And milbloggers were successful. Through their dogged, almost obdurate, presentation of first-person narratives they first got the attention of their own — which was no small feat in itself. Then they got the attention of the American public. Then they got the attention of traditional media, whose members treated milblogging as a curiosity or a lark until bloggers like Micheal Yon, Matt Burden, and Bill Roggio showed them they didn’t have a monopoly on capturing the stories of war. And once they got the attention of traditional media they got the attention of the Department of Defense and the Bush administration.Milbloggers were the first to suggest the Surge might work, that Dragonskin body armor wasn’t everything the manufacturer claimed it was, and that Scott Beauchamp was a liar. They have influenced the national sentiment for the better because they have possessed the truth as they knew it, which fortunately was the truth.

This post is online at Wardcarroll.com

 Milblog program at the Dole Institute on January 29, 2008.

President George W. Bush meeting with military bloggers in the Roosevelt Room at the White House, Friday, Sept. 14, 2007. White House photo by Joyce N. Boghosian

The sit down with President Bush was, I’ve got to note - fun.

It was serious. He talked to us, and with us, not at us. And, unusual for the personality types that populate the blogging world - we listened. We got in our questions, and I think they were good ones, and the President made his points, which were a mixture of the thrust of his message this week and new (to me, anyway) stuff in response to our questions.

Make no mistake - he knew we were going to generally be a receptive audience, and we were. The staff knew our blogs, and they knew that while some of us have not always been fans or happy with things as they are, they knew we were not going to storm the Bastille, either.

I had a list of questions, most of which ended up being asked by others. So, as the other bloggers put up their posts, I’ll link to them, so you can both see what I was interested in, but let the relevant blogger run with the question and the answer. And I’ll put up a post about my question and his answer.

The President acknowledged, so to speak, the rise of the blogosphere - which he seems to see as complementary to the MSM, a view to which I subscribe, as well. We’re another vector that people can use to disseminate or gather information - whether the MSM is gate-guarding it because of their biases, or simple economics. There are only so many air minutes, so many column inches, and the MSM is a business. They have to make editorial decisions.

If anything, the blogs hearken back, really, to an earlier time in the growth of the Republic.

We’re the “broadsides” of this era. As Larry Schwiekart and Michael Allen describe them in their book, A Patriot’s History of the United States (page 42):

“…Americans’ literacy was widespread, but it was not deep or profound. Most folks read a little and not much more. In response, a new form of publishing arose to meet the demands of this vast, but minimally literate, populace: the newspaper. Early newspapers came in the form of broadsides, usually distributed and posted in the lobby of an inn or saloon where one of the more literate colonials would proceed to read a story aloud for the dining or drinking clientele. Others would chime in with editorial comments during the reading, making for a truly democratic and interactive forum.”

That covers blogs pretty well, I think. Though there are some pretty deep and profound ones, and there are ones which are growing into news outlets that have many trappings of the MSM, as well. With their strengths and weaknesses.

And today, the President just gave blogs some props.

And while the venue may have held milblogs - it’s props for all bloggers who take their vocation or avocation seriously - and I think that’s true for blogs of the Left, Middle, and the Right, the Poliblogs and the Milblogs, and the harder-to-characterize blogs as well.

And that’s a good thing - because I think that our greatest strength and contribution is: “Others would chime in with editorial comments during the reading, making for a truly democratic and interactive forum.”

Sure, there’s trolls and scary places and people who don’t know argument from excrement - but if you have something to say, and create the environment, you can open a pub like Castle Argghhh! where others chime in, you can learn something, and even though you’re #1 in Google for “I bayoneted myself today” and you have an Outhouse Naming Contest, in America, you can still get invited to the White House to talk to the President.

And that’s just cool.

And Barney is one *fine* looking Scotty.

And this is where I say that I wouldn’t have been sitting at that table today if it hadn’t been for Dusty, Bill, and the Denizen/nes of Argghhh! - because you guys make this worth doing for four years.

Thank you all, very, very, much.

There’s some other people I owe, as well, but I know they prefer to remain anonymous. Thank you, too. You know who you are.

            Just such a moment arrived last month, and few took much notice.  Since Democrats were elected in the 2006 mid-term elections, speculation – and indeed, some boasting – was heard about Congress finally breaking a log-jam on President Bush’s six-year old call for a new, national energy policy.  Unfortunately, all year more logs just got jammed, as new Congressional leaders insisted on raising taxes on domestic energy companies as part of the comprehensive bill. 

            Many argued, including our two Senators, that taking money away from American gas and oil companies at the very moment we are relying on their research and development projects to finally help reduce our reliance on foreign energy was a bad idea.  They argued, too, that singling out domestic energy companies for the $15 billion tax would effectively act as a subsidy for the very foreign energy we’re trying to avoid.  Congress’s plan was to make our own energy companies less capable of fully funding their research and development budgets, while giving foreign competitors a price advantage in the marketplace.

            Good for Pat Roberts and Sam Brownback for standing up to this lunacy.  We can all agree – and Roberts and Brownback do – that we need to conserve more, and we need to find and experiment with new sources of energy, but we can also agree that sticking it to our own businesses out of spite isn’t the way to go about it.  After all, any taxes raised on energy companies would eventually be passed on to energy consumers – higher prices for gasoline and heating oil just in time for winter.

Furthermore, tax hikes kill jobs, hurt communities, and choke off investment.  Our economy is not a position right now to afford any of the above, especially not in one of the most important industries in our economy.  There’s a right way to do things and a wrong way, and last month, thanks to Kansas’ two Senators, America took the right way.

Beka Romm
Former Chair
KU College Republicans

Christian Science Monitor, January 15, 2008.

Lawrence, Kan.

Sen. Hillary Clinton will soon make a decision about the direction of her campaign in the South Carolina Democratic primary on Jan. 26. Her options are either to play nice and perhaps lose, or to go on the attack and win.

In a tight race against Sen. Barack Obama, Senator Clinton may choose the latter. Her recent remarks about the words and actions of civil rights leaders such as Martin Luther King Jr. were probably a trial balloon to gauge the impact of going negative. But in so doing, she could alienate several major Democratic constituencies – African-Americans and youth – perhaps for a generation to come. There is no limit to the politics of destruction possible in South Carolina. George W. Bush set a precedent for that in 2000 by shredding John McCain, who had won New Hampshire.

Until her poor performance in Iowa, Clinton had been banking on South Carolina votes. Bill Clinton had proven his “comeback kid” status in 1992 by winning South Carolina and other states, mostly due to African-American support. In 2006, Clinton allies pushed forward the South Carolina primary so it would come on the heels of the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary. They hoped that winning there would clinch the nomination after New Hampshire and Iowa victories.

But now, Clinton’s African-American “constituency” in the South has someplace else to go: to a truly viable black candidate. Hence the strategy behind carefully crafted Bill and Hillary statements that 1) the campaign would not go negative in the Granite State and 2) the press was being too easy on Senator Obama. Notice was given, it seemed: If only slightly veiled critiques of the junior senator from Illinois don’t do the job, we will unleash old-fashioned attack ads.

The problem is that the lessons of Clinton’s New Hampshire strategy are mixed. Besides the seminegativity, she also showed a very human face. Which tactic was more influential? Or was the combination of both the critical factor?

If she went on the attack, Clinton would be breaking with Democratic presidential politics of the past – to treat African-American candidates gently and avoid alienating black voters. In 1988, when the Rev. Jesse Jackson debated Al Gore and Michael Dukakis, both white candidates saw no advantage in being negative toward him. Mr. Jackson was popular among a key constituency and had little chance to win anyway.

Technology is another liability. In old-style negative campaigning you could localize your stabs by, for example, running attack ads in one district or sending out smearing mailers to certain groups. But with the advent of blogs and YouTube, all politics is global. Any anti-Obama ad will be seen by the whole country. What might work in rural South Carolina might be embarrassing when watched online in Santa Barbara, Calif.

And, of course, when you sling mud there is a backlash. Clinton has worked hard to make herself appear genial yet serious in more recent speeches and in ads. An attack-dog stance will hardly raise her own approval rating for the general election.

But do the Clintons and their allies have any choice? Each additional state that Obama can win will dampen questions about his own electability. Does Clinton want to fight him in every state or win the nomination early?

While the Clinton campaign is concerned about the current election, bigger questions should be asked. In going negative with Obama, something else is at stake: the next generation of Democrats.

Entrance polling, anecdotal evidence from voter interviews, and simple observation of rallies suggest that many Obama voters are truly excited about him. Of the record 239,000 Democratic voters in the Iowa caucus, 22 percent were under 30 years old – also a first. Even more remarkable, among this group, Obama won 57 percent of the vote; Edwards, 14 percent; and Clinton just 11 percent.

The Clinton-Obama demographic divide is a generation gap we have not seen in Democratic Party presidential politics for, well, generations. Howard Dean, the “youth candidate” of 2004, scored just 25 percent of the under-30 vote in Iowa, while John Kerry got 35 percent.

In short, Obama is a “first love” for many young, potential new Democrats, and they are the future of the party. What would happen if they walked away in disgust from their initial engagement with politics because things turned bitter and dirty?

Right now there is a struggle in the Clinton campaign about what New Hampshire meant. Her choice, to go positive or negative, or both, may determine the fate of her campaign. But the fallout could also affect the makeup of the Democratic party for a generation to come.

David D. Perlmutter is a professor at the School of Journalism & Mass Communications at the University of Kansas. He is author of “Blogwars: The New Political Battleground.”

Some people go to Cancun during winter break, but I couldn’t resist a little political tourism in Iowa, four days in advance of the caucuses this Thursday, Jan. 3. My brother, ace political reporter for the New York Post, is pretty much embedded with the Clinton campaign, so I spent some time acting as his driver and sidekick. That’s why I spent so much time with the Clinton campaign.

On the way back, I had to pull off the road during an unforecast blizzard – and who should greet me in the McDonald’s in Bethany, MO but Dole staffers Ryan Wing and Clarissa Unger, along with their colleague Jon Simon. All three were on the way to caucus for Obama in Ames, and they kindly shared their company and a nifty board game called Scotland Yard while we waited for the plows to catch up with the precipitation.

Herewith are some of my observations from the Iowa trail. Enjoy!

My day began at the mostly-black Corinthian Baptist Church in Des Moines, where I arrived late for the service, although not as late as Hillary, Chelsea, and former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack. The Rev. Lee Zachary Maxey had to repeat the part of the service where parishioners meet and greet each other after the Clintons arrived, which gave more than a few worshipers a chance to get a snapshot and exchange some words with the Senator. She was invited to address the assembly, and she did – in a brief version of her stump speech. It was warmly received, and then…Clinton (and the press corps, which included national figures like the Today Show’s Meredith Vieira) left, before the sermon. My brother and I thought this might have been a faux pas, but it turns out Obama left after his remarks at the same church earlier in the month. Still, the deacon called her out a bit, remarking that “it was good to see all the dignitaries here…I wish they’d stayed a little longer.” It was great for this political tourist to be able to stick around and chat with some of the church members, many of whom told me they were first timers planning to caucus for Obama.

Our next leg took us to the King’s Tower restaurant in Tama, which is unfortunately located on the Old Lincoln Highway, also known as Rt. 30. Clearly building I-80 (about 20 miles to the south) has put Tama’s best days squarely behind it. But the place had a good menu and copious portions. I left room for wild berry pie a-la-mode in nearby Toledo, where I talked to the waitresses about the now-famous incident this fall where Hillary Clinton supposedly stiffed a server at the Maid-Rite diner. The story made the rounds pretty quickly before being proven false (to Geoff Earle’s credit, his story from that day already had the correct information), but we got to the bottom of the scandal. Our 17-year-old server (who plans to caucus for Obama since she’ll be 18 before November ’08) told us a campaign staffer tipped with $100 bill to be divided among the staff – but one waitress bogarted the C-note and didn’t share. Ironically, the waitress who complained about Hillary’s non-tip no longer works there, while the tip-bogarter still does. When asked if she was fired or if she quite, our server said “a little of both.” So much for her 15 minutes of Warholian fame…Only other customers in the joint were two Obama canvassers from St. Louis University. They were sleeping on mattresses in a basement in Traer, our next stop…

Hillary event #3 of the day, in the municipal building in adorable downtown Traer. The hall had the exact same finished wood beams as the Corinthians church did that morning. Again, Vilsack and Chelsea accompanied the Senator, with Vilsack introducing and Chelsea doing her usual Cheshire Cat impersonation. The crowed loved seeing her though. Hillary’s speech is quite able, and contains several memorable applause lines. She had pretty much emptied it of attacks, only obliquely mentioning the other Democratic candidates. The structure of the speech isn’t a speech in the oratorical sense: it’s a set of bullet points and riffs, and she hits the high notes right on queue. As has become her habit, she did not take questions from the clearly-adoring audience – even though she is quite good at that, too. I think this is a mistake. She is smart and strong on details, and has thought almost everything through. Taking questions and getting off the script could only help her candidacy, and her coverage.

George Condon of Copley newspapers, who came to the Institute this fall to join Jerry Austin’s study group was there, seated between the Times’ Adam Nagorney and Primary Colors author (and Time columnist) Joe Klein. He even interviewed me for a story on people from states that can’t buy time with presidential candidates who travel to Iowa or New Hampshire as political tourists. I told him to spread the Dole Institute gospel with his neighbors on the press risers. Klein said he’d like to come.

Next stop: a big Obama rally on the “south side” of Des Moines. Obama was introduced by North Dakota Senator Kent Conrad, who marks a stark contrast to the candidate. A 20-year veteran of the Senate and long-time chair of the budget committee, Conrad exudes the wonkishness and Washington experience that Obama’s critics claim he needs. It works: Obama’s a rhetorical racehorse to Conrad’s workhorse. The crowd of 1,000 + in the middle school gymnasium were “fired up” just like Obama said: and just as he promised he addressed the undecideds in the room. His arguments and rhetoric are more classical and logical than Senator Clinton’s: and he has recently added a nifty bit about Bill Clinton’s supposed lack of Washington experience in 1992 to ridicule the Clintons’ claims from 2007. He also gets a big laugh (something you didn’t see much at the Clinton events) about how inside-the-Beltway experts wanted to season, stew, and “boil the hope out of” Obama. He is a master of the peroration and turning what are, frankly, quite effective criticisms on their head. I saw both KC Star political reporter Steve Kraske and former Dole intern Rance Graham Bailey at the event, and both were wowed by the speech and the rally.

9:30 p.m. on the Sunday before the caucus. Where can you eat in Des Moines? Since Adam Nagorney’s rave review of the restaurant scene, several of the nicer restaurants have really filled up with reporters and political tourists. Such is the case at 801 Grant, a fancy steak house that was busy hustling big hunks of meat to Klein and Terry McAuliffe, chief fundraiser for the Clintons. But the kitchen was closed! Famished, we went on to the old standby “Il Centro.” What a scene! KU and Dole Institute alum CJ Jackson was there. So was an entire table of LA politicos. My college classmate Eric Garcetti (president of the city council) was there, with his dad, former DA Gil Garcetti, both Obama supporters. Joining them was LA mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, in a very nice suit. The Washington Post table included 2006 post-election program veteran Dan Balz (who has written my favorite blog entries of the caucus season on The Trail — ) and Chris Cillizza, who writes the Post blog The Fix and accepted my invitation to come to the Institute this spring. Former study group speaker Walter Schapiro was there. Even minor-league celebrities like “Superman Returns” star and Iowa native Brandon Routh, who introduced Obama last night in Indianola.

Also holding court was David Axelrod, Obama’s campaign manager, striking a Phil Jackson zen-like pose as he answered questions from me and everyone else. He feels good about the campaign, and said he’d like to visit the Institute when things shake out with the campaign. Should be great.

A final thought or two. There is a definite echo chamber at work covering the candidates. Reporters are generally on buses together all day, and hear the same speeches over and over and over. There is very little news committed, day-to-day, on the Democratic side (the Republicans are locked in a much more negative, angry campaign at the moment – although that could change quickly). Then they all congregate in the same watering holes and restaurants at the end of every day, where they compare stories and eat expensed meals. (Full disclosure: I very much enjoyed my delicious pork chop, generously proffered by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp.) It would be very, very hard to buck the horse-race style coverage this type of newsgathering generates, even with some of the best minds in reporting. I hope when the winnowing of the fields occur after Thursday’s caucus and next Tuesday’s New Hampshire primary, some of these people turn back to deeply covering the issues and ideas these compelling candidates are tossing out.

Iowans clearly take this process very seriously, and I was impressed with the future caucus-goers I met. But who wouldn’t take a decision this important seriously? Would Kansans or Nevadans blow it all off, watching televised bowling on TV and scarffing pork rinds, a la Homer Simpson? No way. Let’s figure out a way of choosing nominees that takes opinions of big and small states, red and blue states, white and diverse states, rural and urban states EQUALLY SERIOUSLY.

Let the voting begin…

Video Link 

Dukakis began his political career as an elected Town Meeting Member in
the town of Brookline. He was elected chairman of his town’s Democratic
organization in 1960 and won a seat in the Massachusetts legislature in
1962. He served four terms as a legislator, winning re-election by an
increasing margin each time he ran.

In 1970 he was the Massachusetts Democratic Party’s nominee for
Lieutenant-Governor and the running mate of Boston Mayor Kevin White
in that year’s gubernatorial race which they lost to Republicans Frank
Sargeant and Donald Dwight. Dukakis won his party’s nomination for
governor in 1974 and beat Sargeant decisively in November of that year.
Dukakis inherited a record deficit and record high unemployment and is
generally credited with digging Massachusetts out of one of its worst
financial and economic crises in history. But the effort took its toll, and he
was defeated in the Democratic Primary in 1978 by Edward King.

Dukakis came back to defeat King in 1982 and was re-elected to an
unprecedented third four-year term in 1986 by one of the largest margins
in history. In 1986 his colleagues in the National Governors Association
voted him the most effective governor in the Nation.

In 1988 Dukakis became the first Greek-American to be nominated for the
presidency. He emerged from a strong Democratic field that included
Senators Al Gore, Gary Hart and the Rev. Jesse Jackson. Dukakis won the
Democratic nomination but was defeated by George H.W. Bush. Soon
thereafter, he announced that he would not be a candidate for re-election as
governor and served his final two years as governor at a time of increasing
financial and economic distress in Massachusetts and the Northeast.

After leaving office in January 1991, Dukakis was a visiting professor
at the University of Hawaii in the political science department and at
the School of Public Health. While at the University of Hawaii, he
taught courses in political leadership and health policy and led a series
of public forums on the reform of the nation’s health care system.

Since then, there has been increasing public interest in Hawaii’s
first-in-the nation universal health insurance system and the lessons
that can be learned from it as the nation debates the future of health
care in America.

Dukakis has taught in the senior executive program for State and Local
managers at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard
University. He has also taught at Florida Atlantic University.
His research has focused on national health care policy reform and the
lessons that national policy makers can learn from state reform efforts.
He has authored articles on the subject for the Journal of American
Health Policy, the Yale Law and Policy Review, the New England
Journal of Medicine, and Compensation and Benefits Management.

In addition, he co-taught with Professor Rochefort a graduate seminar in
national health policy reform that included a series of public forums
and an all-day conference that culminated in the publication of
Insuring American Health for the Year 2000, a Northeastern
University publication that has been distributed widely to health policy
makers, legislators and others.

Today, Dukakis spends his time teaching, spending one semester a
year at Northeastern University in Massachusetts and the other at the
University of California, Los Angeles.

Video Link 

Commanding General, U.S. Army Combined Arms Center and Fort Leavenworth

Commandant, U.S. Army Command and General Staff College

Deputy Commanding General for Combined Arms, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command Director, Joint Center for International Security Force Assistance

Lieutenant General Caldwell currently serves as the commander of the Combined Arms Center at Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas, the command that oversees the Command and General Staff College and 17 other schools, centers, and training programs located throughout the United States. The Combined Arms Center is also responsible for: development of the Army’s doctrinal manuals, training of the Army’s commissioned and noncommissioned officers, oversight of major collective training exercises, integration of battle command systems and concepts, and supervision of the Army’s Center for the collection and dissemination of lessons learned.

His prior deployments and assignments include serving as Deputy Chief of Staff for Strategic Effects and spokesperson for the Multi-National Force – Iraq, Commanding General of the 82nd Airborne Division; Senior Military Assistant to the Deputy Secretary of Defense; Deputy Director for Operations for the United States Pacific Command; Assistant Division Commander, 25th Infantry Division; Executive Assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Commander, 1st Brigade, 10th Mountain Division; a White House Fellow, The White House; Politico-Military Officer in Haiti during OPERATION RESTORE/UPHOLD DEMOCRACY; Assistant Chief of Staff for Operations, 3rd Brigade, 82nd Airborne Division during OPERATIONS DESERT SHIELD and DESERT STORM; and Chief of Plans for the 82nd Airborne Division during OPERATION JUST CAUSE in Panama.

Lieutenant General Caldwell’s decorations include the Distinguished Service Medal, the Defense Superior Service Medal (with two Oak Leaf Clusters), the Legion of Merit (with two Oak Leaf Clusters), the Bronze Star (with one Oak Leaf Cluster), and the Louisiana Cross of Merit.

Lieutenant General Caldwell graduated from the United States Military Academy at West Point in 1976. He earned Masters Degrees from the United States Naval Postgraduate School and from the School for Advanced Military Studies at the United States Army Command and General Staff College. Lieutenant General Caldwell also attended the John F. Kennedy, School of Government, Harvard University as a Senior Service College Fellow.

Dole Institute - October 25, 2007 

One of the longest running syndicated columns in the nation, “Inside Report” has always been based on hard reporting. For over a quarter of a century, both columnists not only crisis-crossed the nation regularly covering politics, but also traveled abroad to report wars, revolutions and international conferences around the globe.

Mr. Novak has covered great events and interviewed world leaders in every part of the world. His 1978 trip to China included an exclusive interview with Deng Tsiao-Peng, which opened the way for normalization of U.S. Chinese relations.

Mr. Novak produces a twice-monthly newsletter, the Evans-Novak Political Report. Mr. Novak has written for most of the nation’s periodicals.

Mr. Novak’s first book was Agony of the GOP: 1964. In collaboration with Rowland Evans, he has written Lyndon B. Johnson: The Exercise of Power, and The Reagan Revolution. In November, 1999, Mr. Novak’s most recent book, Completing the Revolution: A Vision for Victory in 2000, was published. His memoirs, The Prince of Darkness: 50 Years Reporting in Washington, were published in July.

For 25 years Mr. Novak was a commentator for the Cable News Network (CNN) and was co-executive producer of the “Capital Gang.” Currently, he is a commentator for Fox News and appears occasionally on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

Mr. Novak was a Radford Visiting Professor of Journalism at Baylor University in 1987. He is the 2001 winner of the National Press Club’s “Fourth Estate: award for lifetime achievement in journalism.

Video Link

MP3

Created by blogger Rick Calvert, BW was be the first business expo to showcase blogging as well as the other interactive media. The array of talents, attendees and sponsors was impressive. The first panel, on Thursday, Nov. 8, focused on “The Power of Political Blogosphere.”

The panelists included: Hugh Hewitt, Pam Spaulding, Dave Nalle, Taylor Marsh, and Brad Friedman. The next day I moderated “Political Blogs and The Political Press” featuring John Hinderaker, Natasha Chart, Mary Katharine Ham, and Freidman and Marsh.

Here are the current drafts of my presentations that introduced the panels.

In my forthcoming book Blogwars: The New Political Battleground, [Forthcoming, Oxford University Press, Dec. 2007] I argue that 2008 is the year that blogging and other interactive media are coming of age–in political campaigns and elsewhere such as in commercial marketing. Everyone from car companies to mayoral candidates are experimenting with blogging, podcasting, Myspace, Facebook, flikr, Twittering and of course YouTube. The world of online interactivity is now simply our world. In many ways a business convention about blogging which featured entrepreneurs as well major companies such as Microsoft is a perfect marker that everyone is taking so called new media seriously.

It is time to decide — do we reform the current military and veterans’ disability evaluation and compensation systems or limp along, placing Band-Aids over existing flaws? It has been more than 2 1/2 months since our commission presented its six pragmatic recommendations to improve the system of care for our injured service members and their families.

 Our recommendations are eminently doable and designed for immediate implementation. While progress has been made, more work remains. And the clock is ticking. The vast majority of the steps needed to implement our recommendations must be taken by the administration. Since unveiling our report, we have met frequently with officials from the White House and the departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs. We are pleased that they are moving forward with several critical changes, including the development of recovery plans and assigning coordinators to oversee the care of our most seriously injured troops. We have also testified before Congress and met individually with lawmakers.

Overall, we are buoyed by the strong bipartisan support being given to the proposals. Despite this support, however, it is clear that our recommendations are being swept up in a decades-long battle to reform the entire disability system for all service members. It is important to remember that our commission was tasked with improving care and benefits for those returning from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. While we hope that our recommendations will help many others, our mission was to make the system work better for this new generation of veterans.

The current systems of disability and compensation are convoluted, confusing and dated. Modernizing the disability system was of great importance to our commission. Four of our nine commissioners are disabled — including two who sustained serious injuries in Iraq and Afghanistan — and one is the wife of a soldier severely burned in Operation Iraqi Freedom. According to research our commission conducted among wounded and evacuated service members from the current conflicts, the disability rating system at both Defense and Veterans Affairs is poorly understood and is a source of major dissatisfaction. Almost 60 percent of the service members had difficulty understanding the disability evaluation process.

 Our recommendations would update and simplify the disability determination and compensation system; eliminate parallel activities between the two departments; reduce inequities; and provide injured veterans with the tools to return to productive life. We would create a system that allows the departments to focus on their separate missions. Under our system, Defense maintains authority to determine fitness to serve.

For those found not fit for duty, payment would be provided for time served. Veterans Affairs then would establish the disability rating, compensation and benefits. Defense must provide the necessary military strength and expertise to keep our nation secure. It should determine fitness standards and provide for the health and readiness of the military workforce. As an employer, it must also provide retirement benefits.

The VA’s mission is to care for our nation’s veterans by providing appropriate benefits and services. Fundamentally, the system our recommendations would create is designed for our current service members and their families. These men and women differ from the generations that came before them. They have different injuries, different needs and, thanks to advances in medicine and science, greater opportunities to transition back to fulfilling lives. They need a system that is easy to navigate and allows them to focus on building their futures. While this particular recommendation has received acclaim from many veterans organizations for being balanced and reasonable, some veterans groups that want to reform the system for all former service members have called to stop any movement forward and to simply perpetuate the present, flawed system.

However, when we reviewed the recommendations that the Veterans Disability Benefits Commission released this month, we saw many of the same conclusions that we reached. That 2 1/2 -year study only adds to the pleas for change from those troops at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and throughout our country who just want their lives back. Since the historic Bradley Commission in 1956, numerous task forces and commissions have been created to improve the system of care. While there has been tinkering around the edges, lack of political will almost always got in the way of serious reform. This must not be allowed to happen again. Yes, our elected officials should continuously examine how to enhance care for all those who have been put in harm’s way. But right now, they have actionable recommendations that can make a real difference for those who have served our country in Iraq and Afghanistan.

With Veterans Day only a few weeks away, we can think of no better tribute than to give our new veterans a system that truly meets their needs.

Bob Dole was a Republican senator from Kansas from 1969 to 1996. Donna E. Shalala was secretary of health and human services from 1993 to 2001. They are co-chairs of thePresident’s Commission on Care for America’s Returning Wounded Warriors.

President’s Commission on Care for America’s Returning Wounded Warriors

Major Andrew Harvey provides an inside look at the Iraqi government from the perspective of a political and military intelligence officer who spent most of 2006 at Camp Victory Baghdad. His presentation — seen before only by a select group of soldiers, businessmen and insiders — will go beyond “benchmarks” to assess where the Maliki government is and is likely to go in the future.

WATCH VIDEO HERE 

*******

ARTICLE: University Daily Kansan

 Doctoral student shares experiences in Iraq

 Major Andrew Harvey, a University of Kansas doctoral student, spoke at the Dole Institute of Politics Wednesday night about his experiences in Iraq as a political-military intelligence officer Harvey, who spent the duration of 2006 in Iraq, discussed the results of studies that he participated in to reveal the progress and proposed future of the country.

 He said that Iraq will “fracture” because its government will be too weak in the future and ethnic groups will see its constitution as inefficient.

 “Iraq will lack a strong government for many years,” Harvey said. “It takes a long, long time.” Harvey discussed the separation of Iraqi people into ethnic groups and how that affects the voting power in Iraq. He also talked about which groups wanted the United States to remain in the country and which didn’t. “Iraq’s problem is that they are fairly new to the idea of running a government in what we call a democratic method,” Harvey said.

Harvey also spoke about the importance of Iraq’s neighboring countries, especially Turkey. He talked about why the current systems of government, including the Iraqi Parliament, Kurdish Regional Government and Council of Representatives, are failing. He said the court system in Iraq was “in shambles” without written laws, and that the national police were “completely compromised.”

While Harvey was in Iraq, he assisted in the improvement of the agricultural ministry. His efforts helped double the agricultural output. Jonathan Earle, Interim Director at the Dole Institute, said there was an “absolute hunger” in the local community to talk about the war. “We happen to have people like Harvey on this campus that just got back,” Earle said. “This is something that isn’t going away. It’s going to be here now, six months from now and six months after that.”

Harvey said that even if U.S. troops could create a completely secure and stable situation in Iraq, it would take a long time for the current leaders to create a functioning system of government. Harvey has been active in the service since 1986, and is working for the Department of Joint and Multinational Operations at Fort Leavenworth. At the University, Harvey is working on his dissertation on the European Union’s development of defense capability.

— Edited by Elizabeth Cattell

U.S. Rep. John Lewis, a Georgia Democrat, will be the recipient of this year’s Dole Leadership Prize, the Dole Institute of Politics will announce today.

Lewis was a leader in the civil rights movement of the 1960s and was beaten by the police in retaliation for his actions. He was among the leaders of the march in Alabama from Selma to Montgomery, an event that would later be recognized as a turning point in the movement.

“Here’s someone who has every right to be bitter and angry and throw his hands up and say the system doesn’t work, but he didn’t do that,” Dole interim director Jonathan Earle said. “He works through the system to achieve the goals he set out to achieve in the 1960s.”

It was never an option, Lewis said, to become upset by the system.

“Someplace along the way I was taught and also came to believe that hate was too heavy a burden to bear,” Lewis said. “The way of peace, of love, of nonviolence is a more excellent way. I didn’t have time to become bitter. I didn’t have time to become hostile.”

Lewis will receive the prize and give a lecture at the Lied Center on Oct. 21. The event starts at 7:30 p.m., and tickets are available from the Lied Center box office.

Lewis said in his speech he would try to encourage young people to identify a cause and commit themselves, mind and body, to achieving that cause.

“Young people need to understand today that we didn’t wait for people to come from some other part of the world to tell us to do one, two, three or a, b, c. We did it ourselves,” he said.

Earle said Lewis has expressed an interest in visiting with students Oct. 22, but was trying to determine whether that would work with his schedule. Congress is in session when the prize will be presented.

“I’m deeply honored and appreciative to be receiving this award named for Senator Bob Dole,” Lewis said. “Over the years, now more than 40 years, I’ve tried to do what I could to make our country a better country, a better place.”

Earle cited several reasons in deciding to award the leadership prize to Lewis.

“The first one is his actual heroism in the civil rights movement,” Earle said. “He was someone who was on the front line during some of the bloodiest battles of the civil rights movement.”

Lewis’ public beating was instrumental in converting Northern whites to the cause of civil rights for blacks, Earle said.

Earle said it was a privilege to give the leadership prize to Lewis because he’d always looked up to the politician as one of this heroes.

Previous winners of the Dole prize include former Sen. Howard Baker, who was given the award for 2006; former Polish President Lech Walesa; former New York City Mayor and current presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani; and former Sen. George McGovern. The prize is accompanied by a $25,000 cash award.

“(Lewis) is going to do a great, old-fashioned, rabble-rousing speech,” Earle said. “This is a real American hero.”

More links: John Lewis (politician)

The Online Office of Congressman John Lewis

Congressman John Lewis, Civil Rights Leader

Biography: John Lewis Champion of Civil Rights

By

Tomorrow the United Nations will consider Taiwan’s application for membership. It has formally sought admission every year since 1993, but this year’s application is different.

First, the country is applying under its own name (”Taiwan”) rather than its official appellation (”Republic of China”). Second, it is applying to the U.N. General Assembly, the organization’s comprehensive body of member nations — despite the rejection of its application this summer by U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and his legal office. Third, the application may be followed by a national referendum on whether Taiwan should apply for U.N. membership under its own name — a plan that has elicited a sharp rebuke by the Bush administration.

The U.N.’s lawyers argued that, having transferred China’s seat from Taipei to Beijing in 1971, the U.N. should reject Taiwan’s latest application because Taiwan “for all intents and purposes” is “an integral part of the People’s Republic of China.” Taiwan presents a more compelling legal case: It meets all of the requirements of statehood under law.

It is already a full and productive member of international organizations such as the World Trade Organization and Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum. It has never been a province or part of the local government of the People’s Republic of China. Taiwan’s recent transformation into a modern democratic state supersedes any decades-old determination that gives the PRC a United Nations seat — even as the U.N. failed to determine that Taiwan is part of the PRC or bestow upon it the right to represent Taiwan.

Taiwan’s political case for U.N. membership is equally strong. It is the 48th most populous country in the world. Its economy is the world’s 16th largest. Its gross national product totals $366 billion, or $16,098 per capita. With $267 billion in foreign exchange reserves, it is one of the world’s three largest creditor states. Taiwan is therefore poised to be a significant contributor to the U.N.’s operations and play a constructive role in the organization.

Unfortunately, the United States and the other major powers discourage Taiwan in its quest for de jure international recognition of its de facto sovereignty. This is because they do not want to raise the ire of the PRC, which, as a member of the U.N. Security Council, can block any significant U.N. action, and, as a global power, can interfere on a host of issues important to the U.S. and Europe.

Thanks to exponentially increased trade with the U.S. and Europe, Beijing feels less compelled than ever to seek political accommodation with Taiwan, or to decrease its military threat against the island nation. Expanding economic relationships may be good in and of itself, but predictions that this would produce political cracks in China’s authoritarian regime have proved wrong.

Today, Beijing is using its newfound economic might to isolate Taiwan still further in international organizations and attempt to persuade the two dozen countries that recognize Taiwan diplomatically to switch their ties to China. Meanwhile, the people of the PRC enjoy fewer political rights and civil liberties than in all but a few of the world’s countries.

A few short years ago, the U.S. seemed determined to change this. During his 2000 election campaign and the first months of his administration, President Bush and his team vowed to fashion a new foreign policy in which U.S. national interests, particularly in Asia, were advanced less exclusively through the prism of Beijing. In other words, the U.S. wanted to be less beholden to the communist regime.

One of the casualties of 9/11, and the subsequent war in Iraq, was that this policy agenda became less of a priority. Our cooperation with Pakistan in the effort to topple the Taliban, find Osama bin Laden and eradicate terrorism in the region meant that we focused less on developing a higher-tier relationship with India. We also concentrated less on drawing out Japan, by encouraging it to play a more active political and military role on the global stage. Equally important, we were unable to increase our promotion of democracy in the region by fostering closer ties with countries such as Taiwan and South Korea and escalating pressure on Beijing to reform.

The current U.S. administration still has time to correct this omission. Having been an advocate for Taiwan during my time in the Senate, and today as part of a law firm that represents Taiwan’s interests in the U.S., I believe that President Bush should support Taiwan’s application for U.N. membership. This should be quickly followed by active or tacit support for Taiwan’s plans for a popular vote on this issue in March 2008. Our close Asian friend and ally needs and deserves this recognition and support, which would at the same time advance America’s regional and global interest in promoting democratization.

Previous: On 9 May 1996, Republican Presidential candidate Robert Dole gave a speech outlining his Asia policy, at the Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS) in Washington D.C. Read the response from the Taiwanese community in the United States.

Mr. Dole, a former Senate majority leader and the Republican candidate for president in 1996, is special counsel to Alston & Bird.