Today the Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs held an oversight hearing on sexual assault in the military. The head of the sexual assault prevention office was subpoenaed, yet forbidden from attending by her superior at the Pentagon. Smells of a cover up.
The Pentagon’s No. 2 personnel and readiness official was admonished and dismissed from a House subcommittee hearing on sexual assault in the military Thursday after admitting that he had directed a key subordinate not to appear.
‘Mr. Dominguez, I notice that Dr. Kaye Whitley is not in her chair,’ said Rep. John Tierney, D-Mass., and chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee’s national security and foreign affairs panel. ‘Is it under your direction that she has not shown for testimony this morning?’
‘Ah, yes sir,’ replied Michael Dominguez, principal deputy under secretary of defense for personnel and readiness.
‘Mr. Dominguez, this is an oversight hearing,’ Tierney said. ‘It’s an oversight hearing on sexual assault in the military. As such, we thought it was proper to hear from the director of the Defense Department’s Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office. … Inexplicably, the Defense Department — and you, apparently — have resisted.’
Tierney said Whitley would be subpoenaed and that Dominguez’s decision showed disrespect to the two women who had testified moments earleir — one a rape victim, one a rape/murder victim’s mother — as well as other victims and the subcommittee itself.
When Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., the full committee chairman, asked for an explanation, Dominguez said that the decision was made ‘in consultation with the department’s leadership’ — the assistant secretary of defense for legislative affairs and the Defense Department general counsel.
Whitley ‘is available to the Congress … unfettered, unmuzzled by us,’ and had previously appeared, Dominguez said.
But he added that ‘in this hearing format, we wanted to ensure and make the point’ that he and his boss, Pentagon personnel chief David S.C. Chu, ‘are the senior policy officials, accountable to Secretary [Robert] Gates and to the Congress for the department’s sexual assault and prevention policies and programs.’
‘That’s a ridiculous answer,’ Waxman replied. ‘What is it you’re trying to hide? She’s the one in charge of dealing with this problem. We wanted to hear from her.’
Waxman said the Pentagon ‘has a history of trying to cover up sexual offense problems … I don’t know what you’re trying to cover up here, but we’re not going to allow it. I don’t know who you think elected you to defy the Congress of the United States. This is an unacceptable, absolutely unacceptable position for the department to take.’ (AirForce Times)
Some numbers:
41 percent of female veterans seen by military doctors say they were victims of sexual assault while in the military and 29 percent reported being raped during their military service, said Rep. Jane Harman (D-Cali.). According to Department of Defense reports, in 2006 2,947 sexual assaults were reported, 73 percent more than in 2004. Since the creation of the SAPRO, the DoD has initiated training and improved reporting of rapes and sexual assaults but has inexplicably failed to track prosecution rates or how victims are faring within the military service, Harman said.
‘Women serving in the U.S. military are more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire in Iraq,’ Harman said. (TalkRadio News)
While the military has come a long way since the days of the Tailhook scandal 15 years ago — which is credited with creating a safer environment for female service members — Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., said there remains an ‘epidemic of assault and rape against women in our military.’ (ABC News)
As we are reminded by the tragic LaVena Johnson case that has resurfaced in the news, military servicemen and private contractors in Iraq are rarely brought to justice for their sexual assault of women. Take a moment and sign the ColorofChange petition which calls for an investigation and full disclosure of the events surrounding LaVena Johnson’s death.
UPDATE: Watch the video of part of the hearing at ThinkProgress. Waxman’s on a rampage! Let’s hope he keeps it up.
California’s Pacific Gas and Electric company donated $250,000 to defeat Proposition 8, a ballot measure which seeks to eliminate the right of gay couples to get married. PG&E serves more than 15 million Californians.
In a news conference held Tuesday, PG&E Senior Vice President of Public Affairs Nancy McFadden also announced the corporation would become a founding member of the Equality for All Business Council in support of the No On Prop 8 campaign and called on other businesses to follow their lead in supporting fairness, freedom, and equality for all Californians.
Here’s to corporations not being afraid to speak out against hate, despite the threats of boycotts and protests from anti-marriage equality groups.
In a policy statement today, the White House said that if the Equal Pay Act is submitted to the President, his senior advisers are recommending that he veto it.
In the statement, the administration claims to support anti-discrimination laws and equal pay for equal work. They claim that this bill would “invite a surge of litigation.”
How dare women think that they have the right to sue when faced with wage discrimination? Especially if it takes them more than a few months to realize it’s happening. Like we can go around asking our male colleagues how much they’re making during our first few months on the job.
Ever heard of Lilly Ledbetter? Bush and Co. refuse justice for women in her situation, placing the blame on them rather than the employers. Pssst…if we were being paid fairly in the first place, you wouldn’t have to worry about this “surge of litigation.” Don’t put this on us.
Media Matters conducted a study (PDF here) analyzing guests on four programs on each of three prime-time cable news stations. While the findings about the lack of women and people of color overall may not surprise you, you may be surprised to know which programs are on the winning and losing ends of the spectrum.
If you had to guess what percent of the US population is comprised of white males, what would you say? They’re the vast majority in Congress (86% white, 84% male) and 100% of our Presidents. So…white men must be more than half, maybe even three-fourths of the country’s population, right?
Surprise! White men make up 32% of the population of this country. Think about that for a second. Therefore, if Congress or the office of the Presidency represented the people of this country, white men would be represented as less than one-third. Yet every prime-time news host is white, and all but two are men.
This complete lack of representation of diversity on television reinforces the notion that white men’s voices are the ones we should be listening to. They are who we should turn to when we need answers. They are the ones in power. Though no one is going on television saying that women’s and people of colors’ voices are less valid, the message is being sent loudly and clearly by our absence.
Is it any wonder why some people are having a difficult time imagining Barack Obama as the next President?
The growing Obama clout derives not from national polls, where his lead is modest. Nor is it a gift from the press, which still gives free passes to its old bus mate John McCain. It was laughable to watch journalists stamp their feet last week to try to push Mr. Obama into saying he was wrong about the surge. More than five years and 4,100 American fatalities later, theyre still not demanding that Mr. McCain admit he was wrong when he assured us that our adventure in Iraq would be fast, produce little American bloodletting and be paid for by the Iraqis.
He points out that McCain and Bush are shamelessly stealing Obama’s ideas:
Looking back now, we can see that the fortnight preceding the candidates flight to Kuwait was like a sequence in an old movie where wind blows away calendar pages to announce an epochal plot turn. First, on July 7, the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, dissed Bush dogma by raising the prospect of a withdrawal timetable for our troops. Then, on July 15, Mr. McCain suddenly noticed that more Americans are dying in Afghanistan than Iraq and called for more American forces to be sent there. It was a long-overdue recognition of the obvious that he could no longer avoid: both Robert Gates, the defense secretary, and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had already called formore American troops to battle the resurgent Taliban, echoing the policy proposed by Mr. Obama a year ago.
On July 17 we learned that President Bush, who had labeled direct talks with Iran appeasement, would send the No. 3 official in the State Department to multilateral nuclear talks with Iran. Lest anyone doubt that the White House had moved away from the rigid stand endorsed by Mr. McCain and toward Mr. Obamas, a former Rumsfeld apparatchik weighed in on The Wall Street Journals op-ed page: Now Bush Is Appeasing Iran.
Within 24 hours, the White House did another U-turn, endorsing an Iraq withdrawal timetable as long as it was labeled a general time horizon. In a flash, as Mr. Obama touched down in Kuwait, Mr. Maliki approvingly cited the Democratic candidate by name while laying out a troop-withdrawal calendar of his own that, like Mr. Obamas, would wind down in 2010. On Tuesday, the British prime minister, Gordon Brown, announced a major drawdown of his nations troops by early 2009.
While Obama hogs the spotlight, what’s McCain up to?
Mr. McCain could also have stepped into the leadership gap left by Mr. Bushs de facto abdication. His inability to even make a stab at doing so is troubling. While drama-queen commentators on television last week were busy building up false suspense about the Obama trip will he make a world-class gaffe? will he have too large an audience in Germany? few focused on the alarms that Mr. McCains behavior at home raise about his fitness to be president.
Once again the candidate was making factual errors about the only subject he cares about, imagining an Iraq-Pakistan border and garbling the chronology of the Anbar Awakening. Once again he displayed a tantrum-prone temperament ill-suited to a high-pressure 21st-century presidency. His grim-faced crusade to brand his opponent as a traitor who wants to lose a war isnt even a competent impersonation of Joe McCarthy. Mr. McCain comes off instead like the ineffectual Mr. Wilson, the retired neighbor perpetually busting a gasket at the antics of pesky little Dennis the Menace.
Leaving us to decide between BarackStar and McSurge.
The election remains Mr. Obamas to lose, and he could lose it, whether through unexpected events, his own vanity or a vice-presidential misfire. But what weve learned this month is that America, our allies and most likely the next Congress are moving toward Mr. Obamas post-Iraq vision of the future, whether he reaches the White House or not. Thats some small comfort as we contemplate the strange alternative offered by the Republicans: a candidate so oblivious to our nations big challenges ahead that he is doubling down in his campaign against both Mr. Maliki and Mr. Obama to be elected commander in chief of the surge.
Thank you, Frank Rich, for noticing that while McCain campaigns on his judgment of the surge, Obama was against the war in the first place. The media has been giving John McCain a free pass on his multiple gaffes, while holding its collective breath in hopes that Obama will make even a fraction of a slip-up. Obama has been consistently ahead of the curve on the idea of change; he didn’t just adopt it when it was convenient.
Despite what the headlines want you to believe, it’s not even going to be close (Pollster.com).
Check out this amazing graphic over at Slate representing the crimes of the current administration and its allies, with details about how each person is involved in each scandal.
The best way to make sense of this legal tangle is to mouse over the title of an individual scandal, which will highlight everyone implicated. For example, the wiretapping bubble ensnares George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, David Addington, John Ashcroft, John Yoo, and Alberto Gonzales. At the same time, Ashcroft and Gonzales fall into the overlapping circle for monkey business related to DoJ hiring. Mouse over a person’s name for information on how each person is involved. Mouse over the title of each circle for specifics about the particular scandal.
I came across a recent FOX poll (full PDF here) and wanted to share some of the questions that were asked. The respondents are 900 registered voters, almost an even number of Obama supporters and McCain supporters, including a fair number of independents. I’m not a statistics expert, but I do recognize a leading question when I see one. Bias becomes especially obvious when a question is asked of one candidate, but not the other.
First, they ask fairly predictable questions about who people plan to vote for, how much they approve of the President, and favorability ratings of various politicians or parties. One question that surprised me:
19. Have you heard any of your friends and neighbors say there is something about Barack Obama that scares them?
To their credit, Fox asks this question about both Obama and McCain. The next question, however, is only asked with regard to Senator Obama:
23. Based on the campaign so far, has Barack Obama offered any truly new ideas?
And there is a follow-up, in order to catch you in case you think he does have new ideas. Prove it!
(If yes on Q. 23) Can you please tell me one of Obama’s new ideas?
And this pair of questions had me laughing out loud:
27. Some people believe Barack Obama, despite his professed Christianity, is secretly a Muslim. Others say that is just a rumor and Obama really is a Christian as he says, and point out he’s attended a Christian church for years. What do you believe — is Obama a Muslim or a Christian?
28. John McCain was held captive for five years in a North Vietnamese prisoner of war camp. Do you think that experience would make McCain a better president or a worse president?
Hmm…First, have you heard this completely false lie about Candidate A? Second, do you think heroic stories about Candidate B’s past will make him a good president?
Finally, there are a slew of questions only about Barack Obama related to his overseas trip. No questions at all about McCain in this section.
31. Does Barack Obama’s popularity overseas make you more likely or less likely to vote for him for president?
Surprise! Republicans report that Obama’s popularity overseas makes them four times less likely to vote for him.
32. Do you think Barack Obama’s trip to Iraq, Afghanistan and the Middle East is better described as a fact-finding trip or as a campaign event?
33. Do you think Barack Obama had already made up his mind on Iraq before the trip or could this week’s visit to Iraq change his mind?
As if fact-finding, campaigning, or mind-changing are the only reasons to travel abroad. And finally…hey, how did that McSurge talking point make its way into our ‘fair and balanced’ survey in the form of a question?
34. Do you think the increase in U.S. troops has led to major improvements in the situation in Iraq, minor improvements, or has the troop surge not made much of a difference at all?
In case you hadn’t noticed, the conservative talking heads have decided that promoting McCain’s support of the surge is their best bet at winning this election. Amazingly, they continue to repeat how McCain was right and Obama was wrong on this one, completely disregarding the fact that Obama was against the WAR in the first place. If people had listened to him then, we wouldn’t have needed a surge. How hard is that to figure out?
This video reminds me of the way Bush and Friends repeated the words “9/11” and “Iraq” in the same sentence as often as possible, eventually creating an imaginary connection in the minds of the American people. If you say it out loud often enough, it becomes true.
In a slightly different version of history, there’s this clip about the surge. (TPM)
John McCain said this today in Rochester, New Hampshire:
This is a clear choice that the American people have. I had the courage and the judgment to say I would rather lose a political campaign than lose a war. It seems to me that Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign.
This is the ninth presidential campaign I’ve covered. I can’t remember a more scurrilous statement by a major party candidate. It smacks of desperation. It renews questions about whether McCain has the right temperament for the presidency. How sad.
Scurrility Update: Readers should note that I said that I can’t remember a more scurrilous statement by a major party candidate. Smart politicians leave the scurrilous stuff to their aides; in fact, a McCain spokesman expressed these words almost exactly on July 14. There is a reason why politicians who want to be President don’t say these sort of things: It isn’t presidential.
As Obama’s trip gets positive media attention at home and abroad, McCain has upped his attacks on Obama’s stance on the Iraq war. McCain claims that Obama was wrong about the surge, and that McCain was willing to do what was less popular politically (because most Americans are against the war in Iraq), in order to ‘win’ the war in Iraq.
Headlines read:
‘Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign’ (FOX News)
‘We will withdraw. The fact is, is whether we withdraw in victory or whether we withdraw in defeat’ (MSNBC)
‘Lieberman: Obama choosing the lose Iraq war’ (CNN)
Interestingly, General Petraeus advises against using the phrases ‘we’re winning’ and ‘victory in Iraq.’ Yet McCain continues to repeat soundbites about the success of the surge, despite the fact that many experts agree that progress in Iraq was in motion well before the official ‘surge.’ Many also note that voters don’t care about the surge, they care about ending the war. Another fact McCain is ignoring, less than half of Americans think the U.S. can win in Iraq.
As a proponent of a war that the vast majority of Americans oppose, that is helping to ruin our economy with each passing day, one would think McCain would want to distance himself from Bush’s war in Iraq, not embrace it.
Noticing the Gap 