So-called Pres. George W. Bush initiated a war of aggression and limitless occupation against the sovereign nation of Iraq in order to exact revenge on Sadaam Hussein over Hussein’s assassination attempt on former Pres. George H.W. Bush and to secure Iraqi oil for Bush’s Texas oil cronies.  Sen. John McCain and Rep. Mary Bono Baxely Mack, absentee Congresswoman, have supported every Bush war policy without reservation.  In fact, McCain is prepared for the U.S. to continue the occupation of Iraq ‘for 100 years.’

The U.S. Army recently released a study on the impact of the Bush war of aggression on the mental health of U.S. troops (The Associated Press, by Pauline Jelinek, dated March 7, 2008).  The findings of the report are devastating to the Bush occupation efforts and reveal the harmful impact on a significant percentage of U.S. troops.

More below the flip…

More than 27% of U.S. troops on their third or fourth combat tour suffered anxiety, depression, post-combat stress and other problems.  More than 12% of U.S. troops on their first tour suffered similar mental health problems

Suicide rates “remained elevated” in both Iraq and in Afghanistan.  Four suicides occurred last year in Afghanistan and 34 either confirmed or suspected suicides in Iraq.  If all suicides are confirmed, this would be the highest suicide rate since the Bush war of aggression began

The percentage of soldiers reporting depression in Afghanistan was higher than that in Iraq, and mental health problems in general were higher than they had previously been in Afghanistan.  The adjusted rate in 2007 for depression in Afghanistan was 11.4% compared with 7.6% in Iraq

83% of U.S. troops in Afghanistan reported exposure to traumatic combat events, a key risk factor for poor mental health among the troops

Spreading U.S. troops out in Afghanistan tended to isolate troops and made it more difficult for them to obtain mental health services in Afghanistan

About 29% of U.S. troops in combat outposts in Iraq reported that it was difficult to obtain mental health services in Iraq.  About 13% of U.S. troops not at outposts reported similar difficulty

U.S. troops receiving “Battlemind” training reported fewer mental health problems than those who did not.  The training teaches U.S. troops and families what to expect before troops depart for the Bush occupation of Iraq and what common problems to look out for when troops readjust to Stateside life following deployment

29% of U.S. troops feared seeking mental health services would harm their careers, down from 34% in 2006.  Fears of seeking mental health services would prevent many from getting help for anxiety, depression, and post-combat stress and would exacerbate the symptoms

89% of U.S. troops reported that their unit’s morale was neither high nor very high, down from 93% in 2006.  79.4% reported neither high nor very high individual morale, down from 81.7% in 2006.

In Iraq, 72% of soldiers reported knowing someone seriously injured or killed

U.S. troops reported an average of only 5.6 hours of sleep nightly in Iraq, significantly less than that needed to maintain optimal level of performance.  This puts U.S. troops at greater risk for harm.  Officers appear to significantly underestimate the impact of sleep deprivation.

Almost 33% of U.S. troops in Afghanistan were highly concerned that they were not getting sufficient sleep, and about 25% reported falling asleep during convoys last year thereby increasing their risk for harm.  16% of U.S. troops reported taking psychiatric medications during 2007 (there was no figure for the percentage of troops who were prescribed psychiatric medications and who were not taking them), and about half of those were sleep medications

Congressional Democrats are now trying to move legislation that would overturn the EPA’s anti-scientific decision which denied California a waiver to regulate their own tailpipe emissions.  Arnold Schwarzenegger is suing the EPA.  It seems that the only group of people who aren’t on board with this policy are Republican members of Congress.

Most GOP members of the state’s congressional delegation are siding with the Bush administration in trying to keep states from imposing stricter regulations on greenhouse gas emissions than the federal government. Without bipartisan support from the state’s representatives, the bill’s proponents say, the measure’s prospects are dim.

“I don’t support California thinking that it can act alone effectively,” said Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Vista), noting that climate change is a problem that extends beyond state lines.

A House bill to allow California and other states to implement their own tailpipe regulations was introduced last week, with the support of 27 of the 33 California Democrats, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco. Only two of the 19 Republicans — Rep. David Dreier of San Dimas, who is perhaps Schwarzenegger’s closest ally in the delegation, and Rep. Mary Bono Mack of Palm Springs — signed on as cosponsors.

In addition to Issa, John Campbell, Kevin McCarthy, George Radanovich, Devin Nunes and Wally Herger are quoted, all saying a variation of how global warming is a big problem and we have to have a unified solution.  Of course, 18 other states are signing on to California’s lawsuit, representing a majority of the population who actually wants to do something abut climate change.  

I really think this has the potential of politically isolating the GOP.  It’s notable that Dreier and Bono Mack understand that their districts are becoming more purplish, and that they need to stay out in front of them.  But the combination of hypocrisy among the state’s rights crowd and being on the wrong side of popular opinion (most California Republicans favor granting the waiver) and scientific rationality could make for a powerful wedge.  We know that people are finally starting to drive less.  Utilities are starting to block production of any and all coal-fired power plants.  And there’s a growing recognition that this is a public health issue as much as it is an environmental issue.  Those who are standing in the way of renewable projects, alternative energy solutions, and yes, government mandates to solve the problem are dinosaurs.  At the Congressional level, I believe this vote will resonate in November.

Incidentally, if you want to see some of that post-partisan leadership in action, check it out:

Schwarzenegger spokesman Bill Maile said the governor supports the legislation. By allowing California to implement “the nation’s toughest tailpipe regulations,” he said, “it will help us achieve our aggressive goals to reduce greenhouse gases.” But a number of California Republicans in Congress say that they have yet to hear from Schwarzenegger or his office.

Way to put the pressure on, Guv.

A few weeks back I brought you the story of the Quaker teacher who was fired by Cal State East Bay for altering the state’s ridiculous loyalty oath to conform to her religious beliefs. Today’s LA Times reports that she has happily won her job back – with help from her fellow teachers, her union, and even Attorney General Jerry Brown.

The university, averting a showdown over religious freedom, agreed to rehire Kearney-Brown after the office of state Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown helped draft a statement declaring that the oath does not commit employees to bear arms in the country’s defense….

The firing of Kearney-Brown, who also is a graduate student at the campus, brought widespread criticism from faculty members, students, Quakers and civil-liberties advocates. Some faculty members began circulating a petition objecting to it. The United Auto Workers, which represents teaching assistants, pursued a grievance on Kearney-Brown’s behalf.

“People were outraged,” said Henry Reichman, a Cal State East Bay history professor and chairman of the Academic Senate. “I was very vocal on the campus that this was an outrageous thing.”

The ultimate resolution involved Kearney-Brown getting CSUEB to attach a document to her signed oath clarifying that the oath would not require her to take up arms to defend the state or the constitution, in conformance with her Quaker beliefs. Although the university resisted this, Jerry Brown’s office produced a document that read:

“You should know that signing the oath does not carry with it any obligation or requirement that public employees bear arms or otherwise engage in violence,” read the unsigned statement. “This has been confirmed by both the United States Supreme Court . . . and the California attorney general’s office.”

Although this particular story has a happy ending – and should set a precedent for others whose religious or personal beliefs would be violated by this ridiculous oath – it still raises the question of whether or not this ridiculous anachronism still has any place in California.

It also reminds us of the importance of unions in protecting not just wages and benefits, but civil liberties. Kearney-Brown, like most CSU TAs, is represented by UAW Local 4123. (Note: I was an organizer and steward in UAW Local 4121 at UW.) With her union on her side she had legal and political power, helping her get her job back within days. It also helped that our state Attorney General was willing to step in and defend her civil liberties, as opposed to trying to trample them like some other AGs we know.

Ultimately this reminds us of the importance of coalitions to protect civil liberties. Whether it’s a loyalty oath, FISA, or waterboarding, our basic rights must be supported and protected by the public. Once we start abandoning or refusing to defend the rights of others, we will quickly find we are losing our own.