnosed a boy with elephantiasis. The
disease has left the 10-year old Kurdish boy, Zana Abdeen, with terribly
deformed hands and forearms, two fused fingers and a noticeable hump in his
back. During Saddam's regime the boy was pushed through the Iraqi health
system only to be told by doctors that his only hope would be treatment
outside the country. The cruel caveat to that is that Kurds living
South of
the old no-fly zone, like Zana's family, weren't allowed to leave the
country. Today, however, Sergeant Guthrie is working with organizations
like Doctors without Borders so that Zana and others like him might get a
chance at a normal life.
>
>Or support the war because last week my engineer, Staff Sergeant Marc
>Losa of Kinderhook, NY, inspected a well in Changalawha that was
>drilled with CPA funds then installed and supervised by US Army
>resources. Now the well brings cold, clear water to this village of
>4,000 for the first time. Support the war because yesterday Sergeant
>First Class Donald Doby of Yazoo City, MS, brought tears to an Arab
>girls eyes because he presented her with a gift so precious to her that
>it was almost overwhelming - a box of crayons and a coloring book.
>Most of all support this war because these acts of kindness and
>humanitarian assistance represent only the smallest fraction of the
>whole of good works which your servicemen and women are providing the
>people of Iraq day in and day out.
>
>Finally I would ask that you support our mission because of what it has
>resulted in. I know that many of you do not support this war because you
feel that you were led into this engagement on false pretenses. I am
not in
a position to debate those arguments, but I am in a position to assess the
effects of our conflicts in both Afghanistan and Iraq on the overall war on
terror. It is no accident that there has not been a major terrorist attack
on US soil since 9-11. Countless domestic agencies have worked tirelessly
to ensure that we stay safe at home and they should be commended for it.
But we cannot overlook the effect that our recent military exploits have
wrought on our radical Islamic enemies. US foreign policy in the 90s led the
extremists to believe that America was easily intimidated and weak, that we
preferred appeasement of, rather than engagement with, our enemies. The
wars in Afghanistan and then Iraq have changed that perception. Now, the
al-Qaedas and Asar al-Islams of the world know that when they act they are
practically assured of a swift, destructive response. Many terrorists have
come here to Iraq where we are fighting them daily and winning. Yes, the
fighting has resulted in losses for our side and any time an American loses
his life in service to his country, it is a tragedy for all of us. It is
the alternative, however, that chills me to the bone. The alternative
to my
being here and fighting terrorists is being home with my family, friends and
Americans like you fighting terrorists. I believe with every fiber of my
being that this path to war we have gone down has brought the war on terror
to Baghdad rather than Baltimore, to Kandahar rather than Kansas City
and to
Mosul rather than Montgomery. That should be considered a good thing. In
conclusion all I ask is that you support us as well as the work we
>do. If you do not support what we do, that is your inherent right. But
call your lack of support what it is. Do not be afraid to withhold your
support for our efforts because of how it might make you look - to do
otherwise cheapens the very reason we risk everything, everyday for what we
believe in: the continued safety and prosperity of Americans like you.
>Always The Best,
>
>Trampes C. Crow
>
>Captain, United States Army
>Touz Hourmato
Interrogation isn't pretty. Interrogation in time of war used to almost always end up with more bodies than prisoners. But one of my naive and fundamental hopes is that we will take the higher road instead of the lower road. And hope that when we fail, we are able to acknowledge our failures, review them, and try not to repeat them.
Well put, Dana!
Who's forgotten about the 3,000 killed at the WTC, Bill?
The popular press.
The party other than the party in power.
Michael somebodyorother who's going to try to make money off of it this summer, and make himself out to be some harbinger of the truth...
The US Military is still in Afghanistan in hot pursuit of Bin Laden and his followers.
It rarely gets any coverage. Instead, we get our noses rubbed in Iraq car bombings.
The USA Patriot Act still continues to be a hot button issue, and was passed in the wake of the terrorist infiltration that casued the 9/11 attacks. Many an Al Qaeda enemy combatant are being held in US custody - either here or abroad.
Again, where's the coverage in the press?
Who's forgoten about Saddam's gassing the Shias? Last I checked, he's been captured and the appropriate authorities are using due process to bring him to trial and justice - as well as members of his cabinet. Which of these cockroaches are given a pass? I don't follow.
The press and politicians seem more interested in focusing on the difficulties. All that free publicity to the act of a handful of terrorists magnifies their efforts many times over.
Our enemies have the U.S. sized up as a country that has no ability to focus on an objective in a time of war. They are counting on winning the psychological war no matter how well the military war goes.
Free pass, Gene.
It's too bad that people's perceptions about Abu Grahib are just that we put some underwear on somebody's head in prison and got a girl to laugh at the size of his weenie.
It's more than that, and it will be handled. But it will be handled better without being used as a political football by the likes of Teddy Kennedy.
When was the last time you heard about Chapaquiddic? Free pass for a man quick to point out the immoral behavior of others.
What what of the soldier who has already plead guilty to charges of abusing those in his custody?
That shows me the process is working in spite of the press and the histrionics of self-serving politicians.
And it is still an unsettled question how good the U.S. of A. was in Iraq, or how right they might have been in going there.
And it will remain one of those debatable issues from now to eternity.
But if we had gone in and found the motherload of WMDs, the press and/or politicians would still have found plenty to be unhappy about come October.
And there you go again, trashing lawyers....
Sorry but it's way too easy, Gene.
After all, who else but a lawyer would say the following...
That depends on what your definition of is is.
Reminds me of my brother-in-law the lawyer. He once told me that my wife (and his sister) should never have had kids, and if I told her he said that, he'd deny it. Typical lawyer... The profession attracts liars and sleezeballs like poop attracts flies. Not all lawyers are that way, but many people that way find a happy home in the legal profession.
And the sad thing is that most who end up in public office are lawyers. This means we all get subjected to such thinking. Furthermore, they get to pass laws that facilitate their efforts to pick our pockets. Legally, of course.
When was the last time you heard about Chapaquiddic? Free pass for a man quick to point out the immoral behavior of others.
You mean the incident where Ted Kennedy faced due process, was properly adjudicated and he received just punishment for his crime? I don't get your point. It seems someone wants a good tar and feathering....
And what of thsoe involved in the Iran-Contra affair who are now part of the Bush administration? Free pass indeed.....
Leading CNN Headline news this mid-afternoon was a short piece on the Iraqi prisoner handover, and a short piece on a round-up of Al-Qaeda suspects by Pakistani. On Wolf Bltizer on CNN yesterday, his guest was Pres. Karzai of Afghanistan. We get coverage in the press about Afghanistan all the time. You could have watched Pres. Karzai on CNN last Sunday if you wished, and he was on "The News Hour with Jim Lehrer" on Monday.
When newsworthy events related to WTC happen, the news reports it. We've all read about the controversy relating to the designs on the development to go up where the complex once stood, as well as the lawsuit buy the tenant of the WTC to recover more money from some of the various insurance companies. And we can keep abreast of the efforts of the special master in charge of distributing monies from the 9-11 compensation fund to all the victims and their heirs.
And I don't know what newspapers or sources you get your info from Bill, but the Patriot Act has always been in the news in the papers that I read. Sometimes the stories simmer, and other times they are the lead.
But it's a big leap to say the the press has forgotten about 9-11.
Iraqi car bombings? Well, considering major combat was supposed to be over a year ago, it sounds like important info to me. And isn't it you who post links to articles about Saudi bombings and terrorism to help make the point about needed greater US energy independance? Iraqi car bombings are sensationalism gone amok, but Saudi terrorism is Exhibit A?
Maybe our enemies have sized us up in the fashion they have due to the current administation's necessity to wage a war of dubious utility?
Do you count John McCain the likes of Ted Kennedy? How 'bout all the other members of the Senate, repulsed by the photos?
For every one of your brothers-in-law, there are lawyers like the one my mom works for - tells clients right off the bat that its the high-road or the highway. And the only thing poop attracks is flies. But the legal profession attracts the good as well as the bad. Call Al Kunian or Mario Rizzo liars. Call the lawyers in the employ of your insurance company employer slimeballs. I bet you can't.
And who's to blame that most in public office are lawyers?
But getting back to this supposed "National Act of Contrition", we're finding out what happened at Abu Ghraib, bringing due process to those who are accused of prisoner abuse and taking steps to ensure it's history. So where is this national act of contrition Sen. Miller is talking about? And it's telling that Sen. Durbin and his outrage over the outrage was handed a stinging rebuke by Sen. McCain, a person who knows a thing or two about prisoner abuse.
And what do Senators Durbin and Miller have to say when Pres. Bush exclaims that "...our nation's honor is stained..."?
And no one is forcing anybody to see any film by any Michael somebodyorother. For me, I was quite happy with "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban" and I'm looking forward to the release of "I,Robot" and really hope it isn't a dud.
RACastanet wrote:The below "To all" signee is a retired Army BGen.
> find this idea of support for the man yet not for the
> mission to be disingenuous and hypocritical.
You can support someone who disagrees with what you think just fine. Parents should know this well, for example. What he doesn't seem to believe is that you can have concern for someone's well-being while dissaproving of their actions. I don't see why he would think that those things are incompatible.
I have special insight into
this problem because I am an American soldier currently stationed in Iraq.
I don't disagree there is special insight, but there's also an incredible bias there. People are psychologicaly driven to appreciate things the more they are forced to sacrifice for them. Yes, the causality does run that way. And he admits to his bias, saying:
In short, we believe in this mission. We have to. !
Given this, how do you judge his arguments in support for the war? I say, with much skepticism. Perceptions are always distorted by one's biases. The more extreme the bias, the more extreme the distortion. You can't get anything like an unbiased perspective on something from someone who puts their life on the line every day in support of it. That doesn't mean he wouldn't have supported the war if he weren't there, of course. But he seems to be implying that his opinion is more valid because he is there and my point is that it really works the other way in emotionally charged situations.
It would make our jobs a lot easier if you did, too. Knowing that back
home you cry out against everything we live, breath and sacrifice for on a
daily basis makes our job that much more difficult.
This is a serious consideration, but ultimately it's critical that the citizens of this country are able to speak out against actions of their leaders they disagree with. If you silently go along with whatever your leader decides just because you don't want to rock the boat, you're inviting disaster. Governments aren't known for being responsible without heavy oversight from the goverened, and voicing dissent is part of that.
I really haven't met anyone who thinks we should just up and leave Iraq, although there are some out there. Most who "criticize the war" are saying they wish people hadn't fabricated reasons to go to war, wish the war hadn't unfolded as it has, wish there had been SOME foresight into the postwar mess--and think the work there is critical and support the troops. That seems to me to be fairly reasonable.
As has been pointed out, saying that you can't support the troops and not the mission means you have to choose between being antitroops (and anti american, and unelectable I might add) and loving every military intervention dreamed up by Bush Co and his propagandists and purveyors of distorted intel.
That is some Bulls--t choice if you ask me. If the troops (or, a troop) are having trouble with war justification issues, maybe they should look places other than at dissenters.
I note with curiosity the repetition of the claim that the war on terror brought us to Iraq. How is that again? Unless we can't get beyond Arab=enemy, there's got to be a better rationale put forward.
Sent: Thu Jun 03 21:10:26 2004
Subject: From a USMC Major near Fallujah
*** –
Some interesting developments out of Falluja and Iraq in general that I
wanted to share with you. Since we have agreed to stay at arms reach with
Falluja, we have been able to focus our efforts on the surrounding towns and
villages. The result is that we have made great inroads in breaking up
insurgent cells through ambushes and raids. Even more important, we have
began to establish an early and still fragile rapport with the people of
these areas. The areas are historical sanctuaries for terrorists so they
are important.
One town in particular that we have been successful in is near Falluja.
During the April fight in Falluja, the muj took the town over and used it as
a base of operations of sorts. From all reports, they were brutal on the
people and very quickly subjugated the town. During one of the ordered
pauses in the Falluja fight, we chopped a rifle company off the line with a
very aggressive battalion commander. Basically he was told that we thought
the muj were running lose in the area and that he should head up there and
"develop the situation." I have gotten to know this guy pretty well here.
He is a very good commander and a tough guy. In fact, I remember telling
him that if he went past a certain point, he would be decisively engaged. We
had estimated that if he got into a decisive engagement, he could be
outnumbered by as much as 5:1. You can imagine what he did. He took his
Marines right to that point.
Sure enough, the fight was on. It was a 360 degree engagement that lasted 8
hours. An 8 hour firefight is an eternity. To put it in perspective, this
guy was in both OIF 1 battle for Baghdad as well as the Falluja fight. He
states that the firefight up near this town was the toughest he has been in.
We fired quite a bit of artillery and brought in a number of sorties of
close air for them. By the time it was over, the estimates (now confirmed)
are that they killed over a 100 muj. We could not understand why they kept
coming but they did (more on that later). Throughout it all, very accurate
mortar fire up to 120mm was falling inside the Marine position. Automatic
weapons and RPGs were crisscrossing through the perimeter. The Marines just
laid their in the micro terrain and squeezed of well aimed shots.
The Battalion Commander stayed that day until his guys broke the muj and he
"owned the field" (his words). He then withdrew back to his original
position. In the same town, we now have Marines living 24/7. They are
conducting joint patrols with the Iraqi Police and the ICDC (Iraqi Civil
Defense Corps). When they first arrived, the people were very standoffish
and even hostile. Now we are getting more and more walk up intelligence
(where the locals literally risk their lives in order to walk into our lines
and tell us where the muj are). The reason for the turnaround is simple. We
have pushed through the bow wave of intimidation and terror that dominated
the town when the muj were there. The Marines did it through aggressive
raiding and downright obstinate refusal to budge regardless of the costs.
The people were watching the entire time and have made up their own minds
where their best future lies. It has gotten to the point where the mujahadeen are
now firing mortars indiscriminately into the town as it is the only
effective means of maintaining any kind of influence over the people.
Yesterday, they grievously wounded two citizens doing just that.
That is not to say that the town is a bed of roses for the Marines as we
still have plenty of contact in the area and it is very dangerous but we are
grinding them down and are about to put a good pounding on the enemy in the
next few days. The people are talking and we are about to pay some more
visits in the middle of the night. I could give you a couple more examples
but it is a good illustration of what kind of work the Marines are doing
every day.
As far as Falluja goes, we have not been allowed to get back in there with
any real numbers yet. Initially, it was confounding. However, a very
interesting dynamic has developed. Since we have stayed out of Falluja and
focused elsewhere, the mujahadeen have had their run of the town. As they
have had no one to fight, they have turned their criminal instincts on the
citizens. The clerics who once were whipping these idiots into a suicidal
frenzy are now having to issue Fatwas (holy decrees) admonishing the muj for
extortion, rape, murder and kidnapping. It is unfortunate for the "innocent
people" of Falluja but the mujahadeen have betrayed themselves as the thugs
that they are by brutalizing the civilians. There are, in fact, reports of
rape, etc from inside the town.
While the muj are thugging away inside the town, we are about 1/2 mile away
paying claims, entering into dialogue and contracting jobs. The citizens
come outside the city for work and money and are treated like human beings.
They go back inside and enter a lawless hell. In short, the muj have done
more to show the people what hypocrites they are in a few short weeks than
we could have hoped for in a year. The result is more and more targetable
intelligence. If we are given the green light, we can really go to town on
these guys (no pun intended). However, as much as we would like to do just
that, the optimal solution is to empower the Iraqis to take care of it
themselves. That is precisely what we are doing.
Equally astounding is evidence that these "holy warriors" are taking drugs
to get high before attacks. It true, as we pushed into the town in April
many Marines came across drug paraphernalia (mostly heroin). Recently, we
have gotten evidence of them using another drug BZ that makes them high and
very aggressive. Cowards and hypocrites. They don't have the nerve to
fight without calming their fear with drugs. Between highs, they are
robbing people and raping young girls. Some jihad.
Unfortunately, Al Qaeda is here and they are some of the most brutal beings
that you can imagine. I say "beings" because they do not qualify as human
beings. They prey upon the "holy warriors" above and are in league with
them teaching them tactics and employing them to execute attacks. Money to
pay for the attacks comes from neighboring states. Al Qaeda, the same
people that espouse creating a Islamic State that is global and living under
the "purist form of God's laws", are working with drug addicts and rapists.
Someone will have to explain that on to me some day.
For now we are gearing up for the inevitable offensive that the former
regime guys, local criminals and Al Qaeda will wage this summer. It will be
brutal as they are on a systematic campaign to murder anyone who is even
half-way moderate. If any leader gains traction that is not 100%
anti-coalition and pro-anarchy, is at immediate risk. Yesterday's positive
world media coverage of the naming of the interim government will probably
accelerate the mayhem somewhat. It is a fight that is inevitable. So long
as we can keep the Iraqi people's nerve up and keep as many leaders alive as
possible, we will crush the enemy when he surfaces. We are hopeful to take
a little wind out of their sails with some preemptive work over the next
few days.
Meant as humor but sad as it is cloe to the truth!
Two US Marines are listening to the radio in Iraq.
"American soldiers," coos a soft female voice, "Your so-called national leaders have lied to you. You are needlessly risking your lives to wage a useless, unjust, illegal, and un-winnable war. Now is the time to return home to your loved ones, while you are still alive. If you foolishly insist on remaining where you are not wanted, the brave resistance fighters will have no choice but to kill you and add your name to the long ever-increasing casualty list of this insane war.
So why risk never seeing your loved ones again for a so-called president who has repeatedly lied and deceived you at every opportunity? Why should you be sacrificed so that US corporations can enjoy fatter profits? The only wise thing to do is return home now, while you are still drawing breath, before you return zippered into a body bag."
"What's this?" sneers one Marine. "An Islamo-terrorist version of Tokyo Rose?"
"No," answers the other. "It's just a CNN commentator."
Sorry, Gene, your anecdotes will not change the following facts:
1) There are too many lawyers in this country. Check out the per capita lawyer population here vs. elsewhere in the world. This creates a phenominon called supply-induced demand.
2) The excess lawyer capacity creates a population of parasites on those that do REAL work. They in turn increase the cost of doing business, which causes more and more work to be outsourced. For example, ask Jackie Chan why he flimed his martial arts movies in places like Canada. Ask the medical profession why many new techniques must be tested outside this country. Ask the AMA why fewer and fewer people are becoming obstetricians, thus creating dire needs in certain places in the country. Ask them why ERs are shutting down in some places, and several states are in a crisis situation with malpractice insurance. Ask makers of medical products why they need to charge an order of magnitude more for a product used by humans vs. that used by animals. Ask doctors why they must do so many uneccesary test (called defensive medicine). I could go on, and on, and on....
3) The incentives for lawyers in this country are perverse. I like the British idea of losing party in a lawsuit pays all the legal fees.
4) Few lawyers will sue another for malpractice. Imagine that!
WE NEED TORT REFORM!
BTW, good points about recent coverage. Right now the news is getting interesting and positive for the U.S., although there was a key piece of news not covered concerning a major Islamic organization endorsing the Iraqi interim government. That just couldn't make it to the mainstream news, because there were so many more important stories to cover giving a small number of terrorists all the publicity they could ever hope for.
My own points about terrorist attacks in the middle east was to justify finding alternatives to OPEC oil. It's both economic pragmatism and economic warfare. If you're going to fight a war, consider doing it on all fronts, and don't put yourself in a vulnerable position by needing materials produced by those who wish us not to be around. Enough said...
Be they too many lawyers or too few, what's wrong with that? What do you have against folks chasing their chosen profession, especially one that takes several years to educate for? Maybe Jackie Chan produces his movies in Canada 'cause costs are less - but don't blame it solely on the lawyers. Same with pharmaceuticals sold in other nations and comparable drugs made for humans vs. those made for pets. You ought to know that's too simple a reason. Maybe we should also ask why many new drugs, at one time, were tested outside this country, to take advantage of, in many cases, less restrictive regulatory environments leading to somewhat dangerous drugs that never would have gotten through US regulators.
How many Thalidomide babies were born before someone actually noticed the cause and effect? How many patients taking Clozaril died of agranulocytosis before we began to require weekly blood tests, not just recommend them? How many people died of sudden cardiac failure due to Propulsid or neuroleptic treatment before those in the know more closley monitored their patients? How many patients suffered mylagia or rhabdomyolysis on statins before we required periodic monitoring? How many people continue to suffer unnecessary hospitalizations or permanent injury or death due to drug interactions or medical errors because no one is paying attention? I could go on, and on, and on....
As to physicians, well, I have a theory. Maybe, for all their education and training, many doctors never kept up with their studies after their formal education and training was completed and adopted a more cavalier attitude regarding medical procedures and prescribing that would (or should) be unacceptable today. And we're not talking about mamby-pamby stuff. It took lawsuits for patients to enjoy the right of informed consent. It took lawsuits for patients - even the mentally ill - to enjoy the right to refuse drugs or therapy they simply do not want, for whatever reason they cite. It took lawsuits for patients to enjoy the right to redress for damages for negligence. It took lawsuits for patients to enforce privacy restrictions on their medical records. It took lawsuits for women who elect to take hormones to enjoy the right to printed, plain language information as to the dangers of their drug treatments.
Surely, Bill, you of all people agree with the right to informed consent, the right to refuse treatment and the right to medical privacy? Any physician who doesn't, in my opinion, deserves to get sued and probably ought to find another line of work. That's just me.
Defensive medicine? Find me a doctor who practices defensive medicine and I'll show you a doctor who doesn't understand the concepts of "standard of care" and "due dilligence", among other things.
And since in Massachusetts, 60 - 70% of all medical malpractice cases get kicked by the tribunal before they even get to the courtroom stage, only ones judged to have merit get through. Maybe if only 30 - 40% of al lmedical malpractice cases get to trial, and only a certain (unknown by me) percentage are found in favor the plaintiff or are settled, maybe we should ask why doctors screw up so royally that a small number of claims are driving the cost of insurance so damn high.
Maybe doctors ought to stop blaming lawyers when they screw up and find out why they're causing the crisis in the first place. That's my opinion.
The British system? In other words, you only want the rich to be able to sue to rightfully recover damages?
"Delegates back Iraqi goverment", by Sam F. Ghattas can be found on page A25 of the Tuesday, June 15, 2004 edition of The Boston Globe (in an entire section of the paper titled "Rebuilding Iraq"). This is an article regarding a key piece of news concerning a major Islamic organization endorsing the Iraqi interim government.
As to physicians, well, I have a theory. Maybe, for all their education and training, many doctors never kept up with their studies after their formal education and training was completed and adopted a more cavalier attitude regarding medical procedures and prescribing that would (or should) be unacceptable today.
Never seen that before I am lucky enough to work in a place that is progressive. Sadly though there are many paces with the type of Docs you described.
Is every physician's office equiped with a computerized medical record system? Is every prescription written by a doctor generated via computer, either hard copy or e-prescribed, and checked against a patient's known medical profile to check for dosing errors, drug interactions or contraindications? Does every aforementioned computerized prescription come with order's for the necessary lab tests, lest the prescriber forget? Does every aforementioned computerized prescription come complete with a reminder to the prescriber to talk about these side effects and those things that require the patient to immediately inform the physician about?
The excuses as to the reasons for a "no" answer on any of these are beginning to wear extremely thin.
I applaud those hospitals and private practices that don't let the past slow them down. Maybe they ought get a discount on their med-mal insurance, eh?
I never saw it either, Ben. Perhaps Gene is unaware of continuing education requirements that MDs, NPs, PAs have to keep their licenses.
I'll never convince you, Gene. But if you really want to look into the way things should be, study up on six sigma. There's a fairly entertaining and easy-to-read book by Chowdhury on the subject.
If you want quality, you need free flow of information about defects. The problem with that in the medical profession is that such information ends up being manna from heaven for ambulance-chasing lawyers (literally in this case) who smell money. So...defects are hidden. So we get no proper response to defects. And so at the end of the day, this great profession that "protects" the disenfranchised ends up being a root cause of quality issues in medicine rather than the reason why things are better, as you'd like to think. Of course we could always fix things like this with some tort reform, but then there are too many lawyers in politics protecting the gravy train.
BTW, don't complain about your health insurance bill next time you get it, Even if you take away the profit margin of insurance companies, the amount we have to pay for medical care in this country is obscene. And it isn't the high fees you pay physicians. In fact too many bright young minds are avoiding the medical profession these days because they can make more money and be hassled less by sueing doctors.
By the way, you might like to know that I recently refused a job in PA because the malpractice situation has gotten so bad there that many medical professionals are fleeing the state and some are going without protection. Same is true down here with neighboring West Virginia. It's that bad. Tort reform might solve some of the problems in PA, but a certain prominent politician's son runs the largest malpractice (ambulance chasing) legal team in the state. Now some might call this politician's shennanigans a conflict of interest, but what do I know? I don't sue doctors for a living; I do real work.
I recently volunteered an entire work day last week serving on a panel at the National Committee on Quality Assurance (for medicine) last week. Free time! And I didn't see any lawyers around the table. They know better; why $crew up a good thing?
I am lucky enough to work in a place that is progressive. Sadly though there are many paces with the type of Docs you described.