SUBSCRIPTION DRIVE - SLUGGISH AGAIN

HELP! 

Our subscription drives usually go well, with some slow spots.  This one got off to an awful start, but rallied on Thursday, only to fall sluggish again yesterday.  Most of the subscriptions and donations we're receiving are still from loyal readers who have ALREADY subscribed.  Their devotion is deeply appreciated, but we need NEW subscribers.  If we don't double our subscription base, we'll be in trouble, and service will have to be cut back.

It is costly to run an all-day website.  Subscriptions make it possible. 

We want to keep Urgent Agenda as a daily, high-quality site.  Our readership has grown every month since May, but it's the subscriptions that must also grow.

So, if you intended to subscribe, please do so today.  If you're on the fence, give it a shot.  The weekly cost of a subscription is less than a candy bar.   Pro-rated money-back guarantee.  You can't go wrong.

By subscribing or donating, you keep Urgent Agenda alive, and you get our twice-weekly e-mailed publication, The Angel's Corner, where you can participate in our great forum, and learn of our latest Pompous Fool Award.

Please subscribe or donate in the right-hand column.  You're not really getting Urgent Agenda unless you do.  A credit card works.  Or, we can send you a mail address.

SATURDAY,  NOVEMBER 7,  2009

A REAL PRESIDENT - AT 11:33 P.M. ET: Andrew Malcolm of the L.A. Times's Top of the Ticket blog reports on the actions of a real president:

Last night former President George W. Bush and his wife Laura made a secret visit to the devastated military families at Fort Hood.

The Bushes instructed the commander of the mourning military base that they wanted no publicity. With their Secret Service detail, Bush and his wife made the 30 mile trip unannounced from their ranch near Crawford, Texas Friday evening.

Fox News broke news of the visit this afternoon. Other sources said the former first couple spent about two hours meeting with family and soldiers, talking quietly and at times hugging them as they did in private at other times of crisis such as post-9/11.

COMMENT:  When President Obama went to Dover Air Force Base, Delaware, earlier this week to be present for the return of war dead, he took his photographer with him.

There is a difference.  And it goes beyond style.

November 7, 2009   Permalink

HEALTH CARE UPDATE - AT 11:25 P.M. ET:  The final vote for the health-care bill in the House:  220 for, 215 against.  By any moral standard, a bill dealing with the life and death of virtually all our citizens should have had broad bipartisan support.  This bill did not.  A number of Democrats even voted against it.  It was strictly a liberal bill, with "moderate" Dems pressured to vote for it by a threatening leadership.  Not a happy day in the House of Representatives.

November 7, 2009   Permalink

HEALTH CARE VOTE - AT 11:06 P.M. ET:  Voting is underway in the House on the obscene health-care bill.  I think the debate lasted, oh, a day.  That's enough to change the entire health-care system, isn't it?  That's enough to take over a sixth of the American economy, isn't it?  Sure.  That's change we can believe in.

BULLETIN:  The House just passed the bill.  Only a single Republican voted in favor.  The Dems needed 218.  At this moment they have 219, the opposition has 215.

Lots of applause by the liberals in the House.

The Senate must act, of course.  This isn't law yet, thank goodness.

November 7, 2009   Permalink

THE STRATEGIST DECIDES - AT 7:32 P.M. ET:  This McClatchy newspapers report cannot be independently verified, but it generally conforms to other reports we've gotten in recent weeks:

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama is nearing a decision to send more than 30,000 additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan next year, but he may not announce it until after he consults with key allies and completes a trip to Asia later this month, administration and military officials have told McClatchy.

Examine the number.  Is there something wrong there?

The plan would fall well short of the 80,000 troops that Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. military commander in Afghanistan, suggested as a "low-risk option" that would offer the best chance to contain the Taliban-led insurgency and stabilize Afghanistan.

It splits the difference between two other McChrystal options: a "high-risk" one that called for 20,000 additional troops and a "medium-risk" one that would add 40,000 to 45,000 troops.

Eisenhower once said that if you need a regiment, send a division, which is a much larger force.  General of the Army and bathtub fleet commander Barack Obama apparently says, "Hey, let's split the difference and grab an ice cream."

That doesn't mean a smaller force is automatically wrong.  I claim no expertise on Afghanistan.  But a full policy is required, based on goals and supplying the means to achieve them.  This piecemeal decision-making destroys morale and generally gets a nation nowhere. 

If the story is correct, then the president isn't pursuing a winning strategy, but a hold and get out strategy.  This cannot inspire others to fight with us, or even support us.

And Afghanistan, according to the long-ago Obama, is the necessary war.  Necessary no longer, apparently.

November 7, 2009   Permalink

 
TEACHING YOUR CHILDREN AT A SCHOOL NEAR YOU - AT 5:45 A.M. ET:  It's hard to believe they're this blatant about it, but the National Education Association, one of the nation's most powerful teachers' unions, has some recommended reading on its website.  Please go here.

You will find a recommendation for Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals," and "Reveille for Radicals."  I suspect it's there because it influenced Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

The NEA says that Alinsky is "an inspiration to anyone contemplating action in their community! And to every organizer!"  Of course, that only applies to left-wing organizing.  If you want to organize a rally to support American soldiers, or to lower taxes, Alinsky has no help for you.

These are teachers.  And some of these teachers may well be teaching your children.  One of the great scandals of education reporting by the media is the failure to explore exactly what's being taught.  I certainly am not claiming that Alinsky is taught in all, or even most schools.  But many schools are using books and lesson plans that teach, as fact, things that are propagandistic, inaccurate and sometimes even hateful.

And if you dare ask any questions you're a "McCarthyite" or a threat to "academic freedom."  Parents are intimidated.

November 7, 2009   Permalink

SARAH NAILS IT - AT 5:33 P.M. ET:  As readers know, I've been occasionally skeptical about Sarah Palin, believing she must prepare better on the issues.  But today she articulated an objection to Obamacare that states a life-and-death issue in an excellent, understandable way: 

WEST ALLIS, Wisc. – Sarah Palin rallied thousands of abortion opponents Friday night with a a stark warning that the same philosophy that allows abortion rights could soon be invoked to allow the government to cut off health care for the elderly or children with special needs.

Speaking to a fund-raising banquet of Wisconsin Right to Life, the former Alaska governor and 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee asserted that if policy-makers don’t believe a child in the womb is valuable, then “perhaps the same mind-set applies to other persons.”

“What may they feel about an elderly person who doesn’t have a whole lot of productive years left,” Palin asked an audience of about 5,000 who paid $30 each to hear her speak in an airplane hangar-like exhibition hall at the Wisconsin state fairgrounds just outside of Milwaukee. “In order to save government money, government health care has to be rationed… [so] than this elderly person that perhaps could be seen as costing taxpayers to pay for a non-productive life? Do you think our elderly will be first in line for limited health care?

“And what about the child who perhaps isn’t deemed normal or perfect per someone’s subjective measure of their use or questionable purpose in the eyes of a panel of bureaucrats making our healthcare decisions for us,” she continued.

COMMENT:  Good for Sarah.  In fact, many of her recent statements, often made on Facebook, have been excellent, well written and thought out. 

She will, of course, be ridiculed as dumb.  Remember that they said that about Reagan ("an amiable dunce"), Eisenhower (a "simpleton"), FDR ("a first rate temperament and a second-rate intellect"), and Abraham Lincoln ("a baboon").

Sarah watchers, stand by.

November 7, 2009   Permalink

OUR IRAN POLICY - ABSOLUTELY UNBELIEVABLE - AT 11:40 A.M. ET:  Ed Lasky, at American Thinker, reveals the background of Obama's newest diplomatic appointee.  This will make you feel oh so secure:

John Limbert will be the senior Iran official at the State Department, replacing Dennis Ross who has moved to the National Security Council (and who has not been heard of publicly since). Should America be concerned? Yes. Limbert is not a neutral arbiter; he serves on the advisory board of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), widely considered to be the de facto lobby for the Iranian regime in America.

What is the National Iranian American Council?

The Council serves as the blocking back for the Iranian regime in America, opposes sanctions on Iran, soft-pedals any controversial events in Iran, and counsels "patience" regarding Iran's stance towards its nuclear program; the NIAC has been at the forefront of lobbying against continued Congressional funding of the Voice of America Persia service; Radio Farad; and grants for Iranian civil society; the NIAC adamantly opposes any military attacks on Iran; and to top it off, the NIAC has reportedly received funding from anti-Israel advocate George Soros who, at the very least, was an honored guest and speaker at one its symposiums (he called for a more equitable Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and called for America to renounce regime change as a goal).

The NIAC adamantly opposes any military attacks on Iran. In other words, it all but serves as Iran's Embassy in Washington-though the NIAC vociferously dispute this characterization. However, there is very little sunlight between the views of the regime and the NIAC.

COMMENT:  This kind of thing is getting almost routine in the Obama administration, but I'm surprised that Hillary Clinton allowed it - unless she didn't have much choice. 

We're getting the distinct feeling that Obama will do nothing significant to toughen our Iran policy, and that the next president will be dealing with a nuclear-armed Iran that will buy off Americans the way Saudi Arabia has done for years.  Welcome to a peaceful world.

November 7, 2009   Permalink  

SOME FURTHER PEACEFUL ENCOURAGEMENT FROM IRAN - AT 11:18 A.M. ET:    The Obama administration's "engagement" with Iran is producing no results.  Is anyone surprised? 

Senior Iranian lawmakers rejected on Saturday any possibility of Teheran shipping uranium abroad for further enrichment, intensifying pressures on the government to reject the UN-backed plan altogether.

Prominent conservative lawmaker Alaeddin Boroujerdi said Iran will not ship its low enriched uranium abroad in a single batch or in several shipments, a compromise suggested by some government officials, under any circumstances.

"Nothing will be given of the 1,200 kilograms (of low enriched uranium) ... to the other side in exchange for 20 percent enriched fuel, not in one batch nor in several. It is out of question," the semiofficial ISNA news agency quoted Boroujerdi as saying Saturday.

COMMENT:  The American media regularly takes its eye off this story, but there's nothing more important.  Iran is moving toward an atomic bomb.  We now know that it has developed technology to mate that bomb with a missile.  We know it hides critical parts of its scientific programs.  And yet the president this week was still talking about breaking down mistrust between the United States and Iran.  Maybe he still thinks it's all our fault. 

November 7, 2009   Permalink

MORE MUSH FROM THE PRESIDENT - AT 10:53 A.M. ET:  The commander in chief spoke about Fort Hood again this morning, and we got more mush: 

He praised those who serve or have served in uniform and reminded the public of their diversity -- a move designed to calm tensions around the suspected shooter, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan.

What's a liberal speech without the word "diversity"?

''We cannot fully know what leads a man to do such a thing,'' Obama said.

Oh come on.  Of course we can fully know...if we want to.  But if the government is run by political correctness, and to this White House that's more important than the Constitution, we'll avoid the truth.

Obama's aides were working to make way for Obama to attend a still unscheduled memorial service. The White House's top spokesman said Obama would attend that service and emphasized it would take place at the families' convenience and that it will not be dictated by the president's schedule.

That's nice.  If Bush were in office, he'd be criticized for not flying to Fort Hood immediately.

November 7, 2009   Permalink

I DONT WANT TO SEEM PEDANTIC, BUT... - AT 10:17 A.M. ET:   There are some journalistic practices that drive me up a wall.  This is one of them.  You see it all the time.  From AP:

NEW YORK — The Navy is commissioning its newest battleship with a bow forged from steel that once held up the World Trade Center.

The USS New York is to be placed in active military service during a ceremony on a Manhattan pier Saturday morning. Naval officials say the steel from the trade center attacked on 9/11 symbolizes that the United States will always persevere.

COMMENT;  Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.  The United States has not commissioned a new battleship since the USS Missouri was commissioned on June 11, 1944.  We don't build battleships anymore.  A battleship is a type of warship.  But a remarkable number of journalists refer to any warship as a battleship. There are directories. 

The USS New York is an LPD (Landing Platform Dock), an amphibious assault ship.

I await a news story informing us that the ship is owned by Carnival Lines.

November 7,  2009   Permalink

FRIDAY,  NOVEMBER 6,  2009

OBAMA ON TERRORIST ACTS - AT 10:18 P.M. ET:  The Weekly Standard performs a major service by reprinting Barack Obama's bizarre comments after the 9-11 attacks, reminding us of why the president seems to have such trouble articulating why the murders at Fort Hood took place:

We must also engage, however, in the more difficult task of understanding the sources of such madness. The essence of this tragedy, it seems to me, derives from a fundamental absence of empathy on the part of the attackers: an inability to imagine, or connect with, the humanity and suffering of others. Such a failure of empathy, such numbness to the pain of a child or the desperation of a parent, is not innate; nor, history tells us, is it unique to a particular culture, religion, or ethnicity. It may find expression in a particular brand of violence, and may be channeled by particular demagogues or fanatics. Most often, though, it grows out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair.

COMMENT:  Right out of the left-wing handbook. 

Now, was the Fort Hood shooter in poverty?  No.  Was he ignorant?  No.  Was he helpless?  No.  Was he in despair?  Only if he believed the sick ideology that was being taught to him by religious fanatics.

Barack Obama is now in charge of our national security.   He will determine our policy in Afghanistan.  He will determine how we confront an Iran apparently hell-bent on developing nuclear weapons. 

He thinks like a college kid under the thumb of leftist professors.  But the mainstream media remains mellow and not the least bit alarmed.

November 6, 2009   Permalink
 

HEALTH CARE VOTE SCHEDULED FOR TOMORROW, SO COUGH NOW AND HOPE YOU CAN GET THE MEDICINE - AT 8:16 P.M. ET:  Queen of hearts and lungs, Nancy Pelosi, dreams of a House vote on her mammoth health-care plan tomorrow.  It may or may not happen.  The Dem votes may not be there.  Arms are being twisted, and twisted arms aren't covered by the new plan.  The New York Times reports:

WASHINGTON — The House majority leader, Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, said on Friday that he expected the House to pass sweeping health care legislation on Saturday evening. But he acknowledged that Democrats were still trying to corral the necessary 218 votes, and that what he called Republican delaying tactics could push the vote back to Sunday or early next week.

All hail the delaying tactics.

House Democratic leaders are still trying to draft an amendment to the bill that would tighten restrictions on some uses of federal money, as demanded by Democrats who are opposed to abortion.

At the same time, the leaders are trying to satisfy the large number of House Democrats who support abortion rights.

Try reconciling those two views. 

Republicans cited the Labor Department’s report on Friday that the unemployment picture continued to worsen in October as evidence that this is the wrong time to pass the health care legislation.

“There is no higher priority than putting Americans back to work,” said Representative Mike Pence of Indiana, the No. 3 Republican in the House. “I have never seen greater evidence that Washington is out of touch with the American people. Democrats continue in a headlong rush to a government takeover of health care in the face of rising unemployment.”

COMMENT:  A lot of drama in Congress this weekend.  It may be the best show on the air.  The American health-care system and a sixth of our economy hang in the balance.

Oh, by the way, do you know of a news organization that's provided a detailed account of what's in this bill?  If you hear of one, please let me know.  If you know what's in the bill, tell me that, too.

November 6, 2009   Permalink

FORT HOOD UPDATE - AT 7:28 P.M. ET:  Steve Hayes of the Weekly Standard said on Fox News tonight that an FBI agent told him that terrorism wasn't even being discussed as a possible issue in the Fort Hood massacre.  Hayes said that, if that report is true, the FBI director should be fired, and I agree.  It's always possible, though, that Hayes was just given the public line to avoid inflaming international politics.

The president said today that we shouldn't jump to conclusions as to motive.  Well, I guess that's right - if you're 12.  If you're above 12, you have every right to draw some conclusions, including the spread of a poisonous ideology among some Muslims.  It isn't "ant-Muslim" to say that, nor does it cast blame on any other Muslims.  It isn't anti-Christian to denounce the twisted ideology of the Ku Klux Klan, even though that organization uses (or misuses) Christian symbols.  When a Jewish extremist from an orthodox sect massacred Muslim worshippers in Hebron, he was denounced across the political spectrum - and no one thought that the denunciations insulted his religion, which he had hijacked.

There have been some attempts in the press today to suggest that the shooting was caused by stress, or even by an "overstretched" Army.  Why a military psychiatrist would gun down 12 people because of an overstretched Army is beyond me, but the usual suspects are making the link.  It is part of the inability of some, or their refusal, to bluntly confront the matter of ideology. 

The left wing always attributes these brutal acts to some form of deprivation.  It's part of the party line.  You know, poverty, ignorance and disease.  The big three, like snap, crackle, and pop.  But it's ideology that we must look at, even if the president of the United States refuses to discuss it, or if some of our "intelligence" agencies refuse to acknowledge it, or if our universities refuse to teach it.

November 6, 2009   Permalink

PETRAEUS - AT 7:10 P.M. ET:  Went to to a Hudson Institute briefing today by General David Petraeus, commander of Central Command.  It was off the record so I can't report anything said - although, frankly, there was nothing much that couldn't be reported publicly  These things are often off the record to protect the speaker in case anything slips,.

Petraeus, in person, is a smaller man than I'd thought.  But, in person, he's also more impressive than he seems on television.  He spoke for about half an hour without notes, using a Powerpoint presentation, was thoroughly knowledgeable and articulate.  In addition to being a West Point graduate, he holds a Ph.D. from Princeton. 

There were some hints around the room about a possible political future for the general, but of course he didn't respond to any of that talk.

Unfortunately, I can't say anything more, but I had the distinct feeling that Central Command is in very good and skillful hands.

November 6, 2009   Permalink

THE GRAVE IRANIAN THREAT - AT 9:10 A.M. ET:  Ironically, it's Britain's flagship leftist paper, the Guardian, that has a remarkable report that brings home once again the danger that Iran poses to the world.  Maybe, if the president can take time out from his political appearances, he might consider dealing with this seriously: 

The UN's nuclear watchdog has asked Iran to explain evidence suggesting that Iranian scientists have experimented with an advanced nuclear warhead design, the Guardian has learned.

The very existence of the technology, known as a "two-point implosion" device, is officially secret in both the US and Britain, but according to previously unpublished documentation in a dossier compiled by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Iranian scientists may have tested high-explosive components of the design. The development was today described by nuclear experts as "breathtaking" and has added urgency to the effort to find a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear crisis.

The sophisticated technology, once mastered, allows for the production of smaller and simpler warheads than older models. It reduces the diameter of a warhead and makes it easier to put a nuclear warhead on a missile.

Documentation referring to experiments testing a two-point detonation design are part of the evidence of nuclear weaponisation gathered by the IAEA and presented to Iran for its response.

COMMENT:  The problem here is that we cannot trust the UN to do anything serious about Iran, or even to conduct an honest investigation. 

The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mohamed El Baradei, actually said yesterday, with a straight face, that UN inspectors found nothing suspicious at a previously unknown nuclear facility in Iran.

So let's get this straight:  1) Iran had kept the facility secret.  2) Once it was detected by surveillance, it invited UN inspectors to inspect, as if it had not tried to hide anything.  3)  However, the "inspection" took place weeks after the facility was revealed, giving the Iranians plenty of time to hide what had to be hidden.  4) The facility is located near the holy city of Qum, making a military attack highly problematical from a don't-inflame-the-Muslims perspective.

Are you sleeping better these days, knowing El Baradei is on the case?

November 6, 2009   Permalink

WELCOME TO THE RECOVERY - AT 8:58 A.M. ET:  We now have unemployment above ten percent.  Isn't the Obama recovery wonderful?  What a little stimulus can do!  From The New York Times:

The United States economy shed 190,000 jobs in October, and the unemployment rate reached a 26-year high of 10.2 percent, up from 9.8 percent in September, the Department of Labor said Friday in its monthly economic appraisal.

While the pace of the job losses has slowed significantly since the peak of the recession last winter, the unemployment rate, which measures the number of people actively seeking work, continues to climb, and economists do not foresee relief until well into next year.

“There’s no doubt that the slashing and burning of jobs has abated quite a lot,” said Allen L. Sinai, the founder of Decision Economics, a research firm. “The economy is recovering, but it is a very soft recovery.”

COMMENT:  And Congress is determined to make the recovery even softer by spending another trillion or so on an ill-conceived health "reform" plan, due to be voted on in the House on Saturday.

But remember the eternal truth.  This is BUSH'S (!!) fault.  And today's chilly weather in New York is his fault too.

November 6, 2009   Permalink

ANOTHER OUTRAGE - AT 8:40 A.M. ET:  There are things that are difficult to believe, but are true.  Catch this one, from AP:

WASHINGTON – Senate Democrats have blocked a GOP attempt to require next year's census forms to ask people whether they are a U.S. citizen.

The proposal by Louisiana Republican Sen. David Vitter was aimed at excluding immigrants from the population totals that are used to figure the number of congressional representatives for each state. Critics said Vitter's plan would discourage immigrants from responding to the census and would be hugely expensive. They also said that it's long been settled law that the apportionment of congressional seats is determined by the number of people living in each state, regardless of whether they are citizens. A separate survey already collects the data. 

COMMENT:  I am not an expert on congressional apportionment law, but it seems entirely reasonable for the US Census, which is enshrined in the Constitution, to determine how many citizens live in our country.  I am not impressed by the argument that there's a separate survey on that.  Yeah, right, and remember that ACORN has been hired by the government to conduct some surveys.

As to the argument that a question on citizenship would "discourage" immigrants from responding to the census, that is code language.  What the critics really mean is "illegal immigrants," or, as they say, "undocumented workers."

By the way, I'm sympathetic to the reasons why some people choose to cross the Mexican border illegally.  As someone who believes in the Judeo-Christian ethic, I have to be concerned about them as human beings, especially mothers who have to support their children.  However, no one has a right to break the law, especially as we ask other immigrants, many from Latin America, to abide by our immigration statutes.  We can handle the issue of illegal immigration in a manner that upholds our laws, honors those immigrants who follow them, and yet shows compassion for the individual.  We can do all those things, but the hard-left operators are making it impossible.

November 6, 2009   Permalink 

BIZARRE - AT 8:21 A.M. ET:  The president is commander-in-chief of the armed forces.  A number of readers have e-mailed us commenting on Obama's weird performance yesterday in the face of the Fort Hood massacre.  Oh yes, he said all the right words - but only after a few minutes of political talk that struck exactly the wrong note.  Networks cut away for the president's statement, only to be confronted with this bit of strange stuff.  Reader Jean Spik refers us to a short piece in American Thinker that describes the episode:

Twelve soldiers were murdered in cold blood at Fort Hood, Texas. Thirty others were wounded. Our Commander in Chief calls a press conference and begins it with a long thanks to the Department of the Interior and Native Americans who just concluded a conference and then gives a good natured "shout out" to an attendee, all with a studied nonchalance, before he even mentions the outrage on our military base.

Linda Chavez calls it, "Obama's pet goat moment."

That is exactly right.  The piece provides video of the president's incredible performance.

Study it and pass it on because the media is already cutting the tape to make the man look presidential instead of clueless and immature.

Correct again.  The clip you may see on TV makes it look like Obama led his remarks with the Fort Hood tragedy.  The fact that he didn't is a news story itself, and a comment on this president's priorities.  But the mainstream media saved him again.

Disgraceful.  Absolutely disgraceful.  But we're sure the president understands the "root cause" of the killer's "cultural anger."

November 6, 2009   Permalink

THE FORT HOOD KILLER - AT 8:07 A.M. ET:  According to Britain's Daily Mail, the Fort Hood shooter was facing an FBI probe over his political views.  This link, by the way, contains surveillance camera photos of the killer, in full white Muslim dress, apparently taken a few hours before his deadly rampage:

The army psychiatrist who shot dead 13 people in a murderous rampage at America's biggest military base was facing an FBI investigation for expressing sympathy with suicide bombers.

Major Nidal Malik Hasan, 39, had allegedly posted a series of comments on a website which drew parallels between terrorists and a US soldier who sacrificed himself to save his comrades.

Investigators were tipped off six months ago by the devout Muslim's worried colleagues.

His behaviour was particularly alarming as he was responsible for the psychological well-being of many vulnerable soldiers returning from Afghanistan and Iraq.

And...

'If one suicide bomber can kill 100 enemy soldiers because they were caught off guard that would be considered a strategic victory,' he is said to have written.

'Their intention is not to die because of some despair. Their act was not one of suicide that is despised by Islam.'

COMMENT:  There were plenty of warning signs about this guy, including a poor evaluation in his previous military/medical assignment.  Why was this man permitted to remain a commissioned officer?  Why was he permitted to treat American soldiers returning from combat? 

November 6,  2009   Permalink