Do We Color It "Propaganda"?

Harlingen, Texas, March 25, 2006:  It was only a small item carried on the headline banner of Fox News Channel today.  The report told newsreaders that in Cheshire, Massachusetts, unknown anti-war protesters had spray painted graffiti across a memorial honoring a soldier who died in the first days of the war in Iraq.  This incident was not even worthy of a mention in any major media print publication or on other television outlets.

Any report showing the gross inappropriateness of the anti war movement is generally ignored by the mainstream press today.  One would be required to search long and hard to find any coverage reflecting either a distortion of facts or distain for anti war actions.  In reality, the traditional media outlets of this country are more than supportive, if not encouraging of the movement.

Those who take the time to search out media coverage of Iraq, starting with the invasion, can uncover some very interesting numbers.  There have been more than 35 million Google entries related to military war dead.  Almost 46 million entries can be found reporting on civilians killed in the war.  Twenty million, 700 thousand accounts of bombings are on file, along with another twenty million, 700 thousand reports of anti-war protests.

Now contrast those numbers with the accounts you have read about battles won, courageous acts, restored medical care, business openings, or construction completions.

As Americans follow the daily news, they learn more about Pat Tillman than they do people such as Paul Ray Smith, Joseph Perez, and James H. Coffman, Jr. or Leigh Hester.

Corporal Pat Tillman was the former National Football League star that joined thee Army, went to Iraq, and was serving in Afghanistan when he was killed by friendly fire. This has been widely reported, and even now there are accounts of follow-up investigations.

Sergeant First Class Paul Ray was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor for valor in Iraq, Lance Corporal Joseph B. Perez was awarded the Navy Cross for extraordinary heroism during Operation Iraqi Freedom, Colonel James H. Coffman, Jr. earned the Distinguished Service Cross for leading Iraqi forces in a five hour battle against insurgents and Sergeant Leigh Hester was presented the Silver Star for heroism during an ambush.  She was the first woman to receive such an award since World War II.  Readers donêt recognize the names of these heroes because none of the stories were reported in any depth.

The over reporting of bad news and the lack of coverage about positive outcomes leads many people to believe the traditional press is following its own agenda.  There are strong arguments being made that the American mainstream media is engaging in a propaganda war against the Bush Administration and the War in Iraq.

To understand propaganda, one must recall the techniques used so successfully by the Nazis in World War II.  Boiled down to simple terms, propaganda is the act of repeating a story so often, that in the public mind, it becomes truth.  The tools used to reach this objective are “name calling”, “generalities”, “euphemisms”, “transfer”, “testimonials”, “plain-people”, “fear” and “the bandwagon”.

Is the media using the “name calling” technique in telling the war story?  When there is a continuing barrage of comments on the intelligence of the president, the health of the vice president, the competence of our congressional leadership, plus the same dialog in the humorous presentations of late night comics, attitudes reflecting public confidence in the abilities of those subjected to a litany of bad names is diminished.

Those glittering “generalities” are another propaganda devise used as the reverse of name-calling.  This is using words to present something in a more favorable light.  News reports that call war participants “freedom fighters”, “insurgents”, or “religious factions” and refusing to use the term “terrorist” are engaging in a glittering generality.  It should be noted that the word “terrorist” is also one of those generalities used by the opposing faction.

The use of a “euphemism” is often employed to make one side’s position seem more palatable to the general public.  By referring to groups instead of specific people that objective is reached.  By calling things by a milder name such as never referring to a reinforced and heavily armed building as a fortified enemy emplacement, but a “mosque” the euphemism is employed.

The art of “transfer” is very important to those who practice propaganda. In the transfer device, symbols become very important.  For example the American Flag or a picture of the President represent the United States.  When mobs or rioters burn these, they become symbols used to stir emotions.  The cartoons of Muhammad that caused such turmoil among Muslims are another example of “transfer”.

“Testimonials” are high on the list of propaganda tools.  Every time there is a media report from a disgruntled former uniformed serviceman, it meets to propaganda objective. A formerly pro-war official who now takes the opposite point of view is another use of the testimonial tool.

Within the circles of those who practice this craft are what is called the “just plain people” technique.  The media always reports on congressmen and women who cry out against “tax cuts for the rich”.  Not mentioned in the reports is the fact these same people are also quite wealthy.  When a political leader picks up a hammer and drives a nail into some new housing for the poor, or when they walk around in their shirt sleeves it is all for show and to let you know they are just plain folks.

Using the “fear” device should be right at the top of the propagandists list.  The constant reports of IEDs, suicide bombers and body counts are all part of the attempt to create fear.  And remember there have been millions of these reports.

Finally, the propagandist uses the “bandwagon” to support an agenda.  Rallies, opinion polls, colors, music, crowds, masses of marchers are all used to present the illusion that everybody is involved.  These elements constantly used to pull those who were formerly not involved into the ideology of the group.

Those are the methods employed by the propagandist.  Are those by media not supportive of the War on Terror using them?  You be the judge.

Are We At War Against Terror or Islam?

Harlingen, Texas, March 13, 2006:  The Bush Administration keeps telling Americans that we are fighting a war against terror.  But, is the country really buying into that vague description of what is going on in our world?  With each passing day, the answer seems more likely to be...No!

A Washington Post article dated March 9, 2006 is headlined “Negative Perception Of Islam Increasing”. It states, “As the war in Iraq grinds into its fourth year, a growing proportion of Americans are expressing unfavorable views of Islam, and the majority say that Muslims are disproportionately prone to violence.”

What the Administration wants to deny is there are growing numbers across the United States that do not buy into the politically correct mantra that Islam is a peaceful religion.  Their attitudes have become more and more negative concerning Muslims worldwide with the media reports about Islamic outrage and savagery.

The Muhammad cartoon riots resulting in property destruction and deaths are repeatedly used as examples of Islamic mindset.  Political cartoons printed months ago in a Danish paper were used as justification to attack anything Western.

James Zogby, President of the Arab American Institute claims the growing negative attitude of the country is because, “Politicians, authors and media commentators have demonized the Arab world since 2001.’

It is clear there is no “Pro-Arab” attitude in Congress.  The votes and comments coming forth from that body were so negative they resulted in a terminated a multi-billion dollar port management contract purchased by an Arab company.

Less than one month ago at the Intelligence Summit in Washington D.C. Brigitte Gabriel, a former news anchor with World News for Middle East television spoke to the committee.  FrontPageMagazine.com reported her words on February 20.  She said in part, “As a victim of Islamic terror, I was amazed when I saw Americans waking up on September 12, 2001, and asking themselves ‘Why do they hate us?’ The psychoanalyst experts were coming up with all sorts of excuses as to what we did to offend the Muslim World. But, if America and the West were paying attention to the Middle East they would not have to ask the question.  Simply put, they hate us because we are defined in their eyes by one simple word… Infidels.”

Brigitte grew up as a Christian in Lebanon.  When she was ten years old Islamic terrorists blew up her home, leaving her buried under the rubble.  For the next seven years she lived in a dark bomb shelter.  By age 13 she was dressing in her burial clothes before going to bed each night, because she didn’t think she would live until morning.  By age 20 she had buried most of her friends, all killed by Muslims.  She says that all of Islam has declared an “Intifada” on the West.

A New York Times article on March 11, 2006 contains an even more damning story.  Titled “For Muslim Who Says Violence Destroys Islam, Violent Threats” the article explains how Dr. Wafa Sultan, a Syrian-American psychiatrist appeared on Al Jazeera Television and speaking in Arabic bitterly criticized Muslim clerics, holy warriors and political leaders who she claims have distorted the teachings of Muhammad and the Koran for 14 centuries.

The doctor, who was born and raised in Syria, charges that the world is not seeing a clash between religions but a battle between modernity and barbarism.  She further feels it is a battle Islam will lose.

Some of her most provocative remarks concerned an unfavorable comparison between Muslims and Jews.  Referring to the Holocaust she said, “The Jews have come from the tragedy and forced the world to respect them, with their knowledge, not their terror, with their work, not their crying and yelling.”

“We have not seen a single Jew blow himself up in a German restaurant,” she noted.  “We have not seen a single Jew destroy a church.  We have not seen a single Jew protest by killing people.  Only Muslims defend their beliefs by burning down churches, killing people and destroying embassies.  This path will not yield any results.  The Muslims must ask themselves what they can do for humankind, before they demand that humankind respect them.”

Dr. Sultan says her life changed in 1979 when she was a student at the University of Aleppo in Syria.  The Muslim Brotherhood burst into her classroom at the university and killed her professor as she watched.  “They shot hundreds of bullets into him, shouting God is great!”

Since her appearance on Al Jazeera the doctor’s life has been repeatedly threatened, her telephone answering machine has been filled with hate messages and Muslim clerics around the world have condemned her.  Even with that, her interview has been replayed on the Internet to more than 1 million viewers and emails of the complete text have been sent to hundreds of thousands around the world.

It is against this backdrop of articles, interviews and news bulletins that Americans have formed their opinions.  In a new Washington Post poll 46 percent of Americans were found to have a negative view of Islam.  According to that same poll the proportion of Americans who believe Islam helps to stoke violence against non-Muslims has more than doubled since the 9/11 attacks.

So, are we at war against terror or Islam?  Only you can answer that question.

Guess What? The VA Is Another Republican Miscue!

Harlingen, Texas, March 6, 2006:  There was the FEMA mess, the Homeland Security problems, and the NSA rhubarb.  With all of that on its plate, it is no wonder the Republican administration and majority party in Congress have managed to ignore the many problems percolating inside the Department of Veterans Affairs.  Now that last sentence is a misstatement.  They have always ignored problems within the VA.

There are many who believe there is collusion between the current Administration, Congress and the VA to the detriment of the veteran and retired military community.  The belief is that while pledges to establish a swifter acting, more open and service-oriented Department of Veterans Affairs are repeatedly made, the words are really just more of the same false promises veterans have heard for years.  There is also a strong feeling that those elected to high office are really attempting to find ways to end or reduce earlier promised benefits to veterans.

With each passing month more and more reports about the dysfunctional VA are brought to the attention of Americans.  In the March issue of VFW Magazine for example, is an article headlined “Quality No Longer ‘Job One’ For VA Claims Processing.” The decline in performance can be traced to a lack of dedication and productivity of VA employees, says one article.

Back in 2005 Knight Ridder published an article detailing the results of its investigation into VA claims processing.  In part it said, “Based on an internal VA report that used staffing and overtime levels to estimate production capacity, Knight Ridder found that VA employee productivity was only 75% of what is expected.” It indicates that though the agency has promised swift action on veteran health claims it is, in reality, falling further and further behind.

At the start of 2005 there were 473,869 medical claims awaiting final disposition.  Instead of shrinking that workload, today there are a total of 547,411 unprocessed claims.  Last year there were more than 152 thousand appeals cases to be examined.  That number remains virtually unchanged today. 

In 2005 a total of 92 thousand veterans were in the application process for educational benefits.  This year almost 114 thousand former service personnel are still awaiting receipt of those schooling assistance awards.

Arthur A. Bernklau, Executive Director of Veterans For Constitutional Law claims Congress has passed legislation denying veterans the right to due process under the law when they were in any appeal process with the VA. “When extremely unfair anti-veteran statutes were enacted, it took away veteran rights of access to a fair and impartial hearing in a real or normal court and deprived them of their Constitutional right to an attorney of their choosing.” Because of these statutes, the VA has felt emboldened enough to ignore most legitimate claims, he contends.  “Why is it”, he asks, “that the VA has over 260,000 employees nation-wide and they can only approve 4% of veteran claims per year?”

But, the real disgrace is the failure of our government officials to inform nearly two million veterans or their widows that they qualify for disability pensions.  Those who remain unaware of their eligibility can be found mostly among the underemployed or undereducated veterans. Also impacted by this neglect are deceased veteran’s widows. .  This same group is also among those most in need of all those services ...and least likely to receive them.

According to VFW magazine, “Because they are unaware they qualify, nearly 2 million veterans or their widows are leaving an estimated $22 billion a year in VA pensions unclaimed.” What the article fails to report is the Department of Veterans Affairs is doing absolutely nothing to inform those in need of the available funds.

The biggest information roadblock seems to be the VA language, which seems to result in those billions of unclaimed dollars.  The VA calls the award a “disability pension” even though a person does not need to be disabled to qualify.  To be eligible veterans must be age 65 or older, have served in uniform during a war and earn less than $10,579. Some veterans who have non-service connected medical conditions may also qualify.  Veteran’s widows must make less than $7,094.  Deducting unreimbursed medical expenses can reduce incomes to assist in meeting qualifying standards.

The Department of Veterans Affairs estimates that 853,000 veterans and 1.1 million widows are eligible to receive these pensions, but only 27% of the veterans and 14% of the qualified widows are receiving the money.

There seems to be government failing upon failing being reported in today’s news.  It has reached such a deplorable state that something like an “anti-veteran” Department of Veterans Affairs won’t even cause a ripple in the news media wave.  However, with the loudly voiced “support for our troops” being continuously proclaimed by Republicans and Democrats alike and the numbers of disabled veterans increasing daily, a serious question needs to be asked. How can any administration fail to take action on behalf of those who offered their lives up in service to this country?  These veterans deserve far more than false promises or being delayed and denied.

Republicans Need Major Image Repair With the Military

Harlingen, Texas, March 4, 2006:  How does the military community view Washington these days?  Veterans, particularly those who retired from military service, feel they have more enemies in the capitol city than they have friends.  While the Washington crowd pretends to support military and veteran issues, the truth behind those false gestures is the majority in both political parties view former warriors as nothing more than unwanted expense.

Who should be held accountable?  At the top is the President of the United States, along with those of the Republican administration who pays lip service to supporting the military, but only offers gestures of superficial support once a warrior leaves the field of battle. 

Equally responsible are both the Republican and Democrat members of the United States Congress.  With fewer and fewer veterans in its ranks and an opposition political party with an anti-military mentality, little has been, or will be done to support those who were the defenders of this nation.  In fact, Congress seems to go out of its way to find new ways to make the cost of serving ones country a very expensive choice for anyone to adopt.

A very significant example of the high cost of serving can be seen by actions which took place only days ago.  The Senate Armed Services Personnel Subcommittee, now chaired by Lindsey Graham (R-SC) held a” health fee summit” meeting on February 28, which included key officials from the Department of Defense, including Under Secretary Dr. David Chu.

Chu has never been known to support any positive retiree or veteran related legislation.  He is currently champion for a Pentagon proposal to raise Tricare fees by 50% to 270% for retirees under age 65 and raise pharmacy co pays by 67% for all beneficiaries.  The subcommittee seems to agree with the proposal and is helping it to move forward, an effort, quietly supported by many Republicans in Congress and the Administration.

What was always promised as free medical care for services rendered, has in recent years had across the board fees enacted...and it looks like more are on the way, slowly driving retired and even active duty military personnel away from government supported treatment into a search for less expensive coverage.

However, if veterans rank any individual or agency as the primary enemy, The Department of Defense holds that questionable honor.  One needs only to pick a topic.  If it involves support of a military retiree or any veteran, DoD has a spokesperson to deny there is any government responsibility or obligation.  In most cases the DoD voice is in direct opposition to issues raised by American veterans. 

If Republicans are to regain their status as strong supporters of national defense in the eyes of voters, those who control the nation’s purse strings need to realign their loyalties to coincide with the foot soldier, the military retiree and the veteran population, instead of with the dollar driven mentality of DoD bureaucrats. Every elected official in Washington should be very mindful of this...and also remember that the ranks of veterans grow larger every day. More and more service personnel are returning from the war zones.

Instead of trying to solve budgetary headaches by creating nightmares for all military personnel, Republicans should be examining the huge waste and fraud associated with everything from their own pork barrel issues to reconstruction efforts in both Afghanistan and Iraq to the Gulf Coast of the United States.

While those who control both the executive branch and both houses of Congress keep heralding their support and dedication to all who serve or have served in uniform, they continue to show by their actions that all those words mean absolutely nothing.  If they are to regain the rapidly diminishing support of the military community, meaningful legislation needs to become a reality, not political double-speak.

What veteran’s issue is Washington against?  Just pick your topic.  It spent years rejecting responsibility for everything related to the Gulf War Syndrome.  It denied veteran charges that the government used service personnel as human guinea pigs during deadly biological and chemical tests of the 60s and early 70s. There is continuing denial and stonewalling on just about everything related to the thousands of veterans who participated in our nations atomic testing program. The DoD remains a major obstacle in the hiring of mental health counselors to work with veterans facing serious emotional issues. The VA keeps falling further and further behind in processing disability claims.  And most of America is familiar with the case of World War II and Korean War military retirees seeking long promised lifetime health care.  Throughout the legal process the Congress and its ally the Department of Defense has fought our former warriors.

A major problem area involves many thousands of retirees.  The issue is an ongoing dispute between disabled retirees and DoD over payments received related to retired pay and disability compensation.  The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal year 2005 eliminated the phase-in period for Concurrent Retirement and Disability Payments (CROP) for veterans rated as 100% disabled by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).

After decades of battling the Washington establishment and particularly the Department of Defense, a partial solution was provided by Congress.  Career military veterans with 60% or more disability would have their retirement pay restored.  However, this would be done over an extended ten-year period.  In 2005 that ruling was modified to give those retirees with 100 % disability full pay restoration at once.

Once again the anti-veteran crowd at the Pentagon found a way to attack those who were no longer able to contribute to the active duty force.

There are two different methods of determining the 100% disability status.  The first is called a scheduled 100% rating by the VA. The scheduled 100% disability rating is one given to a condition, which has been predetermined by the VA to be a total disability.  The second is called Individual Unemployable or IU.  However, both methods result in same total disability status.

An example of an IU rating can be understood by examining the case of another officer who experienced heart and degenerative joint disease while on active duty.  The officer was retired at a scheduled rating of 60%, but was never able to work.  Following extensive medical procedures related to these service connected disabilities, the Department of Veterans Affairs changed the rating to 100% extra-scheduler and Individual Unemployable (IU).

However, the Pentagon has elected to read the law in its own special way and has refused to restore full disability payment to any veteran rated with an IU 100% disability.

The important thing to note is, the law makes no distinction between “scheduled” or “individual unemployable” ratings.  They are both considered total and 100% disabilities by the VA.

Republicans in DoD the Executive Branch and Congress all know this and to date have done nothing to correct the problem.  In fact, they have done everything possible to make themselves less acceptable in the eyes of the military community.

While negative recommendations and actions taking place in Washington are growing with each passing month, Republican support of the active duty, retired military veterans and their families continues to decline.  Though those who serve and have served in uniform have little faith the opposition party will treat them any better, they are still moving in that direction.

Mike Baily is an Edgewood Arsenal chemical test veteran who has been waiting 31 years for treatment.  He says, “Republicans and Democrats both have problems, but Congress has abandoned oversight and things have run amok.  The Republicans are the party in power and they are the ones who will pay for the nation’s low opinion of Congress.”

There is a consensus among those who serve and have served our country.  Using a variety of different expressions they all seen to say, “It is time to stop the lip service, false promises and lies.  It is past time for Congress to do some real work on behalf of veterans, the retired and those now in uniform.”

These men and women have all sacrificed greatly, some of them in life altering ways.  They deserve to be ranked among the highest priorities of our nationÍs leadership.  Every returning serviceman or woman and every individual who served in uniform remembers “Promises made will be promises kept” was a Republican pledge.  They also know it was just about as meaningful as any other campaign promise.

Why A Taliban At Yale?

Harlingen, Texas, March 2, 2006:  Americans who read the New York Times must have wrinkled their brows in puzzlement after reading the February 26, 2006 article about a former government official and spokesman for the Taliban walking the campus of Yale University as a student.

Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi has been granted special student status and the state department has awarded him entry into the United States on a student visa.  This is an interesting turn of events for a person who could just as easily have ended up as a guest of the United States in a cell at Guantanamo Bay.

Prior to his arrival as a student, Rahmatullah had been imprisoned at Bagram Air Base.  He had been a member of the Taliban government, serving both in Afghanistan and in the United States as Second Foreign Secretary and Ambassador-at-Large.

What the New York Times article fails to address is the rationale behind even allowing this individual into the United States, let alone as an International Student at a prestigious university.  Another area not addressed in this account, is why Yale, which accepts only ten percent of all applicants, granted admission to this former Taliban officer.

Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi is said to have a fourth grade education and has passed a high school equivalency examination.  He does speak acceptable English.  This, however, does not meet any of the requirements Yale has listed for its International Students accepted for Special Programs.

According to the College Board, Yale requires all foreign students to score in the 700 to 790 range on both the SAT verbal and math tests.  International students must also score 600 on the TOEFL exam and 250 on a computer exam.  In addition, Yale states in its admission policy that those students enrolled in special programs must fund their own education and a Foreign Student Certification of Finances must be filed.

These requirements may have been met by Rahmatullah, but they are never even brought to question in the Times article.  Another unanswered question is how a former member of a now non-existent government can cover the $31,460 Yale tuition and fees and $9,540 room and board costs.

Entry into Yale was smoothed by the intervention of CBS news cameraman Mike Hoover who had developed a friendship with the government official during several trips to Afghanistan, dating back to 1991.  Hoover contacted an attorney in his hometown of Jackson Hole, Wyoming.  That attorney, Bob Schuster, who had earned his undergraduate degree at Yale, brought Rahmatullah to the attention of Richard Shaw, the Dean of Undergraduate Admissions.  An interview was arranged.

According to the Times, Shaw said of the interview, “My perception was,’It’s the enemy!’ But, the interview with him was one of the most interesting I’ve ever had.  I walked away with a sense:  Whoa!  This is a person to be reckoned with and who could educate us about the world.”

John Fund, writing for the Opinion Journal does not view this admission as any great achievement, even though he quotes Richard Shaw as saying that..."another foreign student of Rahmatullah’s caliber had applied for special student status.  We lost him to Harvard.  I didn’t want that to happen again.”

Fund does not agree, saying “This is taking the obsession that U.S. universities have been promoting diversity a bit too far.”

Regardless of how he gained admission, Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi is now strolling across the quad at Yale University.  It is said he is doing well, earning a 3.33 grade point average.  He should be scoring even higher.  One of his first courses was titled “Terrorism - Past, Present and Future.”