DOD RESTORES ONLINE ACCESS TO DIRECTIVES
The Department of Defense today restored public access to a website containing hundreds of DoD directives that it had removed from public reach just over a week ago.
The episode is a microcosm of countless other disputes over access to government information. Last week, the Pentagon began by unilaterally blocking public users from the directive web page. The move was immediately exposed and criticized (SN 10/08/03). It was challenged and implicitly ridiculed by TheMemoryHole.org, which posted a complete replica of the withdrawn website. The removal triggered a request and faced impending legal challenges under the Freedom of Information Act. And it drew media attention, including a brief Associated Press story yesterday by Jim Krane.
To its credit, the Pentagon got the message. The site is again available here: http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/
Josh Marshall points out yet another totally inane remark from some mouth without a brain:
After New Republic Editor Peter Beinart pointed out that the media might actually be understating the problems in the country by underreporting the number of wounded soldiers (as opposed to fatalities), Hemmer shot back with this gem …
"I think there's (sic) two sides of that coin. … If you're saying it's actually worse than being reported, could it also be better than what's being reported if you consider that these reporters - many of them tell us they want to go cover the new school opening, but they can't because there's another bombing or shooting and that prevents them from sending that story?"
I love this logic.
It’s not just the reporters who are keeping a lid on all the good things going on in Iraq. It’s the darned terrorists who are keeping everyone from hearing how good things are by constantly setting off bombs and shooting people.
Priceless. And, this is probably not good (which doesn't mean that nothing good will come of it):
A broad survey of U.S. troops in Iraq by a Pentagon-funded newspaper found that half of those questioned described their unit's morale as low and their training as insufficient, and said they do not plan to reenlist.
The survey, conducted by the Stars and Stripes newspaper, also recorded about a third of the respondents complaining that their mission lacks clear definition and characterizing the war in Iraq as of little or no value. Fully 40 percent said the jobs they were doing had little or nothing to do with their training.
"Many soldiers -- including several officers -- allege that VIP visits from the Pentagon and Capitol Hill are only given hand-picked troops to meet with during their tours of Iraq," the newspaper said in its interview with Sanchez. "The phrase 'Dog and Pony Show' is usually used. Some troops even go so far as to say they've been ordered not to talk to VIPs because leaders are afraid of what they might say."
If that's not true, the military is the only organization on earth that doesn't handle VIP visits that way.
The newspaper also noted in that interview that its reporters were told that some soldiers who had complained of morale problems had faced disciplinary actions known as Article 15s, which can result in reprimand, extra duties and forfeiture of pay.
Although Pentagon officials say they have seen no sign yet of a rise in the number of troops deciding against reenlisting, the survey suggested that such a surge may be coming soon. A total of 49 percent of those questioned said it was "very unlikely" or "not likely" that they would remain in the military after they complete their current obligations. In the past, enlistment rates tended to drop after conflicts, but many defense experts and noncommissioned officers have warned of the potential for a historically high exodus, particularly of reservists. full article
Just where the heck do they think they're gonna get jobs?
On another note, Jean points me to this article:
...a recent example of the Bush administration's efforts to transform American initiatives abroad related to sex: AIDS prevention, family planning and sex education. Decisions about these programs — which can mean life or death to the people who use them — are increasingly not based on what saves lives, but on what appeals to conservatives at home.
Conservatives in Congress monitor the Web sites of the agency and its contractors for references to sex workers, gay men or drug users....
Too bad conservatives (or anybody apparently!) in Congress didn't monitor web sites of bloggers and independent journalists or they might have known prior to recent "revelations" and, yes, even prior to March '03, that the administration's justifications for invading Iraq were bogus.
Yo Congress, a little more attention to foreign relations and our teetering economy, and a little less obsessing about non-missionary, hetero sex might actually improve the state of the Union, not to mention the whole darned planet.
...but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are moderated. There may be some delay before your comment is published. It all depends on how much time M has in the day. But please comment!