"If we who served and those who were otherwise involved do not, through our words and deeds, challenge the revisionist history, a generation of young American fighting men will be forever denigrated and a vital chapter in our national history will be remembered erroneously."
J. Eldon(Jer) Yates
Denigrating Veterans is in vogue again!
Posted: jeyates @ April/19/2009 17:41
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Wednesday
(April 15, 2009) that she was briefed before the release of a controversial
intelligence assessment and that she stands by the report, which lists returning
veterans among terrorist risks to the U.S.
Today she offered a weasel worded apology and
blamed DHS employees and "Washington word smiting" for her
irresponsible and impolitic remarks. One would think a member of the Presidents
cabinet would have the intellect to realized that such a statement was inflammatory
on its surface and further researched the assertion before defending
it.
These attitudes with in her circle of advisors give a clear view
of the of the anti Vet undertones within this Administration. The first
indication was when President Obama became the first President in history not to
attend the "Heroes (Veterans and Military) Inaugural Ball. I personally don't
believe it was a conscious decision by the President. But I am sure it was by
his advisors and schedulers
Sadly they and Ms. Napolitano do not understand the obvious.
Common decency aside, when you disparage Veterans it sends a message to those
currently serving and to the next generation of Americans the Nation may need to
call upon.
And worst of it, the Secretary of Home Land Security
vilifies those very Americans that she may have to call upon to defend
our safety and security, It is a dangerous president and reflects a serious
culture within the Administration.
There is no question that there is an anti veterans culture
among many of the Presidents advisors. I don't think the President is anti
veteran per se . But it is hard to argue the point when Secretary Neapolitan
makes such a outrageous comment. And originally justifies stands by it in the
national media.
We you read the docs, the authors intimate that they have no
proof as such, but just came to this conclusion.
Her original statement of defense of sounds same the
stereotyping of Vietnam vets confronted upon their return form the fields of
battle..
The larger point in defense of my assertion, is that she
originally said she stood by the statement. So we a have cabinet official who
believed it to be accurate and that is on the public record. And she
demonstrated no judgement concerning an unsubstantiated statement. That alone
says much about Secretary Napolitano!
What Janet Napolitano did will cause untold damage to these
returning Vets. Her attitude is now in the public's conscience. As is her
mealy-mouthed explanation.
In the spring of 2001 The Vietnam Veterans Institute organized a large coalition of Veterans Services Organizations (VS0s) support legislation to Drill in the barren area of the The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, with the caveat of sound ecological practices. The Veterans Service organization considered it,still do, a issue of National Defense.
Had drilling been approved in ANWR the wells would be pumping now. More Alaskans would be employed. And the economic abyss we have falling into nationallly might have been avoided.
The biggest surprise wasn't the opposition. But the and threats vitroil from the opposition. Only more disappointing was that the national media refused to report on the behavior of the opposition. Of whitch only a half dozen or so identified themselfs as Alaskans. Thouse that did identify themselfs as Alaskans were overwhelmingly in favor exploration and drilling.
A reprint from the Congressional Record follows.
NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY -- (Senate - October 30, 2001)
[Page: S11161] GPO's PDF --- Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I come to the floor this morning to ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD letters from J. Eldon Yates, chairman and founder of the Vietnam Veterans Institute; the American Legion national commander, Richard Santos; the Veterans of Foreign Wars executive director, Robert Wallace; and Joseph Lipowski, the national commander of AMVETS. They joined me, several of my colleagues, and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Anthony Principi, just a few moments ago outside our Capitol to call on this Senate and our leader, Tom Daschle, to bring a national energy policy bill before this Senate before we adjourn this year. Clearly, the President has been outspoken in the last month--and I agree with what he is doing--about strengthening our resolve and protecting our freedoms as the country cries out for a national energy policy that is a policy of national security. Today the administration announced that we are going to start buying oil to put into our national Strategic Petroleum Reserve to beef up the total volume in that reserve in case of a national crisis. But even when that is done, if the oil of the Middle East were cut off, that reserve would last only for a few weeks before we would be in a significant energy crisis. Our President as well as the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Energy, the Vice President, labor unions, chambers of commerce, National Association of Manufacturers, and small business groups speaks out. America is being told today that national energy is a national security issue. Strangely enough, the chairman of the Energy Committee even spoke this last weekend saying he wanted a national energy policy addressed before the end of the year. Yet nothing is done. The Energy Committee has been shut down by orders of the majority leader. Republicans are producing an energy bill. We have been to the floor time and time again asking for a time certain on which to debate this critical issue. The House acted in August. Our world would come tumbling down around us at this moment, economically speaking, if the oil of the Middle East were shut off from this country. Our economy would stifle. It is an issue of national security. I ask unanimous consent that these letters be printed in the RECORD. There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: AMVETS, Lanham, MD, October 26, 2001. Hon. TOM DASCHLE, Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, The Capitol, Washington, DC. DEAR SENATOR DASCHLE: On behalf of AMVETS, I am writing to encourage you to bring H.R. 4, the Securing America's Future Energy Act of 2001, before the full Senate for consideration at the earliest possible moment prior to the close of the 1st Session of the 107th Congress. As you know, our current reliance on foreign oil leaves the United States vulnerable to the whim of individual oil-exporting countries, many existing in the unpredictable and highly dangerous Persian Gulf. And it cannot be overstated that energy supplies touch nearly every aspect of our lives from our economy to our national security. Passage of H.R. 4 would greatly assist in our ability to secure a more dependable and diversified domestic supply of energy. And, I would note that since the Persian Gulf War our security has become more threatened with our dependence on foreign sources of oil growing from 35 percent of domestic supply to nearly 60 percent. [Page: S11162] GPO's PDF AMVETS firmly believes that we cannot wait for the next crisis before we act. H.R. 4, as approved by the House, is a critical part of an overall policy America requires to promote dependable, affordable, and environmentally sound production and distribution of energy for the future. We urge your expedited approval of this legislation. Dedicated to service. Joseph W. Lipowski, National Commander. -- VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS, OF THE UNITED STATES, Washington, DC, October 29, 2001. Hon. TOM DASCHLE, Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. DEAR SENATOR DASCHLE: The 2.7 million members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States and its Ladies Auxiliary supports H.R. 4, the ``Securing America's Future Energy Act of 2001 or SAFE Act of 2001. We applaud the House of Representatives for its bipartisan work in addressing our energy vulnerability by passing H.R. 4. We believe the Senate should consider and vote on H.R. 4 so that our nation has an energy plan for the future and can move forward quickly with a comprehensive plan to develop our domestic energy resources. Keeping in mind the horrific events of September 11 and mindful of the threats we are facing, we strongly believe that the development of America's domestic energy resources is a vital national security priority. We need to take steps to reverse our growing dependence on Middle East oil as quickly as possible. By passing H.R. 4, the Senate will be supporting our troops serving in combat on Operation Enduring Freedom, the American people, and our national security with a comprehensive energy legislation that is desperately needed to diversify the energy supply for our country and chart a course for the future. The VFW strongly urges the Senate to consider and vote on H.R. 4 as passed in the House in this session of Congress. Sincerely, Robert E. Wallace, Executive Director. -- THE AMERICAN LEGION, Washington, DC, October 25, 2001. Hon. TOM DASCHLE, Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, The Capitol, Washington, DC. DEAR SENATOR DASCHLE: We write today out of a sense of urgency concerning our national security, as it relates to our need for energy independence. The development of America's domestic energy resources is vital to our national security. We respectfully urge you to adopt the provisions contained in H.R. 4, the ``Securing America's Future Energy Act of 2001. War and international terrorism have again brought into sharp focus the heavy reliance of the United States on imported oil. During times of crises, such reliance threatens our national security and economic well being. The import of more than 50 percent of our petroleum from the Persian Gulf further compounds our foreign trade balance at a time when our energy demands continued unabated. It is important that we develop domestic sources of oil, contained within our public lands--such as the supplies within the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Working for a comprehensive energy policy and achieving responsible energy independence are critical national security and economic goals. H.R. 4, as passed by the House of Representatives, is a major step forward to achieving these imperative goals. We strongly urge your support. Sincerely, Richard J. Santos, National Commander. -- Statement Of Our Nation's Veterans Groups, ``Our Domestic Energy Security is Our National Security, October 30, 2001 We, the undersigned, representing our nation's veterans, strongly believe that the development of America's domestic energy resources is a vital national security priority. The horrific events of September 11, 2001, constitute a threat to our people, our economy, and our nation's security. With U.S. troops actively engaged in combat overseas, we firmly believe that America can and will win this prolonged war against terrorism, using all its resources to defend our nation and the cause of freedom around the world. Because of these beliefs, we applaud the House of Representatives for its bipartisan work in addressing our energy vulnerability by passing H.R. 4, the ``Securing America's Future Energy Act of 2001 or the ``SAFE Act of 2001. It is imperative that the Senate pass the House version of H.R. 4 so that our nation can move forward in establishing our energy security, as well as our defense of freedom at home and abroad. It is essential for us to develop all domestic energy resources including the supplies within the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. By passing H.R. 4, the comprehensive energy legislation, the Senate will be supporting our troops in the field, all Americans, their families, and our nation. We, as Veterans, stand united and respectfully request that the Senate vote on and pass H.R. 4. J. Eldon Yates, Chairman and Founder, Vietnam Veterans Institute. Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, America's veterans, those who have stood in harm's way year after year and decade after decade in defense and support of our freedom, now speak out and say: Senator Daschle, this is an issue of national security. Where are you? Why aren't you allowing the Senate to debate this issue now and have on the President's desk a national energy policy before we recess this first session of the 107th Congress? I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
Three Former Service Members Explain How Colleges Can Help Student Veterans
By DOUGLAS HERRMANN, DOUGLAS RAYBECK, and ROLAND WILSON
Last summer Congress passed the new GI Bill, and the president signed it into law. Americans can take great pride in such a program, one that helps veterans attend college after they return home. However, few are aware that many of those veterans will also encounter a variety of nonfinancial problems that require substantial adjustment as they make the transition from military to college life.
Since the last great wave of veterans attended college, following the Vietnam War, there have been many changes in college administrative procedures, educational requirements, and American culture. As a result, college officials and professors are often unprepared to help new veterans cope with problems concerning financial aid, transfer credits, educational programs, health care, and classroom dynamics. Colleges need to adopt new administrative and educational practices to help veterans obtain the college education they have earned.
While veterans, like all students, attend lectures, complete assignments, write term papers, and take exams, they face some special challenges. On some campuses, for instance, veterans will find that, in their first year, it can take a while - typically about three months - for the Veterans Administration to deliver their GI Bill funds. Colleges should not require veterans to pay for their tuition and fees until the GI Bill check arrives, but should instead provide veterans with financial support for the living expenses for themselves and their families, or identify charities that could provide such support. At the very least, colleges should find ways to help veterans obtain loans for the cost of living. For example, colleges could develop institutional loans, arrange for college cost-of-living loans with local banks, and possibly lobby for federal loans with low fixed-interest rates.
A common frustration for student veterans is the denial of academic credit for military training and experience that correspond to the content of their college courses. After World War II, the American Council on Education established a system to transfer military credits to college records, and decisions about what and how many credits ought to be granted have been left to the wisdom of academic-affairs offices. Unfortunately, staff members in those offices have often not been trained in how to award transfer credits and, as a result, mistakenly reject some requests. Proper training on awarding military credits fairly and efficiently should be encouraged so that veterans aren't wrongfully deprived of credits they have earned. Repeating course work forces them to take more courses than necessary and stay in college longer to complete their degrees (which, of course, means more loans).
Another problem for veterans is that many college programs fail to meet, or even acknowledge, their personal and academic needs. For example, orientation programs deal with the concerns of traditional students, but not those of many veterans - most of whom are older and many of whom are married. Further, veterans often possess a specialty acquired in the military that they would like to build upon through additional course work in a specific subject, like electronic communication or law enforcement. Offering them the flexibility of online or evening courses might prove helpful. Internships and work-study programs that build on the veterans' experience and knowledge could also save them time, money, and potentially years of extra study.
Health services for both physical and mental illnesses are another area of concern for returning veterans. College health services are often unprepared to help veterans with emergency care for disabilities, illnesses, and disorders they acquired in the military. Some of those disabilities may not emerge until a veteran is in college; for example, many of today's veterans will eventually experience post-traumatic stress disorders, a condition that many college health services are not prepared to diagnose, treat, or refer for appropriate treatment. Campus health services should, in conjunction with VA medical centers, help provide veterans with the care they need.
Finally, a word about classroom and campus climate. Some professors make pejorative statements about the military during lectures, making veterans feel uncomfortable and setting them further apart from their classmates. Of course, most professors aren't trying to make veterans feel uncomfortable - their objective is usually to voice disagreement with government policy or to stir up discussion in class - but they should be mindful of the negative effects on veterans, and lead more-balanced discussions of the military and its role in society. Further, students who vilify or harass veterans should be disciplined firmly, as they would for harassing any other student (veterans are occasionally singled out for verbal attacks on some campuses). To help veterans integrate and other students to get to know them, colleges could sponsor social gatherings, or veterans could speak to various campus organizations and student groups about what they learned in the military and their experiences abroad.
Offering meaningful assistance to returning veterans may be as simple as making the dean of students' office aware of veterans' concerns and promoting their integration with other students. And a major new effort announced this week by the American Council on Education - which will, among other things, reward higher-education institutions that have model programs for veterans and develop a Web site that gives veterans information about educational benefits and opportunities - should play an important role in helping service members attend and succeed in college.
There is a widespread lack of knowledge about the unique needs of veterans in higher education and the wider society, and too few veterans obtain a college degree. College administrators and professors must update programs and services to better accommodate and support the large number of veterans returning to campus. The vast majority of America's educators want as many veterans as possible to complete a college education, so let's take the necessary steps required to help them reach their well-deserved goal.
Douglas Herrmann is emeritus professor of psychology at IndianaStateUniversity and a Marine veteran of Vietnam; Douglas Raybeck is an emeritus professor of anthropology at HamiltonCollege and was a Vietnam War protester; and Roland Wilson, retired from the Marines, is a recent graduate of IndianaStateUniversity. Bertram S. Allen Jr., a professor of psychology at MilliganCollege and an Army veteran of Vietnam, and Charles Hopkins, an emeritus professor of education at IndianaStateUniversity and an Army veteran of World War II, contributed to this article.