<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>

<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
  <title>Rob Diamond</title>
  <link href="http://huffingtonpost.com/author/index.php?author=rob-diamond"/>
  <updated>2013-05-22T06:53:39-04:00</updated>
  <author>
    <name>Rob Diamond</name>
  </author>
  <id xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/index.php?author=rob-diamond</id>
  <rights>Copyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.</rights>
  <subtitle>HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Rob Diamond</subtitle>
  <generator>Good old fashioned elbow grease.</generator>

<entry>
    <title>Sarah Palin vs. Admiral Mullen over New START</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-diamond/sarah-palin-vs-admiral-mu_b_783939.html"/>
    <id>tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.783939</id>
    <published>2010-11-15T19:43:35-05:00</published>
    <updated>2011-05-25T18:10:25-04:00</updated>
    <summary><![CDATA[Sarah "Barracuda" has done it again.  In her 24/7, at-any-cost quest to stay in the media spotlight--and thus, by her...]]></summary>
    <author>
        <name>Rob Diamond</name>
        <uri>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-diamond/</uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-diamond/"><![CDATA[Sarah "Barracuda" has done it again.  In her 24/7, at-any-cost quest to stay in the media spotlight--and thus, by her calculation, relevant--Sarah Palin has found time away from both her new TLC reality/wilderness show "<a href="http://tlc.discovery.com/tv/sarah-palin-alaska/" target="_hplink">Sarah Palin's Alaska</a>" (think "<a href="http://tlc.discovery.com/tv/jon-and-kate/jon-and-kate.html" target="_hplink">Jon &amp; Kate Plus 8</a>" meets "<a href="http://dsc.discovery.com/tv/shark-week/" target="_hplink">Shark Week</a>"), as well from watching her daughter on "<a href="http://abc.go.com/shows/dancing-with-the-stars/bio/bristol-palin/549554" target="_hplink">Dancing With The Stars</a>" (to which the terms "dancing" and "star" are loosely applied to daughter Bristol) in order to boldly put forth her thoughts on the future of....wait for it...U.S.-Russian nuclear disarmament and the new START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty).  Seriously, I am not kidding.  <br />
<br />
I know you have many immediate and important questions to ask, like why has Bristol Palin not been voted off  DWTS yet?  But focus please.  Let's start with what in the world is the "new START treaty?"  As <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/22/military-gung-ho-for-new-start/" target="_hplink">four retired American military generals explained</a>  last month in the Washington Times:<blockquote><br />
<br />
<br />
"The New START treaty replaces a treaty negotiated under the Reagan administration and signed by President George H.W. Bush, which expired in December. It provides stability and predictability between the world's two leading nuclear powers as well as modest reductions in U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals. Most important, it replaces the previous treaty's lapsed verification regime with a state-of-the-art system that builds on 20 years of verification experience and puts U.S. inspectors back on the ground to monitor Russia's nuclear weapons"<br />
<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
And why should you care?  Because it is possible the U.S. Senate will vote on this important new treaty before the end of the year.  The first START treaty was ratified by the Senate in 1992 by a vote of 93-6.<br />
<br />
Cue Sarah Palin.<br />
<br />
This past Saturday, the former not-quite-one-term Governor of Alaska and now likely Republican presidential candidate published an "<a href="http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/11/13/sarah-palin-republican-freshmen-congress-election-victory-obamacare-deficit/" target="_hplink">Open Letter to Republican Freshmen Members of Congress</a>" via FoxNews.com. Palin asserts in the opening of the letter that her thoughts were in demand from these newly elected Members of Congress: "[s]ome of you have asked for my thoughts on how best to proceed in the weeks and months ahead and how best to advance an agenda that can move our country forward. "  It is unclear if by "some" Mrs. Palin means "one" or "many," but let's not get bogged down with specifics.  She doesn't.<br />
<br />
You have to read about 14 paragraphs into her letter--past the long-term "so much damage has been done in the last two years" memory lapses; past the still-trying-to-scare-the-old-people with "Obamacare" language; and just beyond the patently false "tax cuts didn't get us into the mess," before the former Republican Vice-Presidential nominee gets to her thoughts on foreign policy and national security.<br />
  <br />
But then she doesn't hold back--her imagination, that is.  Mrs. Palin spends some quality time attacking President Obama on Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, and China.  She drops the perfunctory Ronald Reagan quote, sets backs Middle-East peace negotiations by about 30 years, and then there it is, the gem:<br />
<blockquote><br />
<br />
"And for those of you joining the United States Senate, don't listen to desperate politically-motivated arguments about the need for hasty consideration of the "New START" treaty. Insist on your right to patient and careful deliberation of New START to address very real concerns about verification, missile defense, and modernization of our nuclear infrastructure. No New START in the lame duck!"<br />
<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
It's the "desperate politically-motivated arguments" part of her statement that I find the most interesting, because one of the loudest voices in the past few weeks calling for the quick ratification of the new START treaty is Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.  I typically do not think of Admiral Mullen--the nation's highest ranking military officer--as "desperate" or "politically motivated."<br />
<br />
In fact, Admiral Mullen gave a <a href="http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=61682" target="_hplink">very strong speech</a> <em>just this past Friday</em> at Stanford University's Hoover Institute where he unequivocally stated his support for the new START treaty because its the right thing for the safety of our country.  The Chairman, a 42-year veteran of the US military, said:<br />
<br />
<blockquote><br />
<br />
"I believe, and the rest of the military leadership in this country believes, that this treaty is essential to our future security.  I believe it enhances and ensures that security. And I hope the Senate will ratify it quickly."<br />
</blockquote> <br />
<br />
So there you have it.  Sarah Palin--the less than one term Governor of Alaska and reality TV star--who is opposed to a vote on the new START treaty; versus, Admiral Mike Mullen--a four-star Admiral, the nation's highest ranking military officer and a 42-year veteran of the U.S. Armed Forces--who has stated that ratification of this treaty is critical to the long term security of the United States.  <br />
<br />
Which one are you listening to when it comes to keeping America safe?  Hey Senate, here is a hint--my money is not on Sarah Palin. She can go back to basic cable where she belongs.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
P.S.  If you're still not convinced, here is just a partial list of national security experts who have endorsed the ratification of the new START treaty.  I am considering changing the title of this piece to "Sarah Palin versus the Entire Rational Universe." Enjoy:    <br />
<br />
Robert Gates, Secretary of Defense<br />
Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State<br />
Colin Powell, Secretary of State 2001-2005<br />
Madeleine Albright, Secretary of State, 1997-2001<br />
Henry Kissinger, Secretary of State 1973-1977<br />
Brent Scrowcroft, National Security Advisor to President George H.W. Bush<br />
William Cohen, Secretary of Defense, 1997-2001<br />
James Schelsinger, Secretary of Defense 1973-1975<br />
William Perry, Secretary of Defense 1994-1997<br />
Steven Hadley, National Security Advisor to President George W. Bush<br />
Howard Baker, U.S. Senator (R-TN), 1967-85<br />
Samuel Berger, National Security Advisor, 1997-2001<br />
Dr. Barry Blechman, Assistant Director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, 1977-80; Commissioner, Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States, 1998-99<br />
Linton Brooks, Administrator, National Nuclear Security Administration, 2002-07<br />
Harold Brown, Secretary of Defense, 1977-81<br />
Mark Brzezinski, Director of Southeast European Affairs, National Security Council, 1999-2001<br />
Richard Burt, Chief START Negotiator, 1989-91<br />
Frank Carlucci, Secretary of Defense, 1987-89<br />
Warren Christopher, Secretary of State, 1993-97<br />
John C. Danforth, U.S. Senator (R-MO), 1977-95<br />
Kenneth M. Duberstein, White House Chief of Staff,1988-89<br />
Lieutenant General Robert Gard, U.S. Army (Ret), President of the National Defense University, 1977-81<br />
Vice Admiral Lee Gunn, U.S. Navy (Ret), Inspector General of the Department of the Navy, 1997-2000<br />
Chuck Hagel, U.S. Senator (R-NE), 1997-2009<br />
Lee Hamilton, U.S. Congressman (D-IN), 1965-99<br />
Gary Hart, U.S. Senator (D-CO), 1975-87<br />
Rita E. Hauser, Chair, International Peace Institute<br />
Carla Hills, U.S. Trade Representative, 1989-93<br />
Lieutenant General Dirk Jameson, U.S. Air Force (Ret), Commander of U.S. ICBM forces 1992-94; Deputy Commander-In-Chief of U.S. Strategic Command, 1994-96<br />
Nancy Kassebaum-Baker, U.S. Senator (R-KS), 1978-97<br />
Thomas Kean, Governor (R-NJ), 1982-90; 9/11 Commission Chair<br />
Lawrence Korb, Assistant Secretary of Defense, 1981-85<br />
Richard Leone, President, The Century Foundation<br />
Donald McHenry, U.S. Ambassador to the UN, 1979-81<br />
Sam Nunn, U.S. Senator (D-GA), 1972-96<br />
Thomas Pickering, Under Secretary of State, 1997-2000<br />
Steven Pifer, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, 2001-04<br />
Warren Rudman, U.S. Senator (R-NH), 1980-92<br />
Wendy Sherman, Commissioner, Commission for the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction, Proliferation and Terrorism; Special Advisor and Policy Coordinator on U.S. policy toward North Korea, 1997-2001<br />
Alan Simpson, U.S. Senator (R-WY), 1979-97<br />
George Shultz, Secretary of State, 1982-89<br />
Theodore Sorensen, White House Special Counsel, 1961-63<br />
John Whitehead, Deputy Secretary of State, 1985-88<br />
Timothy E. Wirth, U.S. Senator (D-CO), 1987-93<br />
Frank Wisner, Under Secretary of State, 1992-93<br />
]]></content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>5,787 Reasons to Vote</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-diamond/5787-reasons-to-vote_b_777753.html"/>
    <id>tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.777753</id>
    <published>2010-11-02T14:10:12-04:00</published>
    <updated>2011-05-25T18:10:25-04:00</updated>
    <summary><![CDATA[5,787 is the number of American servicemen and women who, up until today, have died in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is 5,787 Americans who did not vote because they gave their lives so you could.  ]]></summary>
    <author>
        <name>Rob Diamond</name>
        <uri>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-diamond/</uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-diamond/"><![CDATA[Today is Election Day.  Unless you are living in a cave, or your name is Charlie Sheen, you probably knew that already.  The candidate commercials have been endless and fierce, the mailers are piled high on the table, and press coverage of this critical and close midterm election has been relentless.  <br />
<br />
Cutting through the noise to think about the issues and choose candidates carefully has never been more difficult.  Add to the now 24-7 political/media circus an economy that is sputtering in low-gear, plus 9.2% unemployment and you see why the American electorate seems to be teetering between stark-raving mad and disillusioned.<br />
<br />
But today the noise ends and the civil act of a single person casting a single vote is what rings loudest.<br />
  <br />
That is, of course, if you vote.<br />
<br />
There is nothing more frustrating to me about our citizenry than the fact that almost half of our eligible voting-age population <em>does not vote</em>.  In 2008, according to the Federal Election Commission, only 56.8% of those eligible to vote actually did so.  That was a presidential election year with "record" turnout.  <br />
<br />
In midterm elections, like today, it is much worse.  Only 37.1% of the electorate voted in the 2006 midterm election; 37% voted in 2002.  The last midterm election to break 40% voter turnout was 1970!<br />
<br />
There are countless reasons why this is.  From apathy to actual disenfranchisement, the causes of low turnout are well-studied, but we have made little-to-no improvement over the last 40 years.  There are economic, societal, cultural, educational, gender and racial breakdowns as to who votes more often than not.  There is the argument you often here that "my vote just does not matter" in districts where one party holds a clear majority.  And, sadly, there is a large percentage of Americans who are simply divorced from civic life. <br />
<br />
But there are also signs of positive change embedded in our new social media tools and modern-day networked lifestyle.  I can literally see which of my friends voted on Facebook this morning.  Campaigns continue to perfect the art of massive voter contact and turnout operations.  Time will only tell if these new tools and means of communications help to foster a more robust voter base and civic life.<br />
<br />
But back to today. Instead of a discussion about all the reasons why you cannot or do not want to vote, I have something different to offer. It does not matter if you are a Republican or Democrat.  You may be wearing a tri-corner hat made of tin-foil, or you may be fighting for LGBT rights. You may be mad as hell, you may be unemployed or you may be a staunch defender of the President. You may be concerned only about your taxes or foreign oil or terrorism.  But none of that matters if you do not vote.  <br />
<br />
So I offer you the same 5,787 reasons why I voted this morning.<br />
<br />
5,787 is the number of American servicemen and women who, up until today, have died in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is 5,787 Americans who did not vote because they gave their lives so you could.  <br />
<br />
Put your apathy and excuses away and cast a ballot.  Honor their memory and pay them the ultimate tribute you, as a citizen, can--VOTE.   <br />
]]></content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>This Iraq Veteran says &quot;Thank You, Mr. President&quot;</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-diamond/this-iraq-veteran-says-th_b_701471.html"/>
    <id>tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.701471</id>
    <published>2010-09-01T13:53:07-04:00</published>
    <updated>2011-05-25T17:30:22-04:00</updated>
    <summary><![CDATA[President Obama has ended the war in Iraq in a way that has protected the honor and dignity of each and every American who did not come back.]]></summary>
    <author>
        <name>Rob Diamond</name>
        <uri>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-diamond/</uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-diamond/"><![CDATA[Watching President Obama address the nation from the Oval Office last night to formally end combat operations in Iraq was a deeply personal moment for me.  The end of Operation Iraqi Freedom, after more than seven years of combat, unquestionably marks a turning point in the history of our country and our military.   As a veteran of the Iraq war and as someone who spent a third of my life in the uniform of the US Navy, the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom has forced me to think deeply about what this war has meant to me as a person, as a citizen and as someone who was sent to fight in it.  <br />
<br />
It did not surprise me to turn on the television last night to find the usual talking heads dissecting the President's <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/08/31/remarks-president-address-nation-end-combat-operations-iraq" target="_hplink">address</a> (before he uttered a word of it). In their usually, um, impressive fashion, they had keenly focused on the most important issue of the speech--was President Obama going to "diss" President Bush?   Seriously.<br />
<br />
There was nothing original in their tired arguments over who deserved credit for the "surge" or the fight over whether it was a "tactical success" or a "strategic failure" (or is it vice-versa).  There was even the shameless John Bolton, coming out of hiding to make the breathtaking claim that President Obama had <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-08-30/obamas-iraq-withdrawal-will-strengthen-iran-says-john-bolton/?cid=hp:exc" target="_hplink">"wrecked Iraq."</a><br />
<br />
I did not find that one funny.  I did not find it funny because I was only thinking of one thing last night. Actually, I was thinking of a few thousand things last night--the <a href="http://icasualties.org/Iraq/Index.aspx" target="_hplink">4,416</a> brothers and sisters of mine who died fighting in the streets and sands of Iraq.  And I was thinking about the <a href="http://icasualties.org/Iraq/USCasualtiesByState.aspx" target="_hplink">31,902</a> who had been wounded there.  And I thought about how sad it was that with 50,000 troops remaining in Iraq for another year, we have yet to see the last American die there.<br />
<br />
I think this war was wrong, and I mourn deeply the loss of these Americans.<br />
<br />
I am not a pacifist, far from it.  I understand quite clearly that there are bad guys out there who wish us and our way of life harm. I am a strong proponent of the US military and believe that our mission in Afghanistan should and must succeed.  <br />
<br />
But Iraq has taught me a lesson I will continue to take with me for the rest of my life--a lesson about the hubris of power; about the human cost of war; and about how we as citizens must hold our leaders firmly accountable when they decide to send our young men and women to fight and die.  <br />
<br />
As a student of history I have read so much about the wars of generations prior.  But now this war is mine.  The dead are my dead; the wounded, my friends.  You cannot escape unchanged.  You cannot look back on the past seven years and easily reconcile the human cost.<br />
<br />
And so I come back to President Obama's speech to the nation.  I watched our President--in words both humble and forceful--tell us that, finally, this war was coming to an end.  As he spoke the phrase "Operation Iraqi Freedom is over," I caught myself taking a deep breath and sitting back in my chair.  <br />
<br />
He went on to talk about Iraq's future, the need to refocus here at home and about fixing our troubled economy.  He talked about the continuing fight in Afghanistan, and, so importantly, he talked about the "sacred trust" that is caring for our veterans as they come home.<br />
<br />
But as he ended his speech, President Obama came back, once again, to the members of the United States military, and reminded us of the cost they have had to bear.  In his own words: <br />
 <blockquote>"Of course, the soldiers left much behind.  Some were teenagers when the war began.  Many have served multiple tours of duty, far from families who bore a heroic burden of their own, enduring the absence of a husband's embrace or a mother's kiss.  Most painfully, since the war began, 55 members of the Fourth Stryker Brigade made the ultimate sacrifice -- part of over 4,400 Americans who have given their lives in Iraq.  As one staff sergeant said, 'I know that to my brothers in arms who fought and died, this day would probably mean a lot.'<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
He continued:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Those Americans gave their lives for the values that have lived in the hearts of our people for over two centuries.  Along with nearly 1.5 million Americans who have served in Iraq, they fought in a faraway place for people they never knew.  They stared into the darkest of human creations -- war -- and helped the Iraqi people seek the light of peace.<br />
<br />
In an age without surrender ceremonies, we must earn victory through the success of our partners and the strength of our own nation.  Every American who serves joins an unbroken line of heroes that stretches from Lexington to Gettysburg; from Iwo Jima to Inchon; from Khe Sanh to Kandahar -- Americans who have fought to see that the lives of our children are better than our own.  Our troops are the steel in our ship of state.  And though our nation may be traveling through rough waters, they give us confidence that our course is true, and that beyond the pre-dawn darkness, better days lie ahead. Thank you. May God bless you.  And may God bless the United States of America, and all who serve her."</blockquote><br />
<br />
President Obama has ended the war in Iraq.  He has done so with strength, humility and courage.  He has done so in a way that has protected the honor and dignity of each and every American who did not come back.  Someday, somewhere, we will etch their names into granite.  Till then, I say thank you Mr. President, for bringing the rest of them home.<br />
 ]]></content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>GOP: Ground Zero Hypocrites</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-diamond/gop-ground-zero-hypocrite_b_688490.html"/>
    <id>tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.688490</id>
    <published>2010-08-19T21:41:22-04:00</published>
    <updated>2011-05-25T17:25:21-04:00</updated>
    <summary><![CDATA[With all their vitriol about a mosque near Ground Zero, leading Republicans seem to forget that twenty-one days ago, 155 Republican representatives voted to defeat the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010.]]></summary>
    <author>
        <name>Rob Diamond</name>
        <uri>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-diamond/</uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-diamond/"><![CDATA[Over the past few weeks the GOP's elected leadership--and many of its likely 2012 presidential candidates--have not hesitated to run full steam into the debate over whether a proposed Islamic center that includes a mosque should be built two blocks from Ground Zero in lower Manhattan.<br />
<br />
Their arguments have ranged from respect for the site of the 2001 terrorist attacks to defending the honor of those who perished there to Rep. Peter King's (R-NY) outright declaration that "<a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0907/Rep_King_There_are_too_many_mosques_in_this_country_.html" target="_hplink">there are too many mosques in this country.</a>"<br />
<br />
What these leading Republicans are not talking (or <a href="http://twitter.com/sarahpalinusa" target="_hplink">tweeting...Sarah Palin</a>) about is that twenty-one days ago 155 Republican members of the House of Representatives voted to defeat <a href="http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h847/show" target="_hplink">H.R.847 -- the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010</a> (Zadroga was a New York City Police Department officer who died of a respiratory disease believed to be linked to his efforts in the rescue/recovery operations at Ground Zero.  He was the first NYPD officer whose death was attributed to exposure to toxic chemicals at the attack site).<br />
<br />
The purpose of the Zadroga Bill was to provide long-term medical monitoring and treatment benefits to the emergency personnel and recovery workers who responded to the World Trade Center terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.  Among many other important things, it would also provide for the initial health evaluation, monitoring, and treatment benefits to residents, building occupants and other area workers who were directly impacted by the attacks.  <br />
<br />
So just to make it clear, the GOP has now staked a claim as the defenders of the sanctity of the Ground Zero site, but they have simultaneously VOTED to deny the necessary long-term healthcare  and compensation for the rescue workers and first responders who struggled in the ruins of Ground Zero.<br />
<br />
I was having trouble thinking of a word to describe people like this, and then I remembered.....<strong>HYPOCRITES</strong>.<br />
<br />
Here's what Republican Leader John Boehner had to say about the proposed mosque:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>"The decision to build this mosque so close to Ground Zero is deeply troubling, as is the president's decision to endorse it.  The American people certainly don't support it.  The fact that someone has the right to do something doesn't necessarily make it the right thing to do.  That is the essence of tolerance, peace and understanding.  This is not an issue of law, whether religious freedom or local zoning.  This is a basic issue of respect for a tragic moment in our history. We can never forget that terrible day, and the heroes who lost their lives - often in the hope that others might live.  We honor their memory and their sacrifice, always."<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
Except I guess Congressman Boehner gets to pick and choose which part of September 11th he "honors." As you might expect, he voted <a href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2010-491" target="_hplink">"NO"</a> on the Zadroga Health and Compensation Bill.<br />
<br />
The House GOP's number two -- Rep. Eric Cantor, the Republican whip -- had this to say about the proposed mosque:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>"The World Trade Centers were brought down by Islamic extremists -- radicals who were bent on killing Americans and accomplished that in unimaginable ways. I think it is the height of insensitivity, and unreasonableness to allow for the construction of a mosque on the site of the World Trade Center bombings. I mean, come on."<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
Rep. Cantor voted <a href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2010-491" target="_hplink">"NO"</a> on the Zadroga Health and Compensation Bill. I mean, come on!<br />
<br />
Shall I go on?  Why not...<br />
<br />
The House GOP's number three -- Rep. Mike Pence, the Chair of the Republican Conference -- weighed into the debate by stating that "it is not appropriate to construct a mosque celebrating Islamic culture in the shadow of the Twin Towers."<br />
<br />
Apparently he found it appropriate to vote <a href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2010-491" target="_hplink">"NO"</a> on the Zadroga Bill, because that is exactly what he did, along with 154 other Republican members of the House (by contrast 12 Republicans voted for the bill along with 243 Democrats; because of a House procedural rule a 2/3's majority was required for passage).  <br />
<br />
For purposes of my own sanity I am not even going to address former House Speaker Newt Gingrich's <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41112.html#ixzz0x67m91xN" target="_hplink">statement on Fox News equating Muslims to "Nazis."</a>  That remark is so crazy that it's not worth my time or yours.  Besides, he did not even bother to make a statement on the Zadroga Bill.  Guess he was too busy.<br />
<br />
I understand the raw emotions surrounding the debate over the proposed Islamic cultural center, especially for New Yorkers (of which I am one).  I live and work in Manhattan, and was born in the City. I pass by Ground Zero on a regular basis.  I knew members of my community and my high school who died in the September 11th attacks.  As a veteran of the US military I even went to war in 2004 to fight back against those who attacked us (or so it was claimed in Iraq anyway).<br />
<br />
But what I do not understand, and will not accept, are politicians who want us to sit idly by why they insult the heroes of 9/11 one minute -- by denying them necessary health care and monitoring -- then wrap themselves in the flag the next in a rush to start a culture war and score cheap political points.<br />
<br />
The GOP should simply be ashamed.  These "defenders" of Ground Zero are nothing but hypocrites, doubly insulting the honor and memory of those who died--and those who dug -- on that tragic September morning.<br />
 <br />
]]></content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Securing America's Energy Future</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-diamond/securing-americas-energy_b_600745.html"/>
    <id>tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.600745</id>
    <published>2010-06-04T11:52:44-04:00</published>
    <updated>2011-05-25T16:40:24-04:00</updated>
    <summary><![CDATA[America's reliance on oil is our Achilles heel. We desperately need a comprehensive energy strategy--one that cuts our addiction to fossil fuels, boosts clean energy technology, and moves our nation towards energy independence.]]></summary>
    <author>
        <name>Rob Diamond</name>
        <uri>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-diamond/</uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-diamond/"><![CDATA[Watching tens of thousands of gallons spew daily into the Gulf of Mexico, wreaking economic havoc and environmental catastrophe on the Gulf Coast, is only latest -- and the largest -- shock  to our country courtesy of our addiction to and dependence on oil.  Conservative estimates by both the government and independent scientists indicate that, to date, anywhere between 18 to 28 million gallons of oil have spilled into the Gulf since this disaster started.  <br />
<br />
When it comes to the U.S. and oil, however, here is the number that really scares me:  Americans send <strong>one billion dollars a day</strong> overseas to pay for oil, most of it flooding a global oil market that enriches hostile governments, funds terrorist organizations, and props up repressive regimes. I can tell you one thing for certain--this is not in our national security interest.<br />
<br />
America's reliance on oil is our Achilles heel. We desperately need a comprehensive energy strategy--one that cuts our addiction to fossil fuels, boosts clean energy technology, and moves our nation dramatically towards energy independence.  It is vital to our national security, to the safety of our men and women in uniform, and to the fight against terrorism.  The bottom line is this--we must put America in control of its energy future.<br />
<br />
Just take a look at Iran, a country that is not typically described these days as a "friend" of the United States.  This past week, General Stanley McChrystal, the U.S./NATO Commander in Afghanistan, announced publicly that Afghan insurgents are being <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64T0U920100530" target="_hplink">trained and armed inside Iran</a>.  Until we pass comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation, like the <a href="http://kerry.senate.gov/americanpoweract/pdf/APAbill.pdf" target="_hplink">American Power Act</a> introduced by Senator John Kerry earlier this month, we miss the opportunity to deprive this hostile regime of $100 million a day in oil revenue.  This money is being used to train enemy fighters and buy the weapons that are used to kill our own troops.<br />
<br />
Think about that for a second... because of our addiction to oil, we are funding both sides of the conflicts we have sent the young men and women of the US military to fight.  General James T. Conway, Commandant of the Marine Corps, put it quite succinctly: "energy choices can save lives on the battlefield."<br />
<br />
Over the past year, I have had the honor of  joining with veterans and senior military leaders from around the country as part of <a href="http://www.operationfree.net/" target="_hplink">Operation Free</a>--a national coalition of hundreds of veterans and other leading national security organizations, who have come together with one simple mission: to secure America with clean energy.<br />
 <br />
The veterans of Operation Free have seen firsthand in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere the real costs of our failed energy policy.  These men and women have crisscrossed the country by bio-diesel powered bus--over 25,000 miles in all--telling their stories in town halls big and small about the need to end our dependence on oil and what the grave consequences to our national security will be if we do not. <br />
<br />
This past May 5th, Operation Free released a <a href="http://www.operationfree.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Generals-Letter-Ad.pdf" target="_hplink">letter to the United States Senate</a> that stated, "America's billion-dollar-a-day dependence on oil makes us vulnerable to unstable and unfriendly regimes."  This letter was signed by 33 former Generals and Admirals.  In its 2010 <a href="http://www.defense.gov/qdr/" target="_hplink">Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR)</a>-- which underpins all national security planning for the U.S. government--the Pentagon, for the first time, addressed  the implications that energy and climate change are having on our national security.<br />
<br />
Our military understands the threat, but frankly, it is not enough.  Congress must act.  Without legislation from Congress, too many sectors of our economy and our country will continue to stagger along using the dirty fuels of our past.  This is not a problem that can wait for future generations to solve.  It is imperative that our elected representatives solve this problem now--this year--and enact comprehensive clean energy legislation that will put American power back to work.    <br />
]]></content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Memorial Day Tribute: A Hero For Our Time</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-diamond/memorial-day-tribute-a-he_b_595188.html"/>
    <id>tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.595188</id>
    <published>2010-05-31T08:38:30-04:00</published>
    <updated>2011-05-25T16:40:24-04:00</updated>
    <summary><![CDATA[Memorial Day, by definition, is a long weekend celebrated towards the end of May that is meant to mark the beginning of...]]></summary>
    <author>
        <name>Rob Diamond</name>
        <uri>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-diamond/</uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-diamond/"><![CDATA[Memorial Day, by definition, is a long weekend celebrated towards the end of May that is meant to mark the beginning of the summer season with visits to the beach, family BBQ's and "Sex and the City 2."<br />
  <br />
Let's start over.<br />
<br />
Memorial Day, by definition, is a federal holiday observed on the last Monday of May to commemorate the men and women of the U.S. military who died while in the service of their country.  Its roots date back to post-Civil War America and "Decoration Day," when veterans and families would gather to honor the more than 300,000 Union dead that had been buried in 73 national cemeteries, including such hallowed grounds like Gettysburg and Arlington. <br />
<br />
This tradition of a national day of remembrance has now spanned more than 150 years of our nation's history.  From the soldiers who died at Appomattox, to the 5,487 men and women we have lost in Iraq and Afghanistan, Memorial Day is meant to be a moment for all of us to pause and honor the lives and sacrifice of these fallen heroes.<br />
<br />
One of these heroes is Lieutenant Michael P. Murphy, a Navy SEAL who was killed-in-action on June 28, 2005, in Konar Province, Afghanistan.  On October 22, 2007, Lieutenant Murphy was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor--our nation's highest military honor--for his actions in combat high in the mountains of Afghanistan.  Lieutenant Murphy's story is one we all should know.  <br />
<br />
His <a href="http://www.cmohs.org/recipient-detail/2199/murphy-michael-p.phpv" target="_hplink">Medal of Honor citation</a> reads:<br />
<br />
<blockquote><center>Lieutenant Michael P. Murphy<br />
United States Navy</center><br />
<br />
<br />
For service as set forth in the following Citation:<br />
<br />
For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty as the leader of a special reconnaissance element with Naval Special Warfare Task Unit Afghanistan on 27 and 28 June 2005. While leading a mission to locate a high-level anti-coalition militia leader, Lieutenant Murphy demonstrated extraordinary heroism in the face of grave danger in the vicinity of Asadabad, Konar Province, Afghanistan. On 28 June 2005, operating in an extremely rugged enemy-controlled area, Lieutenant Murphy's team was discovered by anti-coalition militia sympathizers, who revealed their position to Taliban fighters. As a result, between 30 and 40 enemy fighters besieged his four-member team. Demonstrating exceptional resolve, Lieutenant Murphy valiantly led his men in engaging the large enemy force. The ensuing fierce firefight resulted in numerous enemy casualties, as well as the wounding of all four members of the team. Ignoring his own wounds and demonstrating exceptional composure, Lieutenant Murphy continued to lead and encourage his men. When the primary communicator fell mortally wounded, Lieutenant Murphy repeatedly attempted to call for assistance for his beleaguered teammates. Realizing the impossibility of communicating in the extreme terrain, and in the face of almost certain death, he fought his way into open terrain to gain a better position to transmit a call. This deliberate, heroic act deprived him of cover, exposing him to direct enemy fire. Finally achieving contact with his headquarters, Lieutenant Murphy maintained his exposed position while he provided his location and requested immediate support for his team. In his final act of bravery, he continued to engage the enemy until he was mortally wounded, gallantly giving his life for his country and for the cause of freedom. By his selfless leadership, courageous actions, and extraordinary devotion to duty, Lieutenant Murphy reflected great credit upon himself and upheld the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service.<br />
<br />
Signed,<br />
George W. Bush</blockquote><br />
<br />
At sunrise this morning, I drove out to <a href="http://www.cem.va.gov/cems/nchp/calverton.asp" target="_hplink">Calverton National Cemetery</a> on the eastern end of Long Island.  While Arlington is certainly the most well-known, Calverton is the largest of all 130 of our national cemeteries.  There in Section 67, amongst the vast, solemn rows of marble headstones surrounded by generations past and present, Lieutenant Murphy is buried.<br />
<br />
<img alt="2010-05-31-Murphy.jpg" src="http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2010-05-31-Murphy.jpg" width="800" height="600" /><br />
<br />
<img alt="2010-05-31-calverton2010.jpg" src="http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2010-05-31-calverton2010.jpg" width="800" height="600" /><br />
  <br />
<br />
I stayed but a few minutes, before slowly moving down the rows to pay tribute to the other men and women killed in Iraq and Afghanistan whose final resting place is here.  Alone amongst these heroes in the golden light of an early summer morning, I could not help but think of President Lincoln:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>"But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." </blockquote><br />
<br />
This Memorial Day I choose to honor Lieutenant Michael P. Murphy, United States Navy, Medal of Honor recipient.  He is but one of the millions we as a nation must never forget.  Take a moment today--out of the fun and family celebration--to remember a hero of your own choosing.  Even if just in the silence of your own mind, honor their memory, their sacrifice and the enduring legacy of freedom they have left behind. <br />
]]></content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Why the Conservatives are Exploiting and Attacking our Military</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-powers/why-the-conservatives-are_b_522198.html"/>
    <id>tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.522198</id>
    <published>2010-04-01T17:27:14-04:00</published>
    <updated>2011-05-25T16:00:23-04:00</updated>
    <summary><![CDATA[As veterans of America's current wars, it is deeply disconcerting for us to watch conservatives hurl reckless vitriol at our military leadership and now the constitution which we swore to defend. ]]></summary>
    <author>
        <name>Rob Diamond</name>
        <uri>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-diamond/</uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-diamond/"><![CDATA[Sandra Bullock is not the only person in the midst of an ugly break-up these days. For decades, conservatives have prided themselves for their devotion to the armed services. Yet, in recent months, the right has gotten mean in its attacks on our military leadership and is even exploiting our troops. And it is playing out on reality television right in front of us--except it's on CSPAN and not MTV.<br />
<br />
As veterans of America's current wars, it is deeply disconcerting for us to watch conservatives hurl reckless vitriol at our military leadership and now the constitution which we swore to defend. While public servants such as Admiral Mike Mullen, General David Petraeus and Defense Secretary Bob Gates work to progress policy that will make our nation safer, conservatives have taken them to task, preferring sound-bites to sound policy.<br />
<br />
But don't take our word for it. Just look to conservatives themselves.<br />
<br />
Over the last few weeks we have seen a steady drum beat of conservative leaders and organizations misleading the public and exploiting our brave men and women in uniform and their families.  Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and now even the right-wing American Patriot Foundation has gotten into the act.<br />
<br />
Today, the <a href="http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/" target="_hplink">American Patriot Foundation</a> released a video in which they have taken advantage of active duty Lieutenant Colonel Terry Lakin and destroyed his career to forward their message of lies about the President's birth certificate.  Watch his video:<br />
<br />
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ea9JVnck_-E&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1&amp;"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ea9JVnck_-E&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1&amp;" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object> <br />
<br />
It looks like LTC Terry Lakin will be court-martialed and lose his military career over a blatant lie.  Even the Director of the Hawaiian State Department of Health has made statements  <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-27-obama-hawaii_N.htm " target="_hplink">"verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen."</a><br />
<br />
Why put this man's career in jeopardy over a lie?  <br />
<br />
For the same reason Glenn Beck is <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-diamond/glenn-beck--restoring-hon_b_490566.html" target="_hplink">taking advantage</a> of the Special Operations Warrior Foundation to pay for a hate filled rally  or Sean Hannity is <a href="http://www.debbieschlussel.com/6938/sean-hannitys-freedom-concert-scam-only-7-of-charitys-money-went-to-injured-troops-kids-of-fallen-troops-g5s-g6s-for-vannity/#more-6938 " target="_hplink">scamming wounded warriors and their kids</a>. <br />
<br />
They are doing this because conservatives have lost their connection with the military as veterans and military families across the nation are beginning to realize that progressive policies are better for both our Defense Department and our national security.<br />
<br />
<strong>Instead of changing their policies they are turning to attacking and exploiting the military.</strong><br />
<br />
Let's start with climate change. Recently, a group of retired Admirals and Generals have been raising awareness about the threat that climate change poses to our national security. Instead of treating these warnings seriously, Senator James Inhofe (R- OK) attacked these heroes as "limelight" seekers who care more about fame than defending America.   <br />
<br />
Sorry, Mr. Senator, but the military establishment disagrees with you. The Pentagon recently released its Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), which serves as the military's definitive statement of strategy. According to the QDR, "Climate change will have significant geopolitical impacts around the world...weakening fragile governments." <br />
<br />
Is the Pentagon also just seeking the "limelight?"  We don't think so.<br />
<br />
Next up are the closely-related topics of Guantanamo Bay and torture. Our most distinguished military leaders - from General Colin Powell to General David Petraeus - have stated unequivocally that Guantanamo Bay must be closed. General Petraeus put it best in an interview with Fox News: <br />
<br />
"Gitmo has caused us problems, there's no question about it. I oversee a region in which the existence of Gitmo has indeed been used by the enemy against us."<br />
<br />
On the subject of torture, General Petraeus came out in strong opposition during the same Fox News interview: <br />
<br />
"Does that not take away from our enemies a tool, which again they have beaten us around the head and shoulders in the court of public opinion? And so as we move forward, I think it is important to again live our values."<br />
<br />
Yet conservatives don't seem to think those values matter very much. From Dick Cheney and John Bolton, to Rush Limbaugh and John Boehner, not a day goes by when some spokesperson from the right ridicules attempts by our military to close Guantanamo Bay and prohibit the use of torture. We do not consider Colin Powell or David Petraeus to be men who wake up each day trying to make America less safe. Conservatives seem to disagree.<br />
<br />
Lastly is the contentious debate over gays in the military. Last month, the Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee in support of changing the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy that prevents openly gay men and women from serving in the military. Having served with gay soldiers and sailors, we agree that there is a need for change in the policy. In the words of the Admiral Mullen, "it comes down to integrity - theirs as individuals and ours as an institution."<br />
<br />
And the conservative response? <br />
<br />
Incredibly, they attacked Admiral Mullen's integrity. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) accused Admiral Mullen of "undue command influence," while others piled on.  Congressman Duncan Hunter Jr. (R-CA) attacked both the Secretary and the Chairman as being "biased." Appointed by President George W. Bush, these are men who have served our nation honorably for decades. It is shame that these politicians would drop to such low standards.<br />
<br />
We have seen conservatives ignore scientists on climate change, as well as ignore distinguished business leaders such as Warren Buffet on issues related to fixing our economy. Now they are attacking the military on critical issues of national security. For so long, conservatives have portrayed themselves as walking lock-step with the military. It seems as though those happy days are gone.<br />
<br />
But for our nation, there is nothing happy about this development. If there is anything we have taken from our service in the military, it is a deep respect for the individuals who lead us into and out of battle. Our military leaders deserve that same respect from all Americans, conservatives included. Let's hope they snap out of their recent spell, and treat our military with the respect it deserves.<br />
<br />
<em>Jonathan Powers is a US Army veteran of the Iraq war and the Chief Operating Officer of the Truman National Security Project. Robert Diamond is a US Navy veteran and a Fellow with the Truman National Security Project.</em><br />
]]></content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Glenn Beck Uses Fallen Military Heroes as Tea Party Cover Story -- Part II</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-diamond/glenn-beck-uses-fallen-mi_b_491903.html"/>
    <id>tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.491903</id>
    <published>2010-03-09T13:46:01-05:00</published>
    <updated>2011-05-25T15:45:22-04:00</updated>
    <summary><![CDATA[What does a Tea Party rally have to do with providing college scholarships to children of fallen war heroes?]]></summary>
    <author>
        <name>Rob Diamond</name>
        <uri>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-diamond/</uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-diamond/"><![CDATA[Yesterday I <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-diamond/glenn-beck--restoring-hon_b_490566.html" target="_hplink">posted an article</a> about Glenn Beck's "Restoring Honor" rally and his immoral and unethical use of the military-related charity Special Operation Warrior Foundation (SOWF) to raise money for that rally.<br />
<br />
Well, we are just beginning to scratch the surface on the deception that is at play here.<br />
<br />
Before I posted my article yesterday, you could find a link to the Glenn Beck event directly on the <a href="http://www.specialops.org/" target="_hplink">SOWF homepage</a> under the "Latest News" column.  Surprise, surprise, that link is no longer there.  I am wondering why SOWF has decided to bury their connection to this event just one day after they were boldly announcing it to the world.  SOWF has even removed any reference to the Glenn Beck rally from their "<a href="http://www.specialops.org/events/event_list.asp" target="_hplink">Calendar of Events</a>," which lists everything the charity is involved with through February 2011.  Hiding something?<br />
<br />
The answer is yes.  They are hiding the fact that they are serving as the principal financing arm of a Tea Party rally to be held this summer.  <br />
<br />
Ask yourself this--when was the last time you attended a "fundraiser" for a charitable organization that was held <em>on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial</em>?  You have not. <br />
<br />
When was the last time you were asked to help support a military charity that provides college scholarships to the children of fallen servicemembers by getting on a bus in your home town of Portland, Maine and traveling to Washington, DC?  You have not, unless of course you're a member of the <a href="http://constitutionalrights.ning.com/profiles/blogs/glenn-beck-event-on-august-28" target="_hplink">Portland Tea Party</a>.<br />
<br />
The answer is "you have not" because normal charities do not lend their name (and their federal tax exempt status) to partisan political rallies held at iconic national monuments sponsored by right-wing ideologues calling for a second American revolution.  <br />
<br />
Glenn Beck, through his <a href="http://www.glennbeck.com/828/" target="_hplink">Restoring Honor Rally website </a> describes this event as a "non political, non-partisan" rally.  Here is what his website says:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Come celebrate America by honoring our heroes, our heritage and our future at the Restoring Honor Rally on August 28, 2010. Join us at the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C. for this non-political, non-partisan rally that will recognize our First Amendment rights and honor the service members who fight to protect those freedoms.<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
But describing this event as "non-political and non-partisan" is nothing more than a lie.  Here's the test (and feel free to ask your 5-year old child to help prove this simple experiment):<br />
<br />
Do a Google search on "Restoring Honor Rally" and see what you come up with.  Do not stop on page 1 of the results.  Dig a little deeper. Here's what you will find -- an entire universe of Tea Party chapters making detailed arrangements to travel to Washington, DC and attend this rally.<br />
<br />
Here are just a few (my personal favorite being "ResistNet.com--Home of the Patriotic Resistance"...sounds mainstream, right?):<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.resistnet.com/forum/topics/glen-beck-washington-dc-rally?xg_source=activity" target="_hplink">ResistNet.com--Home of the Patriotic Resistance</a>  <br />
<a href="http://www.teapartyofwmi.org/xn/detail/3249824:Event:26227?xg_source=activity" target="_hplink">Tea Party of Western Michigan</a>  <br />
<a href="http://www.wesurroundrochester.com/messages/boards/thread/8567787/post/34309985?post=34309985&amp;hash=34309985&amp;thread=8567787#34309985" target="_hplink">"We Surround Rochester"--Glenn Beck's 912 Project</a> <br />
<a href="http://beaufortteaparty.webs.com/apps/calendar/showEvent?calID=3363888&amp;eventID=68378177" target="_hplink">Beaufort Tea Party, South Carolina</a>  <br />
<a href="http://raymondpronk.wordpress.com/2009/11/23/the-american-people-march-on-washington-d-c-august-28-2010-at-the-lincoln-memorial-mark-your-calendar-be-there-three-million-minimum-join-the-second-american-revolution/" target="_hplink">Join the Second American Revolution: The American People March on Washington DC</a><br />
<a href="http://www.thepatriotcaucus.net/group/tricountyteapartyfl" target="_hplink">Tri-County Tea Party</a> <br />
<a href="http://teapartyclermont.org/events.html" target="_hplink">Clairmont County of the Cinncinati Tea Party</a>  <br />
<br />
I could go on and on and on...<br />
  <br />
So I am asking a few more questions today:  <br />
<br />
&bull;	Why is Glenn Beck and SOWF lying to the American public by calling this a "non-political, non-partisan" event when it is being marketed on Tea Party websites across the country?<br />
<br />
&bull;	Why does SOWF refuse to disclose the agenda and speakers for the rally (we have asked SOWF Executive Director Steve McLeary who has refused to answer).<br />
<br />
&bull;	Who are we "Restoring Honor" to?  Surely SOWF and Glenn beck are not claiming our military is dishonorable? (The answers from the SOWF Public Relations Director, Edie Rosenthal have been less than comforting.  She says that there are individuals in America who need their honor restored, but has only mentioned Tiger Woods when pushed to give a definitive answer).<br />
<br />
&bull;	What does a Tea Party rally have to do with providing college scholarships to children of fallen war heroes?<br />
<br />
Well, I know the answer to the last one:  <em>nothing</em>.<br />
<br />
Exploiting the men and women of the US military for conservative political gain is simply wrong. Exploiting fallen servicemembers and their families for political money is deceptive, shameful and morally corrupt. <br />
<br />
SOWF needs to regain its integrity.  The only way to do that is to publicly separate themselves from this rally.  Until then, keep sending your money elsewhere. Those of us that have served in uniform will be watching.]]></content>
    <link href="http://i.huffpost.com/gen/147085/thumbs/s-GLENN-BECK-mini.jpg" type="image/jpeg" rel="enclosure"/>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Glenn Beck -- &quot;Restoring Honor&quot; or Exploiting a Noble Veterans Charity?</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-diamond/glenn-beck--restoring-hon_b_490566.html"/>
    <id>tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.490566</id>
    <published>2010-03-08T16:04:09-05:00</published>
    <updated>2011-05-25T15:45:22-04:00</updated>
    <summary><![CDATA[I received an email Monday morning that stopped me in my tracks.  It contained a link to the seemingly noble...]]></summary>
    <author>
        <name>Rob Diamond</name>
        <uri>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-diamond/</uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-diamond/"><![CDATA[I received an email Monday morning that stopped me in my tracks.  It contained a link to the seemingly noble organization called the <a href="http://www.specialops.org" target="_hplink">Special Operations Warrior Foundation (SOWF)</a> -- a 501 (c)(3) tax-exempt, federally registered charity whose own mission statement says:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>The Special Operations Warrior Foundation provides full scholarship grants and educational and family counseling to the surviving children of special operations personnel who die in operational or training missions and immediate financial assistance to severely wounded special operations personnel and their families.</blockquote><br />
	<br />
As a veteran who served in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom I thought, "what a meaningful charitable organization to give my support."  But sadly, things are not as noble as they look.  <br />
<br />
Read a little further on the homepage of the SOWF website, under the "Latest News" column, and you will see a link to none other than Glenn Beck.  Yes, that Glenn Beck.<br />
<br />
SOWF, it turns out, is the designated charitable organization that will benefit from a rally Glenn Beck is hosting on August 28th on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, DC -- it is being called the "Restoring Honor Rally." (<a href="http://www.glennbeck.com/828/" target="_hplink">www.glennbeck.com/828/</a>).  <br />
<br />
Or at least that is what Glenn Beck and SOWF want you to believe.<br />
<br />
What is actually happening -- and what is so obviously wrong -- is that the rally is not actually raising money for SOWF.  SOWF is raising all the money to pay for the rally.<br />
<br />
Don't believe me?  Just read the plain-as-day, italicized font on the SOWF website:<br />
<blockquote>All contributions made to the Special Operations Warrior Foundation (SOWF) will first be applied to the costs of the Restoring Honor Rally taking place on August 28, 2010. All contributions in excess of these costs will then be retained by the SOWF.</blockquote><br />
<br />
That's weird, I thought.  I give $100 to SOWF and it goes to Glenn Beck first, college scholarships for children of deceased special operators (maybe) second?  Why would Glenn Beck be using a charitable organization, whose mission it is to provide college scholarships to the children of deceased special operators, as the financing arm of his "non-political, non-partisan" rally?  <br />
<br />
Glenn Beck <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/the-empire-of-glenn-beck-slideshow-2009-4" target="_hplink">got paid $18 million last year</a>.  Surely, these kids need the money more than he does.<br />
<br />
Should it not be the other way around?  I would think you would donate to the rally and then they would donate the money to SOWF?  I am a Navy veteran and not a lawyer, but does that not smell like someone exploiting a charity at the least, or money-laundering at worst?<br />
<br />
Let's cut to the chase and stop being na&iuml;ve.  The Special Operations Warrior Foundation is now serving as a financial front man for the right-wing, Fox News demagogue that is Glenn Beck.  This so-called "rally" has nothing to do with SOWF's stated (and noble) mission of giving college scholarships to children of deceased servicemembers. <br />
<br />
We all know this rally is going to be nothing more than an anti-Obama, anti-government, pro-Tea Party hate-fest with Glenn Beck spewing his vitriol under the banner of "supporting our troops."<br />
<br />
Well, as one of those troops, I am calling this for what it is -- a deceitful and deceptive attempt on behalf of far-right extremists to profit off of the memory of my fellow servicemen and women killed in action.  Nothing is more wrong or disgusting.<br />
<br />
Similarly, why is the leadership of the SOWF putting at risk their tax-exempt charitable status by engaging in this activity?  Why would they risk the good name and good work they have done in the past in order to support someone like Glenn Beck? <br />
<br />
Oh, I see, SOWF's Board of Directors is stacked with right-wing ideologues like Erik Prince, the founder and head of Blackwater (yes, that Blackwater).<br />
<br />
Do what you want, but I will keep giving my money to real charities like <a href="http://www.iava.org" target="_hplink">Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America</a>, <a href="http://www.achillesinternational.org/programs/freedom-team/overview" target="_hplink">Achilles International's Freedom Team of Wounded Veterans</a> and <a href="http://www.woundedwarriorproject.org/" target="_hplink">The Wounded Warrior Project</a> -- organizations that actually provide support to Veterans and their families who have earned and need the assistance.  <br />
<br />
I have no need to give my money to a multi-millionaire, hate-spewing faux patriot who has never served a day in his life in uniform, but would rather take money from those that have.<br />
<br />
Shame on you Glenn Beck and SOWF.   What a disgrace.]]></content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>The GOP's Stealth Scandal: A Government Shutdown (Part Deux)</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-diamond/the-gops-stealth-scandal_b_466449.html"/>
    <id>tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.466449</id>
    <published>2010-02-17T18:20:07-05:00</published>
    <updated>2011-05-25T15:35:18-04:00</updated>
    <summary><![CDATA[The Republican Party has made the scandalous decision to shut down the legislative branch in a time of national crisis.]]></summary>
    <author>
        <name>Rob Diamond</name>
        <uri>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-diamond/</uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-diamond/"><![CDATA[If you have been able to pull yourself away from the Olympics, you may have noticed that an entire branch of our federal government has shut down--and it is not due to Washington, D.C.'s record snowfall.  I am talking specifically about our Congress, and its inability to pass any legislation on the critical issues facing the country today: jobs, financial regulatory reform, clean energy, and, oh yeah, health care reform.<br />
  <br />
Now to be fair, it is not the entire Congress, just the Senate.  The House has actually passed a bill on almost every one of these important topics. But the Senate has come to a complete and total stop, and it is due to one thing and one thing only--the Republican Party has made the scandalous decision to shut down the legislative branch in a time of national crisis.<br />
<br />
And it is not the first time they have brought things to a halt.<br />
<br />
Remember 1995?  That was the year when Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey made a calculated political decision to shut down the federal government.  Remember why?  <a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/87/Nydailynews_newt.jpg" target="_hplink">Because Bill Clinton made Newt sit in the back of Air Force One</a>.<br />
<br />
Well, they have done it again.  This time, however, the Republicans apparently learned something from their failed attempts in 1995.  They learned that they do not <em>actually</em> have to shut down the government.  Rather, they figured out that all they have to do is get every Republican to vote "no" on every single thing that comes to the Senate floor--regardless of its importance to the nation's health and recovery. Do that and guess what? Our system of government stops working. <br />
<br />
Mission accomplished.<br />
<br />
Congratulations to the GOP.  After 221 years of success, you have officially broken the legislative branch's ability to accomplish its most basic function--produce legislation to tackle the most pressing issues facing the country.  Forget about the <em>will of the people</em>.  Who cares about that?  <em>Election results? Majority rule?</em>  That is silly stuff better left in high school civics textbooks.  <br />
<br />
I am not asking for a panacea of policy agreement or that politicians will stop being political.  That is na&iuml;ve.  What I am asking is that Americans stand up and demand their system of government be allowed to function as the Founders intended it to--with open, honest debate on the floors of our House and Senate; with up or down votes on the issues of our times; with majority rule.<br />
<br />
All that matters to Republican politicians is that nothing--and I mean <em>nothing</em>--gets done.  That is the GOP's political strategy.  They do not care that one-in-ten Americans are without a job.  They do not care that almost 50 million Americans are without health care, or that tens of millions more are one pink slip away from losing theirs.  They do not care that we remain addicted to foreign oil, which is funding the very terrorists our armed forces are fighting against.  They do not care if the "too-big-to-fail" financial institutions that caused the Great Recession are regulated or not.  They do not care that our schools are falling behind and our infrastructure is crumbling.  They do not care that we need immigration reform.  They do not care about any of this.  <br />
<br />
So wake up America.  Look at what the Republican Party is doing to our government.  They are breaking it. Do you think this is acceptable?  Do you think that one day, when the GOP is back in the majority in Congress, this strategy of reckless obstructionism will not be used in retaliation against them?  Republicans are setting the most dangerous precedent possible for the long-term health of our legislative branch.   It has to stop.<br />
 <br />
Is it obvious that all the GOP cares about is winning. And by them winning, we are all going to lose.]]></content>
    <link href="http://i.huffpost.com/gen/141972/thumbs/s-SENATEGOP-mini.jpg" type="image/jpeg" rel="enclosure"/>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Republicans Use Military as a Stage Prop (Yet Again)... And This Time May Break the Law</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-diamond/republicans-use-military_b_440393.html"/>
    <id>tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.440393</id>
    <published>2010-01-28T12:22:32-05:00</published>
    <updated>2011-05-25T15:20:23-04:00</updated>
    <summary><![CDATA[You did not have to be paying much attention during last night's Republican response to President Obama's State of the Union address to notice a young Army Staff Sergeant.]]></summary>
    <author>
        <name>Rob Diamond</name>
        <uri>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-diamond/</uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-diamond/"><![CDATA[You did not have to be paying much attention during last night's Republican response to President Obama's State of the Union address to notice a young Army Staff Sergeant in full dress uniform seated prominently right behind Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell and enthusiastically applauding and cheering at the Governor's attacks on Democrats.<br />
<br />
<center><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/LeSLVnAQSYo&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1&amp;"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/LeSLVnAQSYo&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1&amp;" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object></center><br />
<br />
	<br />
        Slight problem, you see.  That is probably against the law.  <br />
<br />
Look it up for yourself <a href="http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/134410p.pdf" target="_hplink">right here in the Department of Defense (DoD) Directive entitled "Political Activities by Members of the Armed Forces."</a>  The purpose of this DoD Directive is to mirror the Hatch Act, which prohibits government employees from engaging in partisan political activity in an official capacity.  Since a DoD Directive is considered to be in the same category as an order or regulation, and military personnel violating its provisions can be considered in violation of Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, our Republican friends may have just caused this brave young soldier to break the law.   Thank you for that, Governor McDonnell.<br />
<br />
	Now, my point is not to single out this young soldier for punishment, but rather to highlight the continued use of members of our armed forces as stage props for Republicans.  "Mission Accomplished?"  Remember that one! Or just consider Sarah Palin's latest attempt to hold a rally (aka "book tour") on Fort Bragg this past November.  Well, you can now add "Republican Response 2010" to what is a rather endless list, actually.  <br />
	<br />
       It was a Republican administration and Republican-led Congress that sent our military into two wars (Iraq and Afghanistan) that were woefully under-planned, under-funded and under-equipped.  We all know that story.  It was a Republican administration and Republican-led Congress that left my generation of servicemen and women with a Department of Veterans Affairs unable to meet the demands of millions of new Veterans.   <br />
        <br />
      It has taken a Democratic President and a Democratic-led Congress to end the war in Iraq as well as finally commit the troops, resources and strategy necessary to win in Afghanistan.  And yes, it has been President Obama and a Democratic Congress that has given the VA the largest budget increase in its history ($15 billion dollars in 2010) and is working tirelessly to create a 21st Century VA to care for our newest generation of Veterans.<br />
	<br />
      I know many of you to my ideological right are already leaping out of your seats and shouting "well then why were there men and women in uniform at the State of the Union address?"  Pretty simple answer, actually.  The State of the Union is not a partisan political gathering (as the Republican response clearly is).   The State of the Union is mandated in <em>the Constitution</em>, and the entire government--Republicans, Democrats, Independents--as well the Cabinet, members of the Supreme Court and the Joint Chiefs of Staff all gather to hear the President address the nation.  The State of the Union is the exact opposite of a partisan political gathering.  It is the heart and soul of our government coming together "from time to time" to address the entire nation on the state of <em>our</em> union.<br />
	<br />
      My point is this--Republicans love to stand in front of the military; it is about time they try and stand behind us as well.]]></content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Taking the Mission to Secure America to Copenhagen</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-powers/taking-the-mission-to-sec_b_384586.html"/>
    <id>tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2009:/theblog//3.384586</id>
    <published>2009-12-09T10:10:42-05:00</published>
    <updated>2011-05-25T14:55:21-04:00</updated>
    <summary><![CDATA[Next week we will board a flight with a group of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans to fly to Copenhagen and wage a battle that will help address a threat to our national security.]]></summary>
    <author>
        <name>Rob Diamond</name>
        <uri>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-diamond/</uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-diamond/"><![CDATA[Next week we will board a flight with a group of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans to fly to Copenhagen and wage a battle that will help address a threat to our national security.  Our plan of action does not involve the Danish military, but instead involves the negotiators who are gathered to develop an international agreement on addressing climate change.  We are bringing to Copenhagen the voices of the veterans and national security experts from across the nation who are standing up as part of <a href="http://www.operationfree.net">Operation Free</a> to <u>secure America with clean energy</u>.<br />
<br />
Watch this video of our fellow veterans who have been reaching out at events across America to talk about the risks that climate change poses to our national security:  <br />
<br />
<blockquote><object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5ovDNn7C2t0&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1&amp;"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5ovDNn7C2t0&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1&amp;" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object> </blockquote><br />
<br />
The American people understand their security is at risk when we talk about:<br />
<br />
&bull;	The absurdity of funding our enemies who hunt our troops in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.  By sending $1 billion a day overseas to buy oil from other nations, many of whom have unfriendly regimes, we are endangering our own troops on battlefield.<br />
<br />
&bull;	Climate change acting as a "threat multiplier," making the world less safe.  When Americans see that the CIA, Pentagon, and the national intelligence apparatus are actively developing plans to address threats in climate-affected nations with already fragile governments, they understand this is a threat to our country.  Climate change is a root cause of destabilization in countries around the world in which extremist groups will look to take advantage and gain a foothold.<br />
<br />
&bull;	Our nation's dependence on dirty fossil fuels is causing carbon pollution that is making our climate unstable...and is affecting our security.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.operationfree.net">Operation Free</a> was formed because we know it is <em>our</em> military that will have to address these threats. Instead of waiting for things to get worse or fights to break out, we believe the United States must begin to take decisive action now.<br />
<br />
The security community agrees that these are unsustainable courses of action and that we must act urgently to reduce these threats.  Here at home Congress is moving ahead with clean energy legislation, but Copenhagen provides us an opportunity to truly establish ourselves as a nation that leads by example.<br />
<br />
Skeptics are calling on us to wait for China or India to take the lead, but why would we put our security in others' hands? Americans want us to take our security in our own hands, and that is why our leadership is so critical in Copenhagen.<br />
<br />
It is American leadership that is necessary to provide a broad consensus towards an agreement that will:<br />
<br />
	<ul><li>Reduce our dependence on oil</li><br />
<li>Promote clean energy incentives</li><br />
<li>Get Americans back to work producing clean, domestic, and safe energy.</li></ul><br />
<br />
<br />
America must <u>lead by example</u> in Copenhagen.  <strong>Our security depends on it!</strong><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.operationfree.net">Sign up</a> for <strong>Live from <em>Copenhagen</strong> articles next week.</em><br />
]]></content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Present at the Cremation: The Long, Slow Death of the GOP?</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-diamond/present-at-the-cremation_b_338601.html"/>
    <id>tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2009:/theblog//3.338601</id>
    <published>2009-10-29T12:35:57-04:00</published>
    <updated>2011-05-25T14:30:27-04:00</updated>
    <summary><![CDATA[We are witnessing today an unmistakable emergence of deep fissures within the Republican Party. It begs the question, are we watching the beginning of the end -- the long, slow death of the GOP?]]></summary>
    <author>
        <name>Rob Diamond</name>
        <uri>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-diamond/</uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-diamond/"><![CDATA[Nowhere is it written that major political parties will live forever.  In fact, over the course of the first 100 years of our country's history, Americans saw the rise and fall of numerous nationally powerful political parties.  The Federalists and Democratic-Republicans ruled the day in the late 18th and early 19th century.  By the 1850's it was the Whig Party and the Democratic Party battling for national political supremacy. The Whigs would ultimately be destroyed in 1856 by the question of whether to allow the expansion of slavery into the territories of the West.  That gave rise to the Republican Party and henceforth the major two-party system that has dominated American politics for the past 153 years.<br />
<br />
We are witnessing today, however, an unmistakable emergence of deep fissures within the Republican Party. These are serious indications of a momentous, generational shift underway in the American political landscape not seen in almost a century.  It begs the question, are we watching the beginning of the end of the Republican Party--the long, slow death of the GOP?<br />
<br />
The name of the aggressive and virulent upstart Party that is trying to push its Republican patriarch into an early grave is unclear--call it a re-energized national Conservative Party, a Social-Conservative Party or maybe even the "Tea Party" (the revolutionary-era moniker it seems to prefer).  While the label may be in question, its faces are not.  This is the Party of Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Dick Cheney, Dick Armey, Glenn Beck, Grover Norquist, Michelle Bachmann and Mike Huckabee (just to name a few--yes, I left out Chuck Norris).  They have launched a nationwide political insurrection--on the ground and in the airwaves--that is inflicting serious injury to the party of Lincoln, Reagan and George H.W. Bush. <br />
<br />
Don't believe me?  Just look at what is taking place today in New York's 23rd Congressional District.  What should have been a low-visibility, off-cycle special election to fill a vacant Congressional seat has erupted into full-fledged Republican civil warfare--with serious national implications for the future of the GOP.<br />
<br />
Apoplectic that local Republican Party leaders had nominated as their candidate a socially-moderate state legislator by the name of Dede Scozzafava (she supports abortion rights, gay rights and has ties to organized labor), local Conservatives revolted and ran a candidate of their own--Doug Hoffman.  Sensing the moment and the terrain were ripe to make their stand, the national Tea Party masters declared open warfare on Scozzafava, if only to use her as a proxy in what looks more like an insurrection against the pillars of the Republican Party. <br />
<br />
The Tea Party has filtered millions of dollars in donations to the Hoffman campaign through organizations like the Club for Growth.   Glenn Beck has hosted Doug Hoffman live in the studio.  Michelle Malkin, the conservative commentator, said of Scozzafava, "[s]he's an ACORN-Friendly, Big Labor-Backing, Tax-and-Spend, Margaret Sanger Award-Winning Radical in GOP Clothing -- a left-wing saboteur who seeks to marginalize mainstream conservatism with conservatives' own money."  Wow, how's that for a family feud.   <br />
<br />
By taking direct aim at the chosen candidate of the Republican National Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee (which combined have poured millions into the race on Scozzafava's behalf), the Tea Party has resigned itself to splitting the right's voting base and dramatically increasing the likelihood that Democrats will win the NY-23rd seat for the first time since Reconstruction.  They obviously see a loss here as an acceptable casualty in the wider insurrection they have launched--one with the twin goals of becoming the power-center of the political right, and elevating a socially-conservative agenda into the American political mainstream.<br />
<br />
The Tea Party has even launched a few salvos against one of their own high-priests and potential 2012 presidential candidates--Newt Gingrich.  Gingrich has endorsed Scozzafava and has returned fire by accusing the Tea Party of conducting a "purge."  <br />
<br />
All of this infighting currently revolves around ideological warfare, but when you dive even deeper into the cross-currents of American politics, the structural signs of the future viability of the Republican Party are equally as bad.  Two examples: the current youth generation--Gen Y or the Millennials--are the largest generation in US history. They have gone 2-1 for President Obama.  Latino's are the fastest growing voting bloc in the United States (from 2% of actual voters during the Clinton years to 12% today). They went 2-1 for Obama.  And it is the Democratic Party that has staked its claim as the big-tent party, one that today is full of southern moderates and rational-conservatives like Arkansas Senator Mark Pryor and Florida Senator Bill Nelson, and western libertarians like Montana Senator Jon Tester and former Colorado Senator and now Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar. <br />
<br />
The GOP can find a way to win this war.  They must launch a concerted effort to win back youth by embracing science, evolution, and the obvious impacts of climate change. They must embrace minority growth with comprehensive immigration reform, and shun the blatant bigotry of Rush Limbaugh, Lou Dobbs and other Tea Party masters. Republicans must pull their party out of the Vietnam era and into the modern day by turning away from an epically failed neoconservative foreign policy, embrace the reality of a globalized world, and start working with President Obama to win wars and rehabilitate America's power at home and around the world.<br />
<br />
While Election Day is less than a week away, unquestionably a modern day, political Fort Sumter has taken place in upstate New York.  It seems as though the Republican Party-of-old is bloodied and in retreat on this early battlefield.  While it may only be the first volleys, however intense, it is certainly not the last in this war for the hearts and minds of the Grand Old Party.  Democrats will be wise to stay out of the cross-fire.  <br />
]]></content>
    <link href="http://i.huffpost.com/gen/105110/thumbs/s-LOU-DOBBS-mini.jpg" type="image/jpeg" rel="enclosure"/>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Afghanistan: The Re-&quot;Right&quot; of History ... or ... Let's Not Forget Who Got Us Here</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-diamond/afghanistan-the-re-right_b_330636.html"/>
    <id>tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2009:/theblog//3.330636</id>
    <published>2009-10-22T17:04:14-04:00</published>
    <updated>2011-05-25T14:25:20-04:00</updated>
    <summary><![CDATA[We've seen the rush to war before -- in Iraq in 2003.  That cost me 4,351 (and counting) of my fellow brothers and sisters-in-arms, all for a false threat the Bush Administration sold.]]></summary>
    <author>
        <name>Rob Diamond</name>
        <uri>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-diamond/</uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-diamond/"><![CDATA[     The debate over the strategy and size of America's military and diplomatic involvement in Afghanistan/Pakistan is in full swing.  As we approach a major presidential decision on the future of the military force structure in Afghanistan, the only consensus there seems to be among serious experts on this region is that few "good" options exist for the president -- only a choice between unclear paths to success. <br />
 <br />
     But one thing is obvious in this debate.  There is now a blatant and breathtaking attempt underway by conservatives, neoconservatives and the political right in general to obscure the failed history of America's last eight years in Afghanistan -- the one that they are personally responsible for.<br />
<br />
     Whether it is the public comments of former Vice President Dick Cheney (the most thoroughly discredited high-ranking public official in my lifetime), his now prime-time,  neoconservative, neostarlet daughter Liz Cheney (aka, Sarah Palin with credentials), or any other utterly discredited far-right "thinker" like Bill Kristol or Frank Gaffney (a man who I must remind you said that he was "delighted" that 4,000+ American servicemen and women had died in Iraq -- see <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdEtTZk3yCc">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdEtTZk3yCc</a>  at the 4:00 minute mark ... ), a harpies' chorus of discredited Bushies have emerged from their bunkers to launch a full frontal assault on reason and history with the goal of  pinning blame for "failure" in Afghanistan on President Obama. <br />
<br />
     Combine this attempt at revisionist history with one part "let's scare the American people," add in a healthy dose of both "Obama is weak" and "torture works" and -- voila -- there you have the new Republican national security strategy.<br />
  <br />
     What is so astonishing about this is not just who is delivering this message -- the very people responsible for our failures in both Iraq and Afghanistan -- but that it is not even a strategy to begin with.  Just like their current lack of anything approaching a domestic policy, Republicans and conservatives have made a conscious decision not to find ways to fix their foreign policy blunders of the past.  They have no interest in trying to help this country and its new President (its only been 9 months, remember?) stabilize, regroup and win the current overseas disasters that they left us.<br />
<br />
     Rather, Cheney, his daughter and the entire Conservative band of amateur revisionist historians have arrived at a blatant political calculation that the best strategy is to rewrite history -- to try and hide the fact that since 2001 they grossly mismanaged not one but two wars; that they tortured prisoners and think we still should; that they disregarded the Constitution, civil liberties and the rule of law; that they lied to the American people about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; that they failed in regards to Iran and North Korea; that practically the entire free world despised our foreign policy; and, worst of all, to obscure their failure to adequately plan for their war of choice in Iraq -- the direct cause of why we find ourselves today losing the war of necessity in Afghanistan. <br />
<br />
     President Obama is about to make the most important national security decision of his young Presidency.  He is weighing a choice that will undoubtedly cost American servicemen and women their lives, as well as cost this nation untold sums of money.  He should -- and is -- making this decision slowly, carefully and with as much debate about the right course of action as is humanly possible.  He is attempting to put in place a strategy for Afghanistan for the first time since the Russian invasion ended in the 1980s.  Those are not my words, they are Secretary of Defense Bob Gates'. <br />
<br />
     We've seen the rush to war before -- in Iraq in 2003.  That cost me 4,351 (and counting) of my fellow brothers and sisters-in-arms, all for a false threat the Bush Administration sold to a fearful country.  I will not forget that.  We, as informed citizens, must not allow those responsible for the past eight years of failure to re-enter a debate they no longer deserve to be a part of. I hold them accountable for the mess we are in today -- that is the real history.<br />
]]></content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Bridging the Fighter Gap -- U.S. Navy Has Solution: Buy More Super Hornets!</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-diamond/bridging-the-fighter-gap_b_245523.html"/>
    <id>tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2009:/theblog//3.245523</id>
    <published>2009-07-27T12:37:30-04:00</published>
    <updated>2011-05-25T13:45:21-04:00</updated>
    <summary><![CDATA[With troops in combat today, our servicemen and women deserve better than a debate about unproven technologies of the future.]]></summary>
    <author>
        <name>Rob Diamond</name>
        <uri>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-diamond/</uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-diamond/"><![CDATA[There is an old-fashioned showdown taking place in the halls of the Pentagon and Capitol Hill right now. Officials are concerned about the emergence of a so-called "fighter gap" in the U.S. Navy. The gap refers to a projected shortfall in the number of strike-fighter aircraft the Navy requires to meet the needs of its 10 active-duty carrier air wings.<br />
<br />
According to the latest figures released by the Navy and the Congressional Research Service, the Navy and Marine Corps will suffer a shortfall of 50 aircraft in 2010. That number could reach as high as 243 when the gap peaks in 2018.<br />
<br />
Of course, the fighter gap deeply concerns Navy brass, but it should also worry the Army and Marines, who depend on precision combat air support on a daily basis.<br />
<br />
The proximate cause of the fighter gap comes from the rate at which the Navy will retire the backbone of its current strike-fighter fleet -- the F/A-18 Hornet-Super Hornet -- while simultaneously introducing the new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) as its replacement.<br />
<br />
Admirals, analysts and members of Congress have good reason to argue over the exact size of the upcoming fighter gap; after all, numbers matter. However, we must not allow reasonable disagreements to descend into petty quibbling. Everyone agrees that the problem is unacceptable and that we need an urgent answer to the problem.<br />
<br />
Fortunately, the answer to that question is not complicated: Buy more F/A-18E/F Super Hornets.<br />
<br />
<strong>Cost, Delivery Concerns</strong><br />
<br />
The reason for this answer is simple. The biggest unknown in this entire equation is "if" and "when" there will be a successful introduction of the F-35. The development and procurement strategy behind this new aircraft has been flawed from the beginning, and it is highly likely that both the cost and delivery schedule will continue to change for the worse.<br />
<br />
The Government Accountability Office (GAO), the federal government's independent budgetary watchdog, has had tough words for the new JSF. In its last annual review of the F-35 program, the GAO highlighted the fact that "three defense organizations independent of the JSF program office have all concluded that the program office's cost estimate is significantly understated and the current schedule unlikely to be achieved."<br />
<br />
This led the GAO to determine that "the current JSF cost and schedule reported to Congress are not reliable for decision making."<br />
<br />
<strong>F-35 Uncertainty</strong><br />
<br />
In other words, defense officials and Congress have no clear idea of when the F-35 will be fully operational. What they do have is a proven aircraft in the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. The Super Hornet is already in production, has a well-established cost and is battle tested. The F-35 is none of these. It may one day prove to be a better aircraft, but for now, it is little more than a good idea with an uncertain future.<br />
<br />
Given this reality, the only sensible plan to address the Navy's fighter gap is for Congress to authorize and fund a new, extended procurement plan for the Super Hornet.<br />
<br />
In the narrow confines of the defense procurement debate, this makes perfect sense. But there are also bigger issues at stake.<br />
<br />
In the daily Washington battles about who gets what military contract and why, the fact that we are a nation at war is sometimes too easily forgotten. With troops in combat today, our servicemen and women deserve better than a debate about unproven technologies of the future.<br />
<br />
What they really need as members of the military -- and what we need to do as U.S. citizens if we are to support the military we have sent into battle -- is reliable, precision combat air support.<br />
<br />
The Navy and the Department of Defense have committed to the F-35 as the strike-fighter of the future. But that is exactly the problem; the future is not here yet. It is irresponsible and wrong to invest in the vague and pricey promises of tomorrow at the expense of the needs of the military today. <br />
<br />
<em>(Please note this piece was originally published on June 29, 2009 in</e> Defense News<em>).</em>]]></content>
</entry>
</feed>